4/22/03 - UPDATE - (4/21/03 City Council Meeting) City Manager requested
the Council pull the proposed "Administrative Directives" off the agenda.
He stated they were a drafted as a response to a previous Council's
request for guidelines about public written testimony. He stated the
two directives about written testimony needed more work in order to comply
with state laws and requirements, and would bring them back to the City Council
at a later date. Most of the City Council responded favorably to his
request to pull the directives from the agenda, and indicated concern about
the proposed restrictions.
4/21/03
The following "Administrative Directives"
are to be considered by the Florence City Council at their
April 21, 2003 Council meeting
7:00 p.m., Florence City Hall
This may be the last City meeting at which those of
you who do not like to (or are unable to) speak in public will be able
to submit meaningful written comments.
If the City Council adopts these two policies, the public will not
be assured that their written testimony submitted at the time of hearings
or council meetings will be considered. Often, the public is restricted
to only 3 minutes to present their testimony or convey their opinions or
requests. The public will have to submit written comments well in advance
of any meeting, even if the information upon which the City will be deliberating
is not available to the public at the time of the city's "administrative"
deadline for comments.
In addition, this type of public participation restriction may not
be legal. See
Oregon
Revised Statutes, 197.763
Proposed Policy on Written Testimony for Public Hearings
Staff reports and background information for public hearings are
SELDOM available to the public until the day of the hearing, and therefore
it would not be possible for the public to comment on information which
the staff is submitting on the record. The majority of hearings lead
to a final decision on the night of the hearing. If this policy is
adopted by the City Council, it would place an extremely prejudicial burden
on public participation.
For example, the Planning Commission is deliberating a very controversial
issue about expanding the City's Urban Growth Boundary on Tuesday, April
22. As of Friday evening, April 18, the staff report upon which the
Planning Commission is expected to heavily rely and base its decision, was
still in a draft form and contained "xxxx" in places where very important
data was still missing. The cut-off date for written testimony as
directed by the Planning Commission was one day earlier, April 17.
Possible impact: Under this new policy, if new information
was discovered six days before the hearing, the public's written comments
would not be considered by the council or commission
unless
the council or commission decided to continue the hearing to another date.
Proposed Policy on Written Comments for City Council
Agendas may be available on Thursdays, but staff reports and background
information is SELDOM avilable to the public before late afternoon on Friday,
(if then) and therefore it is not possible for the public to comment on
information which the staff is submitting to the council.
For example, in this instance alone, if the Agenda for the April
21 council meeting (this meeting) had been reviewed, the only information
which would have been available to the public - on which to comment - would
have been:
"Consent Agenda: 2. Administrative Directives. Consider
approval of four administrative directives to be filed in the Administrative
Procedures Book for future reference."
That is all that is stated on the agenda. This seemingly innocuous
agenda item description certainly did not inform a reviewer of the possible
impact on their ability to communicate with the City Council in the future.
As it is on the Consent Agenda, the Council may not have even discussed
the issue, just approved it and the public would have been unaware of what
had been approved.
For example, if a member of the public had seen the Agenda, but had not
one gone back down to City Hall and asked for a copy of the Council Meeting
Packet the following day, they would not have even known that their right
of free speech and right to participate in their government actions was
being eroded.
Possible impact: Under this new policy, if new information
was discovered three days before the council meeting, the public's written
comments
would not be considered by the council or commission
unless
the a majority of the city council voted to allow the comments.
This may be your last chance to submit written testimony to the City
Council at the time of the meeting. Write and tell them what you
think about the City Manager's proposed "directives".
Write to: Florence City Council
250 Hwy. 101
Florence, Oregon 97439
e-mail:
Rodger Bennett, City Manager -
rodger.bennett@ci.florence.or.us
Alan Burns, Mayor -
alanb@oregonfast.net
Dave Braley, City Councilor -
dbraley@fs.fed.us
Phil Brubaker, City Councilor -
phil@carterandcarter.com
Donna Lee, City Councilor -
d.lee@mycidco.com
Nan Osbon, City Councilor -
nanandoz@oregonfast.net
CITY OF FLORENCE
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE