OSAC forwards housekeeping council‑rule changes and a process for substantive updates to full council

The Operational Strategy & Administrative Subcommittee (OSAC) reviewed a set of proposed updates to Tacoma's City Council rules and voted to forward housekeeping changes and a recommended process for substantive updates to the full Council.

Matt Janzow, the city’s Continuous Improvement Manager, guided the committee through an overview of what the council rules cover —how meetings are organized, how deliberation and voting operate, and how public engagement and records are handled—and distinguished housekeeping updates from substantive policy changes that could affect transparency or public participation. "These are the rules that govern how you conduct meetings, organize work, deliberate and decision things of that nature, and, in general carry out your legislative and governance responsibilities fairly and transparently," Janzow told the committee.

Housekeeping items identified for immediate referral include updating meeting counts to reflect 2024 charter changes that now count study sessions toward meeting requirements; formally listing OSAC as a standing committee in Rule 15 so rules match current practice; and administrative agenda organization changes such as placing gifts, donations and interlocal agreements under resolution headers in the consent agenda. The committee also discussed moving multifamily housing limited property tax exemption agreements to consent—members noted statutory constraints that limit discretionary denial but recognized public frustration over repeated presentations.

Several substantive proposals were debated but not finalized. Members discussed language to allow the presiding officer to call short recesses without a formal motion while adding guardrails (suggested caps such as 15 minutes, rules about consecutive recesses, or use of 'standing at ease' language consistent with Robert's Rules). The committee also explored adding a requirement that council members file brief reports after travel taken in their official capacity, with questions about thresholds (out‑of‑city vs. out‑of‑state vs. international) and whether city‑paid versus outside‑paid travel would be treated differently.

Public commenters emphasized access and how the council listens. Andrea Hogue urged the body to "learn how to listen differently," saying intensity at meetings often signals systemic problems and cutting public time can be punitive. Other commenters said they felt ignored or unsafe in community forums and asked the council to increase transparency and follow up on community input.

After extended discussion, a motion to bring the identified housekeeping changes and the outlined process for handling substantive rule updates to the full City Council was moved, seconded and carried by voice vote. The motion passed with a voice vote of 'ayes'; no recorded opposed votes were heard by the chair. Staff were directed to bring a package to the council that includes the proposed process and the collected 2025 rule recommendations for formal consideration.

Next steps: staff will draft specific rule language for proposed guardrails (recess authority), research legal references (RCW citations) and travel‑report options, and prepare the housekeeping package and proposed process for presentation to the full Council for study session review and possible formal readings.