Chairman CitaraManis and members of the Planning Board:

The League of Women Voters of Howard County appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the Howard County Planning Board's Rules of Procedure. The basis for our testimony is the United States League of Women Voters principle "that democratic government depends upon the informed and active participation of its citizens and requires that government bodies protect the citizens right to know... ". The League's understanding of these proposed changes is that the Planning Board generated them. The League is confident that the Planning Board would participate in future discussions of the Board's Rules of Procedure initiated by County Council members or the County Executive.

Section 1.101D. Voting. The proposed language offers the interested parties and the public the opportunity to hear a member of the Board absent during any portion of a hearing verbally confirm prior to their vote that they have reviewed all the evidence submitted and listened to recording of the portion of the hearing for which the member was absent. The member will also certify the same in the written decision and order. The League supports this change.

Section1.102 -Place and Time of Meeting. The deletions eliminate bi-weekly Planning Board meetings and the specific times and day of the week designations. The League can appreciate the need for flexibility for additional Planning Board meetings and not being bound by an evening and a morning meeting. The League favors consistent monthly meeting days and times to better serve parties of interest and the public. The League recognizes the Planning Board's publication on the Howard County web site the schedule of the Board's meetings for the year.
The League supports the proposed change that the Planning Board chairperson and not the Executive Secretary schedule the Planning Board meetings.

Section1.103 E. 1. Motions and Correspondence: Filing and Service Requirements.

Motions. The proposed language allows a party to file a request as a motion to the Planning Board and certifying that a copy was provided to all persons known to have an interest in the case prior to the date of the initial hearing. This request could be to address a preliminary matter including a motion to dismiss or request a postponement. The proposed language also states that absent good cause shown, the Planning Board shall rule on the motion at any time fifteen days after the filing of the motion. The League raises the following for consideration: without the initial scheduled hearing, it is difficult to know all persons who have an interest in the case. If the Board is being asked for a postponement of an initial hearing, that certainly does not require fifteen plus days to rule on. A motion to dismiss depending upon which party makes it is another matter and should have the benefit of public comment unless all known parties agree. A motion to dismiss at the initial public hearing could be ruled on immediately by the Board. The League suggests changing the sentence to read " Absent good cause shown, the Board shall rule on the motion no later than fifteen days after it was filed." The League supports having the initial hearing to rule on the motions and learn the parties of interest.

Section1.105C.1. Hearings: Scheduling. The League supports the proposed new language that would require the Planning Board to postpone a scheduled public hearing if the technical staff report is not provided prior to the public hearing.

Section 1.105C.6. Signing up to Testify. The proposed language provides more opportunity for interested parties and the public to participate in the hearing by allowing them to sign up prior to the end of the petitioner's case when it has been continued past the initial hearing date. The League supports the proposed change.

Section 1.105D1,a. and b. Record of a Contested Case Hearings: Transcription of Testimony and Rules of Evidence. The League supports the proposed changes.

Section 1.105E2. Conduct of Board Hearings: Order of Presentation. The Section "Individuals questioning the Petitioner's witness" and "(1) Questioning" are proposed to be deleted. The League opposes these deletions. Any individual recognized by the Planning Board chair should have the right to question a petitioner's witness. The Board's rules recognize an individual as a party to the proceedings of the Board by providing their name and address and signature on the Board's sign-up sheet.

Section 1.105E2c.4 Re-cross examination of Petitioner's witness. The words " by opposition, by the Board Members, and by the Board's Legal counsel" should be added to this section.

Section 1.105E2d.e. and f. Opposition's Presentation: Rebuttal: and Surrebuttal. The League supports the opportunity for opposition rebuttal evidence and the Planning Board granting surrebuttal evidence to the petitioner and opposition.

Section 1.105E2h. Opposition's Summation. The League's copy of the proposed Planning Board Rules of Procedures indicates, " Re-type subsections (1) and (2) deleted above here." The League could not determine what this meant.

Section 1.105G.1.c. Case of Fraud, Mistake or Irregularity. The Board's current rules state, "At any time the Board may revise or modify conditions of its decision in case of fraud, mistake or irregularity." The proposed change deletes "At any time" and adds "within 30 days of its decision." The League opposes this proposed change since it appears on its face that a case of fraud, mistake or irregularity could not be corrected or addressed by the Board if it was 31 days or more after the Board's decision.

Section1.105G.1.e. Grounds for Reconsideration, Modification or Rehearing The section provides the means for a party to request reconsideration but does not specifically state how reconsideration is requested and what the procedures are for other parties in the event of a reconsideration. The rules state that the parry requesting the reconsideration, modification or rehearing shall on the same day as filing serve a copy of the request on all parties in the case and that within ten calendar days any party may file a written response to the request. What happens next?

The word "shall" is proposed to change to "may " for reconsideration and modification of a Board's decision. Given the specifics of evidence submitted that could not have been reasonably presented at the original hearing or a mistake or misrepresentation of fact or law the League supports retaining the word "shall". The League errs on the side of reconsideration or rehear rather than subject the Planning Board to appeals because the Board decided to not rehear or reconsider.

The League appreciates the opportunity to present our comments on the Planning Board's proposed rule changes.

Sincerely,

Grace Kubofcik
Co-president

Cc: Barbara Russell
Co-president