Giving commissioners an earful

Happy Monday! Let’s talk.

This used to be so easy, talking to county commissioners.

The board meets twice a month. Each meeting has an “open to the public” portion. This is the time citizens use a few minutes of their lives to express an opinion to elected leaders.

---

Some folks are open-to-the-public veterans. They show up at most meetings and are out of the seats as soon as the chair opens the floor for comment. Commissioner Janet Barek was once of that crowd, having attended more board meetings than just about any of her current colleagues.

And my gosh, what a simple process. People say their piece. Commissioners respond. Perhaps, just possibly, problems are solved. It’s called open communication, one that commissioners and citizens say they strive for.

So, of course, let’s screw it up.

I blame lawmakers who are lawyers, because who else but a lawyer could have come up with the idea of treating zoning cases like criminal trials. Suggesting commissioners are the same as judges and, therefore, cannot be “prejudiced” by hearing a whisper of the case outside of the public hearing is simply asinine. 

It’s one of the dumbest government rules I’ve ever seen, meant to give advantages to developers (that’s a whole other blog) and cut citizens off from their representative government.

And now, because of foolish action on behalf of our County Commission chair, we’re stuck with even dumber rules to silence citizens. And commissioners will have a discussion Tuesday about what to do about that.

A quick recap:

I’ve covered the quasi-judicial issue in detail. If commissioners have any communication with anyone associated with a land-use case, they must disclose it. All they have to do is answer “Yes” when the county attorney asks if they’ve had ex parte communication. They don’t have to say what the communication was (I know…another dumb rule. Why have a rule that requires disclosure if the rule doesn’t actually require, um, DISCLOSURE?)

How it looks in real life: When the county attorney asked if commissioners had ex parte communication in Metro Development Group’s Tuscany Ranch mega zoning case, Chair Rebeca Bays simply answered, “Yes.”

She didn’t explain that her actions are the very reason why we’re in this latest quasi-judicial quagmire.

We wouldn’t have strict rules about what can and can't be said by citizens at the lectern if Chair Bays hadn’t worked behind the scenes with representatives of Metro Development Group in trying to get state funding to widen C.R. 491, prior to commissioners hearing the Tuscany zoning case.

I’m not going to rehash the whole thing, but Bays’ communications with Metro were wildly inappropriate; the quasi-judicial law is meant to prevent situations like this.

It was in the wake of the 491 mess that, suddenly and without warning, citizens were no longer even allowed to mention a zoning case unless in the actual public hearing.

Citizens will occasionally offer an opinion on a future land-use case. No biggie. Normally, commissioners listen politely and say nothing. Similar to the response anyone gets in an email about a zoning case. Commissioners are to offer no opinion before the public hearing.

OK, that makes sense. But shutting down citizens at the mic? Under the guise of quasi-judicial fairness? That’s ridiculous.

Commissioner Jeff Kinnard has an item on Tuesday’s agenda that potentially solves both the “disclosure” loophole and allows citizens regular access to commissioners.

Kinnard is relying on a statute that basically states counties can create their own ordinances to address quasi-judicial matters. He copied a Pasco County ordinance that mirrors the statute. There’s a simple proposed form that county commissioners (and planning commissioners) would fill out detailing quasi-judicial communications.

Count me in. This is the best idea, short of getting rid of the quasi-judicial process in land-use cases altogether, to address the fly in the ointment. If commissioners want to chat with developers about their pending land-use cases, that should require more than a simple “yes.” Details, we want details.

Kinnard’s idea not only eliminates the mystery of quasi-judicial, it removes any reason for the chair to shut people down at the lectern during “open to the public” simply because they wander into a topic that’s coming up at a future zoning hearing.

Here’s the thing about county commissioners and their rules. They can make them easy for the public, or not. We’ll find out Tuesday: Do they really want our opinions, or is that just talk?

Have a great Monday, friends.

Join the discussion on our Facebook page.

Support the blog by subscribing to JWC Inner Circle for 99 cents/month.

Individual donations are appreciated through Venmo, PayPal, or Patreon.