Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Statute And Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission pauses discussion of changing state tourism statute after attorney guidance
Summary
Commission members briefly discussed supporting changes to the state statute that governs tourism commission membership but were advised by city counsel not to take action or deliberate on the matter during the meeting; individuals were told they may act privately.
Members of the Pacific Tourism Commission raised the possibility of supporting legislative changes to the state statute that governs membership residency on local tourism commissions, but the matter was not discussed further after city counsel’s guidance.
At the start of new business, a commissioner said the chamber had been "petitioning to alter the statute that we work under right now" to broaden residency eligibility for commission members so people who live in adjacent counties could serve. The commissioner framed the issue as a response to a recent personnel matter and said the change would "make it more available for people to serve on our committee to provide and benefit the city."
A member then reported the commission had been advised by Attorney Jones that the commission should not deliberate on the topic during its meeting, due to a potential conflict of interest where some aldermen are also chamber members. That member said the attorney recommended that commissioners may submit personal letters individually but should not act as official city representatives in advocating for statutory change during a city-conducted meeting. The member said, "You can do whatever you like outside of this meeting," reflecting the counsel's advice that individuals may act privately.
Why it matters: changes to state statute residency requirements would alter who is eligible to serve on the tourism commission and could expand the pool of potential appointees, but any formal advocacy by city representatives carries conflict-of-interest and municipal-advice implications.
The commission did not take a vote, adopt language, or authorize staff to pursue the matter on the city’s behalf. Commissioners were directed to consult the meeting minutes and Attorney Jones’s advice if they wish to act individually. The transcript records that staff offered to send the attorney’s minutes or statement to commission members for review.
Ending: The item was recorded and halted on Attorney Jones's recommendation; commissioners may individually contact state legislators or submit letters as private citizens outside of a city capacity.
