The Committee of the Whole on Sept. 16 began a scheduled odd‑year review of Council Rules of Procedure (Resolution 15 62), discussing four groups of proposed changes: remote attendance, use of city attorney time, community group presentations at council meetings, and rules on abstentions.

Why it matters: The proposed changes would set conduct expectations for remote participation, reduce duplicative and potentially costly requests to city legal staff, provide a transparent process for nonprofit or community group presentations to council, and clarify when and how councilmembers should record and explain abstentions. Council members said formalizing these items will make meetings more predictable and reduce perceptions of favoritism.

Remote attendance: Councilmembers supported language clarifying that remote participation is intended as an alternative method of participation and that members joining remotely "must comply with all state and local rules, regulations, and procedures as if they were physically present at the meeting." Members also discussed adding a decorum expectation and making clear that remote attendance is appropriate when members cannot be physically present for legitimate reasons (illness, travel, family matters).

Use of city attorney time: Staff and council discussed a proposal that non‑time‑critical or duplicative attorney requests be coordinated through the council president to avoid multiple staff contacts and associated expense. Councilmembers raised exceptions: time‑sensitive agenda questions, requests concerning a councilmember’s personal legal exposure, and whistleblower or accountability concerns about other officials. Councilmembers asked that language be clarified to preserve the ability of individual councilmembers to contact legal staff in those exception cases and to make subject lines or other markers clear when communications are intended to be attorney‑client privileged.

Community group presentations: Council reviewed draft rules that would allow the council to make one meeting per month available for a presentation from a nonprofit or community organization. Members debated whether the cadence should be monthly or quarterly, whether presenters should be limited to Edmonds‑based 501(c)(3) groups or broader categories, how to prioritize competing requests (first‑in or majority vote), and whether presentations should be barred when subject matter is partisan, religious, or consists of negative statements about identifiable organizations or individuals. Several members recommended adding a carve‑out for official city boards, commissions and other government entities.

Abstentions: The draft clarifies that a silent member will be recorded as an affirmative vote, and that council members expected to vote "yes" or "no" except when abstention is warranted; the member who abstains should state the reason, and abstentions are not counted in the tally. Several members recommended narrowing the requirement to state a reason to conflicts of interest or other narrowly defined circumstances to avoid consuming meeting time with explanations.

Next steps: Councilmembers asked staff to redraft the proposed language addressing the exceptions for city‑attorney contact, the cadence and eligibility for community presentations, and the abstention wording; the proposal will return to a future council meeting for formal adoption. No final action was taken at this Committee of the Whole meeting.

Quote: "Remote attendance is intended to be an alternative and frequently used method of participation by Council members," Councilmember Vivian said. "But they must comply with all state and local rules... as if they were physically present at the meeting."