16 PCSR 04-26-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• MEMORANDUM TO: The Planning Commission FROM: Bob Minton DATE: April 23, 1994 RE: The American Planning Association conference in San Francisco The conference was extremely large, with 4171 registrants from the United States, Canada and 10 other countries. The foreign countries were mostly English speaking countries, but it did include Italy. Australia had a delegation of 10 at the meeting. Locally, there were representations from St. Paul, Minneapolis, The Metropolitan Council, Plymouth, Maple Grove, New Brighton, Chaska, Bloomington, Duluth, Mankato and probably many others that I did not have a chance to meet. St. Cloud sent 6 to the conference, 2 from the City Council, 2 from the Planning Commission and 2 from staff. On the first three days, the schedule included a series of workshops designed especially for planning commissioners. Although a few staff attended these workshops, most participants were fellow commissioners, and it was equivalent to three days of excellent • training and discussion. The workshops covered many of the basics, such as the purpose, history, role and duties of planning commissions, and dealt with many of the issues we have been wrestling with. Here are some tidbits. 1. Conflict of Interest In some states, making a decision with a conflict of interest is by legislation a crime, usually a misdemeanor, but in Texas it is a "third degree felony." Even if it is not a crime, and undisclosed and undeclared conflict of interest can cause a decision to be legally challenged and overturned. In most places, the procedure is not only to abstain and vacate the seat, but also to leave the room. If a commissioner needs to speak to the issue, it is to be another person or an attorney. On the other hand, in Anchorage, Alaska, if a commissioner declares a conflict, the law requires the other commissioners to take a vote to affirm that it is really a conflict, to make sure that the commissioner is not trying to abdicate his or her responsibility in making a decision. 2. Ex Parte Contacts. This is the legal term for all contacts outside of the official meeting regarding an application. There are a handful of states where all ex parte contacts are strictly prohibited by law, period. In most states it is not prohibited, but all contacts must be disclosed, and if they are not, it could be a basis for legally challenging a decision. When • interested parties contact a commissioner, it is extremely important not to express any