Metro Planning Executive Director Insists that Proper Procedure in Place on LED Bill

Yesterday, I e-mailed Rick Bernhardt at Planning asking about allegations that the consent agenda placement of Charlie Tygard's LED bill was used at the Planning Commission to keep the bill from reaching public hearing. Here is his quick response to me:

In spite of what you may have been told, this is what transpired on the LED bill at the Planning Commission. Planning Commission policy regarding consent items is as follows:

1. Staff has been directed to place any item on the consent agenda where the staff recommendation and the application is in agreement or where the applicant is in agreement with the staff recommendation. That was the case on this item.
2. Staff did receive a letter from the Donelson-Hermitage Neighborhood Association and the letter was provided to the Planning Commission (MPC) for their information.
3. Any item where there has been a request to speak form submitted is automatically pulled from the consent agenda. Staff has been directed not to pull an item unless there is actually someone present to speak. There were no request to speak forms submitted prior to consideration of the consent agenda.
4. Any item where any person requests (by raising their hand or otherwise getting the attention of staff or the MPC) that the item be pulled during the reading of the consent agenda is automatically pulled from the consent agenda. There were no requests on this item during the reading of the consent agenda.
5. Finally, any member of the MPC may remove an item from the consent agenda based on their desire to consider the item or written requests that they had presented to them. No onerequested the item be pulled.

Once an item has been passed on the consent agenda, the item cannot be heard at the same meeting. The item could be heard at a subsequent meeting if rereferred by the Metro Council or voted to be reheared by the MPC.

These are the procedures that the MPC followed on this item.