Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consent Calendars topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to require clarity on local consent calendars
Summary
The House State Affairs Committee voted to send House Bill 172 to the floor with a "do pass" recommendation after hearing proponents and opponents about whether the state should set a statutory definition and minimum pull rules for local governments' consent calendars.
Representative Elaine Price, District 4, Kootenai County, Coeur d'Alene, asked the House State Affairs Committee to introduce House Bill 172, legislation that adds a definition of a "consent calendar" to state code and clarifies that a single member of a local governing body may pull an item from the consent calendar for separate consideration.
The bill's sponsor said the measure is intended to provide statewide consistency for a practice used by city councils and local boards. "This is just adding in code some clarity about what a consent calendar is," Representative Elaine Price said, describing the change as focused on ordinary business items and a process for removing items for discussion.
Supporters said the bill will improve transparency for routine items that can be bundled into a single motion, while opponents argued it intrudes on local autonomy. Kelly Packer of the Association of Cities testified in support, saying the association helped redraft the bill and that, "the clarity that is provided with this legislation that it cannot include major items and that 1 member of a governing body may pull that off ... is helpful." Representative Price told the committee the Idaho Association of Cities reviewed the language and provided input before the RS was filed.
Opponents included Hayden council member Ed De Priest, who testified virtually and said the proposal "is about the state infringing on the autonomous rights of cities to conduct their meetings as is best for them." De Priest said his city does not follow Robert's Rules of Order and warned against the state prescribing municipal meeting procedure in statute.
Committee members asked whether existing parliamentary authorities (for example, Robert's Rules) made the statute unnecessary. Representative Price and supporters responded that some smaller cities have not adopted a procedural manual, and that statutory clarity would help prevent items from being slipped through without public discussion.
After public testimony and member discussion, Representative Alfieri moved to send House Bill 172 to the floor with a "do pass" recommendation. The committee voted by voice and the motion carried.
The bill will next proceed to the House floor for further consideration.
