Thanks for that link.
I don’t see the parallel you’re drawing to the Connecticut COGs. We tagged them as counties because the US census bureau designated them as county equivalents, so there is something authoritative to point to as a middle tier in Connecticut’s government structure. Bringing up the COGs just muddies the water.
After reading through the attached link, what I understand is that the community boards are simply an advisory group formed for the purpose of liaison and civic engagement and have no actual powers or duties of their own.
The purpose of each board is to encourage and facilitate civic engagement within their
communities, and to work with City agencies that deliver municipal services
I was fishing in the report for anything in the form of powers and duties that these boards have. I see a lot of language like…
Community boards have also increased collaboration with City agencies to ensure food delivery, communication of vital information, and access to healthcare services for our constituents.
This still reads as “advisory functions and civic engagement”.
Even the planning and service delivery facets that have been mentioned, all appear to be advisory on the part of the boards.
The report concludes:
Community boards are the most local, grassroots form of City government
I’m not sure that I agree based on everything I’ve read in the report.
If we feel strongly that these are in the admin_level hierarchy, I’ll hold my nose and go along with it, but I do agree with at least renaming them to such and such District and certainly keeping them at a high number (9-10) as they are definitely not on par with a municipality.