Salisbury council debates sweeping revision to rules of order, public‑comment time extended to three minutes

Attorney Ashley Bachey and the city clerk presented a draft resolution to amend the council’s regulations and rules of order; the item opened an extended council discussion at the Jan. 13 work session but was not adopted that night.

Council members debated a series of edits intended to update the rules to match current practice and to address transparency and process questions raised during the council’s retreat and in subsequent work. Among the items discussed were increasing public-comment time from two minutes to three minutes (the draft also calls for phased implementation of an online sign-up option while retaining in‑person sign-ups), clearer guidance for special open or closed meetings, and remote‑participation rules for members who cannot attend in person.

Councilwoman Jackson supported increasing public‑comment time to three minutes, saying she often could not finish remarks in two minutes. Several members pressed for clarity on remote participation: the draft requires members who participate remotely to notify the council president and city clerk in advance and suggests video remain on when a remote member votes; council members debated whether that should be mandatory and how to handle short‑notice illness or inability to join.

Members also discussed agenda control. The draft places primary agenda-setting authority with the council president (or designee if unavailable); some members asked that requests by the mayor, city administrator or any council member be guaranteed consideration or at least placed on a requested-items list for staff review. The clerk and staff said the new meeting‑management platform and staggered meeting schedule are intended to give council members more time to review proposed agendas before publication.

Council members asked for explicit language about certificates of appreciation (one member requested that such presentations require council consensus), media conduct guidance, cell‑phone expectations by council members, and whether to cite Robert’s Rules of Order. After discussion, council members indicated consent to include a provision that, in the absence of a rule on a point of procedure, the council will refer to the latest published edition of Robert’s Rules of Order as a fallback.

No ordinance was adopted; the discussion was presented as an opportunity to direct the attorney and clerk’s office to incorporate council feedback. Staff will return a revised draft for further review and possible formal consideration at a later meeting.