Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council Procedures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council to consider reverting agenda-rule change after months of public concern
Summary
Following public comment and council debate, the mayor directed staff to bring forward an ordinance introduction to revert the council’s future-agenda rule to require only a motion and a second (not a third). The change would return the process to its earlier form; the council did not adopt a final ordinance at the Jan. 14 meeting.
Lake Havasu City Council on Jan. 14 discussed restoring the council’s “future agenda item” procedure to require a motion plus one second rather than the current practice that had included a third concurring councilmember under a code change adopted in 2023.
Councilmember David Diaz asked that the code be reverted to the earlier language that allowed a single councilmember to place an item on a future agenda with a second, saying the current wording can block topics from public discussion. The item drew extended public comment: several residents urged the council to return to the first-and-second process so members can place matters before the public for discussion.
Vice Mayor Michelle Lynn, Councilmember Nancy Campbell and others said the change affects how council members share constituent concerns and asked for clarity on the city code and open-meeting rules. Mayor Kyle Sheehy summarized the procedural history: the code section had been amended previously and the most recent change had removed one route (working through the city manager’s office) that some members relied upon. He said the prior code and the process that occurred in March 2023 are available in the archived meeting records.
After discussion and public testimony, the mayor said he would direct staff to prepare an ordinance introduction reverting the code language to require a motion and a second to place a future agenda item; that introduction would come back to council for formal introduction and any subsequent adoption hearing. Council did not adopt an ordinance at the Jan. 14 meeting; the mayor asked staff to prepare the draft ordinance for council consideration in a future meeting.
Many residents who spoke at the public hearing said the three-signature requirement reduced transparency and could be used to block topics. Others cautioned that some items brought forward with little research had strained staff resources; at least one councilmember cited prior examples of items presented without sufficient vetting. The council agreed to let the full body consider a proposed code change in future meetings rather than making immediate amendments on the floor.
