San Juan County commissioners review rules of order, direct staff to draft clearer meeting procedures

SAN JUAN COUNTY, Utah — At a June 3, 2025, San Juan County Commission work session, county attorney Johnny reviewed statutory requirements for meeting rules and recommended that the commission adopt a clear, updated set of rules of order and procedures that are kept both at meetings and on the county website.

Johnny, San Juan County attorney, told commissioners the Utah Code requires governing bodies to have rules of order and procedure for how they conduct meetings. “Many didn’t realize that there is a section of code, 17 53 2 0 6 that requires every governing body in the state of Utah to have separate rules of order and procedure for how they conduct their meeting,” he said.

The training matter is aimed at ensuring compliance with the Open Meetings Act and at reducing confusion about how the commission manages agendas, public comment, motions and closed sessions.

County attorney’s guidance and why it matters

Johnny emphasized two distinct statutory sections: Utah Code 17-53-206, which he described as a “shall” requiring rules of order and procedure for meetings, and 17-53-207, a separate “may” that permits a commission to adopt rules about how it governs business (for example, how payments are approved or appointments are made). He told the commission the separation matters because the two cover different topics and should be maintained as separate documents for clarity and public access.

He advised the commission to: keep a copy of the rules at every public meeting and on the county website; update or remove dated statutory citations in the county’s current policy; and avoid embedding copyrighted material such as the full text of Robert’s Rules of Order on the public website. Johnny also recommended using plain statutory references rather than outdated citations so the policy does not become obsolete after legislative changes.

Key topics discussed

- Agenda control: Johnny described practical options for how agenda items are placed, including (a) individual commissioners requesting items through the clerk, (b) members of the public submitting a written application for an item, or (c) vesting the chair with discretion to set the agenda. He warned the commission that by law action cannot be taken on items not properly posted on the agenda.

- Public comment and hearings: Johnny explained that the Open Meetings Act and recent state law changes require public hearings when statutorily required but do not mandate general public comment for all public bodies (a prior legislative proposal was narrowed so that only school boards are required to take general public comment). He said a commission may, at its discretion, permit public comment on specific agenda items, and that the commission should state any limits (such as restricting comment to people in an “affected area”) in its rules.

- Motions, seconds and roll-call votes: Johnny reviewed parliamentary practice options for the three-member commission. He recommended retaining a requirement for seconds to permit fuller deliberation, but noted some counties do not require seconds. He also reminded the commission that minutes should reflect roll-call votes (yes/no/absent) as required by statute for elected officials.

- Closed sessions and recordings: Johnny walked the commission through requirements for public notice and for stating the specific statutory reason when moving into closed (executive) session. He recommended listing the specific reason on the agenda when feasible. He also explained recording requirements: most closed sessions must be recorded (not publicly), but two categories — discussion of the professional competence or the physical or mental health of an individual, and discussion of security devices and personnel — may not require a recording; instead the chair must sign an affidavit if those are the only matters discussed in that closed session.

- Clerk duties and quorum rules: Johnny recommended moving procedural duties for the clerk from a separate governance policy into the rules of order so the public can see one place for meeting procedures. He reviewed options for handling loss of quorum and for what business may continue when a quorum is lacking.

Commissioner and staff concerns

Commissioners raised practical concerns about the county’s rural geography and newspaper publication schedules, saying that limited local resources and weekly paper deadlines make some public-notice timelines harder to meet. They also asked for clearer internal processes so commissioners and staff know when a submission must be rescheduled or placed on a special meeting agenda. Johnny suggested using a defined cutoff (for example, a specified number of hours before the meeting) and noted that special meetings can be called quickly when urgent matters arise.

Direction to staff and next steps

The commission did not adopt final rules at the work session. Instead the body directed counsel and staff to produce updated drafts and to separate the “rules of order and procedure” required under Utah Code 17-53-206 from the county’s internal governance provisions that fall under 17-53-207. Johnny and county staff agreed to prepare a revised draft with options for the commission to consider, including sample language for different public-comment approaches, agenda approval workflows, and closed-session procedures.

“The commission can do it the way it wants as long as it follows the statute,” Johnny said, and offered to continue reviewing drafts and updating statutory citations as needed.

Ending

A resolution to adopt rules appeared on the meeting packet for future consideration; commissioners asked to review the updated draft in a later meeting before any formal adoption. The work session concluded with a motion to adjourn.