Oakland County law committee debates codifying RLA requirements, 48‑hour notice and committee hearings

The Oakland County Legislature’s Law Committee discussed three governance items at its most recent meeting: a proposal from Legislator Conway to codify what programmatic information departments must supply in Requests for Legislative Action (RLA); a separate proposal from Legislator Graham (Resolution 92) to require 48 hours’ advance notice of materials for votes and to add a time‑pressured abstention clause; and a broader conversation about whether committees should hold longer or formal public hearings on select topics.

Legislator Conway, the designated prime sponsor of the RLA codification proposal, told the committee he drafted short standard requirements after meeting with County Executive staff and argued the change would “codify our practices and make it easier for us to make decisions.” He said departments currently vary widely in how much background they provide and that formal guidance would give legislators “critical information” going into committee.

The proposal drew opposition from the committee’s majority office. The committee’s Majority Counsel said the office amends the RLA form as needed and “does not want to be constrained by any codification of it because currently, we can ask for any information we want at any time we want.” Reedy (Legislator Reedy) also urged colleagues to oppose the measure, saying the majority’s office ensures efficiency and that formal codification could “encumber or gum up the efficiency” of that process.

On the second governance item, Legislator Graham presented Resolution 92, asking that any time members are asked to vote they have at least 48 hours to review materials and that the rules allow abstention where a member lacked adequate time to review. Graham said the change is intended to give members “sufficient time to review all the materials, do any research they think is necessary, speak with any constituents” and cited frequent late additions to agendas as a reason for the proposal.

Multiple committee members and the committee chair pushed back on that approach. The committee’s Majority Counsel and Chairwoman Cunningham stressed the purpose of Rule 11 — the rule that allows late agenda items — noting many items (for example, time‑sensitive grants) can arise within the 48‑hour window and the rule exists to preserve nimbleness. Chairwoman Cunningham said the committee meets monthly and that limiting use of Rule 11 would “restrict our nimbleness,” while other members warned that a strict 48‑hour rule could remove time‑sensitive items from consideration.

Committee members also discussed ways to expand opportunities for longer subject‑focused committee sessions or formal public hearings. Several legislators said they already call longer or special committee meetings when needed and that chairs have discretion to extend time or schedule hearings, while others urged exploring more regular hearings or consolidating committee portfolios to reduce cancellations and better use members’ time.

Votes at a glance

- Conway RLA codification (Item 2): A motion to move the item out of committee with a negative recommendation was made and seconded. The motion carried; the transcript records that three members voiced opposition. The committee record in the transcript does not provide a full named vote tally.

- Resolution 92 (48‑hour notice / abstention rule) (Item 6): Committee members debated the proposal at length; a motion to advance a recommendation was seconded and the committee voted in favor during the meeting. The transcript does not provide a full, named roll‑call tally for the vote.

What the meeting does and does not change

Committee members framed the Conway proposal as an attempt to standardize information flow from county departments to legislators. Opponents said the majority office already manages the RLA intake and that formal codification could limit flexibility. The committee’s action produced a negative recommendation for Conway’s item (as recorded in the meeting); the county executive and departments were described in discussion as having been consulted but not bound by existing rules.

On Resolution 92, proponents sought a hard 48‑hour notice and an expanded abstention rule for lack of time; opponents argued existing Rule 11 is necessary to allow timely action on late but time‑sensitive items such as grant applications. The committee elected to advance a recommendation after debate; the transcript records the motion and vote but does not capture a full roll call in the provided excerpt.

Committee members agreed there is capacity to schedule longer or special meetings when warranted, and several said chairs already have discretion to extend hearings or call special sessions. Some speakers recommended exploring more formal public hearings as permitted under state law for matters where witness questioning is appropriate.

The committee did not adopt a uniform new process for public hearings or a final, codified RLA template during the meeting. Several members said they are willing to take concepts from the discussion back to sponsors to see whether narrower or chair‑controlled proposals could achieve similar goals without restricting committee flexibility.

Ending

Committee leaders said they would carry forward specific concerns raised in the discussion and consider narrower drafts that preserve chair discretion and the ability to act on time‑sensitive items. No final change to county practice was enacted at the meeting; next steps include follow‑up drafts and potential sponsorship by committee members who indicated interest during debate.