PC APPROVED Minutes 05-07-12.pdf SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED WORKSHOP MINUTES
2:00 p.m., May 7, 2012
COMMISSIONER ATTENDANCE: STAFF ATTENDANCE:
Bill Bates, Commission Chair John Hohman, Community Development Director
John Carroll, Commissioner Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Rustin Hall, Commissioner Kelly Konkright, Deputy City Attorney
Rod Higgins, Commissioner Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager
Steven Neill, Commissioner Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Marcia Sands, Commissioner Cari Hinshaw, Office Assistant
Joy Stoy, Commission Vice Chair Mary Swank, Office Assistant
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Others in attendance:
Mayor Towey, Councilmembers Hafner, Grafos and Woodard.
Stan McNutt, Workshop Facilitator
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L Commission Chair Bates called the meeting to order at approximately 2:00 p.m.
IL At the request of Chair Bates, Assistant Hinshaw called the roll; all Commissioners were present.
IIL Mr. Bates explained that the purpose of today's meeting is to review the Planning Commission's
Policies and Procedures, and he welcomed Mr. Stan McNutt as today's facilitator.
After Mr. McNutt provided a background of his work history and previous employment as a City
Manager, his capacity as a "Range Rider" with ICMA (International City Manager's Association),
his experience as a teacher and troubleshooter, and of his work with numerous cities and counties
since his 1998 retirement from city management, he explained that he was contacted by City Manager
Jackson to see if he could help the City clarify some appearance, performance, rules and procedure
issues associated with Commission Members in their roles as Planning Commissioners. Mr. McNutt
explained that having a good understanding and following the rules is basic to everything
Commissioners do; and mentioned that he previously met individually with each Commissioner and
that he appreciated those meetings.
Mr. McNutt distributed copies of his outline for this meeting, and as noted in those materials, said he
recommended that the Planning Commission include some basic definitions into the Rules of
Procedure, such as rules on procedure, guidelines, and appearance as it pertains to the Appearance of
Conflict laws. In response to Mr. McNutt's request for comment, Chair Bates said that there is
currently no training for people just coming in as a Planning Commissioner; that although they are
given manuals about the procedures, Open Public Meeting Act and the council's Governance Manual,
he feels there is likely no commissioner who fully understood all the materials; he said there was no
training other than what the Commissioner might do on their own, and said he feels that is not
adequate. Mr. McNutt suggested the Commission include in the Rules of Procedure, a statement of
guiding principles such as that adopted by Mill Creek, which he explained would address image,
accountability, how Commissioners communicate with citizens and staff; and to cover planning,
decision-making, teamwork, and personal development; and said these are the types of resources
Planning Commissioners could use when dealing with the numerous gray areas of the rules and laws;
and he also suggested ended when Commissioners come across those gray areas and have questions,
to ask the City Attorney and staff for assistance.
Mr. McNutt recommended expansion of the "Code of Conduct" sections of Council Resolution 11-
O10 (Planning Commission Rules of Procedure), to include addressing absences from Planning
Plam�ing Commission Workshop,May 7,2012 Page 1 of 4
Commission meetings; and he suggested the Commission Chair announce that a member is absent,
give the reason for the absence, and ask if there are any objections to excusing the member, and if
not, then the member is deemed excused; and if there is an objection, the Chair would call for a
motion to excuse the motion, which motion is non-debatable, and he said the outcome of that vote
would determine whether the member is excused. There was discussion about a non-debatable
motion and if the Chair feels there is inadequate information to excuse the member, the matter and the
motion could be deferred until sufficient information is gathered. Mr. McNutt also discussed the
occasion when requests to be excused are based on professional conflicts of interest, such as when a
Commissioner's employer requires the Commissioner to recuse themselves from a certain topic due
to a professional conflict of interest. An additional section to consider adding to the rules of
procedures, Mr. McNutt explained, concerns appearance; and he explained that the Open Public
Meetings Act forbids any meeting of a quorum of the Commission if City business is to be discussed;
and said even when meeting informally in less than a quorum, Commissioners are encouraged to be
cognizant of any appearance of violation. Mr. McNutt further explained that should such an informal
activity occur that might lead a reasonable person to feel there is a possible violation of the Open
Public Meetings Act, the Commissioners involved should, at the next Commission meeting, disclose
the nature of such activity. Mr. McNutt said he realizes it is very difficult to meet together informally
and not discuss city business; but he reminded everyone that we serve the public, and to protect the
integrity of the Members and the City, we want to avoid even the appearance of being in violation of
the Act. City Attorney Driskell added that the main point is that it comes down to the integrity of
each Commissioner and each Councilmember to know the importance of following the Act, and to
actually follow the Act that it is staff's responsibility to teach the rules with the expectation that the
rules will be followed.
Mr. McNutt recommended adding a new rule to define conflict of interest as "engaging in a
transaction or activity which impairs, or would to a reasonable person appear to impair, the
Commissioner's independence of judgment or action in the performance of official duties;" and to
include language about having a financial or other private interest, as he noted in his handouts.
Finally, Mr. McNutt suggested including language to address a professional conflict of interest, such
as a commissioner's employment and said he recommends adding that if a commissioner's employer
required them to refrain from participation in an issue, the Commissioner should be allowed to recuse
or withdraw from deliberation on that issue.
At approximately 4:10 p.m., the group took a quick break, and was reconvened at approximately 4:15
p.m.
Upon reconvening, Chair Bates explained that the areas discussed are some areas the Commission has
been having problems with; he said this group has worked hard and worked well together; he said
each person's input is critical and even if there is not a unanimous recommendation to Council, the
recommendations are still good. Chair Bates said they may have gotten off track a little in
ascertaining when to defer something, that in a previous joint meeting with Council, communication
was discussed; and he said he feels the Commissioner's didn't get good information on some of this
from city staff and the attorneys; that the Commissioners were "flying blind;" but they asked
questions and didn't get answers; and he agreed with the need for written guidelines. Commissioner
Neill added that he feels when dealing with the professional conflict of interest paragraph, that it
should include at some point that a person needs to think about stepping down as it affects the
Commissioners and the citizens; and said not having attendance mentioned anywhere in this
document is ridiculous; adding that perhaps not in government, but in any job in the private sector, if
you don't show up, you're fired. Commissioner Hall said that attendance is included in the
document, although he said he wasn't sure exactly where it is, and he explained that when a
Commissioner misses three or four meetings in a row that is grounds for possible termination. Mr.
Hall said he disagrees with Mr. Neill's previous statement that if there is a true professional conflict
of interest, the person should think about stepping down; he said if there is a professional conflict of
interest, it will only be on one issue and not on every issue on every agenda; and agreed with the need
to have something in the rules to address professional conflict of interest. Mr. Neill said the issue is
Plam�ing Commission Workshop,May 7,2012 Page 2 of 4
not one meeting, but several meetings; he said he has never worked someplace where you can show
up 50% of the time and still get "kudos" for the job. Mr. McNutt stated that is in the past, and he
suggested focusing on the future; and said the best practice when dealing with a recusal or conflict of
interest, that once disclosed, that recusal or statement of conflict of interest is honored; and said in
many instances, it is the chair's responsibility to discuss with a member, whether they feel they can
continue due to a constant conflict of interest and if needed; the situation can be brought to the City
Council's attention as the council has the ability to take action.; or even prior to that,he explained, the
matter can be discussed with the City Attorney; and he reminded everyone that Commissioners would
not have taken the job if they didn't have in mind the best interests of the City. City Attorney
Driskell said that state law addresses some of these issues, that if a Commissioner misses six or more
meetings or study sessions in a twelve-month period without the absence being excused by the
Commission, is prohibited; and state law provides when someone is unable to participate in a specific
item due to conflict, that Council has the option and ability to appoint a special planning
commissioner for a short period, or for that one item.
Commissioner Sands said when she accepted the job with Spokane Valley, she informed staff she
would not be able to work on shoreline issues because of a conflict with her position; she said that
was over a year and a half ago and she has reiterated that statement several times, including in an e-
mail to the City; but said it wasn't until after the second to last meeting on shoreline deliberations that
this became an issue. Commissioner Higgins said that since the Department of Ecology deals with
private lands, he feels there would be a conflict of interest on all matters, since dealing with land
issues is what the Planning Commission does; and said he wasn't aware Ms. Sands worked as a
geologist for the Department of Ecology until after the vote, and said he feels no one else on the
Commission was aware of Ms. Sands' other job. Ms. Sands said she has been a geologist for twenty
years; and that concerning a conflict of interest on all matters, said the only reason she is recusing
herself from the shoreline master program is because that program is directly overseen by the
Department of Ecology; and that she doesn't see more of a conflict of interest then there would be
with Councilmembers deliberating over things that have direct influence over their properties; she
said we all live in this community and have a right to participate and an obligation to determine for
ourselves, if we can deliberate on any one issue in good conscience; and said she personally feels she
could deliberate on the shoreline issue without a problem, but it was her employer who asked her not
to so as not to have the Department of Ecology perceived as being in conflict of interest and she
added that as a geologist, this is the one item she would have really enjoyed discussing. Ms. Sands
said the e-mail in which she included her conflict of interest statement was previously read into the
record. Chair Bates confirmed that the e-mail was read into the record, and said his concern was that
in dealing with this conflict, no one knew the procedure; that they took a vote; but as Mr. McNutt
said, that is in the past, but had they known the procedure, they would not have had to take a vote.
Ms. Sands voiced her understanding with Mr. Bates' statement, and concurred about not having
definitive procedures for such cases; and suggested new commissioners need training upon being
appointed. The need and procedure for training was discussed, including just training new members,
or training the Commission as a whole during a Commissioner meeting.
Commissioner Hall said in reading Mr. McNutt's materials, it appears something is left out under
Section 13-3B, because as it reads now, the meeting now being conducted would not be allowed as
the verbiage states: "The Open Public Meetings (OPMA) strictly forbids any meeting of a quorum of
the Commission if city business is discussed." Mr. McNutt and Mr. Driskell agreed there is an
obvious omission of the words "without being publicly noticed." Mr. Hall said the notion of training
can only go so far and then it becomes a"crutch" as ethical behavior cannot be legislated; that one is
either ethical or they are not he said it would be impossible to include in any document everything
one could not do in relation to their job or appointed position; he said we cannot change the rules
mid-stream and in this case, "throw Marcia out." Mr. Hall said he feels if a member of the
Commission has a problem with him, that he would expect that to be addressed in an open public
meeting. Commissioner Carroll added that concerning Section 14-B2, that he carried a private
interest with him on every issue before the Planning Commission; and if the words "private interest"
Plam�ing Commission Workshop,May 7,2012 Page 3 of 4
remained, he would not be able to discuss anything; and said that each Commissioner was chosen
based somewhat on their private interest. Mr. McNutt cautioned establishing rules that go beyond the
law, as the rules would be so restrictive it would be easy to accidentally stumble; and once the rules
are adopted, it is expected those rules will be adhered to; adding that the City's insurance carrier that
handles liability, requires that officials function only within the scope of duties; and any proposed
new duties should be brought to the attention of the insurance carrier to make sure the individual
would still be covered. City Attorney Driskell reiterated that it comes down to the individual being
able to make an objective decision on any issue; and if not, then the procedure would be recusal.
Moving the discussion to e-mail, Mr. McNutt said while there is not a specific e-mail policy for
Councilmembers or commissioners, there is a City policy which might be helpful for commissioners
to read. Mr. McNutt recommended revising the rules for Planning Commissioners as well for other
city officers, and said serial meetings, which he explained, is getting information and then forwarding
that to others, and even one-way communications can in some cases, constitute a meeting if the e-
mail is about the business of the Planning Commission. Mr. McNutt further explained that the Act is
not limited to in-person gatherings and said even a conference call could be deemed a meeting; and he
recommended Commissioners refrain from e-mailing other Commissioners as much as possible. Mr.
McNutt suggested putting in a warning on each e-mail message to state that the message is sent to
provide information only and that the recipient is asked not to respond. Mr. McNutt said that using a
computer for the purpose of city business subjects that computer to the Open Public Meeting Act.
Commissioner Higgins stated that they were promised quite some time ago that they would not have
to use their personal computers, and said they are now in a situation which opened them up to having
e-mails scrutinized. Mr. McNutt said he is aware that this takes some time to resolve and it is his
understanding that the City Manager is working on that but emphasized that the public has a right to
be given public communications when it involves city business. Commissioner Sands mentioned that
even phone calls could be construed as a serial meeting under certain circumstances. Community
Development Director Hohman said that e-mails should be sent to Deanna and she can distribute the
e-mail as appropriate. Chair Bates said they also need written clarification in the procedures of who
their contact person is; and Mr. Hohman said traditionally, Deanna has been the secretary of the
Planning Commission and was, is, and continues to be the main point of contact for attendance or
other issues. To summarize, City Attorney Driskell recommended unless there is a need, not to
communicate among commissioners via e-mail.
Commissioners Sands suggested that if there is an occasion where commissioners must recuse
themselves from multiple meetings, a procedure needs to be in place so Council will know how to
address the issue. Chair Bates said he agrees this would be a Council decision, but the procedure
should be included in the Commission Rules and Procedures so everyone is aware of how to handle
those issues. Mr. McNutt suggested Commissioners also read the Council's Governance Manual.
Next steps were discussed including bringing back a draft revision of the procedures, or bringing this
back for further discussion; and Mr. Hohman suggested bringing this topic back to a future
Commission meeting. Chair Bates agreed. The Commissioners thanked Mr. McNutt for facilitating
the meeting.
There being no further discussion, it was �noved by Co�n�nissioner Sands, and unani�nously agreed to
adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 5:19 p.m.
SUBMITTED: APPROVED:
Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant Bill Bates, Chair
Plam�ing Commission Workshop,May 7,2012 Page 4 of 4