Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agenda Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council split over FAIR memo process for adding agenda items
Summary
Council members debated whether the FAIR memo (a 2024 policy for placing items on the agenda) provides useful guardrails or unduly restricts an individual councilmember’s ability to bring items for discussion.
Gilroy — Council members spent a substantial portion of the study session debating how items should be added to council agendas under the city’s FAIR memo process.
Council member Kelly Ramirez argued that elected officials should retain the ability to place resident‑raised matters on the agenda for discussion: “I think that as elected officials, it is our job when a resident brings concern forth…that we should be able to bring that forth and have it put on the agenda,” she said, urging flexibility for immediate council consideration even if staff time is not available to prepare a full report.
Other members defended the FAIR memo’s structured approach. Council member Zach Hilton said the process made meetings more organized and allowed time for staff and community to review proposals before formal consideration. “I like the way it looks. I like being able to get the idea that I could pitch it to other council members… and decide whether they want to support it,” he said.
Mayor Greg Bozzo described a middle ground: he said he valued guardrails to prevent ad hoc items from overwhelming staff but acknowledged the council could tweak the FAIR process to avoid unnecessary delay. The city administrator told the council the FAIR memo is one of three paths to place items on the agenda — the mayor, a majority of the council, or via the FAIR memo — and said staff would bring back any clarifications needed.
Council members agreed the council should reconcile differences between the 2022 norms and the FAIR policy and consider streamlined language to reduce ambiguity, particularly for phrases like “regularly attend” in the commission‑independence guideline. Staff and the facilitator urged follow‑up conversations rather than making major changes in the study session.
