Task force presents proposed county board rule revisions; board momentarily suspends portions of rules for tonight’s informational presentation

Members of an ad hoc seven‑member task force and the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee (JPS) presented proposed changes to the Winnebago County Board’s rules on May 6. Task force and JPS chairs described the effort as a multi‑month review that produced draft resolutions for multiple rule sections and asked the full board to accept the presentation as informational ahead of future consideration.

Supervisor Connelly Hansen (task force member) and JPS members said the task force was created under Rule 26 and that it had held more than a dozen public meetings and roughly 40 hours of discussion to clean up conflicts and anomalies in the existing rules. The materials were presented by section in draft resolution format to JPS and then to the full board for review; presenters emphasized that no votes on the draft resolutions would be taken that night and that amendments should be submitted in writing to the clerk before the next meeting.

County corporation counsel raised a procedural concern, citing Rules 7.1 and 7.5, which require that written resolutions to be considered by the board include background statements and financial/resource impact information. Counsel observed that the draft documents were in resolution format but were marked “draft” and questioned whether the required resolution components were present. Board members and counsel debated whether Rule 26’s task‑force timetable and the documents’ “draft” status made the presentation appropriate as informational rather than as items formally “to be considered” under Rule 7.1.

Vice Chairman Farid moved to suspend Rule 7.1 and Rule 7.5 for the May 6 meeting so the drafts could be presented; the motion was seconded. The board called the voice vote; the chair reported one recorded “nay” and noted the motion passed for the purposes of that meeting. After further colloquy, corporation counsel reiterated views that Rule 7.5 (which concerns monetary implications) is not generally suspendable and highlighted outstanding questions about items flagged on members’ lists for later review.

Task force and JPS chairs told the board that most sections had unanimous JPS support (17 of the sections received 5‑0 votes at JPS, with a small number of 4‑1 outcomes) and summarized the set of sections presented in draft form (including rule 0 role of supervisors, meeting time/place, organizational meeting, budget meeting, powers of chair/vice chair, order of business, handling resolutions/ordinances, written agenda, definitions, privilege of speaking, voting/roll call, motions, and several others). Presenters asked board members to submit amendments in writing to the clerk before the next meeting; they said the board would see final resolution language for potential consideration at the May 20 meeting or the June meeting according to Rule 26.

No final board action to adopt rules was taken May 6; the item remained an informational presentation and the task force’s draft resolutions and supporting packet will be available for review prior to a future board vote.