Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bylaws topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission pauses adoption of new bylaws to clarify conflict, liaison and notice language
Summary
The Mill Creek Planning Commission reviewed a City Clerk–drafted set of uniform bylaws for city boards and commissions but deferred adoption to address conflicts-of-interest language, the City Council liaison clause and agenda-packet timing under the Open Public Meetings Act.
At a study session, members of the Mill Creek Planning Commission reviewed proposed uniform bylaws drafted by the City Clerk and discussed several requested clarifications. Commissioners did not adopt the bylaws and asked staff to return with revised language at the next meeting.
Staff said the draft bylaws were prepared to create consistent policies and procedures for city boards and commissions, and that adopting them would rescind earlier planning-commission resolutions from 1983 (resolutions 5, 6 and 7). Staff included written responses from the City Clerk to commissioner feedback in the meeting packet.
Commissioners raised three primary concerns. First, Article 8’s conflict-of-interest provisions may be stricter than state allowances under the appearance-of-fairness rules; commissioners asked staff to confirm whether the bylaws should explicitly reference RCW 42.36 (appearance of fairness) or otherwise permit recusal exceptions when recusals would eliminate a quorum.
Second, commissioners flagged Article 2, item 13, which states the City Council “shall appoint” a council liaison. Commissioners noted a planning-commission bylaw cannot compel City Council action and suggested the wording be revised to describe responsibilities of a council appointee if one is named rather than directing the council to make an appointment.
Third, commissioners requested clearer timing for agenda packets. The Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30) requires agendas to be posted at least 24 hours before a meeting, but several commissioners said 24 hours provides little time to review technical packets. Staff said the planning department’s practice going forward is to provide packets about a week before meetings (the Thursday before) and suggested the bylaws could note the statutory minimum while setting a departmental goal for earlier distribution.
On procedure, commissioners discussed whether to vote on amendments that night; staff recommended returning with a clean motion and clarified there is no pressing deadline. Several commissioners indicated they preferred to delay final adoption so staff could confirm the legal references and rework the liaison language.
A procedural motion to approve the meeting minutes passed at the start of the session; the commission adjourned by unanimous voice vote at the end of the meeting. Staff said it will return next month with a revised draft of the bylaws and a motion for adoption.
