Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Easly City council passes ordinance changing how items get onto meeting agendas after weeks of debate
Summary
By a council vote on June 8, 2026, Easly City adopted Ordinance 2026-18 to amend chapter 30 of its municipal code governing agenda preparation, adding a clear process for items requested in writing by three council members and inserting a clarifying reference to the mayor; opponents argued it risked shifting administrative authority while supporters and outside legal reviewers said it codifies procedural rules without changing the city's form of government.
Easley City Council approved Ordinance 2026-18 on second reading on June 8, 2026, amending chapter 30 of the Easly City Code to formalize how items are placed on the regular council agenda.
Supporters said the change creates a predictable, transparent pathway for items that have support among multiple council members to appear on a regular meeting agenda. The adopted version includes two council amendments: striking an extraneous word in Sec. 30.05(B) and clarifying Sec. 30.24(B) so the agenda is prepared “in consultation with council and the mayor.” A council member who voted in favor summarized the intent as giving the legislative body greater certainty that matters supported by three members will be published on the regular agenda rather than raised only at special meetings.
Opponents — including multiple members of the public during the public‑comment period — argued the language could be read to move administrative control of meeting agendas toward the council. Residents urged the council to delay a vote, ask for a referendum on any change to the form of government, or otherwise preserve the chief administrative officer’s role. Public commenters used the public‑comment period to express concern that changes might be a step toward converting the strong‑mayor form of government to a council form.
City staff and outside reviewers countered those assertions. The Municipal Association of South Carolina (MASK) regional manager Rob Wolf reviewed the draft and told staff that state law is silent on who prepares council agendas, leaving the process to local rules; he also said variants of a three‑member request provision exist in other cities. The Attorney General’s opinions division (Memoranda referenced in council remarks) reported it had not found a prior opinion that would require the proposed changes to be treated as a change in form of government and, in the exchange shared with council, conveyed the view that the ordinance did not appear to diminish the mayor’s statutory authority.
Council members debated process and potential for abuse at length. Several members emphasized the ordinance only addresses meeting procedures and does not direct city departments or remove executive duties from the mayor or city administrator. Others warned the change opens room for misuse and urged caution before altering long‑standing local practice.
After discussion and the two amendments were adopted, council members voted to approve Ordinance 2026-18 as amended. The council also recorded for the minutes staff correspondence from MASK and the AG’s office and said the ordinance could be repealed if it proved problematic in practice.
What happens next: The ordinance passed on second reading and will be reflected in the city code as amended; council did not schedule an immediate referendum or structural change to the form of government.
