Council rejects proposal to allow ordinances on consent agenda and to waive second reading at five votes

City staff proposed amendments to the council’s rules of order to allow noncontroversial ordinances on the consent agenda and to permit ordinances to pass on first reading with five affirmative votes (removing the automatic second-reading requirement for those cases). Deputy City Manager Mary Vague and City Attorney Meredith Everhart presented the proposed changes and explained that many municipalities permit similar procedures for routine business to streamline meetings.

Several council members raised concerns. Councilmember Andrews asked how the public would comment on ordinances that might be placed on consent with limited notice; she highlighted the risk of amendments passing on first reading without a public hearing or an opportunity for public input. Councilmember Joyner and others said the council should retain control over rule changes, noting an upcoming election and a desire to let the next council consider substantive rule edits. Councilmember Spears said the change could be used to "bury" matters and questioned whether staff would properly classify items as noncontroversial.

After extended discussion and back-and-forth clarifying when items could be pulled from consent, Councilmember Spears moved to deny the proposed rules change. The motion was seconded and carried; the council did not adopt the proposed amendments that night.

Council members who supported additional streamlining said they were open to placing clearly noncontroversial, well-documented items on consent, but a majority of members expressed reservations about removing the opportunity for a second reading when an ordinance is amended during first reading.

The council vote to deny the amendment preserved the existing rules requiring a second reading in cases that do not meet the current statutory exception.