Suzy Ageton George Karakehian KC Becker Tim ... - City of Boulder

appearances of impropriety, or absences. The provision presented in the proposed ordinance is
similar to a provision that was provided for the Landmarks Board in 1995. See Ord. 5712.
The Planning Board has discussed how conflicts of interest or scheduled absences among board
members impact the ability of the board to carry out provisions of the land use code. Often
residents who serve on the board may have ties to applicants or opponents to land use
applications that create either conflicts of interest or are permitted to recuse themselves on
matters that may create appearances of impropriety. This, combined with the fact that the board
members are volunteers that have other obligations that they are required to fulfill, can lead to
meetings where there is just a quorum to hear the matter.
The city Charter and the Boulder Revised Code require that the Planning Board have at least four
votes to take action on any manner. Operating with a quorum and the four vote requirement
often is not a problem when dealing with projects that are noncontroversial. However, from time
to time, the board finds itself dealing with a controversial matter and only a quorum. The board
recognizes that it would be helpful to have the ability to request that the mayor, with consent of
the council, appoint alternates to fill the board.
This provision is intended to be used for items of importance so that the board can, at a
minimum, reach a quorum or, potentially, a full board. It is not intended to be used if a board
member is simply out of town or ill. If a board member requests appointment of an alternate due
to a real or perceived conflict of interest or absence, and the board authorized a replacement, past
eligible board members would be contacted by staff to determine a former board member’s
availability and willingness to serve. The alternate board member would only sit on the board
for the particular item in which the current board member has a conflict or during an absence.
For example, in the case of a conflict of interest, the current board member would recuse him or
herself and the alternate board member would be seated in his or her place to hear that particular
item. Once the agenda item is completed the alternate member would be dismissed and the
current board member would join the board for the remainder of the meeting.
The ordinance would allow the board to ask the mayor, with consent of the council, to appoint
former board members who remain eligible to serve the board under the city Charter and city
ordinances. For example, former board members holding a position on another city board or who
have moved outside of the city limits would not be considered eligible for appointment.
Interest has been expressed that the appointment of alternate board members be done in a nonpolitical
manner. The administrative practice used in the past for the Landmarks Board is
intended to avoid that problem. That process is described above.
In order to be clear about the appointment process, staff has drafted a proposed amendment to
the council’s procedural rules that clearly states the process for appointment. It is based on
Landmarks Board’s past practice. Since the Planning Board is a larger body, a provision has
been added that sets a rule to address a situation when more than one member has departed at the
same time. Language for this rule change is shown in Attachment B.
Agenda Item 3L Page 3