I would also note that the citation given for Barkey v. Nick, 11 Mich App 361 (1968) is wrong. the correct cite is 11 Mich App 381. A subsequent Court of Appeals case [DOT v Twp. of Kochville, 261 Mich App 399, 404 (2004)] described the holding in Barkey as such:

In Barkey, this Court stated that the appearance of the city commissioner in that case created: (1) “an abuse of trust imposed by the assumption of public office”; (2) “a personal pecuniary interest conflicting with the fiduciary duty owed all members of the public”; and (3) “a doubt in the public mind as to the impartiality of the board’s action.” Barkey, supra at 385. The Court continued by stating that the presence of the city commissioner before the board brings with it the presence and powers of his office. It is basic to due process that in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings the deciding power must not seek to serve [interests] other than that of the voters, taxpayers, members of the general public, justice, and due process. [Id. (emphasis in original).]

Later in the opinion, the Court continued:

Unlike the officials in Barkey and Abrahamson, Bayne did not have a personal pecuniary interest in the outcome of the proceedings. We conclude that this distinction is crucial because of the extent to which the analysis in Barkey and Abrahamson relied on the conflict between the official’s personal interest and his public commitment. Although plaintiff contends that Barkey and Abrahamson apply despite this difference, we disagree. In neither case did this Court state that the same result occurs in the absence of a conflict of interest.

As mentioned in the report above, the PAC bylaws do not address the issue of communicating with councilmembers. [.pdf of PAC bylaws]

I believe that, at a minimum, a Council member should not speak at Planning Commission on a matter which will come before Council. Let the Planning Commission come to its own conclusions and make its own recommendations to Council without Council members trying to influence the Commission’s recommendations.

This is not a new question. In the past, former Council member Leigh Greden appeared before the Planning Commission to lobby for the ability of PUD developers to make a payment in lieu of providing affordable housing. A couple of years ago, the Mayor appeared before the Parks Advisory Commission to ask them to modify the content of a proposed resolution regarding the plan to build a UM parking structure on Fuller Road parkland. Council members speaking to Boards and Commissions appointed by Council about matters that will come before Council is not a new phenomenon.

On the other hand, whether a Council member is allowed to speak on his or her own behalf regarding a project or site plan he or she is proposing is different. The project or plan will come before the Council, but the Council member with a financial interest in that plan will not participate in the Council’s deliberations. If a Council member is the developer proposing a plan to the Planning Commission, I don’t think it will be a secret that the interested Council member will favor approval of the plan. Gagging the Council member does not change the potential influence he or she may have.

Imagine a site plan proposed by a Council member coming before the Planning Commission. Although the Council member will not be allowed to speak in favor of his or her own project, he or she will be present while project managers and lawyers speak on the Council member’s behalf. How does gagging the Council member reduce the supposed influence that might arise if he or she actually uttered words in favor of the project?

Whether Council members are ever allowed to speak to the Planning Commission is less important than crafting a rule that is easily understood by lay people. The phrase “a party interested in a petition” should be interpreted to mean more than having a passing interest in a subject. Who would speak on a topic that he or she found uninteresting? The fact that there could be two interpretations of that phrase means it needs to be replaced with something less likely to cause disagreement.

I’m with Kevin McDonald on this. Councilmembers will have a vote, and a chance to debate, the project at the Council meeting. But their view on the project should not be anticipated by a comment to the Commission. In theory, councilmembers should be able to make a decision at council on the merits, including a review of the Planning Commission’s deliberation. Actually, there will be simple opinion weighing in. Councilmembers certainly should support constituents when a judgment is to be made, and Council has often overturned (or ignored) Planning Commission recommendations. But that should happen at the Council table.