Dunn County committee advances draft revisions to board rules, including limits on public comment and updated remote-attendance language

A county rules subcommittee presented draft changes to Dunn County Board rules 1–4 at the April 9 meeting, outlining several revisions that will return to committees for further review.

The presenter said the redlined package consolidates several existing provisions from the current county ordinance and the model rules, clarifies the county chair’s duties and delegation authority, and aligns the county’s remote-attendance rules with a 2023 policy the board previously adopted. The package also adds a two-thirds privileged motion to end debate and a set of decorum rules for the public and board members.

One of the more consequential changes under discussion would limit public comment at full-board meetings on topics that have previously been the subject of a public hearing; the subcommittee emphasized that the legislative agenda committee could remain a venue for broader public comment where the chair permits it. Committee members debated whether the restriction should apply to committees as well; several supervisors asked that committee exceptions be explicit so standing committees would retain discretion to hear off-agenda public input at the will of the chair.

Other changes presented include clarifying incapacity and vice-chair succession language, verbatim insertion of current ordinance language in several sections to consolidate rules, and removal of some model-rule provisions that did not match Dunn County’s practice. The subcommittee also recommended retaining the county’s 2023 remote-attendance framework rather than adopting newer model-rule language; that framework requires camera use and includes detailed conditions for participation.

Supervisor feedback focused on two themes: safeguards against personal attacks and preserving chairs’ discretion to invite subject-matter participants into committee discussion. Supervisor Kinnear urged caution about wording that would bar “questioning motives,” saying that members need the ability to debate reasoning without implying bad faith. Several supervisors suggested clarifying language to separate questioning motives from substantive critique of reasoning.

Next steps: the subcommittee said it will continue revising the draft with input from supervisors and return to the board with a consolidated proposal and appendices. Several supervisors signaled they expect additional debate at future meetings before any final adoption.