Kennewick councilists debate governance manual: public-comment timing, 30-minute cap and agenda-setting among key changes

At the Jan. 28 Kennewick City Council workshop, staff presented a draft governance manual and council members debated a suite of procedural changes affecting public comment timing, workshop authority, agenda-setting and other council practices.

Erin Erdman presented the staff report, describing the governance manual as the document that outlines rules, policies and procedures guiding council operations. She sought council direction on several open items, including whether to combine the two existing visitor/public-comment sections into a single early section, whether to set a 30-minute cap on total public-comment time, and whether to allow final action during workshops in special circumstances.

After extended discussion, council members generally favored creating a single visitor/public-comment section at the beginning of council meetings while preserving the ability to open a second visitor section at the end of a meeting if necessary. Several members said an early comment period would let attendees speak and leave if they cannot stay through a long agenda; others warned that an early comment period can reduce immediate feedback to council during the meeting. Mayor Crawford suggested a practical alternative — having those in favor or opposed identify themselves quickly — to help council gauge support when many people attend.

On public-comment duration, staff proposed a 30-minute cap for the combined visitor section while leaving each speaker’s time limit at three minutes. The proposal included that the council could suspend the limit by motion if it wished to continue. Council members split on setting a formal cap: several supported the 30-minute stopgap as a practical control that can be suspended, while others said a formal cap may be unnecessary but acceptable to try. The council gave direction to add the 30-minute provision to the draft and noted it can be suspended when warranted.

Council also discussed allowing limited final action at workshops in exceptional, time-sensitive cases (for example, to authorize a timely letter of support or an emergency appropriation). Staff said workshops would continue to be the normal venue for discussion and direction but that the manual could permit final action in rare circumstances subject to noticing and majority vote. Members said this should not be routine.

Agenda-setting generated particular debate. The draft manual proposed that the mayor and the city manager each have authority to add items to the agenda; if a council member requests an item and staff does not schedule it, the member could move during council comments to add the item to a future agenda (motion and majority required). Some council members favored retaining or formalizing mayor involvement in setting agendas; others argued the council as a body should control the agenda and cautioned against giving a single official unilateral power. The city clerk suggested wording that clarifies "each has authority" so that mayor and city manager do not both have to agree.

On term limits for mayor or mayor pro tem, staff left a placeholder for future discussion; several council members said they are not in favor of term limits for those internally selected positions, though at least one member expressed support for term limits in principle.

For filling council vacancies, staff proposed a local tie-break option such as a coin flip if the council repeatedly deadlocks; members generally supported keeping the decision local (coin flip) rather than deferring to the county. On boards and commissions, council directed that attendance rules be aligned with council practice (three unexcused absences rather than two) and expressed reluctance to require alternate members to attend every meeting; several members preferred refilling vacancies promptly rather than appointing alternates who must attend routinely.

Finally, members asked staff to develop a clearer, documented process for the city-manager performance review — moving the review to the manager’s anniversary date and providing clearer metrics and a documented evaluation method (including an executive-session discussion and an open meeting action on compensation, when required). Several members said they wanted a more detailed, actionable form of feedback, not just a numeric score.

Next steps: Staff will revise the governance manual draft to reflect the council’s direction — single early visitor section with an option to add a second session, a 30-minute public-comment cap with suspend option, clarified language on mayor/city manager authority to add items, updated boards/commissions attendance rules, and a more complete city-manager review process — and return the draft for further review.