Amsterdam committee debates standard form for resolution requests to reduce last-minute agenda items

At a City of Amsterdam Rules and Procedure Committee meeting, council members and staff on an evening in October discussed standardizing how departments submit resolution requests to the city clerk and agreed to circulate a revised form for departmental feedback.

The proposal, presented by Deputy Mayor Kelly, would replace or supplement the current request-for-resolution form with a more detailed "legislative initiative" form that prompts departments for purpose, a summary of provisions, dates, budget effects and links to contracts or grants. Kelly said the goal is "to have detailed thorough resolutions that clearly state to the reader the intent and purpose of the action," so "anybody can read it and know that," and to make it easier for department heads and the clerk to produce complete packets.

The discussion focused on two recurring problems: late submissions that arrive too close to meeting time for staff and attorneys to review, and resolutions that lack narrative context and financial coding. City Clerk Stacy said the primary operational issue is timing: "The only thing is the the last minute ones ... I'm not getting it to you guys that I'm bothered by." She told the committee she often receives items on Wednesdays near the noon deadline and then must convert them into the city template before distributing the agenda.

Corporation counsel Anthony Casale reviewed the written code governing the agenda timetable and described the statutory window that staff have to process agendas. He said the city code requires the clerk to assemble the agenda and forward supporting documentation to corporation counsel "on or before 4 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding the meeting," and that counsel should return reviewed materials by noon on Friday. Casale warned that strict adherence to the code's timetable would reduce the council's flexibility: if items arrive after the Wednesday deadline they might be deferred to a later meeting, creating a potential three-week delay on some items. He also said the city’s present practice of treating many routine items as consent resolutions allows more flexibility to conduct city business in a timely way.

Committee members gave examples of the problems the form is intended to solve: budget transfer resolutions that omit the expense and revenue codes or lack an explanatory narrative, and grant or contract items that were placed on consent with little supporting text. Several members suggested attaching a short departmental memo to each resolution that explains the what and why, and includes the finance director's coding recommendations; Kelly referenced an example form used in Schenectady County that included a finance memo as a model.

There was discussion about who should draft resolutions. Some members said the department heads should supply the substance and supporting material; others said corporation counsel must ensure legal sufficiency. Casale described his usual practice of drafting legally sufficient language and copying the sponsor, clerk and mayor so sponsors can expand the "whereas" recitals if they wish. The group agreed this division — departments provide context and numbers, counsel ensures legal form — was appropriate.

On next steps the committee agreed to test a practical approach rather than immediately amend the code. Members asked each council chair and department head to review the proposed form and tell the clerk whether the questions on it would help departments provide useful information. Clerk Stacy offered to edit the draft form based on feedback and circulate it to the council. Several members urged that the form be simple and that department staff who actually prepare submissions be consulted so the form is usable in practice.

No formal ordinance or charter change was adopted at the meeting. The committee set a follow-up plan: the clerk will send a revised form to committee members, members will review it with their departments, and the committee will revisit the matter at a subsequent meeting to decide whether to adopt the form or pursue code or charter changes.

Questions and comments that reflected resistance to added process were also part of the record: some members warned that a more detailed form could slow work by requiring more pre-meeting coordination between sponsors and department heads. Casale and others said the council still retains discretion via agenda amendment and consent procedures if an urgent item must be added after the standard window.