Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bylaws Appointments Attendance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Helens parks commission begins multi‑meeting review of bylaws, flags appointment and absence rules
Summary
Commissioners spent much of the meeting reviewing municipal code language and a city resolution that governs commission creation, appointments and attendance, and identified possible edits for referral to city council.
The St. Helens Parks & Trails Commission opened a multi‑part review of its bylaws and related municipal code at its meeting, focusing on appointment procedures and rules for absences.
Commissioner Scott, who led the review, said the goal was to “understand and fulfill the duties that ... are stated within our the bylaws within the code 2 74” and proposed dividing the work across multiple meetings. He told colleagues the commission would cover sections 2.74.010–2.74.080 at this session and finish later sections at a subsequent meeting.
The commission discussed whether the commission has a mechanism to refer appointment candidates to city council. Commissioner Lynn noted a separate city document — Resolution No. 1648, described in the meeting as “a resolution establishing guidelines for the appointment of St. Helens board committee and commission members superseding resolution number 15 21” — and asked members to read that resolution before proposing changes.
Members raised questions about vacancy and removal language. Commissioners debated whether the existing rule allowing reappointment after three consecutive unexcused absences strikes the right balance. One speaker said the draft reads as permitting reappointment after dismissal for missed meetings; another suggested changing the trigger from “three consecutive” to “three in a year.” Commissioners also discussed adding a referral and removal process for conduct that disrupts commission operations and whether bylaws should clarify removal of officers such as chair and vice chair.
There were no formal changes adopted during the meeting; commissioners agreed to continue the bylaws review at upcoming meetings and to return with suggested edits after reviewing Resolution No. 1648 and the municipal code section cited (2.74.010). The commission did not vote on any bylaw amendments at this session.
The meeting began with approval of the previous month’s minutes; the motion to approve passed after members voiced “Aye.”
