Just for clarity, the SFPC is supposed to have 9 members, they currently have 8. When Councilor Pat Starr asked planning staff at the city council meeting Tuesday night about how an agenda item can pass the SFPC with just 3 votes the staffer said that they are short a member right now and that the chair cannot vote and with 2 recusals they could only get 3 votes for approval but was considered ‘quorum’.
I love how they just make the rules up as they go along.
I have argued for a long time we wouldn’t have these issues if there wasn’t so many conflicts of interest on the board.
I hold nothing against members who invest in development and contracting work, they are volunteers after all, but this position shouldn’t be a stepping stone to make sure your deals go thru and with turning most of the agenda into ‘consent’ we have NO clue what projects are getting approved that they are involved with.
Every member should be required to say what specific item they have a conflict with and why. Some members have done it in the past but most just say ‘I have a conflict, bye’.
I feel sorry for the members of the public who have to address the SFPC, because by the time an item makes it to the board, the decision has already been made and they kick it over to the rubber stampers to seal the deal.
During the Active Transportation Board meeting yesterday a constituent asked how they can get more involved and a city employee told them they need to start going to subcommittee meetings. I told this person afterwards that is the runaround the city gives you when you try to make changes to city ordinance. I told him I work directly with my elected officials. We elect them to help us with reasonable requests, they can go to the 9 AM meetings on a Wednesday morning and report back.
Isn’t quorum 40% according to Robert’s Rules, which would be 3.6 based on 9 or 3.2 based on 8? But in either case the threshold is has not been met unless 3.2 is rounded to 3, but then you also then have to accept the premise that 40% is based on the current members, which is 8, and not the committee of the whole which would be 9.
( and Woodstock adds: “Say, VSG, have you been hanging out at Pizza Ranch lately with Mike, or what?”… (…”But then again, maybe recusals make the ‘current membership’ even less?”… 🙁 ….. ))
VSG, this is NOT about a quorum, it is about the fact that our planning commission is stacked with peeps who have conflicts. At least the chair doesn’t, but she also does not vote. While I should not be laughing, I find it comical we are running our city government like the The He-Man Woman Haters Club (see what I did there VSG)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OTYdizres8
https://www.amazon.com/Roberts-Rules-Order-Newly-Revised/dp/1541797701/ref=asc_df_1541797701?tag=bingshoppinga-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=79989562810675&hvnetw=o&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-4583589110556568&psc=1
l3wis,
I totally understand the concern about conflict of interest and the Planning Commission, but your first paragraph zeroes-in on quorum. So, that’s why I went there.
When the President gives his State of the Union address, one member of his/her Cabinet does not attend the address to guarantee continuity of government encase a God forbid national tragedy should unfold during the address. So, my question is: Has the PC taken this into consideration, too, or does the inherent policy of conflict of interest guarantee a continuity of special interest regardless? 😉
( and Woodstock adds: “Oh, and with The He-Man Woman Haters Club, perhaps, camping is an option, huh?”… )