Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commission Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates rule changes and absenteeism policy, seeks staff draft for formal vote
Summary
Commissioners discussed proposed edits to meeting schedules, agenda timing, staff responsibilities and an absenteeism/removal policy that would define triggers and require written mitigation — and asked staff and the clerk's office to draft formal language for a future vote.
The Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission spent much of its March 26 meeting reviewing proposed edits to its rules and procedures, including meeting frequency, agenda notice timing, staff responsibilities and absenteeism and removal language.
Chair Jeremy Hackard outlined suggested language to set regularly scheduled meetings on the second and fourth Thursdays from January through October and a single meeting in November and December. He also proposed that agendas for regularly scheduled meetings be set and emailed to commission members at least six days before the meeting. The proposed edits would standardize references to the staff liaison and move several administrative responsibilities to staff rather than commissioners.
Commissioners focused significant attention on draft absenteeism language. A staff representative read the proposed standard that would treat "excessive absenteeism" as failure to attend three consecutive regularly scheduled meetings or four regularly scheduled meetings in any 12‑month period, while allowing a member to submit written mitigating circumstances to the appointing authority. Commissioners asked how acceptable, work‑related conflicts and periodic rescheduling of other boards would be treated and whether remote attendance counts toward an attendance record. Staff and clerk's‑office representatives said remote participation counts for attendance but not for quorum; excused absences and documented mitigating circumstances are considered during removal decisions.
Several commissioners urged care in applying a strict absenteeism trigger to avoid penalizing active public servants whose professional duties occasionally conflict with meeting dates. Commissioner Schel, who described recurring conflicts caused by having other boards that change meeting dates, asked how the process would protect members who must miss scheduled meetings because of job duties; staff replied that members may submit a written explanation to the appointing authority and to the clerk's office, and that the clerk's office typically contacts members before removal decisions proceed.
The commission also discussed a statutory timing issue that affects Certificates of Appropriateness: state law can cause an application to be deemed approved if the commission does not take action within a statutory window (discussed in the meeting as a 30‑day rule). Commissioners asked staff to draft language that would allow the commission to pause or deny without prejudice in situations where a petitioner repeatedly fails to appear, while ensuring compliance with state law. The chair asked staff and the clerk’s office to prepare revised language for review at a future meeting; commissioners agreed by consent to continue developing the edits rather than vote that night.
Commissioners said they want a clear, implementable process that protects applicants from arbitrary denial while preventing gamesmanship that might allow work to proceed without scrutiny. The commission asked staff to draft options (for example, denial without prejudice or a written tolling agreement with the petitioner) that comply with state statutory requirements and present those options at the next meeting.
