Committee of the Whole opens review of council rules; pledge, agenda approval and committee voting debated

The Committee of the Whole spent its session reviewing proposed changes to council rules, including combining rule 7 (call to order) with rule 8 (order of business), whether to include the pledge of allegiance as a standing opening item, and whether committees should hold votes to advance legislation to the full council.

Member Alan Swank proposed tightening the opening sequence so meetings begin with a call to order, followed by the pledge of allegiance, quorum confirmation and formal approval of the agenda. Several members expressed support for formal agenda approval as a way to prevent being blindsided by late items; others opposed institutionalizing the pledge — Councilor Michael Wood and Jessica Thomas said they object on religious or performative grounds and recommended the pledge remain optional. Swank responded that participation would not be required; he cited precedent in other public bodies and Supreme Court rulings that participation cannot be compelled.

Councilors also debated whether committees should take votes to advance legislation. Supporters said committee votes would force more engagement and better developed proposals; opponents worried nonbinding committee votes might create a public perception that decisions were effectively made before broad public input. The law director/parliamentarian indicated she would support amendments to allow committee voting with appropriate procedural safeguards.

Members agreed to place the combined call‑to‑order/agenda items (rule 7/8 elements) on the agenda for the next regular session (Jan. 20) for individual votes, and to continue reviewing additional rules at future Committee of the Whole meetings; the committee concluded at 8:39 p.m.