Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council narrows proclamation rules; adopts amendment restricting duplicate proclamations
Summary
The council amended its proclamations and certificates policy to clarify who may present proclamations, set review and recordkeeping expectations, and add an amendment that if the mayor denies a proclamation no other elected official may issue a proclamation on that subject until the sponsoring council member can place it on the next agenda. The measure passed 4–1.
The City Council voted 4–1 to amend its council policy on proclamations and certificates of recognition, clarifying presentation authority, bases for denial and recordkeeping while adopting an amendment to prevent duplicate proclamations after a mayoral denial.
City Attorney staff reviewed proposed changes to Council Policy 1.11.02, explaining the revisions would clarify that proclamations and certificates may only be presented by city officials or their staff, provide guidance on grounds for denial, and require a time frame for council members to submit records to the city clerk. The policy as revised also states proclamations are granted on a first-requested basis and that the city clerk will retain documentation.
During debate council members requested standard templates and stationery for district proclamations, discussed reasonable timelines for review (the mayor's office review window and a 30-day clerk notification window were both referenced), and sought clarity to avoid Brown Act exposures when communications about rejected requests occur.
Council Member Nzunza proposed, and the council accepted, an amendment that if the mayor declines a proclamation request no other elected official may issue a proclamation on that subject until the sponsoring council member has had an opportunity to place it on the next council agenda. The motion passed 4–1 with the mayor casting the lone no vote.
Mayor McCann voiced concern that routine emails about a denial could raise Brown Act issues; other members said they would prefer clear procedures that preserve collegiality while avoiding duplicative proclamations.
