Appointed Boards & Committees: The Public Administration Challenge

By Joseph G. Jarret
February 13, 2026

Introduction

Boards and commissions (hereinafter “boards”) play a critical role in shaping local communities and governance. These bodies, whether comprised of appointed or elected members, advise bodies politic by making significant policy decisions while overseeing various aspects of public life. Understanding their structure, function, power, authority and impact on the day-to-day affairs of local government is essential for today’s public administrator.

Origins of Boards

Generally speaking, local government boards originate from multiple sources. While some are mandated by the state, others are created at the local level through city or county charters, ordinances, resolutions, bylaws or policies. In some cases, boards are created by city or county mayors or school superintendents.

According to Dougherty and Easton (2011), the prevalence of boards in local government and the results of their use depend on a variety of factors. These include administrative capacity, outcome expectations of staff and officials, the extent to which boards influence public policy and the degree to which they represent the broader population. Local governments commonly establish boards dedicated to finance, planning and zoning, education, health, ethics or public works.

Board Composition

The composition of a board is usually determined by its duties and responsibilities. Some boards consist entirely of private citizens. Others consist entirely of elected or appointed officials, while some include a combination of both.

It is important to distinguish between boards, commissions and committees established through state statutory law and those created by local legislative bodies. Boards created through statutory law often exercise independent authority. Boards created by resolution of a county legislative body typically study issues and make recommendations and do not possess independent decision-making authority.

Boards and commissions vary in purpose, mission and role, and may be created by local or state laws and rules, executive orders or federal laws and regulations. Generally, there are three primary types of boards:

1. Advisory Boards: These entities develop policy recommendations and provide guidance to public officials on specific issues.

2. Regulatory Boards: These entities oversee licensing, handle complaints and enforce disciplinary actions for individuals or industries under their jurisdiction.

3. Policy-Making Boards: These entities serve as governing bodies within an agency. They may direct operations, approve budgets, create and implement agency policy or appoint agency leadership. Members of these boards possess final decision-making authority.

Quasi-Judicial Boards

Depending on the jurisdiction, any of the previously discussed categories of boards may function in a quasi-judicial capacity. As the name suggests, a quasi-judicial decision resembles a court ruling. The term “quasi-judicial” literally means court-like, indicating that proceedings must follow processes similar to court proceedings. This requires boards to apply general law to specific situations while protecting the constitutional due process rights of involved parties.

The distinction between legislative and quasi-judicial decision-making is significant. Quasi-judicial proceedings require stricter procedural standards. Failure to follow these requirements may result in a court invalidating the decision if challenged.

Quasi-judicial decisions are typically localized and affect specific groups of citizens more directly than the general public. Common examples include decisions related to land use and planning, code enforcement, building code matters and local licensure.

One court has described quasi-judicial decisions in this way:

1. The action occurs in response to a citizen application or violation citiation followed by a statutorily-mandated public hearing;
2. As a result of the application, readily identifiable proponents and opponents weigh in on the process; and
3. The decision is localized in its application affecting a particular group of citizens more acutely than the public at large.

Quasi-judicial proceedings must follow fundamental due process standards, including:

• Proper notice of the hearing
• Providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say
• Full disclosure to everyone of the facts being considered by the decision-making body (i.e., no ex parte contacts)
• An impartial decision-maker free from bias and conflicts of interest
• Decisions based on the facts of the case, not on political pressure or vocal opposition

A Word About Committees

Local government committees serve as advisory bodies that support the decision-making process. They are often composed of subject matter experts, community representatives or individuals with specialized knowledge related to a specific policy area.

Unlike boards, committees do not have authority to make final decisions or enforce regulations. Instead, they provide recommendations, conduct research and offer technical or community insight to boards and commissions. Committees are frequently established to address specific policy concerns. Examples include budget advisory committees, environmental committees, human rights committees or economic development committees. These groups help gather diverse perspectives and promote well-informed decision-making.

Conclusion

Appointed and elected boards and commissions are essential to the effective delivery of public services and complement traditional local government leadership structures such as mayors, councils, commissions and administrative departments. Citizen representation on boards and commissions provides opportunities to develop effective and equitable laws and policies. Diverse representation strengthens decision-making and helps ensure that services reflect the needs and priorities of the populations being served. These contributions support effective governance and enhance the overall quality of life within communities.

---

Author: Joseph G. Jarret is a public administrator, attorney and mediator who serves the Department of Political Science at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville as an adjunct lecturer. He is a former United States Army Combat Arms Officer and former United States Air Force Special Agent with service overseas and is a past- president of the E. Tennessee Chapter of ASPA. He is a PATimes columnist who holds the B.S., MPA, Juris Doctor, and Ph.D. degrees.

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...