Davis County Commission reviews proposed ordinance to codify rules of order, public‑comment and meetings procedures

County staff presented a draft ordinance intended to update the county code governing the Board of County Commission. The draft adds a definitions section, clarifies the commission’s legislative and executive roles, codifies rules of order and electronic‑meeting procedures, and creates a streamlined process for calling special meetings when commissioners agree.

Brian McKenzie, county clerk, said the ordinance text uses black for existing code, green for proposed additions and red for struck language and that staff circulated a final version on June 20. He said the draft also establishes procedures for public comment (default three‑minute limit, collective time caps, and the option to extend/shorten at the chair’s discretion) and for managing consent‑agenda items.

Several commissioners raised concerns about language that could be read to give the chair excessive control over who speaks. One participant read the draft text aloud: “the chair must recognize that request. And once recognized, the commissioner wishing to speak may proceed,” and asked whether that wording could be clarified so a future chair could not ‘go rogue.’ Staff replied the draft includes checks and that other commissioners and department heads retain the “privilege of the floor.” Staff agreed to consider alternative wording and to add a footnote linking the expulsion/discipline provision to the relevant state code.

On public comment, commissioners discussed distinguishing between comments and questions, using written question collection and scheduling separate town halls when many residents seek detailed answers, and limiting aggregate speaking time for a single topic. On consent items, staff said departments will flag routine or recurring items in the submission workflow but the commissioners retain final authority to place items on consent or the regular agenda; commissioners discussed whether to add a dollar threshold for consent placement and asked staff to propose a consistent standard.

The ordinance also includes procedures for public hearings (staff presentation followed by public comment) and a limited process to meet in less than five days’ notice when all commissioners agree and the clerk verifies availability. Staff suggested training for department heads and possible reassignment of ProLogistix or similar workflow tools depending on whether the commission separates executive and legislative clerk functions.

Ending

Commissioners asked staff to revise the draft to clarify chair recognition and safeguards, add legal cross‑references for expulsion authority, and refine consent‑item language. Staff agreed to return with redlined changes and cost/operational implications next week. No vote was taken at the work session.