City of Ashland, Oregon / Administration / White papers / Planning Commission Appointment
Planning Commission Appointment
Please title this page. (Page 3)
Charter Review Committee
Planning Commission Appointment
Date: January 5, 2005
Sub Committee Members: Michael Riedeman and Hal Cloer
Issue Statement:
Should the appointment of Planning Commission members be proposed by city
council members in addition to the mayor?
Background:
The Planning Commission is an unelected city body granted the following powers
and duties:
1. Recommend to the city council and all other public authorities plans
concerning the future growth, development and regulation of the municipality
in respect to: its streets, traffic, parking, housing, sanitation, public
utilities, parks, grounds, transportation facilities, public and private
building usage and size, zoning regulations, and the industrial and the economic
needs of the community.
2. Study and propose measures for: the promotion of the public interest,
health, morals, safety, comfort, convenience, and welfare of the City and
of the area six (6) miles adjacent thereto.
3. Study needs of local industries with a view to strengthening and developing
them and stabilizing employment conditions.
4. Advertise the industrial advantages and opportunities of the city and
availability of real estate within the city for industrial settlement.
5. Encourage industrial settlement within the city.
6. Make economic surveys of present and potential industrial needs of the
city.
7. Do and perform all other acts and things necessary or proper to carry
out the provisions of O.R.S. 227.010 to 227.150.
(http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/227.html).
In the past year, a number of community members spoke at city council meetings
and editorialized in the local newspaper expressing dismay over the mayor's
use of his sole power to appoint and not re-appoint Planning Commission members.
As a result, it was proposed that the Charter Review Committee engage in
discussions to determine whether the whole city council should be the "appointing
authority" for Planning Commission members rather than the mayor alone.
Budget Implications: None
Pros:
Ø With the Planning Commission's broad power to recommend and study
city planning and advertise for and encourage industrial settlement, some
concerned citizens feel this commission's authority, in particular, is too
extensive to be granted to an unelected body with all members selected by
one elected official. More councilor input would allow for more direct citizen
representation.
Ø This change would add little or no additional time to city council
meetings or effort to councilors to give initial input in recommending applicants
than under the current system since councilors already approve commissioners
and do whatever research they feel is necessary regarding the candidates.
Candidates would still apply to the city in general; councilors would need
not search them out.
Ø Under the current system, councilors have no authority to approve
a mayor's de-appointment of a Planning Commissioner, which proved quite
controversial this year.
Cons:
Ø The current system is more streamlined. This view suggests that
it would cause undue additional work for councilors and add much extra time
to city council meetings to have councilors select which applicants they
would like to recommend while it is quicker for the mayor to make the picks
and have councilors simply approve the mayor's choices or not.
Ø Ethical considerations and conflicts of interest are adequately
covered under Planning Commission membership restrictions (listed in ORS
227.030) .
*Giving the mayor sole authority over Planning commission appointments strengthen
his/her leadership role.
Summary:
The Charter Review Committee must evaluate several factors related to this:
1. Whether it would better represent citizens for one mayor or for all councilors
(including the mayor) to recommend Planning Commission members for appointment.
2. Whether council members should have a vote regarding de-appointment of
a commissioner.
3. Whether any perceived benefit of such a change would be overshadowed by
any perceived increased burden of work in granting councilors official power
to recommend Planning Commission members from among the list of applicants.
Resource for this Report:
City of Ashland, Planning Commission website:
http://www.ashland.or.us/CCBIndex.asp?CCBID=198
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 227): http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/227.html
related:
Ashland City Council meeting minutes:
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?AMID=1641,
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?AMID=1649
Ashland Daily Tidings guest columns:
http://www.dailytidings.com/2004/0430/043004forum.shtml,
http://www.dailytidings.com/2004/0506/050604forum.shtml,
Rogue Valley IMC http://www.rogueimc.org/en/2004/04/2478.shtml
|