Loading...
2012-05-29 Special Meeting rj) � �s iW KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH • PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING ui JUL 1 8 2012 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES j May 29, 2012 6:30 p.m. in the KIB AssemblydCliAmbers K'S OFFICE I CALL TO ORDER CHAIR TORRES called to order the May 29, 2012 Planning & Zoning special meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Requested to be excused was Alan Schmitt due to being out of state. Roll call was taken and commissioners present were Brent Watkins, Casey Janz, Bill Kersch, Alan Torres, Sonny Vinberg, and Rick Vahl. Excused was Alan Schmitt. A quorum was established. Community Development Department staff present was Bud Cassidy and Sheila Smith. COMMISSIONER WATKINS MOVED to excuse Alan Schmitt. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY CITIZENS' COMMENTS Maria Painter thanked the commission and you're all valuable. She knows all the reading they do to try to make good decisions but also asked that you don't make any hasty decisions tonight. Brian Cleary also thanked the commission for serving the community. He realizes there are a number of demands to serve on boards. In small communities it can be difficult to fill seats on the boards with intelligent people who can do their homework. We are intertwined in a small community when you are on a board potential issues may come up that could be viewed as a conflict of interest and must be difficult to weigh all of that. Cleary asked that when they review the conflict of interest that you keep civility in mind. CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS IN THE CALL FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING CHAIR TORRES reminded the commission that only discussion of the agenda items should be addressed, and a Point of Order should be called if the discussion goes outside of the agenda items. A) Conflict of Interest CHAIR TORRES stated he wasn't at last month's meeting but picked up a copy of the recording and after listening to it heard some confusion and things were left unsaid at that meeting. He will not be at the June meetings and wanted to ensure these things were resolved before he leaves. Torres asked staff to put together some information regarding rules and procedures for conflict of interest to go over with all commissioners. Cassidy stated this is intended as an educational session. Cassidy wants to talk about what a conflict is, the rights of the commission, the power and authority of the chairman. The chair has the initial duty to rule on the conflict but the commission has the authority to overrule the chair's ruling with a motion and a vote. If the commission decides there's a conflict then you will have to leave the dais and not participate in the discussion. In response to CHAIR TORRES' inquiry regarding on page 11 that gives an example of overruling or appealing the chair; if a commissioner wants to overrule a chair a motion is made that they appeal the chair' decision, is that correct, Smith said yes, and it requires a second to go to a vote. CHAIR TORRES asked if it's the same majority rules as normal so if we have 4 commissioners present that night the chair can't be overridden or is it a majority of commissioners present, Cassidy stated all May 29, 2012 Page 1 of 5 P &Z Special Meeting votes are the majority of the commission. Smith stated unless it requires a 2/3 vote. In response to COMMISSIONER VAHL'S inquiry that anyone on the commission could ask any commissioner if they have a potential conflict of interest and then they have the opportunity to respond regarding that, Cassidy said the duty of the chair is to explore all the issues surrounding a conflict before he makes a ruling on the conflict. The ruling of the chair is final unless appealed. In response to COMMISSIONER VAHL'S inquiry of do all commissioners bring forth as well as the chair if they think there's a conflict, Cassidy said yes, the commission has the unilateral ability to suggest someone may have a conflict and explore if that's the case. There needs to be some kind of basis for a conflict. In response to COMMISSIONER JANZ' inquiry of wouldn't it be case by case, CHAIR TORRES stated the code and he believes Robert's Rules also states that a member of the board has up until the question is called to declare a conflict but if someone wants to bring it up beforehand they can but a commissioner has up until the point the question is called. A commissioner could participate in the discussion because the question isn't called until after the discussion. COMMISSIONER VAHL feels that makes sense because you could have an ah ha moment where we just dug into something that I didn't know about where you become more familiar with the case. CHAIR TORRES added a caveat stating if he thinks someone else has a conflict and he brings it up before discussion the chair could make a ruling but the individuals have until the question is called. In response to COMMISSIONER JANZ' inquiry she recollects that we hadn't addressed the case yet, in declaring a conflict of interest shouldn't it be on a case by case basis with the case being read first, she doesn't feel her question has been answered, CHAIR TORRES said the roll call was done and he thinks it was a call from the acting chair when it happened. TORRES doesn't think there was anything wrong with doing it that way but normally it's done when the case is introduced but he doesn't think it was wrong as far as procedures. In response to COMMISSIONER VINBERG'S request for clarification that it sounds like it should be an agenda item consistently whether or not it's discovered, Cassidy said in the code it talks about how your agenda is put together and does not talk about conflict of interest in the agenda items but your format of the agenda is by code. COMMISSIONER WATKINS stated the next agenda item is for executive session and he's formally declining executive session so let's just make it part of the conversation and move on to that part of business. Smith stated that there have been commissioner's in the past who have thought they had a conflict of interest so they went to the chair ahead of the meeting to talk about it and the chair would bring it up when that case came up so it could be discussed briefly and decided on. In response to COMMISSIONER VAHL'S inquiry of can commissioners bring up the idea of a conflict of interest at a work session, Smith replied yes, it can be brought up and discussed. CHAIR TORRES stated he received a CD of the May 16th meeting and listened to it on the 17th and he wanted to make sure some things were cleared up, including the letter from COMMISSIONER WATKINS and the email from COMMISSIONER KERSCH, it seems like there were issues. The reason TORRES requested executive session be put on the agenda was because it was directed at COMMISSIONER WATKINS and he should have the opportunity for executive session since it could potentially be a personal thing. B) Executive Session a. Evaluate the Actions at the May 16, 2012 P &Z Commission Meeting CHAIR TORRES asked COMMISSIONER WATKINS again if he wanted to go into executive session and COMMISSIONER WATKINS declined stating the baseline is openness in government and he's May 29, 2012 Page 2 of 5 P &Z Special Meeting not going to limit public access. CHAIR TORRES also stressed this should be a controlled discussion with no personal attacks. During discussion COMMISSIONER WATKINS said the baseline here is conflict of interest, a direct or indirect financial interest shall be disclosed. Since COMMISSIONER VAHL has been on the commission there's been no declaration of conflict of interest. If you have an active client that pays you and that is the bulk of your income is derived from those paychecks then it's a conflict of interest that needs to be declared. That's not the case; there's money exchanged, the bulk of his income, a substantial portion of his yearly income is yielded from these billings. Did I get a little more upset than I should have, yes, and he apologized for the tone but not the content. The argument is valid, it's laid out in the code, and the people on the board that sit in the government have been excused from the broad brush of it by borough code. During discussion COMMISSIONER KERSCH expressed confusion because he works for the Post Office and customers pay for PO boxes and his salary comes from the revenue that the PO boxes bring in. so he also has a similar conflict in WATKINS vision of what a conflict is. We all went to training in Fairbanks, with the exception of COMMISSIONER WATKINS, which clarified what a conflict of interest is and WATKINS' definition is different than KERSCH'S. Nick Troxell's case was pulled by the applicant so that discussion shouldn't have even occurred. KERSCH was shocked that it got to that level and it completely turned the tone of that meeting into an unbelievable negative event. COMMISSIONER KERSCH told COMMISSIONER WATKINS that he created a hostile environment and KERSCH almost walked out. WATKINS explanation tonight didn't ratify his position. In KERSCH'S email he had written that "Mr. Vahl desires an apology" but it should have read "Mr. Vahl deserves an apology." COMMISSIONER KERSCH was extremely embarrassed and he was embarrassed for his co- commissioner who shouldn't have been treated that way. The commission discussed conflict of interest, disclosure, recusal, hostile environments, being respectful, embarrassment, accusations, ethics downslide, professionalism, and other ways it could have been dealt with. During discussion, CHAIR TORRES questioned the other commissioners whether they thought there was a conflict and there was consensus there was no conflict of interest. CHAIR TORRES stated procedurally on conflict of interest the chair makes a ruling if there is a conflict that the commission doesn't agree with a commissioner can appeal the chair's decision at that time and a vote will be taken. COMMISSIONER WATKINS stated his presentation was poor and he apologized for the discomfort he brought to the commissioners but he will not apologize for trying to keep a tight rein on ethics. If COMMISSIONER VAHL had been forthcoming with his client information then he wouldn't have been recused. C) Re- election of Officers COMMISSIONER JANZ MOVED to call for the re- election of officers for the Vice Chair position. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY CHAIR TORRES opened nominations for vice chair. COMMISSIONER KERSCH nominated COMMISSIONER VINGERG There were no more nominations. COMMISSIONER WATKINS MOVED to close nominations. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION FOR SONNY VINBERG SCHROEDER VICE CHAIR CARRIED 5 -0. The ayes were COMMISSIONERS JANZ, KERSCH, TORRES, VAHL, WATKINS (abstained but when asked if anyone wished to change their vote COMMISSIONER WATKINS changed his vote to aye). COMMISSIONER VINGERG abstained from voting. May 29, 2012 Page 3 of 5 P &Z Special Meeting D) Recommendation to the Assembly to Declare a City Seat Vacant COMMISSIONER VINGERG MOVED to withdraw agenda item D. ROLL CALL VOTE CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Alan Torres thanked everyone for coming because he wanted this resolved before the next meeting. Brent Watkins stated he'd like to see from the current borough attorney the formal layout of what is and what isn't the definition of conflict of interest in our bylaws so we have the official singular document that is officially sanctioned by our local government. He apologized again for making the commissioners uncomfortable. Casey Janz stated this has been and is a productive commission. She knows when we get passionate about something we can become a little too passionate in the way we speak about it but that's the responsibility we have as commissioners so she would take this opportunity to remind herself and rest of the commissioners that we all need to behave in a respectful manner to one another and staff She thanked Alan Torres for calling this meeting; it clarified some things and others not so clear but this was an important meeting. She thanked Alan Torres for conducting it in such a professional manner. Sonny Vinberg stated as a reminder for himself that he always asks for forgiveness for the poor use of the skill we call language. It's not often we speak eloquently; there are those who are gifted that can speak eloquently and unfortunately he's not one of those. He comes from a simple background and he likes to glean from his experiences that he's had throughout his life to be able to bring forth his thoughts and ideas. He applauded everyone for stepping up to volunteer their time to be a part of this commission. It's a passion of his to be involved in planning in our community and helping our residents, neighbors, and businesses and bringing forth a community that we all envision and hope to be a great one. That being said, he appreciates the meeting being called tonight. It was a worthwhile effort to get everything out on the table to express our opinions and differences. He values the opinions and comments that everyone makes. In response to Sonny Vinberg's inquiry regarding Alan Torres and Sonny's absence next month who will chair the meeting, Alan Torres stated the most senior member, Casey Janz. Sonny Vinberg also requested to be excused from the June regular meeting. Rick Vahl stated he still has to haul some trash and now everyone knows where he works. Alan Torres again thanked everyone for coming tonight, it's not always easy issues to discuss. The issue of conflict, the attorneys can give definitions but to rule on an example in this case he thinks it's going to be a hard thing to do because the way the rules are set up it's a hierarchy, it goes from the chair, the commission can overrule the chair, and it can go to the assembly. He encourages Cassidy to inquire for Watkins if there's a conflict here. If a situation like this comes up again he's always been of a belief that being blindsiding someone is the wrong thing to do. It doesn't do anyone any good. Sheila Smith stated that if anyone ever has any procedural questions regarding Robert's Rules, Parliamentary Procedures, or Open Meetings Act to please not hesitate to ask. Brent Watkins said he was looking for an attorney's ruling on this case, a simple what is the trigger for the conflict of interest. Is it an active client or is it case specific? He just wants to see that from the attorney that yes, is it case specific because this affects who I declare and it affects all the people the private sector declare. Alan Torres said it's a good question, and it takes everything out of the realm; is it a case specific or is it an applicant thing? May 29, 2012 Page 4 of 5 P &Z Special Meeting Casey Janz said she was concerned because she can think of some specific times when we've had borough attorney opinion on specific cases and the commission did not agree and voted against what the attorney's opinion said so if we are getting a definition that doesn't mean the commission is going to agree with that. Alan Torres said if we could get that cleared up there will be some changes not only in our bylaws but the code also. It doesn't say in our code or bylaws is a conflict based off that case, the applicant, or the client. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER JANZ MOVED to adjourn. VOICE VOTE ON MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY CHAIR TORRES adjourned the meeting at 8:08 p.m. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Pw'N; NG& I1IN COMMISS ON By: � /Lill / iii/ rli A .n Torres, C r ATTES AW _ s(A K. thoe_N j n n 1/i n beca L eila Smith, Secretary pfljkAt..li @ ,t-Lc APPROVED: June 20, 2012 May 29, 2012 Page 5 of 5 P &Z Special Meeting