Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rules Of Order topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Davis County staff propose ordinance to formalize rules of order, public‑comment limits and electronic‑meeting policy
Summary
County staff reviewed a draft ordinance to adopt formal rules of order, codify an electronic‑meetings policy and create a consent calendar. Commissioners debated chair authority to require requests to speak, public‑comment time limits and procedures for special and emergency meetings.
County staff presented a draft ordinance during a Davis County work session that would consolidate the commission’s rules of order, put an existing electronic‑meetings policy into ordinance form and create mechanisms such as a consent calendar to streamline routine business. Staff said the change pulls scattered procedures and a prior resolution into a single document.
The draft makes several substantive changes to meeting procedures. It affirms that "each commissioner has the right to speak," while giving the chair limited authority to organize discussion "if necessary to keep order and to conduct the meeting efficiently," staff said. The wording, presented as conditional, drew back‑and‑forth from commissioners who said they wanted to preserve informal debate while ensuring orderly meetings.
The proposed public‑comment rules would limit individual speakers to three minutes and cap the public‑comment period at 20 minutes unless the chair elects to extend the overall period. "Comments are limited to 3 minutes for each person," staff read aloud; "the public comment period shall be limited to 20 minutes total, but may be extended by the chair." Commissioners debated whether the three‑minute rule should be strictly applied or remain flexible when speakers provide new or meaningful information.
The ordinance would also allow the commission to group routine, procedural or previously discussed items on a consent calendar that can be approved in a single vote, with any commissioner able to pull an item for separate discussion. Staff said department heads would flag items they consider eligible for consent.
On special and emergency meetings, staff outlined that the statute’s usual five‑day notice could be shortened in some cases: the draft allows a special meeting to be convened with 24 hours’ notice if other commissioners confirm availability, while a narrowly defined emergency meeting could be called with less notice when the issue meets statutory emergency criteria. Staff cited recent board‑of‑canvass events as an example of different notice rules applying to distinct functions.
Commissioners also asked for a clearer recusal procedure; the current draft does not define when or how a commissioner must recuse and several members requested that language be added. On electronic participation, the draft asks commissioners who plan to attend remotely to notify the chair and county clerk at least three business days before a regularly scheduled meeting to allow set‑up and testing, with staff noting emergency exceptions would still be accommodated.
Staff said they will incorporate suggested edits and return the ordinance for formal consideration at an upcoming meeting. The commission agreed to let staff revise the language and bring it back for action at the next regular meeting.
The work session included several county staff and outside participants who offered technical and legal detail; staff recommended additional training on open‑meetings rules to guide commissioners on when informal communications could trigger public‑meeting requirements.
