Sedona council begins line-by-line rewrite of rules, debates attendance, records requests and discipline
October 27, 2025 | Sedona, Yavapai County, Arizona
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Sedona City Council convened a working session to review and revise the city9s rules of procedure and code of ethical conduct, starting a section-by-section, line-by-line process prompted by the resignation of the former mayor and an independent HR report. City Attorney Kurt and City Manager Annette and council members discussed dozens of proposed edits, including new language on attendance, public-records requests by councilors, mayoral authority and succession, and a multi-step discipline procedure for rule violations.
The review was billed as an early, more detailed examination than the council9s usual annual retreat and included proposed edits drawn from other cities9 codes and from recommendations in Stacy Gabriel9s HR investigation report. "This item was first called for by Councilor Furman," Kurt said at the start of the session, adding that the draft included items he prepared after reviewing other jurisdictions and the Gabriel report.
Why it matters: Council members said the revisions aim to reduce ambiguity and restore public confidence after a high-profile personnel controversy. Proposed changes would tighten how councilors request personnel-related public records, clarify expectations for attendance and participation, and create a formal process to discipline or limit certain official privileges for members found to have violated rules.
Most contentious topics
Attendance and participation: Councilors debated language that would require councilors to "meaningfully participate" in meetings and to make a "good-faith effort" to attend scheduled public meetings. Several members said the phrase "fully participate" was too vague; others worried that setting a hard numeric absence threshold (for example, a limit on excused absences) would be unfair. City Manager Annette told the council she would draft clearer language establishing expectations and a process to address patterns of absenteeism, including executive-session review for prolonged absences.
Public-records requests about personnel: The council spent substantial time on a recommendation (from the Gabriel report) that councilors provide advance notice to the city manager or city attorney before making public-records requests that concern current or former city employees. Several councilors opposed any rule that would limit a councilor9s access to records; others said they supported a narrowly drawn rule limited to personnel records so staff and council could coordinate and avoid repeated, individually driven records requests that had previously strained staff and appeared adversarial to employees. Joanne, the city clerk, proposed that when counselors submit public-records requests related to personnel, staff automatically notify the rest of council so members are aware of requests that could have broader implications.
Mayor, vice mayor and succession: Councilors proposed a technical clarification that the mayor is bound by the same rules of procedure as councilors. They also discussed succession language after the recent mayoral vacancy, debating whether an acting or interim mayor should be appointed automatically (for example elevating the vice mayor) or by council vote. Several members argued a council vote provides a public endorsement of leadership; others said automatic elevation of the vice mayor would be simpler in an emergency. The council asked staff to draft an option that preserves council approval while allowing for orderly interim leadership.
Discipline and "good standing": The council discussed a new multi-step discipline framework intended to address repeated or serious violations of the rules. The draft proposes private reprimand(s) as an initial step and a public censure if problems persist, and it would allow council to consider removing certain privileges (such as presiding at meetings, representing the city at external boards, or using council office space) if a member is determined to have "lost good standing." Councilors debated thresholds and safeguards, including an executive-session discussion before public action. Several members argued for a progressive process that allows for private warning(s) followed by an executive-session discussion of repeated problems and, only after that, a public action if necessary.
Boards, commissions and appointments: Councilors questioned the long-standing practice of the mayor and the chair of a body conducting interviews for commission candidates and bringing a recommendation to council. Multiple members said they want a more transparent, inclusive process and asked staff to prepare options for short-listing and interviewing applicants that would give the full council more information before making appointments to bodies such as the Planning & Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission and Tourism Advisory Board.
Public comment and meeting timing: Council debated public-comment procedures, including consolidation of multiple speakers who share a position (the mayor may grant extra time if several people sign in and designate 1 speaker to represent them). Members also discussed whether to change Wednesday work-session start times so more residents can attend; staff said they will prepare options and potential impacts on staff schedules.
Other matters: The council touched on gift and procurement policies, dress code language for the dais, and whether certain recurring outside assignments or memberships (for example, regional boards or nonprofit partnerships) should require council approval or be reviewed periodically as part of council9s roles and liaisons list. Staff agreed to clean up cross-references in the draft and return a consolidated markup for council review at a future meeting.
What happens next: Staff will revise the draft rules based on the feedback and return a clean version for council consideration. Councilors agreed to schedule a follow-up meeting (likely at the December agenda-setting cycle) to continue the discussion and to consider specific policy sections — including a distinct agenda item to discuss council roles, legislative advocacy and liaison appointments. City Attorney Kurt and City Manager Annette said they would present redrafted language on the public-records notice, attendance expectations, and the discipline process for the council9s next review.
Closing: Council recessed for a scheduled break after agreeing on several clarifications and asking staff to prepare a revised package that consolidates the edits discussed. The council did not take any final votes on the proposed rule changes during the session.
The review was billed as an early, more detailed examination than the council9s usual annual retreat and included proposed edits drawn from other cities9 codes and from recommendations in Stacy Gabriel9s HR investigation report. "This item was first called for by Councilor Furman," Kurt said at the start of the session, adding that the draft included items he prepared after reviewing other jurisdictions and the Gabriel report.
Why it matters: Council members said the revisions aim to reduce ambiguity and restore public confidence after a high-profile personnel controversy. Proposed changes would tighten how councilors request personnel-related public records, clarify expectations for attendance and participation, and create a formal process to discipline or limit certain official privileges for members found to have violated rules.
Most contentious topics
Attendance and participation: Councilors debated language that would require councilors to "meaningfully participate" in meetings and to make a "good-faith effort" to attend scheduled public meetings. Several members said the phrase "fully participate" was too vague; others worried that setting a hard numeric absence threshold (for example, a limit on excused absences) would be unfair. City Manager Annette told the council she would draft clearer language establishing expectations and a process to address patterns of absenteeism, including executive-session review for prolonged absences.
Public-records requests about personnel: The council spent substantial time on a recommendation (from the Gabriel report) that councilors provide advance notice to the city manager or city attorney before making public-records requests that concern current or former city employees. Several councilors opposed any rule that would limit a councilor9s access to records; others said they supported a narrowly drawn rule limited to personnel records so staff and council could coordinate and avoid repeated, individually driven records requests that had previously strained staff and appeared adversarial to employees. Joanne, the city clerk, proposed that when counselors submit public-records requests related to personnel, staff automatically notify the rest of council so members are aware of requests that could have broader implications.
Mayor, vice mayor and succession: Councilors proposed a technical clarification that the mayor is bound by the same rules of procedure as councilors. They also discussed succession language after the recent mayoral vacancy, debating whether an acting or interim mayor should be appointed automatically (for example elevating the vice mayor) or by council vote. Several members argued a council vote provides a public endorsement of leadership; others said automatic elevation of the vice mayor would be simpler in an emergency. The council asked staff to draft an option that preserves council approval while allowing for orderly interim leadership.
Discipline and "good standing": The council discussed a new multi-step discipline framework intended to address repeated or serious violations of the rules. The draft proposes private reprimand(s) as an initial step and a public censure if problems persist, and it would allow council to consider removing certain privileges (such as presiding at meetings, representing the city at external boards, or using council office space) if a member is determined to have "lost good standing." Councilors debated thresholds and safeguards, including an executive-session discussion before public action. Several members argued for a progressive process that allows for private warning(s) followed by an executive-session discussion of repeated problems and, only after that, a public action if necessary.
Boards, commissions and appointments: Councilors questioned the long-standing practice of the mayor and the chair of a body conducting interviews for commission candidates and bringing a recommendation to council. Multiple members said they want a more transparent, inclusive process and asked staff to prepare options for short-listing and interviewing applicants that would give the full council more information before making appointments to bodies such as the Planning & Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission and Tourism Advisory Board.
Public comment and meeting timing: Council debated public-comment procedures, including consolidation of multiple speakers who share a position (the mayor may grant extra time if several people sign in and designate 1 speaker to represent them). Members also discussed whether to change Wednesday work-session start times so more residents can attend; staff said they will prepare options and potential impacts on staff schedules.
Other matters: The council touched on gift and procurement policies, dress code language for the dais, and whether certain recurring outside assignments or memberships (for example, regional boards or nonprofit partnerships) should require council approval or be reviewed periodically as part of council9s roles and liaisons list. Staff agreed to clean up cross-references in the draft and return a consolidated markup for council review at a future meeting.
What happens next: Staff will revise the draft rules based on the feedback and return a clean version for council consideration. Councilors agreed to schedule a follow-up meeting (likely at the December agenda-setting cycle) to continue the discussion and to consider specific policy sections — including a distinct agenda item to discuss council roles, legislative advocacy and liaison appointments. City Attorney Kurt and City Manager Annette said they would present redrafted language on the public-records notice, attendance expectations, and the discipline process for the council9s next review.
Closing: Council recessed for a scheduled break after agreeing on several clarifications and asking staff to prepare a revised package that consolidates the edits discussed. The council did not take any final votes on the proposed rule changes during the session.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meetingSponsors
Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Arizona articles free in 2025
