Council declines proposed rule changes after debate over special committee meetings

Council member Mr. Schilling proposed three changes to the council’s rules of procedure at a March 9 committee meeting, saying the amendments would formalize how committee meetings handle off-agenda questions, who may call a restricted special committee meeting and how a committee meeting is adjourned. After extended debate, the council voted to continue with its current procedures.

Schilling told colleagues he was prompted by a July meeting about streetscape work in which, he said, committee members were not permitted “to make any recommendations” and that the council should allow members to “raise questions [and] offer amendments” during committee sessions so long as they relate to the committee’s subject. “Committee meetings is as many times is where the sausage is made,” he said, arguing for more flexibility.

Other members pushed back that broadening what may be raised at a committee risks undermining transparency for the public. One council member said agenda notices let the community know what will be discussed and warned against using a narrow meeting to introduce unrelated spending or projects without public notice. Grant, a staff member, noted Rule Seven under legislation governing proposed ordinances and resolutions and described the normal practice of routing draft legislation through the director of law and then to the president of council for referral.

The meeting included a dispute over whether the July meeting Schilling cited was a special meeting that restricted debate or an informational update with no action item. Administration representatives and several council members said the July session was an informational question-and-answer update tied to an earlier committee recommendation and therefore was not intended for formal recommendations; Schilling and others said they were prevented from acting at that session.

After discussion about procedure, a motion to consider Schilling’s three proposed changes together was made and treated without objection. Schilling attempted to amend the package by removing language that would have allowed members to “suggest legislation,” but his amendment failed to receive a second. Council member Mr. Phelps then moved that the council continue under the current procedures and policies; Mr. Twist seconded. The clerk called a roll and the motion carried. Several members voted “yes” on the motion to keep the existing rules (the roll-call list was read aloud and recorded during the meeting).

The meeting concluded with the president thanking council members and members of the public for staying and noting the council would meet again the following week.

The proposal would have changed internal council rules rather than city code, and members who opposed the changes repeatedly emphasized existing options — including reconvening a committee, submitting minority or majority reports, or asking staff to prepare formal recommendations — as ways to address disagreements without rewriting the rules. No ordinance or statutory change was proposed during the session; the council’s final vote preserved the status quo.