2018.02.13 CC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

February 13, 2018 briefly shared the history of behavior between the Council and its commissions and commented on expected roles and responsibilities for commissioners. He reported in the last 10 years the Council has made changes to the membership of commissions for a variant of reasons such as absenteeism, criticizing the Council as a group or individually, criticizing the City or Council policy which led the Council to develop behavior expectations. He explained these expected behaviors have been communicated to each of the City's commissions, noting for the record Commissioner Jones had received this infom7ation. He discussed how a lack of civility negatively impacts City government and how the fear of being publicly ridiculed has a chilling effect on public dialogue. He reported that commissioners give up some of their rights, like penning editorials, when they agree to serve their community. He indicated commissioners can disagree with the Council on issues but are to do so respectfully. He described how violations of the Commissioner Expectations are to be handled by the Council. The claims within Mr. Jones editorial were reviewed in detail with the Council. He indicated Mr. Jones had the right to flee speech and noted if he was removed from the Commission he would have total free speech. He stated that whether well-known or not, a representative of the City always wears his or her title and explained these expectations were designed to foster a sense of decorum. He reported that willfully violating the Council's Commission Expectations has resulted in commissioner removals in the past. The importance of transparency when addressing this matter by the City Council was discussed. He spelled out the options available to the Council regarding this matter noting a letter could be sent requesting an immediate change in behavior, the Council could sanction a commissioner by Resolution or the Commissioner could be removed Mayor Johnson apologized to Councilmembers Allen and D1 nsworth for speaking so passionately about this topic at a recent worksession meeting. She explained that she directed staffto report back to the Council with a presentation in order to bring all Councilmembers up to speed on the topic. Councilmember Jacobsen stated he would support an amendment offering Mr. Jones a written reprimand versus removal from the Planning Commission. Councilmember Allen noted he was new to the Council and stated he appreciated being able to further discuss this item. While he understood the rationale presented he had a hard time making a decision on this issue. He stated the Commission Expectation policy does not explicitly limit commissioners from writing editorials. For this reason, he supported a written reprimand being drafted for Mr. Jones. Councilmember Dunsworth thanked staff for the presentation and stated she appreciated the opportunity to discuss this matter further. While she understood Councilmembers Allen and Jacobsen's point of view, she could not support a letter of reprimand given the fact Mr. Jones had been trained and actively pursued additional training as a commissioner. She spoke to the importance of commissions having various points of view but noted she was struggling with the fact Mr. Jones actively wrote, submitted and published a letter against the City Council. She explained these actions went against the training Mr. Jones received. She commented the public was welcome to express their points of view openly and loudly on social media as a private citizen. However, once a commissioner takes the additional step to have their opinion published in the local paper speaking out against the City Council, this went too far. She stated it was public knowledge that Mr. Jones was a Planning Commissioner. She appreciated the fact that Mr. Jones was an active and productive member of the Planning Commission. With that being said, there was a higher calling for these individuals and their decorum to not undermine the efforts of the City. She stated Mr. Jones could have remained silent versus voicing his open decent against the City Council. Councilmember Burg stated she brought this matter forward to the Mayor and City Council. She explained she has dealt with this type of situation in the past and indicated Mr. Jones has expected behaviors that must be followed if he wished to remain on the Planning Commission. She stated Mr. Jones was to respect the policies in place. She feared how the City could be negatively impacted if its commissioners were all allowed to speak against their decisions or policies. She thanked Mr. Jones for coming forward and trying to explain his actions. She believed that his actions should be considered as a commissioner even though he did not state this within his editorial. She feared how the negative and inaccurate information written by Mr. Jones would impact the public. She reported that commissioners are held to a higher standard and for this reason, Mr. Jones should be removed from the Planning Commission. Mayor Johnson thanked the Council for their comments. She commented that Mr. Jones language against the City Council was critical in nature. She explained Mr. Jones had accused the Council of Page 5 of 7