02/09/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

drafted a letter on this rezoning request which was read into the Planning Com- mission records. He said he would not participate in debate or vote on the issue. not because he agreed with the contention that his wife's actions as a citizen in any way coincided with his own and he should disqualify himself on that basis alone. but because he did not want to cast an unfavorable light on ~ whatever action the Council did take. He said the Council decision should ,., not be cluttered by any appearance of an unfair hearing. He stated that neither he nor his wife had any financial interest in the property unde~ con- sideration, and that he had not received, read, or known about the existence of the letter in question until he received the request to disqualify himself. He said the letter was written by his wife in carrying out her duties as an officer of the neighborhood organization, and he felt the type of contention raised would tend to discriminate against all married persons. Mr. Murray continued that if the Council honored this objection, then its members as citizens would find themselves severely limited in their activities. He asked the city attorney to comment on the substance of the objection itself. Stan Long. assistant city attorney, suggested that the notice of challenge be made a part of this record. He noted there is a city code provision that no member may vote on any issue involving a spouse, business partner, etc.. that code provision being an image of state law covering qualifications for plan- ning commission members which was adopted by the city at the time of amendment concerning quasi-judicial issues. The state law. he said. refers to significant, substantial financial interest. And although "financial" is not referred to in the city code. he said it was clear to him that any "interest" referred to sub- stantial pecuniary or financial interest. Mr. Long continued that at the time the city code provision was adopted, there was some fear that the language of the state law about financial interest was less clear; at the same time it was recognized that common law would prevent a person from voting on his own interest. He said it would prevent a member from voting when he or she ~ or the spouse had a direct substantial pecuniary interest in the subject matter.'" Councilman Murray interpreted that to mean in a technical sense that he would be allowed to vote on this rezoning request. However, he declared his intent . to abstain so as not to clutter the issue. He felt it unfortuante, however, because he had made preparations on this issue to try to offer himself as a "guinea pig" to try to clear up some more restrictive interpretations of the Council's rights under Fasano regulations. He read a letter stating what he had intended to do, saying he wanted to make known to the other Council members his intent to establish a clear record on the Fasano decision at the first opportunity to at least partially establish some of the rights .traditionally belonging to city councils. Councilwoman Beal said she would have voted in favor of Mr. Murray's par- ticipatingin this rezoning issue. She resented the challenge to Mr. Murray's participation on the grounds presented. and said she did not feel it was proper behavior. Councilman Haws asked if a council member's declaration of abstention was something for the Council to vote on- could the Council deny Mr. Murray's request? Mr. Long answered that when a council member has been challenged, the member is given an opportunity to make a statement in response to the challenge, after which he is given the opportunity to make his own decision about whether to participate. The procedure. he said, would simply avoid the appearance of being partial and is a matter of the member's own judgment. .-.' If the member's decision is to participate. then the public body is afforded ,., the opportunity to determine whether it agrees with the decision. In the interest of preserving the body's own integrity, he said, the body could dis- qualify the member if the member refused to disqualify him/herself. 2/9/76 - 4 1010