PROBLEMATIC
Summary (updated): Asheville is considering suspending the regular meetings of most of its Boards and Commissions, enabling them to meet only when specifically directed by the City Council. This would restrict and limit a primary mechanism for community involvement in local government.
This proposal passed City Council by a 6-1 vote (Hess voting against).
The Facts (updated 8/4/25): The Asheville City Council is considering the suspension of regular meetings for most of its Boards and Commissions. These advisory boards would no longer meet regularly or at their own discretion. Instead, they would only meet when given a direct command from the City Council to do so. You can see the presentation slides that outline this approach here.
Previous Update (7/28/25): The Realignment Working Group (RWG) is made up of community members who have been working for several years to develop a new approach to the Asheville City Council’s Boards and Commissions. For most of that time, they operated with very little staff support. They are offering to volunteer to support other Boards and Commissions in operating in a similar manner as an alternative to the City dissolving those groups. They submitted a proposal for how advisory boards could continue meeting during this time of recovery, which you can read here.
Original summary (7/7/25): The Asheville City Council is exploring various ways to reorganize the 30+ Boards and Commissions that advise them on a wide range of policy areas. At a June 10th Council work session on Policy, Structure, and Infrastructure, the proposal they were leaning toward was as follows:
- Dissolve all of these Boards and Commissions for 18-24 months.
- Create four new “super committees” that will be made up of representatives of those advisory boards (in most cases, the Chair and Vice-Chair, but with the possibility of other members stepping in instead).
The primary justification for this proposed change is the need to streamline processes during this time of recovery, thus liberating staff from the time-consuming responsibility of supporting so many Boards and Commissions.
The portion of the Policy, Structure, and Infrastructure meeting where this matter is discussed begins at the 45:35 mark of this video.
Our Assessment (updated 8/4/25): The latest proposal for reorganizing Asheville’s Boards and Commission retains all of the anti-democratic elements of the original plan. While these advisory boards would not be dissolved, they would only meet when ordered to by the City Council in order to fulfill a specific request or task. Their capacity to identify and elevate community concerns and input would be significantly restricted. Concentrating power at the top and minimizing bottom-up participation is always a bad idea, but it’s particularly destructive during this time of recovery, when there should be more – not less – means for impacted community members to be heard.
Prior Assessment Update (7/28/25): It’s so important that the City stays in regular contact with the community it serves, and Boards and Commissions provide a key avenue for that to happen. If there is a way for them to continue their work, that should be the priority. We are impressed by the RWG proposal, and think that it can be successfully implemented. It effectively addresses the primary concern that has prompted the proposed dissolution of most advisory boards – the burden of staff support. The City should implement this plan.
Our Original Assessment (7/7/25): The proposal to dissolve the boards raises serious concerns on several levels. Boards and Commissions are one of the primary ways that the Asheville City government hears from and is accountable to the community it serves. They provide an opportunity for hundreds of community members to serve, and many more to weigh in on policy matters, all of which better ensures that the government is receiving invaluable input from its citizenry.
It’s common for governments to want to “simplify” or “streamline” their work when there are big challenges to face, such as the long-term recovery of our region from Hurricane Helene. It’s dangerous to give into this tendency. Challenging times require more, not less, community engagement and input. In March, Thrive Asheville sponsored a presentation by Steven Bingler, the founder and CEO of Concordia,“a community-centered engagement, planning and architectural co-design studio.” Bingler was involved in the recovery efforts in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. The top lesson he learned, which he referenced repeatedly in his talk, was that having a just and successful recovery required the inclusion of as many voices as possible. (You can read a media account of his talk here.)
The next 18-24 months are going to be a critical time for our region. In addition to navigating the recovery, Asheville is going to develop its next Comprehensive Plan this year, a document that lays out top priorities for the next ten years. We simply cannot afford to cut off a primary mechanism for community input during this important time.
It’s important to acknowledge that the existing Boards and Commission set-up is flawed. These boards are disproportionately white, a problem we have raised in our Reports multiple times. Another issue is that many of these boards have no clear lines of communication with – and accountability to and from – the City Council, so their work can feel disconnected, sidelined, or ignored.
That doesn’t mean they should be eliminated, even temporarily. There are better fixes than this. The last time the City proposed slashing most of its Boards and Commissions, an adhoc Realignment Working Group (RWG) formed to develop an alternative path. This community-led group worked together for over three years to produce a set of recommendations that they presented to the City Council in April of this year. (You can read their full recommendations here and see their presentation here.) We think that many of these recommendations are a meaningful step in the right direction.
The primary justification for shutting these boards down is that they are too labor-intensive to support, but here again, the RWG can serve as a model. This group successfully met for over three years with minimal staff support, and served as an important opportunity for concerned citizens to engage in meaningful policy work. They have offered to train and provide logistical support to other Boards and Commissions so that they can also continue to do their work without burdening City staff.
Ultimately, we are confident that there are ways forward that would address the staffing challenge while also preserving (and perhaps improving) Boards and Commissions as an essential mechanism for community input and government accountability.
The Ask (updated 8/4/25): We invited you to join us in reaching out to the Asheville City Council, encouraging them to reject the plan to restrict advisory boards and instead implement the Realignment Working Group (RWG) alternative.
Previous Update (7/28/25): We received a supportive response from Council Member Roney (see below) and have updated our call to action to include the RWG proposal. Even if you have already written to City Council about this matter, we encourage you to write again.
Previous Update (7/21/25): We have received a brief, supportive response from one Council member (Bo Hess) and will be continuing to express our concerns to the remainder of the City Council.
REPORT BACK STATUS
Negatively Resolved
Report Back
This proposal passed City Council by a 6-1 vote (Hess voting against).
Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 49
Recipients and Responses:
Asheville City Council
- Mayor Esther Manheimer: No response
- Vice Mayor Antanette Mosley: No response
- City Council Member Bo Hess: Responded: “I agree.”
- City Council Member Kim Roney: Responded: see below
- City Council Member Maggie Ullman: No response
- City Council Member Sage Turner: No response
- City Council Member Sheneika Smith: No response
Kim Roney response:
GAP Team, thank you for reaching out about the status of our advisory boards.
I continue to advocate for the return of our advisory boards because I value the professional and lived experience of our volunteer advisors, because their meetings provide additional public engagement opportunities as boards dive into the details of budgets, plans, and policies, and because I believe in participatory democracy–in sharing responsibility and success through collaborative governance.
During the next Council meeting on Tuesday, July 29th, the City Manager’s report will include updates on advisory boards with a focus on four new, recovery-oriented boards. The current proposal discussed in private, check-in meetings of Council keeps the remaining advisory boards technically intact but not meeting regularly, like expecting fruit from an unwatered, untended garden.
One of the main reasons for not reconvening regularly-scheduled meetings of advisory boards is staff capacity during disaster recovery. I believe that we need the advisory boards through disaster recovery and implementation of the new bond funding, and thankfully there’s solution to the missing link of staff capacity:
For three years, the Realignment Work Group has convened meetings following open meetings law by noticing their meetings through the City Clerk’s office. They have modeled success, evident in their successful research, public engagement, and report with recommendations to better utilize our advisory boards. This group of volunteers has offered to fill the gap in staff capacity by supporting regular meetings of advisory boards, as seen in their attached proposal that was submitted to Council this week.
If you see the value in this generous proposal, please follow up with another email to the full Council asking us to accept the Realignment Work Group’s proposal to support advisory board meetings and to instruct staff to allow this volunteer capacity building for a successful path forward.
Otherwise, we’ll continue declining helping hands when we need them the most instead of staying in this together, mountain strong.
With gratitude and shared concern,
Kim