Is it time for change? Amarillo City Council questions board appointment system

The Amarillo City Council covered a lot of ground during its most recent regular meeting, but one topic stood out for both its practicality and its importance to how the city functions: the process for appointing members to boards and committees. While board appointments are often viewed as routine, the discussion revealed legitimate concerns about efficiency, transparency, and the ability of councilmembers to responsibly evaluate dozens of applicants in a compressed timeframe.

What unfolded was a rare kind of city-government conversation—one grounded in common sense, open acknowledgment of limitations, and a willingness to rethink the way things have always been done.

A Process in Need of Reconsideration?

The discussion began when Councilmember Tim Reid, Place 1, raised concerns about the current process of handling board and committee appointments. Because all of the appointments are handled at the end of the year, Reid felt that the council simply does not have the time to properly evaluate applicants.

Reid didn’t mince words about how the system struck him as a newcomer. He said the process of reviewing dozens of appointees all at once was “one of the most bizarre things” the city government does. He argued that with such little time, “there’s no possible way” for councilmembers to call and speak with all the applicants.

His point was simple: when you’re making decisions that determine who helps guide public boards—the Airport Advisory Board, Public Health Board, Parks and Recreation Board, and many others—you need time to do the job well.

Councilmember David Prescott, Place 3, echoed Reid’s concerns. According to Prescott, the current system appeared to add “another level of bureaucracy,” one he said didn’t make sense. The message from both councilmembers was clear: efficiency and responsibility must go hand in hand.

Reid proposed a solution: instead of waiting until the end of the year, the council could spread out board and committee appointments, reviewing two or three each month. This approach, he suggested, would allow more time for proper evaluation while avoiding a year-end time crunch.

A Matter of Timing

Councilmember Les Simpson, Place 4, agreed with the concept of reforming the process but didn’t believe a major change could be implemented this late in the cycle. According to Simpson, rushing changes typically leads to problems, and with the year almost over, altering this cycle’s process would be risky.

Simpson also pointed out a practical detail: many current board members had already signaled they did not want to continue serving. Others expected their positions to be filled soon. He noted that 18 positions needed to be filled immediately, and most of those were individuals willing to continue serving.

City Secretary Stephanie Coggins weighed in with some useful context. She explained that shifting between annual and monthly appointment processes in the past did not dramatically change the number of applicants the city received. She also clarified that for many statutory boards—those created or regulated by state law—current members continue to serve until a successor is properly appointed. In those cases, the city must ensure its practices comply with state mandates.

Coggins said that out of the applicants received so far, at least 22 positions were either vacant or filled by people unwilling to continue, meaning the council needed to prioritize filling those seats rather than extending terms.

Councilmember Don Tipps, Place 2, agreed that revisiting the system made sense, but, like Simpson, said any changes should wait until next year. He noted that with so many positions already needing attention, it made more sense to get through this year’s cycle before implementing a new timeline. Doing so would also give boards time to review bylaws and ensure state-regulated boards meet their legal obligations.

A Practical Compromise

Mayor Cole Stanley offered a middle-ground solution that the council ultimately favored: split the workload. Rather than handling all board appointments in a single meeting, the council could review half on Nov. 18 and the other half on Dec. 9. This would allow more time for due diligence without requiring a full restructuring of the process this late in the year.

The council agreed to begin examining the process in earnest for next year, promising a collaborative effort to overhaul outdated or inefficient practices.

Improved Applications and Updated Board Structures

Assistant City Secretary Jonni Glick provided some encouraging news about the application process. This year, the city received 134 applications from 74 individuals for 21 boards—a sign that citizens remain engaged in civic leadership.

Glick explained that the application had been improved to include board-specific questions, availability checks, and space for applicants to describe their qualifications. This makes it easier for the council to determine whether individuals are a good fit and able to meet attendance expectations.

Earlier in the meeting, Coggins also shared several updates to board qualifications, terms, and overall codification. These changes reflect efforts to clean up outdated bylaws and remove boards that are no longer needed. For example:

Three boards—the Emergency Care Advisory Board, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Board, and Redstone Public Improvement Districts—are being removed because they no longer serve a meaningful function.

The Parks and Recreation Board will adjust its membership structure, moving from 11 at-large members to 10, with an additional member selected from the Mayor and Council.

The Beautification and Public Arts Advisory Board will replace a councilmember position with a citizen spot.

The Library Advisory Board will now consist of four at-large members and one representative from the Friends of the Amarillo Public Library Board. All members must be library cardholders in good standing.

New language across all city boards will now require a formal application, require removal consideration after three missed meetings, and ensure that boards meeting only once per year do so by October.

These structural updates may seem small on paper, but they bring clarity, consistency, and accountability to Amarillo’s overall board system.

Board Appointments: Who Was Chosen?

After discussing the process, the council moved on to the appointments themselves. Here’s a breakdown of the decisions made.

Airport Advisory Board

This five-member board meets every other month and has no term limits. To establish staggered terms beginning Jan. 1, 2026, the council assigned:

Brock Thompson – appointed to a two-year term, replacing Thomas Hickman

Tate Williams – appointed to a three-year term

Danita Bynum – appointed to a three-year term

John Denton – appointed to a one-year term

Mark Gilbreath – appointed to a two-year term

Selections were based on experience, willingness to serve, and prior board participation.

Amarillo Area Public Health Board

This eight-member board meets two to four times per year. Members serve three-year terms with no term limits. One appointment was needed.

Deree Duke was unanimously appointed, replacing Jennifer Potter.

Amarillo Convention and Visitors Bureau Board

With eleven members serving three-year terms, this board meets monthly and has no term limits. One position was up for consideration.

Coco Duckworth, who first joined in 2021, was reappointed based on her willingness to continue serving.

Amarillo Economic Development Corporation (AEDC)

This five-member board meets monthly and has a limit of two consecutive terms.

Brian Bruckner and Randy Burkett were both unanimously reappointed for their second terms.

Why This Discussion Matters

On the surface, these might seem like procedural matters—technical, administrative, and far removed from day-to-day life. But the efficiency and transparency of the board appointment process directly influence how well Amarillo’s institutions function.

Boards and commissions provide guidance, oversight, and expertise for everything from economic development to airport operations to public health. When appointments are rushed, the city risks overlooking great candidates or placing people on boards they’re not ideally suited for.

Reid’s concerns resonate because they tap into a broader principle: government functions best when its leaders have the time and structure needed to make informed decisions. The fact that several councilmembers agreed—even if they differed on timing—shows a shared recognition that the system can and should be improved.

The willingness to split the work between two meetings, update application requirements, and review membership structures demonstrates forward momentum. And the commitment to reevaluating everything for next year suggests that this isn’t just a one-off conversation but part of a long-term effort to modernize the city’s governance processes.

A Step Toward Better Governance

As Amarillo continues to grow and change, the systems that support local governance must adapt as well. Transparency, thoughtfulness, and public participation are pillars of effective municipal leadership. This meeting revealed that there’s room for improvement—but also that there’s a sincere desire among councilmembers and staff to make those improvements thoughtfully rather than hastily.

Revising the board appointment system may not make headlines the way major policy decisions do, but it’s precisely this kind of work—slow, procedural, and sometimes tedious—that forms the backbone of strong local government.

By choosing to rethink the process rather than accept it as inevitable, the council took a meaningful step toward a more deliberate, efficient, and accountable appointment system. That’s the kind of good-government decision that benefits the entire community.