Panama City charter panel deadlocks over agenda-setting language, debates 7-day notice

A heated debate over who should set the city commission agenda and how far in advance it must be posted dominated the charter review board's meeting, but members were unable to reach consensus and ultimately left the proposed language for the commission to consider.

A committee member proposed altering agenda rules to require publication "no later than seven days" before a meeting and to remove the current 48‑hour reference, arguing that seven days better aligns with community expectations and would reduce the perception that items are being "sneaked" onto agendas. "So I put in 7 days for the agenda. No, later than 7 days, and I removed the 48 hours," the committee member said. Supporters said the change would give residents reasonable notice and protect civic participation.

Opponents cautioned the board against rigid notice rules that would limit the ability to add legitimate last-minute items, pointing to an addendum process for emergency items. The city manager, Jonathan, described current practice: "The only time that I've said no in my time as city manager is because the agenda was already published." He and other members also warned that vesting agenda authority in a single elected official could create a problematic power imbalance.

A motion to adopt language making the mayor, "in consultation with the city manager," responsible for preparing the agenda was moved, seconded and then defeated on a board vote. Proponents argued that a mayoral role provides transparency to the public; opponents argued the city manager should retain the operational role and that changing the charter could have unintended consequences. One member proposed instead sending the question to the city commission to decide by ordinance, but that motion lacked a second and did not proceed.

Why it matters: The debate turned on balancing citizen notice and protection against surprise agenda items with the practical realities of municipal operations and emergency additions. Members emphasized that procedural language in the charter will be consequential if packaged with other charter changes sent to voters or adopted by the commission.

Outcome and next steps: Because the committee did not adopt a new, binding agenda-setting rule, the draft language as previously developed will remain the starting point for the commission's review. Staff noted that the commission itself can change notice and agenda rules by ordinance, but doing so after a charter adoption could be more difficult. The committee proceeded with other business, and the charter recommendation was later forwarded to the commission for consideration.