5.8.24 BOA Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

10 1 2 Patrick Mallett: That's what I had verbally indicated before and anticipated you proposing that.And that is page 50. Section E, 3 conduct of meetings and Section F,voting and then some statement to that effect. 4 5 Beth Bronson: If a vote needs to take place, the only thing required should be a quorum. It should not matter how many people 6 started this meeting, it should not matter how many people have to leave the meeting, it should mean that we have a quorum, we 7 should be able to proceed with the meeting. 8 9 Nathan Robinson: Isn't that what it says in D?Where it says necessary to conduct any business?Isn't that already including because 10 it's conducting any business? 11 12 Patrick Mallett: Well, I think her point is to take it out of the world of ambiguity and subjectivity to definitively. 13 14 Beth Bronson: As long as there are four members,we proceed. 15 16 Adam Beeman: How do solve that if you get a 50/50 split? 17 18 Beth Bronson: You can't. You have to have 75 percent of the vote. 19 20 Adam Beeman: So that's what I'm saying though. 21 22 Beth Bronson: We continue discussion. 23 24 Nathan Robinson:Are you saying because of the example last time and the people who were presenting said they didn't want to go 25 with four people, is that what you're talking about? 26 27 Beth Bronson: Because we gave them the option. I don't think that should be an option. We have a quorum. We either call the 28 quorum five or we call the quorum four. 29 30 Nathan Robinson: This is calling it a quorum.Was it inappropriate then to give them that choice? 31 32 Beth Bronson: That's not a question that I can answer. 33 34 Nathan Robinson:The way it's written,a quorum means you can conduct business,so was it inappropriate to give them a choice? 1 35 think in that case it had started with five,that was the problem, because it started with five and I wasn't there,and so it went down to 36 four. 37 38 Beth Bronson: It started with five and somebody recused and went down to four. 39 40 James Bryan: I'll start with just saying, I would recommend the Board leaving this alone and the particular question where the 41 continuing it both times was legal, that perfectly legal to do it. Giving the parties input on that is fine. That was legal. I think there's 42 a lot of different scenarios that could come up,and I don't want to be too focused in my own mind about what did happen, but rather 43 what could have happened, and one thing in particular is that it is different between the SUPs and appeals and variances. With 44 variances, you'll have four-fifth votes required, and if you don't have the four fifths, it will fail, so that means you could have three 45 versus two and it will fail. So those are very weird scenarios, again it's above the rules of procedures, it's above the Board of 46 Commissioners with the UDO. That's statutory. That's the state telling us that variances are different and for that I wouldn't mess 47 with the rules. I would leave it as it is now that it's the Board's discretion at the time. There may be cases in the future where there's 48 very good reasons for it. It might be a variance, it might be a variance that has highly technical information,well water or something 49 like that,and it might be during December or January with a snow storm,and you might have something where they've already come 50 up and said we're anticipating that this is going to be a 3-hour hearing because we've got a lot of experts and the room is full. The 51 neighbors have hired attorneys,they're going to be full,so this is going to be over two nights,so because it's over two nights we want 52 to start with five people so if somebody's absent the second time we can vote instead of having it,who knows? 53