A consent agenda is SOP at every planning commission meeting that I have
attended across the country; it may not sit well when things are added to it at
the beginning of a meeting, but they often are and if you have a beef with any
given item, it is always on you to sign up to comment by the beginning of a
meeting. These bodies, even in smaller towns, have a tremendous amount to get
through and if an item is judged uncontroversial, it is natural to add it to
the consent agenda; you can never assume that your item will not be handled
this way.
If you truly have or believe there is conflict between binding plans and a
proposed project or policy, you should take it up at the City Council meeting;
after that, you can sue.
Certainly if your group had contacted CPED and let them know you were going to
be there to speak to the issue, it would never have gone on the consent agenda,
so this really seems like a personal or organizational problem on your end.
Chalk it up to experience and move on, please.
> On Aug 5, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Saralyn Romanishan
<<email obscured>> wrote:
>
> Many people that have had dealings with the Planning Commission (CPC) and
Zoning & Planning (Z&P) have experienced frustration with the increasing (in my
opinion) overuse and misuse of consent agendas and the fact that their
operating policies seem to be different than those of the city council. There
are wide reaching affects to Commission and Committee decisions that negate the
public's ability to participate in the process. A friend recently described an
experience regarding an agenda item and when seeing these posts, requested that
I add her experience to the comments. See below:
>
> CLPC arrived at 4:40 to testify on a Small Area Plan done by the city
covering Loring Park which DID NOT reflect items already approved in our Master
Plan, also approved by Met Council and amended to the City's Comp Plan. This
Pathways to Places plan, we were told, drives prioritization of staff and
resources. So we wanted elements of our approved plan reflected to ensure
implementation and dedication of city staff to assist us moving forward. They
were on Item #2. As the Commission voted on Items #8 and #9 we prepared for
Testimony. We had sat there for 1.5 hrs. Then, they adjourned the meeting. We
were stunned. We went and talked to staff and commissioners to find out what
happened to Item #10. We were told that you have to be there at exactly 4:30.
Under 'approve agenda' they ask if anyone was here to speak on a Public
Hearing. If not they move the Items to consent. They had already approved the
Plan with no testimony. We were Item #10. Why would we be there early? It
DOES NOT say under 'approve agenda' that 'if you are not present at 4:30 and no
one is in the room at that time to say they are speaking, the item goes to
consent'. What a violation of Public Trust. How contrary is this to stated
rhetoric of inclusivity? Direct violation of City Council
>
> Approved Principles of Community Engagement. And let me just add that Scott
Vreeland and the city staff assigned DEFENDED the process. Justifying a
process not visible on the Publicly Posted Agenda on the City of Minneapolis
website. Shameful. At least Commissioner Rockwell said he was sorry and
understood what we were saying. Oh yes, they did say that they posted on the
door of Room 317 what business they had completed. We walked right by it and
gave it no notice. Most importantly, what difference did that make, except
making our point of an unfair, non transparent, non equitable process. My
Boardmember, a Union Organizer lost 2 hours of work sitting there. The
expectation that someone should be there at the beginning of a 2 hr meeting
when they are last in the agenda is outrageous and speaks of priviledge. Folks
take off work and pay babysitters and PAY for parking to be able to have a
voice. Well if the city wants participation they'd better review processes
like this which prevents it. Unacceptable I say. Send this concern directly
to City Attorney Susan Segal and remember how you are treated as a citizen with
a legal right to give input at PUBLIC HEARINGS and remember when you don't.
Bring up at all Candidate Forums next year.
Rest of post
>
>
>
> Jana Metge, Coordinator
> Citizens for a Loring Park Community
>
>