Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs where to put excusal rules — charter or council rules?
Summary
Councilors debated whether details about excusing absences and the mechanics of 'consent of the council' should belong in the charter or be left to council rules; legal counsel recommended leaving procedural specifics to council rules to retain flexibility and avoid constitutional complications.
Discussion at the work session centered on how to operationalize excused versus unexcused absences and whether a council vote to 'consent' should require a motion and second. City Attorney Larson told the council that the charter is "the people's grant of authority" and recommended placing procedural explication in council rules so the council could change them without returning to voters.
Councilor Sanchez (concerned about the lack of a clear process) and others urged that a defined process for excusal be added somewhere so that absences are not handled inconsistently. Several councilors suggested a rule that the council should vote at every meeting to either excuse or not excuse absences, while Larson said that such a rule could be put into council rules rather than the charter to preserve flexibility.
The council agreed to instruct staff to include language linking 'without the consent of the council' to procedures spelled out in council rules and to draft a proposal for how and when excusal votes are taken.
Next steps: staff to draft an explicit cross‑reference to council rules and to propose a mechanism (for example, requiring a vote at meetings when absences occur) for the council's consideration.
