Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agenda Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DeKalb council debates agenda control; affirms city-manager-led process after motion
Summary
The DeKalb City Council debated Oct. 27 whether councilmembers or the city manager should control placement of matters on the meeting agenda and, after discussion, affirmed the existing practice of routing proposed items through the city manager while retaining the council's ability to amend the agenda at a meeting.
The DeKalb City Council spent the bulk of its Oct. 27 meeting debating how council members should place matters on the city agenda, ultimately affirming that the city manager will continue to lead agenda preparation while councilmembers may bring items to the manager for consideration.
The discussion began when an alderman sought clarity on chapter 2.09(a) of the municipal code, which states that "any two or more city council members desiring that a matter be placed on a regular meeting agenda . . . shall advise the city manager" and supply relevant materials. Alderman Smith moved to add formal consideration of that provision to the agenda; Alderman Larson seconded and the motion passed on a roll call vote, adding the item to the meeting for discussion.
City Manager Nicholas told the council the clause had been added years ago to avoid late, unsupported agenda items and emphasized the council-manager model. "Information is power," Nicholas said, urging members to bring topics to the manager in advance so staff can prepare researched background and avoid ad-hoc requests during meetings. He noted a later paragraph in the code also gives the manager discretion: "inclusion of any such matter on the agenda shall be at the discretion of the city manager." Mayor Cohen Barnes and several aldermen said they prefer the current operating practice: individual councilmembers can raise items with the city manager, the manager assesses timing and staff workload, and the council can still amend the agenda at a meeting by motion and vote if members insist.
Councilmembers raised two main concerns: protecting staff time during busy seasons (the city manager and department heads are heavily engaged during budget season) and ensuring adequate public notice under the Open Meetings Act. Multiple councilmembers said they want to continue informal meetings with the manager (briefings, breakfasts) as a way to vet potential items before formal placement on an agenda. The mayor directed the city attorney to review Chapters 2 and 3 of the municipal code and "clean up" inconsistent language so the code clearly reflects a city-manager-run government.
No formal change to the municipal code was enacted at the meeting. Instead the council endorsed continuing the existing practice (bring items to the city manager; CC the mayor out of courtesy) and relying on the motion-to-amend process if an item must be added at the start of a meeting.
The action on the floor that initiated this discussion was the motion to amend the agenda so the council could consider how agenda placement is handled; that motion (moved by Alderman Smith; seconded by Alderman Larson) passed and the substance was discussed as described above.
The legal references discussed during the item included chapter 2.09(a) of the city's municipal code and the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120), which councilmembers cited when noting notice requirements for final action.
