Planning commission debates attendance rules; proposes three unexcused absences and 48-hour notice for excused absences

Commissioners reviewed attendance problems that recently affected quorum during a public hearing and discussed possible changes to rules governing removal for nonperformance or misconduct.

One commissioner summarized the Portland model and suggested three unexcused absences as a threshold; another commissioner urged that absences need not be consecutive in order to qualify as nonperformance. Commissioners debated whether removal is a council function and whether the commission should make a recommendation to council rather than attempt to enact removal authority itself.

Commissioners discussed a practical excusal mechanism: a 48-hour notice requirement to qualify as an excused absence, and the practical limits on the commission's ability to excuse absences outside a public meeting. Several members proposed that drafting language could be done by one commissioner outside a meeting and distributed to the group in BCC for comment, with the caveat that substantive deliberation about the text must take place in public meetings to avoid public meeting-law violations.

The commission agreed to draft ordinance language and to circulate a draft by BCC for review. One commissioner volunteered to draft initial language and said he would share it with the group.

Ending: Commissioners agreed to advance an ordinance proposal to the city council recommending specific removal/attendance language (three unexcused absences, not necessarily consecutive, and a 48-hour notice standard for excused absences) and to return with drafted text for formal referral.