I disagree with the characterization of this incident as the deciding factor in the scuttling of the Valiant proposal for a hotel and conference center. There are many things to be said about the conclusion of this process but my short summary would be that it sank of its own weight, in part because of the convoluted financial arrangements and in part because of the vigorous public opposition by a large and engaged citizen group, who placed yard signs and wrote voluminous letters to Council. The fact that the RFP advisory committee did not allow public comment at a meeting (which actually happened more than that once) was merely a footnote in a tortuous process.

R-642-11-91
RESOLUTION REGARDING OPEN MEETINGS FOR
CITY COMMITTEES,COMMISSIONS, BOARDS AND TASK FORCES

Whereas, The City Council desires that all meetings of City boards, task forces, commissions and committees conform to the spirit of the Open Meetings Act;

RESOLVED, That all City boards task forces, commissions, committees and their subcommittees hold their meetings open to the public to the best of their abilities in the spirit of Section 3 of the Open Meetings Act; and

RESOLVED, That closed meetings of such bodies be held only under situations where a closed meeting would be authorized in the spirit of the Open Meetings Act.

Substitute Resolution
As Amended
November 4, 1991

This resolution is still in force and has an illuminating recent history. In 2010, unlamented former Council member Stephen Rapundalo refused to allow public comment at a task force meeting on the Conference Center. There was a major confrontation. This violation of the Council resolution helped sink the whole Conference Center.

In 2011, Sabra brought a copy of this resolution to the organizational meeting of the Medical Marijuana Licensing Board, which she chairs. She gave a copy to assistant city attorney Kristen Larcom.

Ever since then, Larcom has given a copy of the resolution to the chairs of newly-formed committees, etc.

The chair of every group is supposed to know the group’s rules.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that the members of the now-defunct Council Party and their ilk still view members of the public as annoying nuisances. So this resolution should be mentioned whenever the right of the public to comment is in doubt.

Maybe I’m a cynic but thinking someone so clueless about the process and rules for running public meetings and trying to restrict public input during a fact gathering process may not have the skills needed to be on City Council. It wasn’t noted in this article if you could see any stings attached to Mr. Westphal’s body or if the Mayor was playing puppet master so I can’t comment on the reason for Westphal’s actions.

It doesn’t strike me as obvious that a full review of the history of the A2D2/zoning process would provide much of an apology for Mr. Westphal’s apparent political patron, the mayor. As Ms. Potts observed, it wasn’t a very pretty time.

Mr. Westphal may well have been merely confused about the rules about council members speaking in front of his committee, but as Mr. Eaton observed, the only one of the several speaking council members who was cut off from speaking was the one who is more-or-less opposed to the zoning agenda of Mr. Westphal’s apparent patron, the mayor. This does not make Mr. Westphal look good.

In Mr. Westphal’s defense, he did seem willing for his own political opponent, Jane Lumm, to speak. Maybe he really was just confused.

While it is true that Council could amend the documents involved once it gets to their agenda, it will be messy and tedious to be obligated to do massive editing and rewriting in order to achieve the original intent. Much better for the PC to adhere both to Council direction and to public consensus in the first place, rather than trying to superimpose their personal opinions. And yes, if Council members wish to invest even more of their time by attending these earlier stages of discussion, it benefits the process.

In my experience, commission members, including chairs, are not given guidance in such areas. It’s mostly learn as you go and look to staff and other members for institutional memory as matters arise.

It is a great wonder that the Planning Commission members and others were not aware of this resolution and/or didn’t feel like following it.

You are really asking two questions. First, why do Council members attend Planning Commission and Ordinance Revision Committee (ORC) meetings? I think it is important for Council members to understand the process from which the ORC and Commission make their recommendations. Let’s recall that the A2D2 review is being conducted in large part because of the dissatisfaction with what the ORC and Planning Commission produced the first time they addressed A2D2.

I think it is also important to note that just recently the ORC and Planning Commission issued recommendations regarding R4C and R2A zoning. Those recommendations so dramatically departed from the recommendations of of the R4C/R2A Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) that the Council reconvened the CAC to give citizens a chance to respond to the Planning Commission’s recommendations.

Attending the meeting of the ORC gives Council members the opportunity to see how the advice of residents is handled by this committee. I see the ORC as a subordinate body who advises the Planning Commission and Council. I see residents as the “boss” of their elected officials. I think it is appropriate for elected officials to witness the process where the subordinate body seems to act in disregard of the opinions expressed by their boss.

The second question question is why would a Council member speak at an ORC meeting? Council member Briere is a member of the Planning Commission (but not the ORC) and perhaps she believes that makes her statements in an ORC meeting somehow different from comments of other Council members. I don’t know.

I was at the ORC meeting and I share Council member Kailasapathy’s concerns about the conduct of the members of the ORC. It seemed to me that the ORC members were challenging the consultant’s failure to argue with citizens who expressed opinions with which the ORC members disagree. Some ORC members wanted the Consultant to include material in her report that they seem to believe would correct the errors in public thinking. As I understood her, Kailasapathy merely sought to express her opinion that the report to Council include only those things the Council had asked for when it sent the A2D2 back to the Planning Commission.

As Mr. Bean notes in comment (5), Council members are citizens, too. They should not be prohibited from speaking in public meetings without substantial reason.