Read excerpts from more than 275 articles; most are available to download

Who Shall Serve? by C. Gregory Dale About the Author "Who Shall Serve" is also included in our Taking a Closer Look: Ethics collection of articles from the Planning Commissioners Journal. The booklet is delivered by 1st class mail. From Issue 48 of the PCJ, Fall 2002

One of the challenges in the long-term health of a planning commission is the appointment of commission members who are best able to serve the public interest. Naturally, the background of potential members is an important factor in the selection process. But to what extent should the past involvement of potential commissioners in "special interest" groups pose a problem?

Consider the following scenario. Your city council is in the process of appointing two new commissioners. The mayor and council have developed a list of potential candidates. Among them, a developer who has been an officer in the local homebuilders association, and an environmentalist who has been active in a local "save open space" organization. Each has appeared before the planning commission in the past.

The mayor and council are soliciting advice as to the most appropriate candidates. You question the wisdom of appointing those who have been active in special interest groups dealing with planning and zoning issues. You are concerned about future conflicts of interest and also troubled by having "special interest advocates" serve on the planning board.

Are there good reasons for your concerns? Should communities avoid appointing individuals who have been involved with special interest groups?

There are several broad issues raised by these questions:

1. Should the planning commission reflect the prevailing values of the community?

2. What is the community, through its governing body, trying to achieve in the way it structures its planning commission?

3. What message is being sent to the public?

Let me deal with these questions one at a time. First, the role of the planning commission is to be a fair, objective, and unbiased decision-maker and advisor to the legislative body. It is the job of the planning commission to consider the long-range consequences of decisions for the community as a whole. The planning commission should be the one body in the community that is above the political fray -- and should be fair and as free of bias as possible. While special interest groups should and will be heard in the planning process, the role of the planning commission is to go beyond special interests and consider the broader public interest.

Of course, each member comes to the planning commission with a certain set of values. In this regard, those who feel strongly about the protection of the environment or the promotion of economic development are really no different than those who feel strongly about residential protection. No one expects planning commissioners to ignore their values, but we do expect them to rise above biases and consider all issues objectively in light of the long-range community wide perspective. The mere fact that someone has been a member of a special interest group and shares its values does not necessarily create a problem.

Diversity of opinion and even good faith disagreements over issues can be healthy. After all, the community as a whole encompasses many different viewpoints, so why shouldn't the planning commission? In fact, a number of communities require the commission to include members with certain backgrounds (e.g., architects and engineers). However, these provisions are intended to ensure certain expertise, not to benefit special interests.

This leads to the second question: what are we trying to achieve in the way we structure our planning commissions. It makes sense for a community to identify some basic parameters for the selection of new commissioners. For example, a list of desirable characteristics of new commission members might include the following: capable of being objective and fair; knowledgeable about local issues; willing to work hard; above ethical reproach; and able to place long-term community-wide interests above special interests.

Obviously, there will be more factors that are important in your community -- and any list might vary from community to community -- but it is important for the appointing body to know what it is trying to accomplish before selecting individuals to serve on the planning commission.

The final issue relates to the message being sent to the public. If a planning commission is perceived as simply being a group of "political cronies" that will do whatever the "politicians" say, then it will be an ineffective community institution. On the other hand, a planning commission perceived as being interested in the long-term health, viability, and livability of the community, can establish itself as a respected voice.

Let me wrap up by making five brief points.

1. There is nothing inherently wrong with appointing planning commission members who have been active in special interest groups. The key question is whether the individual is likely to place the long-term broad public interest above those special interests -- and treat everyone fairly and without bias.

2. The community should exercise some common sense in balancing planning commission appointments. For example, if there is a member with an environmental advocacy background, it may make sense to balance this point-of-view with someone having an economic development background.

3. Consider the practical issue of future conflicts of interest. While involvement in special interest groups may not create actual conflicts of interest (since they usually do not involve personal financial interests), legitimate concerns about bias may arise. For example, if many zoning cases involve environmentally sensitive properties in which either an environmental or a development-oriented group has a vocal interest, then a commissioner who has been active in either group may have to abstain repeatedly. Frequent abstentions can make it more difficult for a commission to function effectively.

4. The nature and timing of special interest involvement should be considered. Appointing a current officer of a group that is directly interested in planning issues may raise more concerns than appointing a mere member or a former officer who has had a relatively low profile.

5. Be conscious of public perception. If a potential candidate is widely perceived as being a "firebrand" for his or her cause and unlikely to act in an unbiased way, then appointing such a person may not be wise.

Above all, be guided by the need to create a mix of reasonable, fair-minded people with the integrity to act in the long-term public interest of the community as a whole. Strive to create an environment where the planning commission can be the non-political body it is designed to be.

C. Gregory Dale is a Principal with the planning and zoning firm of McBride Dale Clarion in Cincinnati, Ohio. Dale manages planning projects and also regularly conducts training for planning officials throughout the country. He is also a former President of the Ohio Chapter of the American planning Association.