Minot council weighs major rewrite of rules of order, including mayoral powers

The Minot City Council spent extensive time on April 6 reviewing a proposed ordinance to rewrite the city's rules of order, with the city attorney asking for council feedback before a formal first reading.

The draft replaces language allowing "friendly amendments" with a unanimous-consent procedure, clarifies definitions of parliamentary terms and the duties of presiding officers, and addresses how points of order and motions to reconsider should be handled, the city attorney said.

"So the goals of this was to ensure meetings are orderly, they're consistent, and easy for the public to follow," the city attorney said while outlining the draft. He added that the draft applies the rules to city boards and commissions as well as the council.

Council members focused most of their discussion on two procedural items: whether the mayor, who is a voting presiding officer under the city's form of government, should be expressly allowed to move or second motions and participate in debate; and whether the presiding officer should be required to rule on points of order before the body considers an appeal.

Alderman Fuller argued the practice of allowing the mayor to make motions can undermine the presiding officer's neutrality, saying it "seems really weird to me and ought to align as to how we run this council." Alderman Blessum and others agreed the presiding officer's ability to rule on points of order is an important part of the process and should remain, while leaving an appeal to the full body.

The city attorney said Robert's Rules draws distinctions between small and large bodies, and acknowledged the city's voting mayor complicates that neutrality. He said he would revise the draft to replace friendly-amendment language with unanimous-consent language and to provide clearer options on the mayor's authority to make and second motions.

Council members also asked for clearer language on the motion-to-reconsider process, noting the draft limits reconsideration in cases where legal reliance or contracts could create consequences if votes are revisited.

The council did not vote on the ordinance; members directed the attorney to return a revised draft for a first reading, and discussed scheduling the reading so the body could consider changes before the council's makeup changes later in the year.

Background: The draft was presented as an informational item to give council and the public time to review several detailed changes before the ordinance advances to formal readings.