Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council begins lengthy review of draft council rules and flags seating, attendance language for revision
Summary
Council members read sections of proposed council rules and discussed drafting clarity, whether attendance language should be 'shall' or 'should,' and how new council-chamber seating might affect separation of powers; several members urged a simpler rewrite and more committee work.
Council members spent an extended portion of the evening poring over a multi-section draft of council rules. The committee chair said the goal was to begin at section 5 and identify items for further discussion; members raised repeated drafting and policy concerns.
One member criticized the draft's length and lawyerly language, saying, "Whoever wrote this was a lawyer that must be paid by the word," and suggested a dramatic rewrite modeled on neighboring cities' rules. Members questioned whether attendance language for mayors and departmental directors should read "shall" (required) or "should" (recommended), and asked staff to clarify how the new council-chamber seating (18-seat horseshoe design) could affect voting order and the appearance of independence between council and administration.
Several council members recommended consolidating redundant charter language, removing duplicative ordinance provisions, and returning with a set of proposed edits rather than incremental fixes. The committee recorded notes for many rules to return to at a future meeting and voted to leave the rules review in committee so members could refine options in advance of additional public or committee consideration.
