Missoula council declines to limit 'urgent items' after heated debate over use of "new business"

Missoula City Council on Aug. 11 considered and ultimately rejected a proposed amendment to City Council Rule 21(c) that would have replaced the phrase “urgent items” with a narrower reference to actions defined elsewhere as “emergency actions” under Rule 27, limiting what may be placed on the council agenda under “new business.”

The issue produced lengthy debate among councilors over whether the existing “new business” process had been used for political or time-sensitive matters and whether the rule should be tightened to increase public notice and committee review. Councilor Bob Campbell said he was “disappointed that we're not gonna have apparently a just real discussion or consideration of my main amendment,” arguing that the current language allowed matters to be introduced with minimal public notice over a weekend. “It's basically done under a cover of darkness,” Campbell said.

Councilor Daniel Carlino moved an amendment to restore the original language proposed in committee; that amendment passed on roll call, 8–4. The council then took the required final vote on the Rule 21(c) change itself. Because rule changes require a two-thirds majority, the final motion needed eight affirmative votes; the council voted 4–8 against the proposed change, and the rule-change motion failed.

Councilors who opposed the rule change said they wanted the flexibility to bring timely matters to the council, especially when outside developments (for example, a superintendent’s email regarding flags in schools) created a timeframe for action. Councilor Jennifer Savage, who brought a pride-flag resolution to new business earlier in the month, said she had acted quickly because a superintendent’s email had instructed teachers to take pride flags down and the timing required a rapid council response. “That's why I brought it. That's why it came before new business,” Savage said.

Councilors who supported the proposed wording change expressed concern about perceived political use of “urgent” or “new business” designations. Councilor Campbell said the amendment was intended to preserve public notice and committee deliberation and to reserve truly urgent measures for Rule 27 emergency procedures.

Procedural notes and vote counts: Councilor Daniel Carlino’s amendment to revert to the original wording passed by roll call, 8 yes to 4 no. The final Rule 21(c) motion that would have replaced “urgent items” with the narrower emergency-action language failed by roll call, 4 yes to 8 no; because changing council rules requires two-thirds of the council, the motion did not pass.

Action and next steps: the council did not adopt the proposed Rule 21(c) change. Councilors and clerks indicated they will continue technical cleanup of council rules in future packages and that further rule adjustments may be proposed at later dates.

The debate drew multiple public and council comments on transparency, procedural fairness and how to balance the council’s need to act quickly with the public’s need for notice and input.