Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Resolutions Sponsorship topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposal to require two sponsors for resolutions prompts rolling-quorum concern
Summary
A councilor proposed making two sponsors mandatory for resolutions to avoid late submissions and clearer processing; the clerk warned that requiring two sponsors could create a rolling-quorum risk under the Open Meetings Act unless the clerk circulates drafts to all members.
A councilor suggested that resolutions should require two sponsors before being placed on the docket, arguing that a second sponsor requirement would discourage last-minute or politically motivated filings and help the clerk's office manage timing. "I think that needs to be 2 sponsors," a councilor said during discussion of how ordinances and resolutions are introduced.
The clerk responded that while two sponsors could improve processing and reduce last-minute submissions, making it mandatory may create a rolling-quorum risk under the Open Meetings Act if councilors coordinate sponsorship by contacting colleagues individually. The clerk recommended routing proposed resolutions through the clerk's office so the clerk can handle distribution without creating prohibited deliberations outside a public meeting. Councilors asked for proposed wording and agreed to consider language that balances administrative efficiency with open-meeting rules.
