Mountain View committee approves clearer limits on motions to reconsider

The Mountain View Council Policy & Procedures Committee voted unanimously to send staff-drafted redlines to Council Policy A-13 to the full council after the committee chair reviews them, with a direction to clarify when motions to reconsider are timely and to require consultation with staff before offering untimely reconsideration motions.

The change targets section 11 of Council Policy A-13, which governs motions for reconsideration. Diana Fazeli, assistant city attorney, told the committee the proposed language would narrow when the council will accept a motion to reconsider and provide examples of “material” changes in facts or circumstances that might justify revisiting a prior decision. Fazeli said that under classic parliamentary rules, “it’s untimely if the motion for reconsideration is not made at the meeting,” and that the council is nevertheless allowed to adopt its own procedures that expand or clarify that default.

Committee members debated how to balance finality of votes against the need to correct or revisit decisions when facts change or when staff identifies errors. Several members said the problem most often arose after study sessions, when council direction to staff functionally determined next steps but left ambiguity about whether that direction was final. One council member said study sessions can create “de facto final” direction that may be difficult to revisit without substantial additional study and expense.

After extended discussion, the committee agreed to keep a narrow, time-based rule for reconsideration — that a motion for reconsideration should be made at the same meeting that the item was acted on or at the next regular adjourned meeting — and to add a requirement that a council member proposing an untimely motion first confer with the city manager or city attorney so staff are not surprised. The committee also directed staff to forward a redlined version of the policy to the committee chair for review and then to the full council for consideration, rather than returning the item to the committee.

Diana Fazeli described the options available to the council under local rules: “You’re perfectly well within your right to modify your rules and to modify Robert’s rules and Rosenberg’s rules,” she said, explaining the committee could adopt local guardrails stricter than the default parliamentary timeline.

Council Member McAllister said clarifying the policy is important to avoid repeatedly reopening matters and to reduce staff burden; McAllister also said they would support the city attorney’s suggestion for clearer language. The committee voted to transmit the proposed edits with the chair’s review; the motion carried unanimously.

The committee took no changes to the substance of study-session authority: staff retained the ability to bring items back to council if new facts, changes in law, or administrative needs warranted it. The action now goes to the full City Council for final consideration; the committee directed staff to prepare the redlined ordinance language and the cover memo for council review.