14. Commissioner waiting period between termsOFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CUPERTIN4
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVEPIUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) '777-3223 • FAX: (408) 777-3356
SUMn~ARY
Agenda Item No.
SUBJECT
MEETING DATE: March 2, 201.0
Consider changing the mandatory waiting period before commissioners can apply for the same
commission or committee.
BACKGROUND
Cupertino's advisory body rules were establish~.ed in 1988 with Resolution No. 7571. Those
rules state that, "A member of an advisory body, having completed two consecutive terms, must
wait one year before being eligible to apply for tJ:~e same commission or committee."
With the exception of the Teen Commission, all of Cupertino's advisory bodies have four-year
terms with atwo-term limit. For example, a person appointed to f 11 two full terms could serve
eight consecutive years, and then would have to wait at least one year before re-applying for the
same commission. There is no waiting period. if the person chooses to apply for a different
commission.
During the commission interviews on 3anuary 2:i, 2010, the City Council members expressed an
interest in increasing the mandatory waiting period and asked for staff to prepare a report.
There are reasons why a shorter waiting period nay be benef cial:
• It allows individuals to volunteer more often for commissions that meet their specif c
Interests and expertise
• While some commissions are popular a.r~d have many applicants (Parks and Recreation,
Planning Commission), other vacancies axe more difficult to fill or may have special
requirements (Fine Arts; Housing; Technology, Information & Communications) and a
short waiting period may increase the applicant pool
• It gives the City Council the greatest de€;ree of flexibility, because there is no obligation
to appoint or re-appoint any applicant
14-1
March 2, 2010
The benefits of a longer waiting period include the following:
• Increasing the mandatory waiting period would affoxd more residents an opportunity to
participate on an advisory body
• A longer waiting period has the potential to inject a wider range of views into advisory
bodies
• Extending the waiting period would bxing the advisory body policy in line with Council
term limits
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council make no changes to the mandatory waiting period of one
year.
Submitted by:
Council:
Approved for submission to the City
Kimberly Smith C' Cl rk
Attachment A: Resolution No. 7571
David W. Knapp, City Manager
2
14-2
• r
- ~ ~ . ..
•
PASSID ANI1 ADAPTED at a regulax meeting of the City Caurlcil of the
City of Cup~x-~ino this t ~ ~h_ daY of ~gL R t .1988 , by the fo~.owit~g
vote:
vote Members o~ the City mil
AYFS: Johnson, Koppel, Plungy, Rogers, Gatto
NoFS: None
AD-SF~T: ~ Nane
ABSTA,IN': None
ATl'F~ST: AF~R~VF~:
/s/ Dorothy Cornelius /s/ John M. Gatto
City Clerk Mayor, Git~y of Cu~c~tixla_
14-4