A lengthy exchange during planning-commission business on Dec. 1 centered on the City Council’s decision not to reappoint the commission’s assistant secretary (Miss Choudhury). Several commissioners said the decision was unfair given that the absences in question had been excused and that the assistant secretary had provided prior notice for some absences.

Commissioner Murray criticized the council’s rationale and described the action as potentially “targeted,” saying the member had served for six years and that excused absences had been communicated in advance. Murray also said the council did not personally notify the commissioner about the reappointment action and expressed concern about the precedent set for excusing absences and the bylaws’ application.

The city attorney responded that council appointments and reappointments are governed by charter and state law, and that council is not bound by the planning commission’s bylaws when making reappointments. The attorney clarified that the bylaws’ attendance provision applies to determining whether a commissioner is excused for purposes of internal discipline, but that council has the ultimate appointment prerogative. Commissioners did not take a formal vote to seek reversal; the discussion ended with the chair noting council had made the decision and the commission would move on.

Context: the commission’s bylaws cite that a member who “is not excused by the commission and misses 3 consecutive meetings” or 25% of regular meetings “may be asked to resign.” Commissioners argued that the absences at issue had been excused and that council’s move felt disrespectful to long service. The attorney recommended bringing questions about interpretation back to the commission for clarification, but emphasized the separate legal authority of council appointments.