Fountain Hills Council Revisits Rules of Procedure: call-to-public, time limits and media notice debated

Fountain Hills —eb. 3 work session of the Fountain Hills Town Council Tuesday focused on proposed revisions to the council—oard nd Rules of Procedure, including restoring a "call to the public," limiting public-comment time, setting initial two-minute limits for council remarks and a provision asking media to give advance notice before bringing "professional" audio or video equipment to meetings.

The town attorney, identified in the session as Wright, told council members the document was largely a cleanup of typographical and OCR errors from earlier scanned versions and that many changes were formatting moves or adaptations from Scottsdale—ity rules intended to make meetings more orderly and consistent. "We added a table of contents ... many of the changes that were suggested actually were coming from the Scottsdale's rules of procedure so we adopted many of the things that they have that are working," Wright said during her presentation.

Not every change drew unanimous support. One councilmember objected to holding the work session without broader committee participation, saying she was not informed and asking that revisions be handled so "we all have an opportunity to participate in the revisions other than this in public"; another warned that limiting council remarks to two minutes would impede deliberation on complex matters. Councilperson Kelly Bianakis said she received a condensed redline shortly before the session and asked for two more weeks to fully review the material: "I feel like I would be more prepared if we did this in two weeks so I could go through it more thoroughly," she said.

A constitutional concern surfaced over a provision that would require members of the media to notify the town manager in advance when bringing professional audio or visual equipment. A councilmember cited state law and national press-rights guidance, saying: "Under ARS 38 4 31, it states that any recording... can be done by anyone," and called advance preapproval "unconstitutional." Wright said the intent was notice, not denial, to avoid disruptions and to allow staff to accommodate equipment, arguing many courts and other government bodies require such notice: "It's for orderly conduct," she said.

On public comment, the attorney described several specific measures: restoring the call-to-public for regular meetings, a 30-minute total allocation for the call-to-public block, and a three-minute maximum per speaker. The council clerk would note the start time of the public-comment block and the clerk or presiding officer could mute microphones when an individual's time expired. The attorney also described an objective rule to manage high-interest items: if more than 10 comment cards are received on an item, the presiding officer could consider consolidating testimony or limiting speakers to keep meetings from running excessively long.

The session produced at least two procedural moves: Vice Mayor Skilcorn (identified in discussion) moved to hold questions until the end of the attorney iscussion; that motion was seconded and the mayor directed that questions be held for the presentation. Later the mayor requested a head nod to move the draft to a future council agenda for full consideration; several members signaled they would support bringing it forward, with some asking for minimal edits or additional review.

The meeting closed with several members asking that the item receive further deliberation in another work session or be thoroughly discussed at the agenda hearing before any adoption. The mayor said directions had been given to agendize the item for a future council meeting.

What happens next: The council signaled it will place the revised rules on a future council agenda for formal consideration and possible adoption; council members asked for additional time to review specific sections and the attorney said she would accept edits and clarifications before any final action.