Data to Diversity — Appointeds 2023

Executive Summary

Thousands of New Jersey residents are appointed to serve on state boards, commissions, and authorities that regulate industries, create environmental standards, promote the arts and more throughout the state. To date, a scarcity of available data has made it difficult to know how closely those appointees reflect the demographics of the state’s population. Recent legislation attempts to address this knowledge gap by mandating the collection and analysis of the demographics, specifically race/ethnicity and gender, of the state’s appointed officials. In this report, we provide details on what led to the legislation, how we developed and implemented the data collection process, and what we found. The data findings show significant disparities in representation in appointed positions for women and among various racial/ethnic groups, while process findings illustrate the numerous obstacles to studying appointed officials, including a lack of centralized and complete contact information on state appointees within the governor’s administration. We offer recommendations towards creating processes to build transparency about appointee demographics, showcase opportunities to serve on appointed boards, and create accountability for diversifying the pool of the state’s appointed officials.

 

Next

Introduction

Every day, thousands of citizens volunteer their time, expertise, and energy to serve on state boards, commissions, and authorities. These entities play important roles in our state government and have wide-ranging levels of responsibility and power, with some serving critical regulatory roles and others providing advice to the state’s elected officials on significant matters. Many of these boards are responsible for controlling millions of dollars in public funding and for making policy decisions that affect the lives of every New Jerseyan. Appointed boards set policy and practice on topics as wide-ranging as education, agriculture, land management, health care, housing, regulation and licensing of professions, consumer protection, the arts, and transportation, to name just a handful.

New Jersey’s governor has exceptional power when making state appointments. Not only does the governor appoint every Cabinet member, he or she is responsible for nearly all appointments to state boards, commissions, and authorities. Currently, the state has almost 500 active state boards, commissions, and authorities.1 Because these boards play a critical role in the outcomes for citizens of the state, it is important to ensure that appointed governing bodies are reflective of the communities they serve. In New Jersey, many public leaders, researchers, activists, journalists, democracy experts, and others have long sought to measure and better understand the demographics of the state’s appointed leadership and craft solutions to address representation gaps.

Unfortunately, as noted in our earlier report on elected officials, demographic data collection is challenging. While some data can be sourced from publicly available information and datasets, a significant amount of demographic information – especially data about race, ethnicity, and gender identity or expression – is gathered through self-reporting. This type of data collection is typically labor-intensive and expensive when conducted independently of other established collection methods (for example, via government forms individuals are required to complete for other reasons). Moreover, it relies on voluntary participation and reporting of personal demographic identities by public figures via surveys and personal outreach. This is particularly challenging for appointed officials because, unlike elected officials, contact information for appointees is not typically publicly accessible. For all these reasons, in-depth demographic data about New Jersey’s appointed officials has not been available in a comprehensive manner.

In January 2022, P.L. 2021, c.414. S4004 – passed nearly unanimously by the state legislature and signed into law by the governor – directed the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) and the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling (ECPIP) at Rutgers University to design and execute a survey that would collect demographic background information of state appointed officials (excluding judges) and elected officeholders (excluding school boards). The explicit goal of the legislation was to build a database of the state’s elected and appointed officials by gender, race, and ethnicity. Implicit goals of the legislation were to gain better clarity about demographic representation of the state’s government leadership and to offer recommendations for practical interventions for diversifying New Jersey leaders whose decisions affect the lives of the state’s citizens. Additionally, the establishment of this database may also help spotlight for the general public the importance of elected and appointed leaders and inspire more citizens to serve their communities by seeking public leadership roles. While this project is specific to New Jersey, this report provides clarity on both the hurdles and opportunities for this type of data collection and representation assessment, which could be useful in other states exploring this type of study of their own appointed officials.

Lastly, appointed boards rely on the expertise and experiences of their volunteer members. Government should provide as much access to information about these boards and the opportunities to participate as possible. During the process of conducting this study we found that complete and current lists of active state boards and commissions and their members were difficult to access. From a transparency standpoint, lack of information and access creates another barrier to citizen participation in a democratic government. This report offers recommendations to increase transparency about and accountability for state appointed offices.

  • 1

    There are three types of state appointments: approval appointments are made by the department commissioners and must be confirmed by the governor. Direct appointments are made directly by the governor and can be made at any time. Advise and consent appointments are made by the governor but must be confirmed by the state senate.  

Previous

Next

Background

Obtaining demographic data on New Jersey’s public officials has been a priority for some state legislators, activists, journalists, and scholars for many years. For the past three decades, CAWP has managed the New Jersey Bipartisan Coalition for Women’s Appointments (BCWA), a statewide, bipartisan group of prominent women and organizations convened in years when there is an open seat for governor. The purpose of BCWA is to ensure the placement of women in key appointed positions throughout state government. BCWA convened for the first time in 1981 and was most recently convened in 2017. Many of the individuals who have served on BCWA have also individually and with other organizations pushed for greater representation of underrepresented groups on state boards and commissions, including women. In addition to BCWA, throughout the years several state legislators and other public leaders have issued calls to increase transparency on the demographics of those currently serving on state boards and commissions, as well as demographic information about applicants, in order to intentionally work towards greater diversity and equity in representation in appointed offices. 

As part of BCWA’s efforts, CAWP has studied the gender representation of some of the state’s top boards and commissions. In 2005, CAWP examined a total of 63 boards and commissions in New Jersey, which had a total of 613 members. These included all boards and commissions requiring financial disclosure at the time, plus certain other boards and commissions with high levels of responsibility and policymaking authority.2 Of the boards studied, 22% of appointed members were women, 73% were men, and 5% of seats were vacant. In re-examining those same boards in 2019, the data showed a slight improvement: 27% of the appointed members were women, 55% were men, and 18% of seats were vacant.3

In 2021, then-New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, along with Senator Linda R. Greenstein and Assemblymembers Shavonda Sumter, Daniel Benson, and Verlina Reynolds-Jackson (with co-sponsors Senator M. Teresa Ruiz and Gordon Johnson and Assemblymembers Yvonne Lopez, Clinton Calabrese, and William Moen) sponsored S4004/A5950, which read: “The Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers, The State University, shall establish and maintain two databases that contain for every person appointed to a State board, commission, authority, or other multi-member entity, and for every elected public official in this State, excluding school boards, the name of the individual, the title of the office held, the term of office, the race and the gender identity or expression of that individual, and the appointing authority.” The bill directed the Eagleton Institute to transmit a survey form to all appointed officials to collect this information. Notably, the original legislation passed by the legislature included this language regarding the creation of the appointed officials’ database: “The Governor or other appointing authority shall provide to the Institute contact information for all currently serving appointees in order to survey all current appointees. The Governor or other appointing authority shall sign the request to complete the form.” During a conditional veto of the legislation, Governor Murphy struck the language about the governor or appointing authority providing contact information for all currently serving appointees, changing the text to “The transmission by the Governor or other appointing authority to the Institute of contact information for appointees shall not be deemed a violation of any law, rule, or regulation concerning the confidentiality or privacy of such information.” The governor also struck the line “The Governor or other appointing authority shall sign the request to complete the form.” These changes created major challenges to data collection (pertaining to response rates) which are elaborated on in the findings and recommendations section of this report.

The legislation specifically named the Eagleton Institute’s Center for American Women and Politics in partnership with its Center for Public Interest Polling to collect this information; the expectation was the two Centers’ expertise in data collection and analysis would be helpful in the creation of the databases and in codifying a process that could be sustained long-term. CAWP is nationally recognized as the leading source of scholarly research and current data about women’s political participation in the United States. Since its inception, CAWP has been collecting demographic data on women officeholders and candidates nationwide. This data is used by scholars, researchers, and the media and is highly regarded for its use of self-identification in determining race codes. With its legacy of data collection in this area, CAWP researchers managed and provided the infrastructure for this project by compiling the lists of appointed officials, building out the public database, and synthesizing results for a public audience. ECPIP is the oldest university-based statewide survey research center in the United States. ECPIP conducts scientifically rigorous survey research, often in collaboration with government agencies, non-profit organizations, and university faculty and staff. For this project, ECPIP was tasked with implementing the survey to the appointed officials in the state. This included email and phone outreach as well as research into alternative contact information. 

This report focuses specifically on the appointed officials data project; simultaneously, CAWP and ECPIP collected data on the state's elected officials, and a report on those findings was published in September 2023.

  • 2

    Note that a subgroup of boards was selected for the sake of feasibility; this subgroup represented some of the state’s most visible boards along with all boards requiring financial disclosure at the time. 

  • 3

    Five of the original 63 boards examined in 2005 no longer existed in 2019; the number of boards studied was 58.

Previous

Next

 

Data Collection Methodology

To follow the legislation’s directive, CAWP and CPIP developed a survey to be sent to all state appointees about the appointed positions they hold and their ethnicity, race, and gender. We recognize there are many demographic criteria that would provide a deeper understanding of the appointee population, such as age, education levels, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and parenthood status, among others. For this project's purposes, we adhered to the directive in the legislation regarding which criteria to include. We do, however, believe that broadening the survey instrument to include more criteria would be valuable.

Using the list compiled via various sources and department head contacts as mentioned in the process findings section below, ECPIP proceeded with survey design and distribution. The sample frame included unique officials who were appointed to statewide and regional boards and commissions (N=2266). Among appointed officials, 97 individuals held more than one appointment. The sample frame of appointed officials does not cover all officials serving on boards and commissions as some board appointments were vacant, some boards were inactive, and some did not have current membership lists. The online survey instrument that appointees received was pre-populated with known data already in the contact list, such as name, board name, mailing address, email address, and telephone number. Respondents were first asked to verify or revise this information. Then, they were asked when they first started serving in their current position and the length of the term of appointment. Finally, respondents were asked their ethnicity, race, and gender. The estimated time to complete the survey was three to five minutes.

The survey was fielded between September 2, 2022 and June 14, 2023, with data collected in multiple waves that employed a mixed-mode recruitment design – including emails, phone, and text messaging – in an effort to increase response rates. The total sample frame of those with valid email and cell phone contacts was 2266 with a response rate of 22%.

Post survey, we took several measures to fill in demographic information not sourced directly from survey responses. These measures included utilizing existing CAWP datasets, proxy coding, conducting direct outreach to appointees or their staff contacts, and verification using publicly available sources (such as appointees official biographies or news coverage about the appointee).

Finally, due to the governor’s conditional veto of the legislation striking the language requiring the governor or other appointing authority to give CAWP notice within 30 days of an individual being appointed and transmitting to that individual a demographic questionnaire that would be provided to CAWP, it is not possible to track updates created by new appointments or appointees leaving their positions. Absent direct involvement by state government, the best-case scenario is a database that provides a “point in time” snapshot of representation as of summer 2022.

Previous

Next

 

Findings

 

Download NJ Appointed Officials Public Dataset (2022)

Data Findings: Demographic Representation of New Jersey's Public Officials

This report analyzes the gender and racial/ethnic demographics of appointed officials on state boards and commissions. The findings below are from a subset of 57 boards and commissions CAWP has tracked throughout the years as part of our Bipartisan Coalition for Women’s Appointments project.4 These boards are among the most visible boards and commissions in the state, have high levels of responsibility and policymaking authority, or require financial disclosure. It is worth noting, however, that this subset was created in 2005 strictly for feasibility purposes and does not reflect a judgment on the value of the boards and commissions not included on this list. The list of boards can be found in the dataset linked above.

Additionally, it is important to note that the data below does not include the relatively high number of vacancies within these select boards and commissions that was found at the time of our data collection. Vacancies made up 13.1% of the positions on the selected boards and commissions.

Gender Diversity

Women make up just 33.1% of the appointed officials on boards included in our study. For historical context, CAWP’s 2005 study of appointees found that women made up 22% of appointees on selected boards and commissions, and by 2019, this proportion had risen to 27%. While the current data illustrates a promising trend in women’s representation on appointed boards, significant work is still needed to achieve parity.

  • 4

    The original Bipartisan Coalition for Women’s Appointments list of boards and commissions included 63 boards; only 57 of those boards are currently active. 

Racial Diversity

This study provides, for the first time, data on the racial/ethnic demographics of state appointed officials. White men account for 44.6% of appointees on selected boards and commissions. According to 2021 U.S. Census population estimates, white men comprise 27% of New Jersey’s population. Not only are white men the only overrepresented group among appointees, they are substantially overrepresented relative to their share of the population.

No other group in the state achieves appointed representation exceeding or even commensurate with their population size. Asian American/Pacific Islanders and Latino women and men in New Jersey face the greatest disparities between representation in government and representation in the population. Asian American/Pacific Islanders hold under 3% of the state’s appointed offices despite comprising just over 11% of the population. Latino men and women comprise 22% of the population but are only 6% of appointees. Given that New Jersey currently has the fourth largest Asian American population and the eighth largest Hispanic population in the country5, the marked underrepresentation signals a critical need for appointing authorities to make an intentional effort to ensure that representation in the state’s governing bodies reflect the communities who reside here.

Coding for race in this project follows CAWP’s current method for race data collection. Appointees who identify as more than one race/ethnicity are included in each group with which they identify. As a result, percentages may not add up to 100% across levels.

Process Findings: Creating a Model for State Appointed Officials' Demographic Data Collection

The findings below reflect our experience seeking appointee demographic information from all New Jersey state boards and commissions, not just the selection included in the demographic findings above. As is evident in the findings presented in this section, the process challenges we encountered in identifying and contacting all appointees explain the need to use a selected list for this report’s assessment of appointee demographic diversity. As noted below, the compounding obstacles of an unavailable centralized database of active boards, inadequate contact lists, and a low survey response rate along with lack of participation by the governor’s office meant that a full dataset was not possible. That led us to narrow our focus to the boards and commissions that we have analyzed in the past and to expand our reporting on those boards to include race as well as gender. We also needed to go beyond the legislation’s mandate and employ proxy coding – collecting data through public statements, direct contact, and other means – in addition to the survey. 

Compulsory Participation

A low survey response rate prevented the creation of a complete or near-complete dataset, and one contributor to the low response was that appointees were not legally compelled to participate. In addition, the original version of the legislation passed by the legislature required the governor or other appointing authority to sign the request to complete the survey, thus giving the request the weight and authority of the state government. This portion of the legislation was deleted by the governor’s office in a conditional veto. While this provision did not compel appointees to participate, it did provide an endorsement of the survey that would have likely improved the response rate.

Without the full-throated endorsement of the project by the state or, ideally, compulsory participation of appointed officials, a self-report approach to collecting demographic information on appointees will yield insufficient data to fully analyze the diversity of appointed officials.

While we are grateful to the many appointed officials who replied to our survey and voluntarily provided their information, the participant survey response rate was just 20.7%. This figure only accounts for the over 2,500 appointees that we were able to contact; it does not include appointees for whom we had insufficient contact information and thus never received the survey.  

Limitations of Surveys and Need for Proxy Coding

Another limitation of the existing legislation is its reliance on a survey alone. Surveys are an excellent tool to gather information about various populations, but they also have some practical disadvantages. As noted, survey response rates are typically low, which can create flawed results when used on a finite population. Because participation was voluntary, response rates were low, and CAWP researchers had to employ expert proxy coding – collecting data through public statements, direct contact, and other means – to determine gender and racial identification of the appointees on the narrowed selection of boards reported on in the first section. Due to the size of the dataset and the absence of a master list of appointees, it was not possible to conduct proxy coding for the full population of political appointees. Demographic information determined via survey accounts for 8.9% of the dataset of selected boards (38 of the 426 appointees; figures do not include vacancies). As a result, proxy coding was employed to avoid reporting results from a limited sample that likely contains response bias. A requirement for this type of expert proxy coding was not included in the legislative language.

Proxy coding allows us to report far more extensively on the demographics of the selected boards and commissions. While proxy coding is feasible, it is both time-consuming and labor intensive. In addition, this type of coding for personal identity data increases the risk of misidentification. Self-reporting of gender and racial identity is preferred.

Contact Lists

Another major challenge to collecting demographic information on appointees was the dearth of contact information for appointees that was both readily available and in a uniform style. During the course of this study, we ran into several roadblocks in getting contact information for state appointees, including not being able to get a comprehensive list of currently active boards. We found via outreach to the governor’s appointments office that there is no centralized database of state appointees or at least none that could be provided to researchers. We then turned to the state’s publicly available Boards, Commissions, and Authorities Directory. This directory includes 473 boards (excluding county election boards). However, we found that 94 of those 473 boards are inactive. We also utilized the Fitzgerald’s New Jersey Legislative Manual, which includes a list of operational and study boards and commissions. This source helped to fill information gaps but also includes neither a fully comprehensive list of current boards, commissions, and authorities nor contact information for their members.

Additionally, due to changes in the legislation during the conditional veto, the state administration was not required to provide us with contact information for the state’s appointees. The governor’s appointments office instead connected us with state department heads for board membership and contact information for the boards and commissions that fall under each department’s purview. We conducted outreach to each department contact during the spring and summer of 2022; the list of board members used for this study is as of that time period. The process of following up with each state department and assembling a full contact list was laborious and time-consuming; it took several months to pull together the contact lists into one dataset. Unfortunately, because of the decentralized process, the lists had different types of contact information, and there were gaps in available information. Department heads also sent information on boards that were not included in the public state directory. Additionally, CAWP was unable to obtain any contact information for 156 boards listed on the public state directory because they either did not fall under any department’s purview or we could not find staff members to provide the information. In addition, of the over 3,000 board members that we were able to compile, 702 did not have sufficient contact information

Previous

Next

 

Recommendations

Citizen engagement and participation are crucial components of democratic government. Intentional efforts by state government leaders to foster participation and ensure diversity on state appointed boards can make a difference; to that end, CAWP recommends several practical steps to increase accountability, transparency, and opportunity for New Jersey’s citizens interested in serving as appointed leaders. 

Accountability

The state administration should build and maintain a centralized database of all boards and commissions and their current members and make this information publicly available. As of the beginning of this study, the list of boards and commissions on the state’s official appointments web site was out of date and did not have any demographic information or information about term of office for members.6 To accomplish this goal, we recommend:

  • Requiring the state to collect demographic information: State government should collect demographic information about state appointees, either on the appointment application forms or upon appointment (perhaps through mandatory ethics forms), and keep the data in a centralized and secure digital database (i.e. not maintained separately within each department). This will markedly streamline the process of collecting demographic data on appointees and ensure that the dataset of state appointed officials is consistently updated and available for analysis. To ensure continuity over time, legislation should mandate this demographic data collection through the state administration. While outside research groups such as CAWP can be helpful in conducting analysis, it would be far more efficient and effective to have state administration collect the information as part of the appointments process.
  • Making demographic data public: Appointees’ demographic information should be provided publicly, as is done in Illinois7 and Connecticut.8 Both of these states’ demographic reports are mandated by state statute.9 Connecticut’s reporting is more comprehensive, providing the data and analysis of each board and commission’s current membership. The Illinois statute requires each governor to report on the demographics of his or her appointees; in other words, only on new appointees, not on appointees who are holdovers from previous administrations. While it is helpful to know the demographics of a current governor’s appointees to ensure that diversity in recruitment and nomination is a priority, it does not offer a complete analysis of all board members by board, which helps pinpoint representation gaps on individual boards as well as provide a comprehensive view of representation overall. Still, Illinois’ reporting does offer helpful data on the current governor’s efforts to address diversity of state appointees.  

Transparency

On New Jersey's main boards and commissions page, each individual board listing currently includes the statute or directive explaining the board, as well as a list of board members. In the interest of transparency, ideally each listing would include:

  • A link to the board’s website and the end date for each board member’s term, as is done in Virginia.10
  • Contact information for a staff member or representative in charge of each board, as listed on Illinois’ appointments site.11 In 2011, the New Jersey legislature passed legislation (signed into law in January 2012) requiring all state authorities, boards, and commissions to establish a public website and post information related to the entity's mission, finances, meetings, and employees. Among other things, the legislation states that the web site must include “the name, mailing address, electronic mail address, if available, and phone number of every person who exercises day-to-day supervision or management over some or all of the operations of the authority, board, or commission.” In our research, we found information to be uneven across entities; most boards and commissions did have web sites but contact information for staff varied widely.
  • Board status as active or inactive. As noted earlier in this report, of the 473 boards (excluding county election boards) listed on the governor’s website, more than 90 of them were found to be inactive but were not clearly described as such. On Michigan’s online state boards and commissions list, a defunct board is clearly noted12, and a link to the final report is included with the board listing.13 In the interest of making it easier for members of the public to determine which boards they can apply for, clear documentation of defunct or time-limited boards is useful. After a certain period of time, defunct boards could be moved off the main list entirely and included on a separate, searchable archived list for historical purposes.

Opportunity

In order to encourage more citizens to participate on state appointed boards and commissions, the state should employ more mechanisms that create as well as showcase opportunities to serve. These mechanisms include:

  • Publicizing vacancies: Vacancies represent an opportunity for appointing authorities to enhance diversity on boards and commissions. Some states provide extensive details on board vacancies. California provides a monthly list of current state board vacancies14, and Alabama provides a list of vacancies along with information about that particular board.15 New Jersey should follow suit, posting information about vacancies along with application information.
  • Legislatively-mandated diversity efforts: Fourteen states currently have a form of “gender balance legislation” in place.16 Gender balance legislation is an institutional intervention designed to increase women’s representation on state boards and commissions. The legislation details vary widely from state to state, with different reporting requirements (including many with no reporting requirement or other accountability measure), enforcement mechanisms, and sanctions17. While success is mixed, gender balance legislation can nonetheless serve as a model for balancing boards by various demographic representation. In New Jersey, gender balance legislation has been introduced during the two most recent legislative sessions (Bills S1149 and A943 in the 2022/23 session). This legislation is a positive step in efforts to ensure gender balance on the state’s boards. The state could look to expand legislative efforts to include other types of diversity. A proposed bill in Massachusetts seeks to ensure gender parity and racial and ethnic diversity on public boards and commissions, stating that “[e]very appointive board or commission of the state established by the Code, if not otherwise provided by law, shall endeavor to have, or explain why it does not have, (1) at least fifty percent members who self-identify as Female, and (2) at least thirty-percent members who self-identify as an Underrepresented Minority or as LGBTQ+.”18
Previous

Next

 

Conclusion

The state of New Jersey falls woefully short in terms of gender and racial diversity among its appointed public officials. Given that appointed boards and commissions have significant policymaking and regulatory authority and given that this state is among the most diverse in the country, it is alarming to consider the tremendous number of voices, perspectives, and life experiences missing from these governing bodies. It is urgently critical to address this challenge with intentional efforts to enhance diversity and maximize engagement among more communities within the state.

Our findings serve as a roadmap for scholars, activists, and government officials both here in New Jersey and in other states who may want to replicate these efforts, highlighting what is possible and what obstacles need to be addressed to make databases such as these, whose information is invaluable, a reality. Uniformity and efficiency are critical to achieving the legislation’s goal: to be able to measure and track over time the gender and racial/ethnic diversity of the state’s appointed officials. Finally, the data collection process should ultimately be housed within the state government with sufficient infrastructure provided for ongoing maintenance. The state must take responsibility for ensuring this data is collected, create mechanisms for doing so, and be held accountable for reporting this information on an ongoing basis.

While this demographic data illuminates the problem of persistent underrepresentation of women and underrepresented racial/ethnic groups on state boards and commissions, it also serves as a tool for tracking progress towards the goals of building more diverse governing bodies. We recommend a number of strategies aimed at providing accountability, encouraging greater citizen participation, and building transparency, and thus trust, in the state appointments process.

CAWP looks forward to continuing to collect, as best as possible, and analyze this data in 2023-2024 in order to provide a solid baseline of information on the gender/race/ethnicity of appointed officials in the Garden State. Our hope is that, during this time, more can be done to institutionalize the collection of this information within state government.

Previous

Next

 

Acknowledgements

This project is made possible by the generous support of the New Jersey Legislature.

About CAWP

The Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP), a unit of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, is nationally recognized as the leading source of scholarly research and current data about women’s political participation in the United States. Its mission is to promote greater knowledge and understanding about the role of women in American politics, enhance women's influence in public life, and expand the diversity of women in politics and government.

About ECPIP

The Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling’s (ECPIP) mission is to provide scientifically sound, non-partisan information about public opinion. ECPIP conducts research for all levels of government and nonprofit organizations with a public interest mission, as well as college and university-based researchers and staff. ECPIP makes it a priority to design opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students to learn how to read, analyze, design, and administer polls.

Previous

Next

 

New Jersey Appointed Officials Public Dataset (2022)

Click below to download the dataset referenced in the findings section. Data was collected and is as of Summer 2022 and includes officials appointed to boards and commissions in the state.

Download Database