Though it hasn't been on many agendas lately, the formation of the Comp Plan Committee in the city has been getting a good deal of discussion as of late by the members of the City Council, but they aren't the only ones.

Four people spoke out against the Comprehensive Committee that has been formed by Mayor Scott Johnson over the objections and without the input of the four other members of the City Council. If you'll recall, Johnson formed the vast majority of the committee by himself without formally informing any of the City Council members in late2012.

In his State of the City Address in mid-January, he informed the City Council they could have some say in the committee, but later clarified that the four of them could submit recommendations for the13-member committee, after already choosing 11 members. (He also suggested they choose one of the people he had already picked.)

Only Public Works Commissioner Anthony “Skip” Scirocco submitted a recommendation (from the list of suggestions). The other three Commissioners (all Democrats, unlike Johnson and Scirocco, which I'm sure is just coincidence), did not submit recommendations. They also tabled a vote on hiring a consultant for the process, later calling the whole thing “Dead on arrival.”

I'm planning a follow-up on the whole thing this week to see whether the committee is going to be meeting without the consultant or not, but I figured while I wait for this executive session to be over I'd post some of the public comments for the meeting to the blog.

The first to voice concerns about the formation of the committee was City Democratic Committee Chair Charles Brown.

He said “If all of the commissioners had a say in how that board was picked, it would be a different board, but perhaps not that drastically,” but he said what would be different would be the sense in the city that everyone had played a role in the formation of what everyone agrees is perhaps the second-most important document in the city.

“I would think the democratic process would dictate that we would bend over backwards to ensure all of the voices were heard, since we all live in the city,” he said.

Two others also spoke in general terms, one chastising the mayor and asking he be more conciliatory, and the other saying more renewable energy interests should be included.

In a very eloquent appeal to inclusion, Theresa Cappozola called on City Council to disband the current committee and enact another “in a more democratic manner.”

Capazola pointed out that “the overwhelming majority of members represent development interests or rely on development interests.”

She said she and others who do not support development in the city's “Green Belt” have “become powerless against development because they always seem to be in control and we don't have a seat at the table.

“This is a comprehensive plan,” she said, “not a development plan.”

She also asked the rest of the City Council not to vote for any consultants for the project because it would “merely legitimize” the committee which she said is “overly and improperly weighted to development interests.”

The way the committee was formed, she said, has stripped the public of “our small amount of power at the polls” since four of the city's five commissioners were not involved in the process. “This is history repeating itself,” she said. “This is the same fight and the community never wins.”

Anyway, I'll be following up on this, since the last I talked to the mayor about it he said he didn't know if they were going forward with meetings without a consultant.

For anyone who missed the article, the first shots of the battle over the Comprehensive Planning Committee were fired Tuesday at the City Council meeting Tuesday when a vote on hiring a consultant to help with the review of the Comprehensive Plan was tabled until the appointment of the committee was addressed.

I was off yesterday, so one of the editors put a call into Mayor Scott Johnson to see if he would be naming the committee at the State of the City Address tonight, but he played it coy it seems.

From the article:

On Wednesday, Johnson called the recent opposition to his naming the committee a “wrinkle, but not insurmountable.”

“I will be addressing this during the State of the City tomorrow evening,” he said, though he declined to give details ahead of the speech, which is set for 7 tonight in the City Center.
 

I'll be there with bells on tonight, so I guess we'll see how this plays out.

 

A fight may be brewing over the appointment of a Comprehensive Planning Committee, expected later this week at the State of the City Address.

Mayor Scott Johnson had originally been planning to unveil the committee by the end of last year, but he said he was still waiting on commitments from some members when New Year's came and went, so he decided to wait until Jan. 17th for the State of the City.

"It seemed appropriate," he told me last week.

Well, he might have waited too long for his own good.

At the Monday morning City Council meeting, the seeds of discontent were planted by two members of the City Council.

Finance Commissioner Michele Madigan and Public Safety Commissioner Christian Mathiesen both questioned the mayor's role in appointing a Comprehensive Planning Committee, which will be charged with reviewing the city's (wait for it) Comprehensive Plan. That document is basically a blueprint of how the city would like itself to look in the next decade or so.

"It's one of the city's most important documents," Madigan told me a couple hours after the meeting.

She and Mathiesen expressed their concerns about the fact that the mayor is appointing the entire committee.

"I can't find anything specific in our charter that the mayor appoints," Mathiesen said. Both he and Madigan cited Department of State documents which say it is the responsibility of the "legislative body" to appoint a committee or review the Comp Plan themselves.

On Page 16 of the Dept. of State's Guide to Planning and Zoning Laws, it defines the prepreation as follows:

"The legislative body of the city, or by resolution of such body, the
planning board or a special board, may prepare a proposed city
comprehensive plan and amendments thereto. In the event the planning board
or special board is directed to prepare a proposed comprehensive plan or
amendment thereto, such board shall, by resolution, recommend such
proposed plan or amendment to the legislative body of the city. "

 In the city charter, it says:

"The Planning Board shall have and exercise the powers and duties as follows:

A. At the direction of the City Council, to prepare a City Comprehensive Plan for the development of the entire area of the city."

 Both Madigan and Mathiesen said they would like the issue to be looked at, though Johnson seemed a little perturbed by the whole thing.

"I can tell you at this point in time the committee has already been constituted," he said, but added "we can talk about it."

Madigan later said while she hopes the issue can be sorted out "amicably," that "If (City Council members) are legally allowed to appoint members to any commission, I would be surprised if (other City Council members) give that right up lightly. I would not give my right to choose someone so easily." 

Of course, in the city code that outlines the mayor's responsibilities (Section 3) has this little tid-bit:

F. Initiation of reviews. The Mayor shall cause a review of the City Comprehensive Plan and City Charter to be conducted periodically. The City Comprehensive Plan shall be reviewed at least every five years, commencing with the effective date of this Charter. The City Charter shall be reviewed at least every 10 years commencing with the effective date of this Charter.

That, to me, muddies the water a little.

Madigan said she was unaware of the law until it was pointed out to her last week (I don't know by who) and that she was unaware that Johnson was planning to unveil his committee members at the State of the City.

I have been talking about his plans to appoint the committee for a couple of months now, but then sadly not everyone reads my blog or articles...

Johnson did not return a call for comment, but Mathiesen evidently did Tuesday morning. I was not yet in to get his call and he is now unavailable, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens at tonight's City Council meeting.