Laserfiche WebLink
RULE 6 -7 — STANDARDS OF CONDUCT <br />Motion: Vice -Chair Campbell moved to receive recommended amendments to rules of <br />practice and procedure for Rules 1, 64(a), 6 -4(b) and 6 -7(b). Seconded by Commissioner <br />Garcia. All members voted aye, motion carried. <br />Ms. Springer then asked if they want to include in their rules a procedure for removing properties <br />from the priority list upon owner's request and a process for creating the priority list. <br />Ms. Self replied that because this is an evolving process then maybe this is not something that <br />should be done yet. <br />Ms. Springer then informed the Commissioners that each report submitted has since been refined <br />as long as they are clear in the annual report to the Mayor the means by which they arrived to <br />their decision making. <br />Ms. Garcia commented that they should take into consideration disclosing in the annual report on <br />the landowner's willingness to sell. <br />Mr. Flores suggested that they draft some guidelines of how to process the forms. Ms. Springer <br />said they could include it in the report. <br />Ms. Garcia noted that she don't feel they should remove anything from the list, however, <br />prioritize public access easements /vehicular easements and focus on the small projects since <br />there's no money available for big purchases. <br />Mr. Campbell stressed that he does not agree that the property should be removed from the list <br />even if the landowner doesn't want to sell and feels that they don't have the authority to remove <br />anything since they're just an advisory. <br />Ms. Self told the Commission that they have complete and total authority and the decision to add <br />or remove properties from the list before the report gets to the Mayor. <br />Mr. Campbell stressed that it's unethical and we shouldn't let the landowners "bully" us to <br />remove the property from the list regardless of their willingness to sell. <br />Mr. Flores said that they will still evaluate the property and it will be on the overall list, but it <br />makes no sense to include it on the priority list if the landowner has no interest in selling. <br />Ms. Springer feels that this issue could be automatically defused if the Commission uses a <br />subjective process rather than numerical scoring. Therefore, they would have a discussion and <br />vote on the priority properties based on the availability and the characteristics of the parcel, and <br />not by how high it scored. <br />-3- <br />