The Programs and Services Committee reviewed a comprehensive redline of the Newton City Council rules and debated several substantive and procedural updates, including formalizing the process for rule revisions, clarifying presiding‑officer language, adding language about recusal disclosures, incorporating advisory‑committee charters into the rules document, and introducing a discharge‑petition safety valve to release docket items stalled in committee.

Councilor Oliver summarized the edits as largely housekeeping and compliance updates, including replacing text that duplicated state or city ordinance references with direct citations so future legal changes do not make the rules inaccurate. "We replaced statements…that were effectively meant to be the same as other ordinances in the city or at the state level," Oliver said and explained those were changed to references. Members requested legal review of conflict‑of‑interest and recusal language.

The committee also reviewed a pair of docket‑timeline proposals: (1) require the responsible committee to begin hearings on a council‑filed docket item within 90 days of referral or acceptance on the docket (with a limited extension process), and (2) permit a simple‑majority discharge petition to move a docket item to the full council if it has not received a committee vote within six months. Proponents said the discharge petition would function as a transparency safety valve when a committee majority indefinitely delays an item; opponents warned it could shift screening responsibilities to the full council and invited procedural mischief.

Committee members debated language and the point at which a timeline would begin (date filed, date accepted to the docket, or date of referral by the full council). After discussion the committee approved adding the discharge‑petition language to the subcommittee’s package to go to the full council for action.

Separately, Councilors Albright and Oliver presented a draft code of conduct designed to clarify conduct expectations, harassment prevention standards, a voluntary signed acknowledgement for members, and a light, largely remedial enforcement path (requests for apology, training recommendations, and public recording of incidents). Committee members expressed mixed views about formal enforcement mechanisms and asked for additional review by the law department and Human Resources. The committee voted to hold the code of conduct docket for additional review and asked members to submit proposed edits.

The committee voted to forward the rules redline (with the agreed edits and subject to legal clean‑up) to the full council on second call so councilors could consider the package during the current transition; the code of conduct will return to committee following additional legal and HR input.