County commissioners need to take a look at the way they make appointments to some of what are supposed to be, ostensibly at least, “advisory boards.”
The commissioners can’t be specialists in details about all areas of county government and they often rely on the expertise of those they appoint to various advisory boards – for planning, for instance, as well as social services, and the health department – to make recommendations about various policies.
We’re frankly not surprised by their decision this week not to reappoint Democrat Anthony Pierce, who recently ran for a seat on that very board, placing fifth out of six candidates. (All three Republicans won, and all three Democrats trailed, with Pierce, who ran better in his last outing in 2022, finishing behind first-time Democratic candidate Carissa Graves.)
And we certainly think Pierce shouldn’t be surprised by the commissioners’ action. Frankly, it takes a lot of gall – by both him and other planning board members – to think he should be reappointed. It’s not that he’s a Democrat that is the offense. The commissioners have appointed many to various board and commissioners – much to the chagrin of some Republican Party partisans.
But the idea that Pierce, after the bruising campaign that included rather unflattering name-calling against the three Republican candidates (two of whom were incumbents), would expect them to just look the other way, or roll over, and sanction his reappointment, is, we think, rather laughable. Being a registered Democrat is one thing, being a partisan political activist is quite another.
Frankly, though what really astounds us even more is the gall that planning board members demonstrated in making any recommendations to the commissioners about who the commissioners should appoint.
Somehow, this board has gotten the notion, even implanted in its bylaws, that they can, or should, make recommendations to the county’s commissioners about who should be appointed or reappointed.
This is not supposed to be a clubby group looking after their own interests, or chummy preferences. The fact that they are is evidenced by the ostensibly “unanimous” vote, among planning board members, to recommend Pierce’s reappointment. (It’s not clear, by the way, whether the three incumbent planning board members voted on their own recommendation for reappointment, which would strike us as all the more inappropriate, indeed, a huge conflict of interest.)
Planning board members – on this and many municipal planning boards – are often out of sorts when the commissioners, or city councils, ignore their recommendations and decide a public policy in a manner other than what the planning board has recommended.
The fact that they would unanimously make a recommendation for Pierce’s reappointment that was unanimously rejected by the board to whom they report is certainly the latest evidence of how out of touch they apparently are with the thinking of the elected board.
And while it is not unprecedented, locally, for some planning boards to weigh in on who they want to see appointed, it is not their proper role – neither at the county level, nor among municipal boards who make recommendations to city and town councils and, or in Gibsonville’s case, to the board of aldermen.
These boards might need a refresher in Local Politics 101: it is the commissioners, in this case, who are elected by the voters of the county, not planning board members. To elected officials, exclusively, belong the power, authority, and judgment about who should serve on appointed public bodies.
The county’s new planning director, Matthew Hoagland, made one of the understatements of the year in acknowledging, “The Alamance County planning board is somewhat unique in that it votes to recommend board members to fill vacancies on their own board,” he told the commissioners this week. “But the board’s vote on these individuals was unanimous,” he added.
Somewhat unique, indeed. Highly presumptuous, we might add.
Commissioners should be emphatic in making clear to all the subordinate advisory boards going forward that while they appreciate their advice, and will evaluate their recommendations, they do not need any of their input about who should be appointed, or reappointed, to serve on any of the various boards.
