San Juan County commissioners review draft rules of order, debate chair authority and legal review timelines

SAN JUAN COUNTY, Aug. 19, 2025 San Juan County commissioners spent most of a work session on Aug. 19 reviewing draft revisions to the county's rules of order and procedure (policy 206) and related governance language, focusing on the chair's authority to make motions, how and when legal review should occur, and how planning commission recommendations come to the commission. The session was presented as a discussion; no policy change was adopted at the meeting.

The commission's review centered on a redlined draft that splits the old combined policy into two documents: one covering meeting procedures (policy 206) and one covering governance (policy 207). A staff presenter explained the draft removes a provision that referenced Robert's Rules of Order and replaces it with an internally drafted rules-of-order policy. "I deleted that because again, rules of order the Robert's rules can't be your rules of order and procedure for a couple reasons," the presenter said, noting Robert's Rules are lengthy, trademarked and designed for much larger deliberative bodies.

Why it matters: the revisions would set the procedural expectations the public sees at each meeting, define the chair's authority during deliberations and formalize how votes and minutes are recorded under the state's open meetings requirements.

Major topics and positions discussed - Chair authority to make motions: The draft retains that the presiding officer has the same authority as other members, including making motions, seconding and voting. Commissioners discussed adding a limitation: the chair would make a motion only if no other member does so. The presenter explained the proposed limitation as a guard against a chair repeatedly calling on themself to control the agenda, but commissioners noted situations (especially for a three-member commission) where the chair's ability to move business forward can be useful.

- Removal of Robert's Rules of Order: The presenter said the county should post its own rules on the county website (the statute requires rules be on the website and available at meetings), and he argued Robert's Rules are not practical for a small county commission and cannot be posted in full because they are trademarked.

- Roll-call voting and minutes: The draft was revised to match recent changes to the Open Meetings Act. The presenter summarized the statutory requirement by saying minutes must record for each member either "I, nay, or absent," and noted that "abstain" no longer appears in the statute. Commissioners discussed practical recording methods and said clerks should identify each member's vote on the record.

- County attorney review and timing: Commissioners raised concerns about a scheduling practice described in the draft: departments submit agenda items by 5 p.m. on Thursday, the county attorney is expected to complete legal review by 5 p.m. on Friday, and the packet is finalized for the next meeting. Several commissioners and the presenter said that timeline is unrealistic for substantive legal review. The presenter recommended department heads run contract drafts through the county attorney earlier in the process and noted that some contracts require longer negotiation.

- Effect of the county attorney's opinion: The presenter reminded the commission that asking for and following the county attorney's written advice can provide legal protections for the county, while knowingly acting against the attorney's legal advice can expose the county to greater risk.

- Planning commission process and public input: Commissioners discussed the difference between the planning commission's role (statutorily responsible for preparing recommendations on land-use matters) and the commission's role in final approval. Several commissioners expressed frustration that significant public input sometimes first reaches the commission rather than the planning commission, creating last-minute controversy and delay.

- Public decorum and ejection standard: The draft adds that the commission may eject a member of the public only if the person's conduct is intentionally intended to disrupt the meeting, consistent with state law.

- Signature language: The presenter suggested clarifying that signatures on adopted documents and contracts are attestation that the commission approved the item, not a personal assumption of responsibility by the signing commissioner.

What was decided and next steps The meeting was a working discussion; no policy was adopted. Commissioners and staff agreed to continue review, circulate the redline to the full commission, and return with a refined draft. The only formal action taken at the end of the work session was a motion to adjourn, which passed unanimously. Commissioner Mann moved to adjourn; Commissioner Stap seconded; the clerk recorded the vote as aye.

Ending Commissioners said they would continue refining the draft policy language and consider moving agenda-preparation and governance details about the county administrator and clerk into a separate governance policy (207) rather than the meeting-focused 206. No formal vote on the draft policies occurred; further review and circulation of the redline were requested.

Quotes (verbatim from meeting) "I deleted that because again, rules of order the Robert's rules can't be your rules of order and procedure for a couple reasons," (Staff member, policy presenter). "We have a quorum," (Clerk/Staff member during roll call). "I'll make a motion to adjourn," (Commissioner Mann). "And I'll second," (Commissioner Stap).