Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ex Parte topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board declines broader replacement of ex parte rule after debate
Summary
Member Miss Yu proposed a broader replacement of the board's existing 'ex parte prohibited' rule to expand and clarify prohibited communications; the motion to replace the existing section failed on a recorded vote, leaving the current prohibited-communication text in place.
Board member Miss Yu proposed replacing the existing ex parte 'prohibited communication' rule on page 15 with a more detailed three-part procedure modeled on other counties. She argued the change would make the prohibition clearer and provide a dedicated section explaining allowed and disallowed communications.
Members raised concerns that the board already has an ex parte prohibited-communication rule and that the proposed replacement contained inaccuracies—for example, a definition that treated ex parte as only a communication initiated by parties to board members, whereas ex parte can occur in multiple directions. The board put the replacement on the table and took a roll-call style vote; the motion failed with most members voting 'no' and one recorded 'yes,' so the current prohibited-communication language remains in the draft rules.
