Rules committee reviews ordinance to limit debate on motions to postpone indefinitely before public hearings

The Anchorage Assembly Rules Committee reviewed a draft ordinance May 8 that would change how motions to "postpone indefinitely" are handled when made before a public hearing is held.

Assembly Member Felix Rivera, who introduced the drafts, said the change grew out of a recent meeting on a jaywalking ordinance. "We did spend so much time getting into the debate and the merits of that particular ordinance before the public hearing," Rivera said, describing audience members who came to speak but had to watch debate first.

Rivera presented two versions of the proposal. Draft A would make a motion to postpone indefinitely, if raised before the public hearing, nondiscussable — the motion would be made and voted on without debate. Draft B would allow limited discussion of the motion but would forbid reaching the merits of the underlying item. "I do think for the benefit of the chair and for the body, I do think that probably draft version a is the easier version to manage and gives clearer guidance to us," Rivera said, while noting he circulated both for committee comment.

Committee members split on which approach to prefer. "I kinda like version b better," said Assembly Member Anna Broly, saying the ability to hear a mover's intent can help other members decide how to vote. Cameron Perez Verdiado, while acknowledging the gray areas of draft B, said he also "would prefer the version that's a little more more gray" to allow helpful conversation that does not stray into debating the ordinance's merits. Daniel Ballas said he feared a mover could use a short, nondebatable statement to kill another member's bill "and that nobody respond," and said he was leaning toward the stricter Draft A. Scott Myers questioned whether the change was needed at all: "I'm wondering if it's even necessary to do this at all... or just leave it alone and don't do anything."

Assembly legal counsel told the committee there was no legal objection to clarifying language and noted a mover could state a nonmerits reason for postponement without debating the underlying proposal: "The intent here is to kill this legislation and save us all some time," counsel said, adding the chair could rule on whether discussion strayed into merits and that points of order remain available.

Members discussed committee and work‑session differences, and whether this procedural change would affect committees. Rivera said public hearings are held at full assembly meetings and that committees and work sessions are typically used for information and drafting. Several members said it would be up to the chair — subject to membership rulings and points of order — to enforce the scope of permissible comment under Draft B.

At the close of the discussion a member moved to "postpone indefinitely" the draft (no mover recorded in the transcript). The committee did not record a formal vote in the meeting transcript; members indicated they would continue considering the two versions and suggested possible edits to allow at least a short explanatory statement from the mover without reaching the underlying merits.

The committee did not adopt a rule at the May 8 meeting and returned the item for further consideration.

Why it matters: Assembly rules determine how and when the public sees discussion on proposed ordinances. The committee’s choice would affect whether members can debate or explain motions that effectively prevent a public hearing on an item, and the change would formalize a practice the assembly has used in recent years.