Council debates amendments to procedures manual, delays remaining changes for later review

The Cupertino City Council spent an extended portion of its meeting reviewing proposed amendments to the city council procedures manual, including a new provision that would restrict private texting and other private communications on the dais during public meetings.

The discussion began as a continuation of prior work on the procedures manual. The mayor proposed a redline that included a sentence reading, in part, "During public meetings, council members shall not text or otherwise communicate privately with any public official ... or with members of the public regarding matters relevant to items on the agenda while on the dais." That provision, and language clarifying whether council reports may include matters "serving constituents" beyond the city's jurisdiction, drew the most comment.

Two members of the public took opposing positions. Jean Bedard urged the council to reject the last-minute supplemental language and asked how enforcement would work, citing examples of councilmembers who had needed to use communications during meetings. A second speaker supported the changes as part of a broader transparency agenda and said the amendments reflected the public mandate voters expressed in recent elections.

Council members raised a mix of practical and procedural concerns. Some members questioned how a texting prohibition would be enforced and whether the rule was overly prescriptive; others argued it addressed public distrust and would restore civic norms. Councilmembers also debated whether commissioners should be removed by the city clerk for failing to file required forms (automatic, ministerial enforcement) or whether removal should be a council action; commenters noted the need to avoid public shaming and to preserve appeal rights.

Rather than finalize the full set of proposed edits on the spot, the council took two actions: it directed staff to return with a clarified redline that re-integrates the mayor's proposed wording and the motion language agreed at an earlier study session, and it continued some additional suggested amendments to a future meeting so councilmembers could review them and submit edits in writing. The meeting record shows extensive debate over procedure, but no comprehensive, final adoption of the full revised manual occurred at this session.

The apparent outcome leaves in place the council's prior procedures until staff returns with a consolidated redline and a recommended path for any enforcement or implementation steps. The city attorney and staff were asked to provide follow-up language and a timeline for when the council will receive the consolidated redline and any explanatory memos.