Use of consent agenda questioned

Alexis Barker
NLJ News Editor
 
Weston County Commissioner Marty Ertman questioned the five-member board’s use of a consent agenda to approve a variety of items, including grant approvals, resolutions, and minutes from both regular meetings and executive sessions, without any public discussion. Ertman voiced her concerns at the commissioners’ Dec. 1 meeting. 
Ertman began with a question about grant approvals listed on the meeting’s consent agenda. Ertman said that she was unsure of the purposes of the grant and why the board would hold a public meeting after agreeing to the terms of the grant. Weston County Emergency Management Coordinator Gilbert Nelson said that approving the
agreement before the public hearing was to help things “moving along.” 
“That’s my problem, just moving things along. We are not having conversations about what this board is doing, and we have been caught a couple times not knowing we signed a grant or what it was for. There needs to be more public discussion on what we are doing,” Ertman said. 
According to Commissioner Tony Barton, the consent agenda is a tool for the board to approve a number of items and that if a commissioner has a question or discussion about any of the items, they can be pulled from the consent agenda before approval. 
“For the first six years, there was no consent agenda. We discussed everything that came to this board, even if it was just for 30 seconds,” Ertman said, noting that then the commissioners at least knew what they were approving. 
“I would just as soon see it go away,” she added. 
Commissioner Nathan Todd supported Ertman’s concerns, stating that he is the first to admit that he has missed things that were approved by the commission because they were included in the consent agenda. 
“Moving things along is okay, but I have been guilty of missing things that happen,” Todd said. 
Chairman Ed Wagoner also stated that he understands Ertman’s concern. Despite the concerns about the consent agenda, the board approved the item after pulling several items out of the consent agenda. Ertman voted against the consent agenda’s approval. 
According to boardforward.com, a consent agenda groups “perfunctory, but nonetheless important, items into one agenda item, speeding up the meeting and creating time for more critical issues and previously undiscussed matters.” The website also says that the consent agenda, or consent calendar, includes items that are typically routine and noncontroversial, or
items that had previously received a consensus from the board after discussion. 
“Generally, topics that have not been discussed by the board in the past should not be put on the consent agenda,” the website states. 
“Transparency and accountability are the foundations of successfully employing consent agendas. Even though they are routine and non-controversial items, it is imperative that all supporting documents be provided and that board members fully review them in advance,” the website continues. “Failing to provide them can lead to mistrust. It’s also worth noting that items on the consent agenda are still important and deserve board members’ full attention – otherwise, they shouldn’t be on the agenda at all.” 
Proper use of a consent agenda, the website notes, can create a more productive meeting with more engaged members and more time to discuss “strategic issues” that require more debate, discussion and deliberation.