Skip to main content

Citrus Heights Messenger

City Council Restricts Planning Commissioners' Ability to Comment to Press and Public

Jun 05, 2020 12:00AM ● By Story by Shaunna Boyd

CITRUS HEIGHTS, CA (MPG) - At the teleconferenced May 28 meeting of the Citrus Heights City Council, Item 6 on the Consent Calendar was an update to the Planning Commission Rules and Regulations. Unlike Public Hearings and Regular Calendar items — both of which typically involve public presentations and Council discussions — the Council usually votes on the entire Consent Calendar without discussion.

The proposed updates to the Planning Commission Rules and Regulations (which had already been approved by the current Planning Commission) were generally minor changes, such as outlining timelines for trainings and specifying that agendas will be sent to Commissioners electronically. But there were some significant and restrictive additions regarding media inquiries, social media, and speaking on behalf of the Commission.

Bill Van Duker provided a Public Comment stating that he supported the proposed modification to “limit the ability of the Commissioners to comment to the press on matters that are or have been before the Commission.” Citing his 12 years of experience serving on City and County Planning Commissions, Van Duker stated, “It was always clear to me that the time for Commissioner’s comments was during the hearing process. It seems inappropriate for a Commissioner to expand his/her views on the results of a hearing outside of the formal hearing process.”

The proposed update to the Rules and Regulations stated that “Planning Commissioners may be approached by members of the media about a topic that will be heard or has been heard by the Commission. In order to ensure the media is receiving accurate information, all media inquiries shall be directed to the Planning Manager and/or the Communications Office.”

The updated rules would also restrict Commissioners’ ability to engage on social media: “Items within the Commission’s purview may be visibly discussed on social media. Commissioners should refrain from engaging in social media communications about any current, past, or potentially future agenda item to ensure transparency in the public process and to avoid conflicts of interest arising.”

The changes also specify that Commissioners must not speak for the Planning Commission or provide any statements that reflect their own opinion if it differs from the decision of the Commission: “Unless given direction from a majority of the Commission, Planning Commissioners should not be speaking on behalf of the Commission or the city, or providing any statements wherein a member of the public would think the individual is representing the views of the Commission or city. … After the Planning Commission has taken a position on an issue, the speaker shall reflect the opinion of the Planning Commission, rather than their own personal opinion.”

The Council was set to approve the Consent Calendar, including Item 6 (Planning Commission Rules and Regulations Update), but Councilmember Bret Daniels requested that Item 6 be pulled from the Consent Calendar and voted on separately: “[Item] 6 is kind of coming out of nowhere. … I think the concern I have with it mainly is the fact that it kind of muzzles the First Amendment rights of Planning Commissioners as just citizens after the fact, meaning after action by the Planning Commission.”

Councilmember Daniels acknowledged the necessity of Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners choosing their comments carefully “before items are decided because we don’t want to be seen as having made up our minds before we’ve been presented all the information. But after the fact, I think, is not an issue necessarily.” Councilmember Daniels further stated that as a citizen, “someone simply sitting on the Planning Commission has an absolute right to express a First Amendment comment.”

Councilmember Daniels suggested that Item 6 be held until a later date so the Council could discuss the issue further after a review by the City Attorney regarding whether the changes might violate the Commissioners’ First Amendment rights.

Mayor Jeff Slowey disagreed, stating that for most Planning Commissioners, “it’s their first foray into any type of government action, and we have actually had some where they were talking to the media — a couple instances where they were talking to the media prior to a measure coming before them … and legally that can put the City in hot water. The other thing, when you talk about after, depending upon what’s said, that could also jeopardize it as well, as it still has to come before the City Council.”

Mayor Slowey said he views it as “our responsibility to put some guardrails around people that we appoint to a position, especially if they don’t have that background. I don’t look at this as affecting anybody’s First Amendment rights. You know, when you’re talking as a Planning Commissioner, you’re talking as a Planning Commissioner. …  You have to understand what those rules are. I look at this as basically putting those rules — as the City sees them, as we see them — out there for them.”

The Council voted on Item 6, and the updates to the Planning Commission Rules and Regulations passed 4-1, with Councilmember Daniels dissenting.