Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council members dispute committee appointments; motion filed to amend bylaws and add presentation committee to next agenda
Summary
Several council members criticized committee appointment procedures and asked the chair to add proposed bylaw revisions — including a rule that every council member serve on two standing committees and a prohibition against the chair/vice chair serving as committee chairs — to the March 10 agenda for formal consideration.
A dispute over standing-committee appointments dominated council time on Feb. 24 as several members raised concerns about representation, process and transparency.
Councilman Golbach (first name not specified on the record) said many constituents had asked why some council members were not appointed to any standing committee and proposed specific bylaw changes: require that every council member be appointed to two standing committees (to distribute 14 committee seats among seven members), prohibit the council chair and vice chair from serving as standing-committee chairs, and add a "presentation" committee to the list of standing committees in the bylaws (Resolution 2024-07, chapter 7.c). He asked that those items be added to the March 10 regular-meeting agenda and requested that any final votes be taken by a show-of-hands.
Legal counsel and other members noted that the current bylaws (Resolution 2024-07) require the chair to appoint standing-committee members and chairs by the first regular meeting in February and that once appointed, members may not be removed by the chair without council approval. Counsel said the bylaws list four standing committees and do not currently list a presentation committee. The chair, Clarence Gilbert, said he had considered appointments and later changed some assignments; he defended his authority and said he made appointments based on his assessment of members' character, background and ability.
Council members debated whether the proposed changes could be made during council time; counsel advised that adding an item that requires a final vote to an agenda outside the normal process may require a supermajority and a finding of emergency. Several members asked the chair to place the proposed bylaw revisions on the March 10 agenda for full council consideration; the chair agreed to discuss adding the item.
No final bylaw changes were approved at the Feb. 24 meeting; members indicated they would continue discussions and work on draft language ahead of the March 10 meeting.
