Council deadlocks on rule change after heated debate over "urgent" business and process

Missoula City Council debated and voted on proposed changes to council rule 21(c) at the Aug. 11 meeting. The proposed change would have replaced the existing “urgent items” language with language authorizing only “emergency” actions under Rule 27 or unforeseen fiscal/contracting matters to be added to the City Council agenda for new business without prior committee consideration.

An amendment by Councilor Daniel Carlino to revert the item back to the original version brought forward at the committee meeting passed on a roll-call vote, 8–4. The committee’s original proposal — which Councilor Bob Campbell and Councilor Vaseca (name in transcript) had sponsored — would have retained a broader “urgent items” standard only after specific limiting language was applied. After the Carlino amendment passed, the council then voted on the original proposed rule change; that motion failed on a second roll-call vote, 4–8.

Councilors’ remarks at the meeting summarized opposing perspectives. Councilor Bob Campbell said the proposed change was aimed at increasing transparency by narrowing the circumstances under which items could bypass committee deliberation. “We should do better. Let’s do better on behalf of our constituents … give folks the opportunity to examine what it is we bring before this body,” Campbell said. He argued that the current “urgent” standard allowed politically timed matters to appear on a Monday council agenda with limited public notice.

Opponents, including Councilor Mike Nugent, said the council already follows legal requirements and that narrowing the rule could reduce the council’s ability to respond quickly when circumstances require it. Nugent said the council should not “change our rules when things don't go our way” and argued the process used in committee complied with state law.

Other councilors framed the debate around a recent example: Councilor Jennifer Savage explained she had brought a pride-flag resolution to the floor quickly because a school superintendent had directed teachers to remove classroom flags, which she said created an urgent need for the council to respond before school ended. Savage said the timing was the reason she used new business rather than committee. Councilor Krist(en?) Jordan and others described feeling excluded from the drafting and sponsorship process on that item and said the rule change could limit minority council members’ opportunities to respond to time-sensitive developments.

The formal roll-call votes were recorded in the meeting minutes. On the Carlino amendment (to revert to the committee’s original proposal), votes were: Yes — Meredith Becerra, Bob Campbell, Daniel Carlino, President Jordan, Nelson, Jennifer Savage, Council President Cheryl (listed as "Cheryl" in transcript) and Sandra Lucica; No — Stacy Anderson, Sierra Farmer, Gwen Jones and Mike Nugent. The Carlino amendment passed 8–4. On the final vote adopting the proposed rule change (the narrower emergency-language version), the motion failed 4–8 with yes votes cast by Campbell, Carlino, Jordan and Councilor Vaseca (as recorded in the transcript).

The council’s action leaves the existing rule in place. Several councilors said they will continue to work on technical cleanups to council rules and to propose clarifications in future rule packages. The debate highlighted tensions about process, transparency and how the council balances the ability to act quickly during time-sensitive events against providing broad public notice and committee vetting.