CC_Minutes_2019_0708 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,July 8,2019 Page 13 Chair Bull interacted with the other Commission Members, which was not very respectful, especially at the end when the Commissioners were trying to call to question and Chair Bull refused and continued on. He thought there were some problems with the process from his perspective of how the Chair was handling it. Having served on Commissions recently, it is important that the Commission Members have respect for the Chair, feel the Chair is impartial, and does a good job but he did not see that happening. He would have a problem with Commis- sioner Bull continuing as Chair of the Planning Commission. Etten moved, Groff seconded, to remove Chair Bull from the Planning Commis- sion for the reasons laid out; serious legal concerns for the City in the process that was handled; and that there would be a possibility in the future that Chair Bull would do the same thing. Council Discussion Councilmember Groff reiterated what Councilmember Etten stated in that it opens the City to legal issues and the Council does not know what he would do in the future. Mr. Bull does not realize how he handled that and how other people re- sponded to it, as can be seen in the Email that was sent out. Councilmember Laliberte thought the Council knew there was not a violation of the City Ethics Code as written but it was probably a couple of short months ago that there was ethics presentation and it is all about the perception. She did have concern about not being sensitive and responsible enough to see the perception problem that was created. Regarding the running of the meeting, she was unsure whether that was a new Chair running a very long meeting that was complicated or whether she felt there was intent. She watched the meeting live as it was going on and it was hard to tell not being in the room what someone's intent was. What she struggled with is the judgement piece, which she totally agrees with,but she is interested in the City Attorney's counsel, comment regarding someone's First Amendments Rights vs. their Commission appointment. City Attorney Gaughan stated it is true that an elected official or Commission ap- pointment does not check their First Amendment Rights at the door, but he thought that is not part and parcel to this discussion. It is not a question of wheth- er or not a particular person had a particular view on a topic and voiced it. It is not whether or not that opinion can be voiced, it is the question of whether it is appropriate to do that publicly prior to presiding over a public hearing on behalf of the City as a whole. He did not view Mr. Bull's First Amendment Rights as being central to this discussion. Councilmember Laliberte thanked City Attorney Gaughan for his opinion. She asked if the issue was that Mr. Bull presided over the meeting and did not follow counsel as a Commission Member. She struggled with that and wondered if it is