Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates changes to protocol manual: proclamations, agenda placement and public‑comment rules
Summary
During a study session the council discussed revising the protocol manual to clarify how proclamations are handled, whether applicants should read proclamations, agenda submission timelines, and public‑comment time limits and remote participation security.
City Manager Mark Hoeler led an annual review of the council protocol manual on Feb. 24, asking the council whether proclamations should continue to be vetted by the agenda‑setting committee or be reviewed in study sessions before being moved to a business agenda. "We changed the method of accepting proclamations a year ago," Hoeler said, and noted options used by other jurisdictions: staff presentation, council reading, applicant reading or even a council vote to adopt.
Council members split on approach. Some urged keeping the current process and letting staff or the agenda committee move proclamations forward; others supported letting applicants read their own proclamations during the meeting to increase community involvement. One council member argued study‑session review would allow the council to vote to place a proclamation on a business agenda and thus take public record of the decision.
The council also revisited agenda‑setting rules (section 8.05). Staff reiterated that council members may request items be placed on future agendas orally or in writing at least 10 working days prior to a meeting, but they cautioned that items requiring research, legal review or a public hearing will need more lead time. Members debated whether the 10‑day rule privileges council members and whether citizens should have a longer submission window for proclamations.
Public‑comment rules drew extensive discussion. The manual currently limits speakers to 3 minutes with no overall cap. Several members said a total cap (for example the county's 15 minutes) can help control meeting length when many speakers sign up, while others argued for preserving the full 3 minutes for each speaker and extending meeting time if needed. Council members also discussed reinstating a clerk script that asks each speaker to state their name and whether they are a city resident, noting residency helps staff determine jurisdiction and enables follow‑up.
Remote public comment was discussed with caution; members recalled incidents of remote‑meeting security problems and said they would only restore remote comment if staff can guarantee robust safeguards and staffing to monitor and terminate compromised connections. The manager said staff will draft clarified language for sections 5.04, 8.05 and 8.07 and return with suggested edits for council consensus.
