Scottsdale City Council's proposed overhaul of internal meeting rules drew heavy criticism Dec. 2 from dozens of residents who said the changes would make it harder for ordinary Scottsdale citizens to be heard.

City staff presented a slide‑by‑slide package of proposed amendments to the Rules of Council Procedure, including: clarifying presiding officer succession; changing who may call non‑regular meetings; formalizing agenda order and the mayor's report; and, most contentiously, revising non‑agendized public comment to occur at the end of meetings, reducing the number of speakers and shortening speaking time. Staff also proposed requiring citizen petitions be submitted earlier and prohibiting members of the public from using the city’s AV playback equipment for presentations.

The public comment period on the rules itself became a focal point: speakers including longtime residents, former councilmembers and business owners argued the changes would reduce transparency and discourage working residents, families and seniors from participating — especially if general comment were scheduled late in the evening. "Public input should not land at the point in the meeting when most people can't reasonably stay," Raul Zubia told the council. Former Councilwoman Linda Milhaven said she spent 12 years encouraging public participation and urged council not to limit it.

Staff said the package reflected both housekeeping (codifying existing practices) and examples from peer cities; the city attorney noted that six of nine peer jurisdictions surveyed hold general public comment at the end of meetings. Staff also said policing use of city AV equipment protects the city from copyright, obscenity or Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issues. Interim City Attorney Luis Sentella emphasized the city needed to avoid putting staff in a position of being seen as censoring content while also managing legal risks.

Council members split on the proposals. Some members supported codifying rules, limiting behind‑the‑scenes polling of council members on agendas and tightening petition formats and deadlines. Other members and many residents said moving non‑agendized public comment would effectively silence many who attend early and expected to speak before lengthy agenda items. After hours of public testimony and detailed line‑by‑line debate, the council voted on multiple individual revisions; some passed and some failed, and the broader package provoked an alternate motion to reject the resolution that would adopt the full rule set.

The net result of the evening was significant public engagement and a council record that shows disagreement over how to balance meeting efficiency, legal risk management and broad public access. Council directed staff to incorporate council edits and in some cases to return with additional information; members also asked that any future steps consider the procurement code and transparency obligations.

What happens next will be procedural: because the city attorney advised the council about procurement and petition processes, staff will be expected to return with refined language where needed. Residents and civic groups who testified said they will monitor the council’s next steps closely.