Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance And Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debate ends with no revote on chair and vice chair; members divided over timing
Summary
The Hooper City Planning Commission debated whether to re-run elections for chair and vice chair after the commission expanded to seven members; amid divided views and procedural confusion, a motion to revote at the next meeting did not pass.
Commissioners spent the final portion of the March 13 meeting debating whether the planning commission should re-run elections for chair and vice chair now that the body has expanded to seven members. The commission ultimately did not approve a motion to hold a re-vote at the next planning commission meeting.
Some commissioners and members of the public said it would be fair to give newly seated commissioners the chance to participate in a leadership vote. "Those people deserve to have a say," one commissioner said, arguing the commission knew two additional members would be added and should have waited for a full body vote.
Other commissioners countered that the January vote to elect leadership was legal, taken with a quorum present, and that repeatedly reopening settled leadership decisions could set an unhelpful precedent. Staff and the city attorney advised the body that the prior vote was legally valid and that the commission is required to elect officers annually but not specifically to do so at any particular meeting. Commissioners also noted the chairs additional responsibilities, such as participation in the technical review committee, as a reason to favor an experienced leader.
A motion to re-vote on the chair and vice chair at the next planning commission meeting was moved and seconded and put to a voice vote; the chair called the outcome as not passing after procedural confusion on the floor. Commissioners were sharply divided in their public remarks; several asked staff to finalize a written policy and procedures draft that would clarify timing and responsibilities for future officer elections.
The commission did not change the current chair or vice chair at the meeting. Several commissioners asked staff to return the draft policies and procedures for discussion at an upcoming work session so the body can set a clear schedule for annual officer elections and define the chairs responsibilities in the technical review process.
