Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Fernando council spends hours debating overhaul of procedural manual, leaving motions rules for further work
Summary
Council members spent the bulk of the meeting reviewing a rewrite of the council procedural manual. The longest discussion focused on Section 6 (motions): when to take motions, whether to require pre‑motion discussion rounds, and how to handle post‑motion debate; staff will return with options comparing Robert's Rules and other models.
San Fernando — A substantial portion of the special meeting was devoted to a line‑by‑line review of a proposed overhaul of the council procedural manual, including meeting order, public comment rules, motion procedures and event speaking order.
Council and staff reviewed many sections, raising and resolving a number of editorial and policy questions and flagging several items for later work. Major unresolved policy choices centered on Section 6, dealing with motions and debate. Council members described past practice as chaotic — "It used to be the wild west when we were here. Whoever shouts it first gets theirs considered first," one councilor said — and debated several alternatives: (a) required single round of discussion prior to opening the floor to motions; (b) optional second round at the presiding officer's discretion; (c) a mandatory short post‑motion 'lightning' round; or (d) strict adherence to Robert's Rules procedures.
The council did not adopt a final approach during the meeting. Instead, the city attorney agreed to return with comparative options and staff recommended language drawing from Robert's Rules and other municipal practice. The council requested draft text on the following points: who may make a motion when an item is being discussed; whether a motion made mid‑discussion should be considered immediately; how to allow friendly amendments; and an approach for handling a council member’s request to reopen discussion after a motion has a first and second.
Councilors also debated public comment rules: whether to require a time‑of‑submission deadline for emailed comments to give councilors sufficient time to review them, how to treat interpreted comments (double time provisions), and whether staff should read written comments aloud when they arrive late. Staff proposed a deadline to ensure submitted comments are distributed in time for members’ review and said it will propose concrete wording.
Other policy topics discussed included whether and when commissioners should be publicly introduced at city events (council asked for a clear rule to avoid perceived campaign advantage), and how to handle commissioner vacancies when a new council member takes office. Staff cited Government Code §54974 (the Maddy Act) for vacancy posting and appointment timing: vacancies must be posted within a defined window and final appointment cannot be made for at least 10 working days after posting; staff will supply precise statutory language in the next draft.
Mayor Joe Fardo framed the effort as a transparency and stable‑process measure: "My hope is that it allows future city councils to at least avoid some of the infighting that I had to go through," he said. Council members generally supported completing the rewrite but asked staff to return with more precise recommended language on motions and related procedures. No final adoption of the procedural manual occurred at the meeting; staff will prepare revised draft language for the council to review at a future meeting.
