Detroit rules committee approves procedural changes for petitions to speak, annual calendar timing and clerk application requirements

The Detroit Rules Committee approved a package of changes and directions to the City Council’s rules Thursday, adopting new procedures for how petitions to speak are processed and for scheduling the council’s annual calendar, and directing staff to add information to the clerk’s petition application.

The changes matter because they alter when and how members of the public can be scheduled to speak before either the full council or a standing committee, set an earlier deadline for the council’s annual calendar, and require the clerk to provide councillors with background about repeat petitioners and the relief being sought.

During the meeting Dr. Powers of the Legislative Policy Division read proposed language meant to clarify the petition process, saying: "After the request has been processed by the Clerk's Office, it shall appear as a line item on a formal session agenda. The request shall then be voted upon by the whole body. A majority of the body must approve the request for the petitioner to present to the whole body at a formal session. Approval by the whole body is also required for a presentation of a standing committee meeting." Dr. Powers also read the rule that "The chair of the formal session or of the standing committee shall determine when the petitioner shall be heard and shall also have the discretion to impose a reasonable limitation on the time allotted to hear such person."

Committee members discussed multiple concerns about whether referring a petition to a committee could leave a petitioner without the opportunity to be heard. Council Member Whitaker raised that concern directly: if the full body approves sending someone to committee but the committee then refuses to hear them, "that leaves that petitioner out without an opportunity to address," he said. Committee members resolved that the body should retain discretion and that committee chairs should have authority to limit or deny presentations, but documents sent from the clerk must include the full-bench decision history so councillors can see prior approvals and denials.

The committee voted, by unanimous consent ("hearing no objections" recorded on the transcript), to replace three occurrences of the mandatory wording "shall" with permissive wording such as "may" in the paragraph that gives chairs the ability to decide when petitioners are heard. The committee also approved removing the standing-committee 30-day requirement for referred items in this instance so that referrals tied to enhanced petitioned public comment need not be forced onto a committee calendar within 30 days.

Members asked the clerk to expand the application the public completes when requesting enhanced public comment. The committee approved a motion directing the clerk to collect the petitioner’s contact information, a short paragraph describing their standing and relationship to the subject, and a brief statement of the specific relief or action the petitioner seeks. Attorney Lakeisha Barclay suggested asking petitioners to provide "a little brief explanation of what they want with regard to the subject matter," and the committee approved language to that effect.

Several members discussed but rejected applying formal expert‑witness qualifications to petitioners. Council Member Anderson suggested borrowing elements of the rules of evidence — "skills, the person's knowledge, the person's education, the person's experience, and the person's training" — as a possible litmus test. Other members said such a test would be too heavy for public comment; the committee directed staff instead to include the petitioner’s prior petition history on the clerk’s report so councillors can see repeated filings.

Separately, the committee approved adding a rule requiring the Legislative Policy Division to prepare an annual council calendar in advance of the new year. The committee amended draft language so the annual calendar will be prepared and approved by council "by October 31" of the year prior to the calendar year, rather than the prior draft’s January 31 deadline.

The committee also moved language into the rules to prohibit testimonial resolutions with preprinted signatures and to add previously approved committee language that had not reached a public hearing in 2021. Dr. Powers told the committee that one change reported as a scrivener's correction would change a referenced number in the HDAP section from "9" to "12."

No formal roll-call votes were recorded in the transcript; multiple items were advanced by unanimous consent (noted as "hearing no objections") and will be incorporated into the next draft of the rules. Dr. Powers said staff will assemble the approved amendments and return the revised rules for further review. The committee set the next Rules Committee meeting for June 20 at 10 a.m., and Dr. Powers said the revised language would be distributed to members in advance of that meeting.

The committee’s changes alter internal council procedures rather than creating new city law; they will next be published in a rules revision and may be subject to a public hearing before final adoption.

The committee meeting transcript shows extended debate about fairness and process, with members balancing open public participation against a desire to avoid repetitive or unqualified presentations.