Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brighton council reviews rules update; members split on proclamations calendar and remote participation
Summary
City attorney presented proposed rule updates including proclamation procedures, thresholds to add agenda items, and remote participation; council favored a yearly proclamations list and left remote participation accommodations in place for rare medical/ADA needs.
City Attorney Calderon led a June 3 study of proposed updates to Brighton City Council’s rules, asking council members for direction on proclamation procedures, thresholds for placing items on agendas and whether to permit remote participation in limited circumstances.
Calderon said the review was intended to clarify earlier discussion and to confirm the council’s preferences on several items, including a 21-day advance request window for proclamations and whether a calendar of recurring proclamations should be provided at the start of each year.
"This is really just an opportunity for council to provide further direction on some of the rule updates that we might want or may be needed," Calderon said. She summarized prior changes — virtual participation, hearing procedures and behavioral expectations — and noted the packet included a draft with highlighted items for council direction.
Councilmembers debated whether to maintain a short list of routinely issued proclamations so members would not be surprised and whether two members should be able to place a new proclamation on a regular meeting agenda. Councilmember Green said a calendar listing the regular proclamations would be helpful so "if 2 council members agree that we'd want to have that proclamation be part of it, I think that's what I'm looking for in the calendar." Councilmember Fiddler stressed the list would prevent surprises for items not historically issued regularly.
On agenda-setting thresholds, council discussed allowing three councilmembers to add items to a regular meeting agenda while two could place items on study session agendas; members said the lower threshold for study sessions was intended to guarantee conversation even if a majority did not support placing the same item on a regular meeting. Calderon summarized the apparent consensus: provide a list of routine proclamations for annual review, require 21 days' notice for proclamations, allow two members to place study-session items and require three members to add items to regular agendas.
Council also considered remote participation rules. After remarks about technological and public-participation limits, a majority of council expressed reluctance to expand remote participation but declined to remove the current accommodation that allows remote participation for excused reasons, noting the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) may require accommodations. Mayor Pro Tem Padilla said the policy had allowed a councilmember recovering from surgery to participate in a study session and called it a rare but useful accommodation. Calderon said the draft could remain and would be brought back for formal rule adoption in about three weeks.
Council did not adopt formal ordinance changes at the meeting; the discussion produced direction to staff to refine the draft rules consistent with council feedback and return the item for final action.
