Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agenda Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Freeport council debates tightening agenda rules; members split over who can place items
Summary
Councilors debated changing the city ordinance that governs who may place items on the council agenda and the deadlines for submission, with some pushing to require two council members to sponsor items and others arguing a single council member should retain the right to represent ward concerns.
Council members spent the bulk of the meeting debating proposed changes to Ordinance No. 2025-2756, which sets deadlines and procedures for placing items on Freeport’s city council agenda.
Dr. Kelly, the city manager, opened the discussion by explaining staff is seeking council direction on whether to amend timelines, packet-preparation deadlines and documentation requirements; staff will draft any ordinance changes for a future meeting if directed. "If directed, staff will prepare a revised ordinance for formal consideration at a subsequent city council meeting," Dr. Kelly said.
A central point of contention was whether a single council member should be able to place an item on a regular agenda or whether two council members should be required. One council member argued a second signature effectively "handcuffs" an elected representative and prevents them from raising ward issues without another councilmember’s support; that member said, "Each one of y'all have the right to put on the agenda what you want to put on the agenda without getting a second." Councilman Roso and others responded that the two-member requirement had historically reduced frivolous items and protected staff resources, with one speaker calling the single-sponsor rule unnecessary and "disrespectful." Several members said they preferred returning to the two-council-member practice.
Councilors also discussed the submission deadline, currently noon on the Thursday nine days before a meeting, and whether it should be extended to the close of business on Thursday to provide more time for staff to prepare materials. Staff clarified the public-posting requirement under new law is three full business days and noted the difference between the posting clock and the ordinance submission deadline. "We have to have it posted before Wednesday at six o'clock" for a Monday meeting under the three-full-business-days rule, a staff member said, explaining how posting and packet preparation interact.
Several council members urged that the city manager and the city attorney be given explicit authority to review agenda language and advise whether items belong in open or executive session to reduce legal exposure at meetings. "Legal should be able to chime in and say ... this really needs to go into executive," one councilor said, and staff agreed they often consult legal before posting when there is ambiguity.
Council members broadly agreed to continue discussion and asked staff to return with a draft ordinance that reflects the suggested changes — including options for (a) retaining single-member submission, (b) restoring a two-member sponsor requirement, (c) extending the Thursday deadline to close of business, and (d) adding explicit legal/staff review steps — for formal consideration at a future meeting.
Next steps: staff will prepare a redlined draft ordinance for council review and place the item on a future agenda for a vote.
