Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council Procedures Agenda Submission topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates allowing individual members to unilaterally place items on agenda; no policy change recorded
Summary
Councilmembers debated whether individual council members should be able to place items on the agenda without securing prior consensus; staff presented a survey of 33 Orange County cities and the history of Stanton policy; council discussed staff workload, Brown Act constraints and possible limits but did not adopt a change at the meeting.
The Stanton City Council held an extended discussion on Sept. 23 about whether individual council members should be allowed to place items on the council agenda without first securing a second or consensus.
City staff said the item originated from a council request and presented a historical review of Stanton’s policies: policies dating to 1987, a 1995 change requiring a majority to place council‑initiated items which was removed in 1996, and a 2009 reintroduction of a ‘‘consensus’’ concept that remains in the 2022 version. Staff also reported the results of a survey of 33 Orange County cities: 26 responses, with seven cities (27 percent) not requiring a second or consensus and 19 cities (73 percent) requiring a second or consensus for council‑initiated items. A small number of cities impose additional limits such as maximum items in a queue or time restrictions on re‑filing items that previously lacked consensus.
Councilmembers who support unilateral agendizing argued it restores direct representation of districts and shortens the time between a member’s request and council consideration. Members who opposed the change or urged caution cited staff workload, the value of providing colleagues time to review proposals, Brown Act restrictions (preventing members from discussing items outside public meetings), and the risk of overloading agendas or creating a rushed ‘‘box of Cracker Jacks’’ agenda. Several members suggested compromises such as limiting the number of unilateral items per member (a suggested cap of three was discussed).
Council did not adopt a formal amendment to city policy at the Sept. 23 meeting. Staff said it would be available to draft policy language if the council provided clear direction; councilmembers asked for a limitation and clarified that any request would still need the standard 72‑hour posting deadlines and staff would prepare agenda formatting and legal review if the council directed policy changes in the future.
No formal vote or ordinance amendment was approved during the meeting. Councilmembers agreed that staff time and the Brown Act implications should be considered in any policy change.
