Suffolk council to consider standalone rules, adds motion-to-reconsider language and clarifies abstention policy; item placed on Jan. 21 agenda

The Suffolk City Attorney presented a draft standalone set of council rules and procedures and the City Council voted 8-0 to place an ordinance and resolution on the Jan. 21 meeting agenda that would adopt the changes.

The draft reorders existing code provisions into a readable standalone document, moves the present "code of ethics" language into a retitled "code of conduct," and standardizes who receives agenda requests (City Manager). It also updates public-hearing rules: land-use and certain appeals would receive 10 minutes for proponents, 15 minutes for opponents and five minutes for rebuttal, while other hearings would be capped at 30 minutes total with three minutes per speaker. The draft would move the registration deadline for non-agenda speakers to 5 p.m. on council day and limit announcements and comments to five minutes per council member.

The City Attorney told council that a provision in the current city code listing numerous non-debatable motions "cannot stand as it's written" and would be removed from the draft because it conflicts with council members' rights and established practice. He recommended adopting a motion-to-reconsider procedure that mirrors a Chesapeake model: written notice to the clerk by the Friday after the meeting, signed by three council members, one of whom must have been on the prevailing side.

Council members debated how to handle abstentions. The Mayor framed the change as an expectation that "you're expected to vote unless you have a conflict of interest or an appearance of an impropriety." Several members supported requiring a yes-or-no vote absent a disclosed conflict or appearance of impropriety; others urged care because "appearance of impropriety" can be subjective and recommended drafting clearer language. Council Member Rechter emphasized public perception, saying abstentions may appear as ambivalence to voters. Council Member Wright and others asked for data on historical frequency of abstentions before permanently changing practice.

After discussion, Council Member Rechter moved to place the amendments on the Jan. 21, 2026 agenda, including language adding a motion to reconsider and explicitly allowing abstention for conflicts of interest or an appearance of impropriety; Council Member Wright seconded. The motion passed by an 8-0 roll-call.

The City Attorney said he will send the ordinance and resolution to council with new language underlined so members can clearly see additions and changes before Jan. 21. The draft ordinance and resolution would be subject to further amendment at the meeting.