Commissioners adopt revised rules of order after heated public comments and debate

The Board of County Commissioners on March 13 adopted Resolution 029‑25, the third revision to the amended rules of order governing the board’s conduct and agenda processes. The vote was 6‑1.

Chief Counsel Trent told the board the proposed revisions reflected direction from the board’s Committee of the Whole and that she had made changes as requested. Two public commenters — Ben Hobert and Charlotte O’Hara — asked the board to delay adoption and raised process concerns. Hobert criticized the item’s late posting and said the change “should be tabled until next week so that any citizen has the opportunity to comment,” arguing the revisions would consolidate power and limit a commissioner’s ability to place items on the agenda. O’Hara said the changes “are diminishing the authority of the district commissioners” and called the approach “a power grab.”

Commissioners engaged in extended discussion about multiple changes to the rules. Topics included the process for adding items to future agendas, whether the chair should be able to alter or block items, the mechanics and threshold for a motion to “call the question” (end debate), whether the supermajority requirement refers to the board or only those present, and clarifying language about liaison and appointment procedures. Several commissioners said the revisions bring the county into closer alignment with Robert’s Rules of Order and provide clearer administrative processes; other commissioners sought additional clarifications, typographical fixes and assurances the language would not be used to stifle dissent.

Commissioner Hanslick moved adoption of Resolution 029‑25; Commissioner Allenbrand seconded. Commissioner Ashcraft moved to table the resolution to a future meeting to incorporate additional edits; that motion failed on a 5‑2 roll call. The board then voted to adopt the resolution by a vote of 6 in favor and 1 against. Chair Mike Kelly cast the approving vote; Commissioner Fast voted no on the final adoption. Commissioners and staff noted several small typographical or drafting fixes would be made to clarify intent and that chief counsel will adjust language where necessary (for example, clarifying whether thresholds are measured “of those present” versus “of the board”).

The changes clarify a multi‑step process allowing members to propose items for a future agenda either by working with the chair or by submitting a formal request form; they fix timeline windows for legal and administrative review (three calendar days for chief counsel, seven calendar days for the county manager in some paths); they revise provisions governing the timing of agenda review after a Committee of the Whole; and they add a requirement for commissioners to make liaison appointments by February 1 of each year. Chief Counsel Trent said the administrative request form will be automated and clarified as needed. Several commissioners said they supported the greater procedural clarity and distribution of appointments across commissioners in the revised rules; others maintained concerns over default moves from committee to action and urged continued collegial engagement.

The board also recorded a procedural debate about the “call the question” mechanism. The adopted wording requires a two‑thirds supermajority to end debate, commonly interpreted by commissioners as two‑thirds of those present; chief counsel agreed to clarify that point in drafting. Staff said the adopted process is intended to prevent a single member from short‑circuiting deliberation while preserving the chair’s responsibility to set agendas.

The resolution, recorded as Resolution 029‑25 in the meeting packet, became effective upon adoption. Commissioners asked chief counsel to make a small number of clarifying edits referenced during the discussion and to return corrected pages or an updated version to the board clerks for the public record.

Votes at a glance from the March 13 meeting (see separate Votes at a Glance article) record other routine approvals from the consent agenda and minutes.