Haines Borough holds planning commission training on Open Meetings Act, CUP rules and staff use

Staff member (S2) led an hourlong training for Haines Borough planning commissioners that reviewed rules for agenda items, use of staff resources, the Open Meetings Act and the borough code on conditional-use permits.

The session began with S2 saying the training was a reminder that commissioners are "practicing government" and that volunteers should be "easy on ourselves" while learning how to use staff and run effective meetings. S2 walked through how to place items on an agenda, the staff role to "advise and assist" the assembly and the need to distribute information equally to avoid unfair timing advantages.

Commissioners described several practical challenges. Committee member (S5) said coming onto the commission "without a planner was difficult" and that multiple interim managers made participation harder, adding, "I've always felt like I'm wasting the staff's precious time by asking questions." Committee member (S3) said it took years to learn how to use staff as a resource and flagged examples where meeting reminders arrived as the first notice.

A core portion of the training focused on legal and procedural risks. S2 explained ex parte communications and serial contacts that can constitute an Open Meetings Act violation, advising commissioners to forward outside materials to the clerk so they become part of the public record rather than circulating them privately. S2 also reviewed remedies under the Open Meetings Act, noting that actions taken in violation "may be voided" and sometimes must be redone.

The group discussed how motions and Robert's Rules can focus debate. S2 recommended making a main motion early to sharpen discussion and described using a motion to "suspend the rules" when the commission wants a more conversational exchange before formal action.

Commissioners pressed staff on conditional-use permit (CUP) practice and findings of fact. S2 cited the borough code section for CUPs and said the commission must find that each enumerated requirement is met; if a criterion is lacking the body can either deny the permit or approve it conditioned on applicant remedies. Several commissioners raised a recent example in which they felt a hearing record was incomplete; S5 said the situation had real consequences and asked how to proceed when mistakes are made and appeals are pending. S2 said staff is "working on it" but declined to discuss specifics because an appeal is in progress.

S2 closed by noting the meeting materials — the PowerPoint and a PDF version — would be posted to the meeting website. Presenter (S4) also offered hard copies of the Alaska Planning Commission handbook for commissioners to review.

The training did not include formal votes but produced multiple direction-setting clarifications: commissioners were advised how to place items on agendas, how to route outside information through the clerk to preserve transparency, and how to use motions and conditions to reconcile permitting gaps. The session concluded with staff asking commissioners to contact them with follow-up questions and offering additional one-on-one support.

The planning commission did not take formal action during the training; next procedural steps noted were that materials would be posted online and that staff would follow up on outstanding process questions.