HomeMy WebLinkAbout10d 9-23-22 Sirceley Potential friendly amendment to PC Bylaw revisionFrom:Matt Sircely
To:Hull, Richard; Joel Peterson; Planning Commission Desk; Brent Butler; Cynthia Koan; Mike Nilssen
Subject:Potential friendly amendment to PC Bylaw revision
Date:Friday, September 23, 2022 4:34:15 PM
ALERT:BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Hello Chair Hull, Commissioners Koan and Nilssen,
cc Joel, PC Desk, Director Butler
Please review this *potential* friendly amendment to the proposed bylaw
revisions. This language intends to revise Section 14, Appearance of
Fairness, which is currently slated for deletion.
The title could be anything we wish — such as: "Public Disclosure
Requirements and Ethical Standards"
The JCPC is an advisory body only, does not engage in quasi-
judicial actions, and is not bound by strict adherence to procedural
doctrines associated with work which comprises judicial or quasi-
judicial review. Nonetheless, work we perform for our community
carries the spirit and intentions of public service, and we maintain
awareness of ethical frameworks as established, maintained, and
revised by the AIPC (https://www.planning.org/ethics/). We
maintain mindfulness of all relevant laws and guidelines which
might apply to our work, including the right to a fair hearing (RCW
42.36.110), and applicable provisions of the Open Public Meetings
Act.
===
This is where I saw a reference to the RCW, and I would like to confirm
that I'm reading this correctly: https://mrsc.org/getmedia/04ae5092-48df-
4964-91d7-2a9d87cb2b7c/Appearance-Of-Fairness-Doctrine-In-
Washington-State.pdf.aspx?ext=.pdf
RCW 42.36.110
Right to fair hearing not impaired.
Nothing in this chapter prohibits challenges to local land use decisions
where actual violations of an individual's right to a fair hearing can be
demonstrated.
The document concludes:
Fair Hearings Have Precedence RCW 42.36.110 – Nothing in this
chapter prohibits challenges to local land use decisions where actual
violations of an individual's right to a fair hearing can be demonstrated.
Even though some conduct might not violate the statutory provisions of
the appearance of fairness doctrine, a challenge could still be made if an
unfair hearing actually results... Because it is often difficult to sort out
the many functions of local decision-making bodies, a clear line cannot
always be drawn between judicial, legislative, and administrative
functions. If the proceedings seem similar to judicial proceedings then
they probably warrant the special protections called for by the
appearance of fairness doctrine.
The MRSC guidance in general supports our approach, I'm working to find
the right words for it. I'd love to hear your thoughts. Feel free to forward
to the whole Planning Commission if you feel this substitution might be
applicable as it is.
MRSC link: https://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-
Topics/Legal/Ethics/Appearance-of-Fairness
I included the AIPC reference because there are efforts underway to keep
the document current and evolving with the times. At the Planning
Director's retreat, there was mention of this year's innovations and new
developments in their guidance frameworks. Regardless of whether we are
bound by the rules, I believe it is appropriate for us to maintain an
awareness of professional conduct as reflected in up-to-date AIPC
publications. If we are not bound by enforcement provisions, I believe we
still should be aware of the "aspirational principles" and the "rules of
practice and behavior" as defined by AIPC.
Thank you for your consideration and for all your hard work!
Matt