Council debates remote-participation rules, refers Policy 88 back to staff for redraft

Council members on May 12 debated revisions to Council Policy 88, the document that governs remote participation by council members, and directed staff to prepare a redlined revision and legal opinion.

Council member Williams asked that language be added or clarified so that remote attendance is not authorized solely for convenience (for example, seasonal relocation or vacation). He suggested a notice requirement to the council president and city manager (three days was discussed) and raised concerns about how sanctions are described in the policy. Williams said he believed sanctions language should make clear whether a two-thirds vote must be of members present or two-thirds of a quorum of the council.

City staff and the city attorney (on the record during discussion) clarified that state statute requires a quorum of a majority of council members (at least four) for official action and that official actions require that quorum. Staff told council it would prepare a redline and legal opinion and return the policy for formal consideration. Council member Williams moved to refer the policy back to staff with guidance; Council member Miller seconded. The motion carried unanimously.

Council comments focused on transparency and the expectation that elected members attend in person barring legitimate reasons (illness, safety, family or work circumstances), and on ensuring the policy aligns with state law. The council did not adopt new policy language at the meeting; staff will return a recommended amendment and highlight any statutory conflicts for council consideration.