Council asks staff to draft attendance rules for planning commissioners; charter covers council forfeiture

City councilors on Feb. 12 asked staff to craft clearer attendance rules for planning commissioners and to propose objective guidance on excused versus unexcused absences for council members, while noting the charter and state law already address forfeiture of office for prolonged unexcused absences.

Why it matters: Several agenda items and votes require a quorum or specific vote thresholds, and absences or conflicts of interest on appointed bodies can hinder the city’s ability to conduct business. Council members said predictable attendance strengthens decision-making and public trust.

Planning commission: Staff and councilors discussed a proposal that would automatically remove a planning commissioner after three consecutive regularly scheduled absences. Eric and staff noted the practical benefit: the automatic removal would not require the mayor to act and would help preserve quorums. Council members signaled support for applying a three-consecutive-regular-meeting threshold to planning commissioners.

City council: City staff pointed to the city charter and state law as already providing a remedy for council members. City attorney research (discussed in the meeting) cited a Government Code provision that treats absence from all regular meetings for 60 consecutive days without permission as grounds for forfeiture. Council members asked staff to draft objective criteria for what counts as an excused absence and to clarify the process for seeking an excuse in advance.

Process and next steps: The council directed staff and counsel to (a) draft language that would remove planning commissioners automatically after three consecutive regularly scheduled absences and (b) return with clarifying language for the council manual describing how and when a council member may obtain an excused absence so that the determination is not purely subjective. No formal vote was held Feb. 12.