Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Juan County planning commissioners debate bylaw changes on communications, quorum and conflicts of interest
Summary
Commissioners reviewed proposed bylaw revisions covering candidate qualifications, meeting deadlines, allowable communications among commissioners, remote participation/quorum rules and conflicts-of-interest language; members requested clearer wording and struck one sentence to avoid conflict with state law.
San Juan County Planning Commission members reviewed a set of proposed bylaw changes May 8 that would clarify candidate qualifications, submission deadlines for agenda materials, rules about communications among commissioners, remote-participation and recusal rules for conflicts of interest.
Trent Schafer, chair of the planning commission, led the discussion and said staff would circulate a draft and that the commission would consider a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners when the text is finalized. Commissioners proposed several edits to improve clarity and align the bylaws with state law.
Among the points raised: members asked for a stated preference for applicants who live in unincorporated areas to ensure geographic balance; staff agreed to add the wording “preference given to applicants living within unincorporated areas.” Commissioners asked staff to standardize application submittal deadlines so planners and legal counsel have time to review materials; planning staff recommended a two-week cutoff before the meeting for packet publication.
On communications, commissioners asked to split a single provision into two: (1) rules allowing commission members to seek information from staff and other commissioners and (2) an ethical duty to maintain public impartiality by avoiding statements that would precommit votes. Commissioner comments repeatedly emphasized that members may gather information but should not discuss or agree on how they will vote outside of a public meeting.
Commissioners also discussed a restriction on ex parte communications and asked staff to broaden the language from "application" to "any item coming before the planning commission" so informal contacts about prospective agenda items are forwarded into the public record through staff. Commissioners agreed staff should forward such information to the full body to avoid inadvertent private deliberations.
Members questioned an older bylaw provision that required four commissioners to be physically present for a quorum; several said the rule was drafted before remote-meeting practices and asked staff to check state law and propose more flexible language for emergencies or weather-related closures while maintaining compliance with open-meetings requirements.
On conflicts of interest, commissioners noted a direct conflict between a draft bylaw that would require recusal and recent state law that uses permissive language. Commissioners voted informally to delete the sentence that contradicted state law and to retain a stricter local statement about disclosure; the group agreed to let legal counsel reconcile the exact language so county policy remains lawful while allowing the commission to adopt clearer internal standards.
Schafer said planning staff will refine the draft, circulate it to commissioners and legal counsel, and return a redlined version for further review. If the commission is satisfied, members said they expect to forward a recommendation to the county commission soon.
