Council amends Planning Commission removal language to match other boards

Councilors unanimously voted to modify section 2‑15‑5 of the city’s Planning Commission enabling ordinance to remove the ordinance’s existing ‘‘for cause’’ hearing procedure and instead allow removal of a planning commission member by majority vote of the city council.

Councilor Ben (mover) said he found the current language in the packet problematic because it required removal “for cause upon written charges after a public hearing” and listed grounds that included absences. Ben said that process—similar to a jury trial—felt inappropriate for a volunteer board and was inconsistent with practices on other boards. “In my opinion, I think that the planning board should work like all other boards, where in the hopefully never event of having to remove a member, it should be by a simple majority of the council,” he said.

A councilor offered a friendly amendment to require written findings or reasons be placed in the public record when the council votes to remove a planning commissioner; another councilor preferred to keep the removal process simple and direct the city attorney to align the ordinance wording with other boards. After discussion the motion to modify section 2‑15‑5 to allow removal by majority vote and to direct the city attorney to make the ordinance consistent with other board language carried unanimously.

Councilors clarified the action is intended to align the Planning Commission removal procedure with other boards and to avoid an adversarial hearing process. The planning commissioners were present in the chambers and were explicitly told the motion was not intended as a comment on their service.