Commissioners, council members disagree on rule change process; board calls for legal clarification

During new business at the March 18 St. Joseph County Board of Commissioners meeting, commissioners and several callers debated a recent County Council rules change that alters which items appear on the council agenda and who controls that agenda.

The board’s presiding commissioner (recorded in the transcript as the meeting president) said the County Council on March 11 passed a rules change by a 5–4 vote allowing the council president to set the council agenda and that the change creates new procedures for petitioners to appeal an agenda decision. The presiding commissioner said the change “represents a blatant attempt to ensure that only legislation that the president wants is on the agenda,” and said the commissioners had not received a copy of the council resolution for consideration.

Commissioner Rafael Morton and Commissioner Tony Hazen both spoke. Morton said his view is that the board must seek clarification about which council resolutions are required by state law and local ordinance to be transmitted to the commissioners. Hazen noted that the council’s new rules also include additional checks — for example, the rules committee or a majority of the council can override a president’s decision — and he described the change as embedding checks and balances that did not function in the same way previously.

The transcript records a statutory reference cited by a commissioner as Indiana Code 36-2-3.5-2, Section 2, which one commissioner interpreted as dividing powers between county executive and legislative branches and suggesting one branch should not exercise the powers of the other. Several commissioners said attorneys they consulted gave differing opinions and that the matter should be clarified legally.

County Council Member Amy Drake (calling in) said she disagreed with the commissioners’ forbearance and called the new council rules “procedurally flawed,” arguing they curtail speech and could invite First Amendment challenges. Multiple public commenters also weighed in on the meeting’s agenda items, and some urged the commissioners to avoid weighing in on the council’s internal operating rules while others urged legal review and clarification.

No formal action appears in the transcript to have been taken by the commissioners on the council rules matter at the March 18 meeting; the presiding commissioner said the item was not on the commissioners’ agenda for a vote because the resolution had not been transmitted to the board.