A council motion to reschedule the June 18 regular meeting to June 23 was defeated after an extended debate about fairness, the city charter’s notice rules and Open Meetings Law requirements.

Council debate opened with a member describing patterns of last‑minute scheduling changes and asking whether the council was creating a culture of changing the agreed annual calendar to accommodate some members. That speaker urged consistency: “we all accepted and agreed to the 2025 schedule as it was presented to us.”

Corporate counsel and administration staff explained that the so‑called “72‑hour rule” in the city charter applies only to special meetings, not regular meetings, and noted the Open Meetings Law requires at least 72 hours’ notice to media for scheduled meetings and a separate 24‑hour posting rule for municipalities with websites. Counsel said the administration had used the council’s existing tools to post the item and to follow the 24‑hour online posting requirement when adding the item to the draft agenda.

Council members disagreed about whether ad hoc schedule changes are fair to members who set personal plans based on the annual calendar; one councilor cited a prior incident where a late‑filed item was declined for a future meeting. The exchange became sharp enough that members repeatedly interrupted each other before a roll‑call vote.

The motion to reschedule failed on roll call (two yes, two no; motion defeated). A council member who opposed the change said the quorum requirement of three members already allows the council to conduct business when some members are absent. After the vote the chair declared the motion defeated and the regular schedule remained unchanged.