The city will present preliminary recommendations next month about whether to consolidate or eliminate several of its advisory boards and commissions, marking the first use of a formal evaluation framework adopted earlier this year.
The results will be shared at the Oct. 15 meeting of the Audit and Finance Committee. They are based on a pilot review conducted by city staff over the summer that uses a new seven-step assessment process to evaluate the performance, relevance and potential overlap among existing boards. Any changes endorsed by the committee could come before City Council for final consideration later this fall.
The pilot includes all advisory bodies previously marked “inactive” and four active groups: the Airport Advisory Commission, Technology Commission, Economic Prosperity Commission, and the MBE/WBE Small Business Enterprise Procurement Program Advisory Committee.
According to a recent memo from Chief of Staff Genesis Gavino, staff will assemble a report drawing from self-evaluations, legal reviews and stakeholder surveys to determine whether the reviewed bodies should continue, sunset or be modified. Each report will include a staff recommendation, which will then be considered by the committee before potentially advancing to Council for action.
In a related move, the city has drafted a new section of the City Code clarifying how Council makes appointments to intergovernmental bodies. That ordinance is scheduled for Council consideration on Aug. 28 and is intended to align those appointments with current procedures used for Council committees.
Both actions are part of a broader initiative launched last December, when Council passed a resolution directing staff to review all city-affiliated boards, task forces, intergovernmental groups and corporations. The resolution also called for a new sunset review process and improvements to language access and public transparency.
Staff have since introduced several policy changes aimed at making commission service more accessible. The Office of the City Clerk has launched a searchable archive of board recommendations dating back to 2007, and the Communications and Public Information Office has implemented new standards for translation and interpretation services at commission meetings.
Commissioners and members of the public can now request real-time interpretation, including American Sign Language, along with translated materials. Departments have also been given cost estimators and budgeting tools to support language access across meetings and public communications.
Staff previewed the new assessment framework in draft form in February, then presented a revised version in July. The process includes seven formal steps: identifying the boards under review, completing legal and self-assessments, gathering public input, producing a staff evaluation report and advancing recommendations to the committee and Council.
The memo also outlines the city’s intent to scale the framework across more commissions in the months ahead.
The effort follows longstanding concerns about duplication, scope creep and uneven engagement across more than 90 advisory bodies. A December 2024 presentation from the City Auditor noted that only 55 of those groups are formally established in City Code, and that others struggle to maintain quorum or provide actionable policy input.
Early proposals to merge or dissolve specific commissions have drawn some pushback. Earlier this year, the Urban Transportation Commission opposed a staff recommendation to consolidate the Bicycle and Pedestrian advisory councils into its purview, arguing that those groups provide unique, community-driven input. Other commissioners and Council members have expressed interest in improving clarity and efficiency, but have emphasized the need to maintain public access and ensure underrepresented communities continue to have a voice.
City staff say the new framework is designed to bring consistency and transparency to how those tradeoffs are weighed. By piloting the process with a small group of commissions first, they hope to test its effectiveness and gather feedback before proposing broader changes.
The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.