Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Ordinance Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council unanimously simplifies procedure to remove Planning Commission members
Summary
Council moved to amend section 2-15-5 of the Planning Commission enabling ordinance to allow removal of planning commissioners by majority council vote without the prior 'for cause' jury-like hearing language; council also discussed adding requirements that removal decisions be accompanied by written reasons for the public record.
City council members unanimously voted to amend the Planning Commission enabling ordinance’s removal language after debate about the board’s current “cause” standard.
Mr. Emera flagged a provision in the ordinance (page 43 of the meeting packet) that reads, in part, “a member of the planning commission may be removed from the board by majority vote of the city council for cause upon written charges after a public hearing.” He argued that language created an unnecessarily burdensome, jury-style process and proposed changing it to say simply that “a member of the planning commission may be removed from the commission by a majority vote of the city council.”
“I just think hopefully we never have to use this honestly but God forbid if we ever did, I don't think doing a process like that would be helpful to the member or the council or the community as a whole,” Mr. Emera said, urging a simpler removal mechanism.
Several council members supported streamlining the language but sought to protect removed members from arbitrary action. One councilor offered a friendly amendment requiring that when council moves to remove a member it provide written reasons—findings of fact—so the action is part of the public record and the person understands why they were removed.
Council settled the discussion by directing the city attorney to make the ordinance consistent with other board language and brought forward a motion to modify section 2-15-5 accordingly. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously.
The council did not adopt additional procedural specifics during the meeting; instead staff were asked to draft language that aligns the removal section with other board provisions and to return with a revised ordinance.
