This is what is done when you aren't looking

“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance.

And a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm 

themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government 

without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but

a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both.”

James Madison (1822)  

At the Planning Commission on Monday, March 10 is a Study Session on code amendments that are generally called "housekeeping".  These are supposed to be minor alterations that clean up redundancies, make code more clear and understandable, and make other minor revisions.

Buried within the generic-sounding agenda item (see below), are code revisions that are not just "housekeeping" but may have a significant impact on people's property, commercial development and city processes.  What may be minor to one person may be life-altering to another.  All CDC issues need to be given the same amount of respect and due process.  The questions here are:  1) does the meeting notice (agenda) adequately explain the scope of the issues to be studied, 2) were the parties impacted by the code amendments notified about the meeting and the amendment process, and  3) is there a better way to inform and involve citizens in the process of writing and amending codes (other than more Citizen Advisory Committees)?  NO.  NO.  YES.

State law requires that meeting notices contain enough information on topics for the average person to be able to discern what will be discussed.  Further, there are many "more important issues" to be discussed than are (vaguely) listed on the agenda.  Who decides what is "important?"  Staff or Interested Parties?

    The Public Meetings Law requires that the notice of any meeting “include a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be considered at the meeting.” ORS 192.640(1). This list should be specific enough to permit members of the public to recognize the matters in which they are interested. This requirement ordinarily would be met by dissemination of an agenda. The agenda need not go into detail about subjects scheduled for discussion or action, but it should be sufficiently descriptive so that interested persons will get an accurate picture of the agenda topics. For example, “public works contract” probably is not a sufficient description when the governing body intends to let a contract for demolition of a landmark building.

    The Public Meetings Law does not require that every proposed item of business be described in the notice. The law requires a reasonable effort to inform the public and interested persons, including news media, of the nature of the more important issues (“principal subjects”) coming before the body.  Attorney General's Public Records and Public Meetings Manual

                                                                                  * * * * * * *

From the Planning Commission's Agenda for their meeting on Monday, March 10:

8. WORK SESSION
8.1 Community Development Code Annual Housekeeping Amendments (LU 14‐0014)
Review proposed amendments to the Community Development Code (Chapter 50) to clarify and remove redundancies and add a definition to the Tree Code (Chapter 55). The proposed amendments are intended to make the code requirements more clear. Staff coordinator is Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner. 

*

From the Planning Commission's Agenda Packet Part 2: Item 8.1 Staff Memo Re-Annual CDC Amendments

On March 10, 2014, the Planning Commission will conduct a work session for proposed amendments to the Community Development Code (Chapter 50).  These amendments include 57 items from three primary sources: *  Items identified by staff through use and application of the Code (49) *   Items identified in Phase 1 of the Code Re‐Organization project (1) *   Items identified since April 2012 that address inadvertent changes by the Code Re‐       organization (5) *   Items identified by the Community (1)

* * * * * * * Up Sucker Creek has a personal issue with a proposed land use item that may be affected by these "housekeeping" amendments.  A proposed path (that is functionally useless) lies on or next to private property that this publicly-minded reporter has in interest in.  I have spoken in public forums (Planning Commission, City Council, various Open Houses, etc.) and to the planning and engineering staff that the path designation should be removed.  A public path does not belong on private land, especially on or abutting residential uses, and never without all affected property owners' approval .

CORRECTION:  

USC was incorrect in interpretation of the code on paths.  I apologize for the mistake and the assumption of unprofessional behavior by city staff.   

The advancement and diffusion of knowledge 

is the only guardian of true liberty.

  

James Madison