Council considered Resolution R‑03‑2026, which would implement speech time limits for councilmembers during regular meetings. The sponsor framed the measure as a tool to keep regular sessions efficient; several members opposed placing discretion in the mayor’s hands and urged that the council itself retain the power to end debate by motion.

Why it matters: Rules about who controls debate shape how a newly reorganized city government conducts deliberations and how minority views are protected or constrained. Council members asked the sponsor to clarify that the rule was intended for regular meetings only (not work sessions or public hearings), to cite Robert’s Rules of Order where appropriate, and to consider reversing the decision‑control so that the council, not the mayor, may move to limit debate.

Councilman Herring said he “has a big problem with this” and warned that giving one person the power to cut off debate is inappropriate: “I don't think that that power should be put into 1 person's hand,” he said. Councilwoman Jones and Councilwoman Cross said time limits could help keep regular meetings on schedule but emphasized that work sessions are for detailed exchange and should be exempt. The sponsor said he could clarify the resolution to indicate it applied to regular meetings and said the council retained the ability to extend time or make motions to end debate.

Council members asked the sponsor to reference Robert’s Rules for the council’s authority to impose time limits and suggested a broader review of council rules at the upcoming retreat. Councilman Herring proposed reviewing all council rules in a single work session to address multiple concerns rather than enacting piecemeal changes.

The council did not vote on the resolution at the meeting; the sponsor said he was open to amendments and to making the language explicit that the rule applies to regular meetings only.