Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civic Procedures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates adding moment of silence; legal and quorum concerns prompt further review
Summary
Council members discussed a proposal to add a moment of silence before meetings as an alternative to prayer. The city attorney warned of First Amendment and OPMA/quorum risks; council asked staff and legal to research options including off‑dice gatherings and to report back.
Council members debated whether to add a short, pre‑meeting moment of silence in place of an invocation or prayer. The discussion covered legal and practical concerns, including whether a silence would unintentionally privilege religious practice, how to avoid a quorum or Open Public Meetings Act violation if multiple council members gathered before official business, and how to preserve the value of special moments of silence used for memorials.
Council Member Overholzer had proposed a moment of silence as a non‑sectarian alternative to an invocation to allow councilmembers and attendees time for quiet reflection. Several councilmembers expressed concern that routinely starting every meeting with silence could dull the impact of memorial moments and could be disruptive if members of the public sought to demonstrate or protest during a silence.
City Attorney Ken Harper advised caution. He described two legal threads the council must consider: (1) First Amendment issues — moments of silence can be acceptable only if they remain genuinely neutral and are not styled as prayer or state endorsement of religion; and (2) OPMA (Open Public Meetings Act) concerns — any pre‑meeting gathering in which a quorum of councilmembers is present could be perceived as a meeting if council business is discussed or if the gathering creates a de facto opportunity for deliberation. Harper said those legal considerations would make an on‑dice, regularly scheduled moment of silence legally and practically complicated.
Council members discussed alternatives. One suggested holding an optional, posted, pre‑meeting reflection event downstairs before the council chamber, with language that council members should avoid creating a quorum (for example, leaving if three or more colleagues are present) so the pre‑meeting event would not be a council meeting. Other members favored not adding a routine item to the formal agenda to preserve the special nature of memorial moments.
Council directed staff and legal counsel to produce additional research and options for how to proceed without running afoul of constitutional or open‑meetings rules. The council also approved a separate motion to request more legal training for council members on roles, responsibilities and OPMA compliance.
What’s next: staff and the city attorney will return with options and legal analysis on how to offer an optional pre‑meeting reflection without violating OPMA or appearing to endorse religion; council also asked for expanded legal training at the upcoming retreat or through scheduled sessions.
