Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agendas And Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs hard stop for council packet materials and standards for appointment materials
Summary
Committee members debated setting a firm deadline for packet materials (current practice cited as six days for distribution, seven days for filing ordinances/ordinances) and discussed whether elected officials should be able to submit supporting documents and full resumes for appointments; no formal rule change was adopted.
The Rules Review Committee discussed whether to set a firm deadline—variously described as a six‑day packet preparation rule and a seven‑day filing rule for ordinances and resolutions—for materials to be included in the Common Council packet, and whether elected officials should be able to add documents or expert testimony to the packet.
Members reviewed the existing timeline: the committee was told ordinances and resolutions must be filed seven days in advance, while packet materials are prepared on a six‑day timetable. Several alderpersons said last‑minute additions have arrived “hours before” meetings and that a hard stop is needed so members and the public can prepare. One member suggested a 48‑hour or 24‑hour hard stop; others noted that a 24‑hour emergency exception already exists for time‑sensitive items such as grant deadlines or items that must be approved quickly after committee action.
Alder Martins and Alderperson Tierney both argued for a firm deadline so members have time to review material. Alder Kellyanne said elected officials should be explicitly allowed to submit supporting documents for packet inclusion, noting past difficulty getting expert testimony into packets. The clerk's office said packet preparation timing is constrained by staffing and the open‑meeting process, and the city attorney noted statutory filing deadlines apply to some items.
On appointments and reappointments, committee members said nomination packets should include a more complete submission or resume rather than only name and address. Some members suggested a short statement explaining why the nominee wants to serve and two or three references to help council evaluation. The committee did not require a specific form but asked staff to draft suggested language clarifying what materials will accompany appointment and reappointment items.
Ending: No formal rule change was adopted; members asked staff to draft proposed language that balances a firm packet deadline with narrow exceptions for time‑sensitive items and to propose minimum materials to accompany appointment nominations.
