Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council Procedures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richfield council reviews updates to rules of procedure and decorum; agrees on several clarifications
Summary
Councilors reviewed a wide-ranging redline of the city's rules of procedure and decorum, reached consensus on several procedural clarifications and asked staff to prepare the revised document for formal adoption.
The Richfield City Council spent the bulk of its Aug. 12 meeting reviewing staff-proposed updates to the council rules of procedure and decorum, discussing public-participation limits, how the mayor and council may vary agenda order, and enforcement steps for disruptive in-person behavior.
City Clerk Friedrich and City Manager Katie Rodriguez presented a redlined draft that consolidated earlier changes requested by council and legal input from City Attorney Tietjen. The council discussed, among other items, whether to limit debate when a member appeals the presiding officer's ruling (members favored aligning with Sturgis parliamentary procedure and removing a provision that restricted participation), whether agenda-item "council discussion" should include liaison reports (council favored adding liaison reports, with mayor maintaining a list of commission liaisons), and how the presiding officer or council may change the agenda order (the council preferred language allowing either the mayor or a majority of council to vary the agenda).
On public participation, the council agreed to standardize speaker rules: a 3-minute limit per speaker and a 30-minute default cap for open forum, extendable by majority vote. The council also instructed staff to require only a speaker's city of residence (not a street address) on registration forms, and to clarify email-comment handling so comments received before 2 p.m. the day of a meeting are distributed to council in advance and later comments are included in the public record at the subsequent regular meeting.
Council members debated whether a member who abstains from a vote should be allowed to participate in discussion. Several members and the city attorney noted that where a legal conflict of interest requires abstention, the member must not vote and should refrain from discussion; the council asked staff to add clarifying language distinguishing legally required abstentions from discretionary abstentions.
The council also reviewed enforcement language for disorderly conduct. City Attorney Tietjen explained recent case law and recommended a focus on directing disruptive persons to leave, and on trespass remedies when necessary; the draft allowed the presiding officer to recess the meeting and consult law enforcement and the attorney, and included a narrow reference to seeking civil restraining orders in extreme situations. Council members said they wanted clear, narrowly tailored language about violent or threatening conduct while avoiding overbroad restrictions on constitutionally protected speech.
No formal ordinance or resolution to adopt the revised rules was presented for a final vote at the meeting. Staff were directed to incorporate the council's agreed edits and return a final draft and resolution for adoption at a future meeting.
