Committee advances bill to standardize consent calendars; cities’ group backs bill, one city official objects

Representative Elaine Price, R‑District 4, introduced House Bill 172 to add a statutory definition of "consent calendar" for local governing bodies and to clarify that a governing‑body member may remove (pull) an item from the consent calendar for separate consideration.

"This is legislation to deal with consent calendars … adding in code some clarity about what a consent calendar is and it is ordinary business done by local boards and councils where they can put several items into 1 motion and pass it through that 1 motion," Price said, referencing draft bill text placed on page 2, lines 1–8. The sponsor said the bill clarifies that a council member may pull items from the consent agenda so they can receive additional discussion.

Supporters: Kelly Packer of the Idaho Association of Cities testified in support, thanking lawmakers and saying the association helped redraft initial language with input from city attorneys. "Consent agendas are great for routine items, your minutes, your payables that are just daily transactional, in nature," Packer said. She said not all cities adopt formal parliamentary manuals—"usually, your smaller cities, have not taken the time to actually formalize that in an ordinance"—and called the bill "clarity on what is best practices."

Opposition/concern: Ed DePriest, a Hayden city council member testifying on his own behalf, urged the committee to oppose HB 172, arguing it infringes on municipal autonomy. DePriest said his city had operated without adopting Robert's Rules of Order or Mason's Manual and that local ordinance and practice governed meeting procedure. "It is about the state infringing on the autonomous rights of cities to conduct their meetings as is best for them," he told the committee. DePriest said problems that prompted the proposal stemmed from a council member not communicating with the mayor about agenda items and that local solutions—such as adopting a procedural manual—would be preferable.

Representative Alfieri moved to send House Bill 172 to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation. Committee members heard testimony from the Association of Cities and from at least one municipal official who opposed the bill. The committee voted to send HB 172 to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation on a voice vote; there was recorded support and no recorded opposition during the committee roll call taken by voice.

Why it matters: The bill would create a statewide baseline definition for consent calendars and a clear process for removing items, affecting city and local government meeting processes. Supporters say it advances transparency and harmonizes practice for smaller jurisdictions that lack written procedural manuals; at least one local official objected on home‑rule grounds.

Next steps: HB 172 was voted out of committee with a due‑pass recommendation and will proceed to the House for further consideration.