REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
Action on a Recommendation from the Governance & Ethics Committee to Adopt New Council Policy 055 Providing for a Consolidated Set of Council Meeting Procedures and Protocols for Use by the City Council and Other City Boards, Commissions and Committees
Report
BACKGROUND
On July 2, 2024, staff prepared a report (Attachment 1) to the Governance and Ethics Committee which presented options for consideration regarding the use of Rosenberg’s Rules of Order (“Rosenberg’s”) for meeting management procedures for public meetings. During the item, staff presented differences between Robert’s Rules of Order (the current parliamentary system used by the City pursuant to City Code Section 2.10.020) and Rosenberg’s Rules of Order. Existing “local” rules for procedures that the City had been formally adopted or were being using as a matter of informal policy and practice, were also presented.
At the July 2, 2024 meeting, the Committee approved a motion to direct staff to return to the Committee with a policy on meeting management protocol and recommended inclusion of a provision to split public comment between the beginning and end of a meeting, at the discretion of the presiding officer, if a substantial number of public presenters proposed to speak, and a significant amount of agendized items still remained to be considered.
On October 4, 2024, City Attorney Glen Googins presented to the Governance and Ethics Committee on the agenda item for Action on a Policy for Meeting Management protocols (Attachment 2) which included information on a recommended formal policy and procedure for consideration by the Committee. The proposed Council Policy included (a) rules consistent with current Council practices that had not yet been formalized, (b) other proposed rules and procedures taken directly or adapted from Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, and (c) additional terms based on “best practice” rules used by other cities. Provisions in the proposed policy also made it clear that the conduct of City meetings remained subject to the requirements of the Brown Act and the terms of the City Charter.
Committee members discussed and debated the various aspects of the proposed policy. They also discussed the need for consistency and enforcement in the application of the rules, the pros and cons of having interactive discussions during question periods versus the efficiency of asking all questions at once, and the pros and cons of including time limits on Council member deliberations.
The Committee ultimately voted unanimously to forward the proposed Policy on substantially the terms presented to the full City Council for its consideration. Although discussed, the Committee ultimately decided not to include formal time limits on City Councilmember deliberations into their recommended policy.
Following Committee approval, the City Attorney’s office incorporated a number of refinements and wording changes into the draft policy. The City Attorney also met with the Mayor, both to familiarize her with the proposal and to get her input as the “Presiding Officer.” All such proposed changes are described below. They are also highlighted in the attached underline/strikeout version of the policy (Attachment 4). This updated policy, proposed new City Council Policy 055, “Council Meeting Procedures and Protocols,” is now presented to the full Council for your consideration and possible action (Attachment 5).
DISCUSSION
Proposed new City Council Policy 055, Council Meeting Procedures and Protocols (Meeting Policy) includes the following key provisions:
• Transition to Rosenberg’s. In general, the proposed Meeting Policy will transition the City from parliamentary rules based upon Robert’s Rules of Order to a system based on Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, and other best practices. In general, Rosenberg’s is much less complex than Robert’s, and more oriented towards smaller legislative bodies, like cities. That said, the core provisions of Robert’s and Rosenberg’s are substantially the same. Notable differences include: Rosenberg’s allows the maker of a motion to voluntarily withdraw the motion while Robert’s requires a formal vote of the body; Rosenberg’s allows for informal “friendly” amendments to motions, while Robert’s requires a formal amendment process with a full vote; in addition to the main motion, Robert’s allows multiple “secondary” motions to be proposed and pending before the main motion is considered, while Rosenberg’s only allows for a total of only three pending motions. [Policy Purpose Section]
• Relationship to Other Laws. The proposed Meeting Policy makes reference to Rosenberg’s but is intended to stand alone unless specific terms of Rosenberg’s are incorporated. It is also designed to be consistent with (and subject to) the terms of the Brown Act and the City Charter. [Policy Purpose Section]
• Applicability to Other Boards and Commissions. If adopted, the Meeting Policy would also apply to all other City Boards, Commissions, and Committees. Supplemental rules could be adopted by such bodies, but any proposed policies that were inconsistent, unless applicable law required otherwise, would need to be approved by City Council.
• Mayor as Presiding Officer. Consistent with the City’s Charter, Rosenberg’s and best practices, the Meeting Policy maintains the concept of the Mayor/Chair as “Presiding Officer” having primary responsibility for managing the meeting in accordance with applicable rules. [Policy Section A].
• Appeal of Points of Order. Through a process of appeal on points of order, a majority of the body reserves the right to overrule the Mayor/Chair. Votes on points of order must be approved by an affirmative vote of the majority of members present and voting [Policy Section A.2 and Section G].
• Order of Consideration of Agendized Items. Agendized items are to be considered through a process and order consistent with current Council practices. [Policy Section B]
• Rules for Public Comment for Agendized and Non-Agendized Items. Public testimony rules include (1) comments to be directed to City Council as a body; (2) time limits generally consistent with City Council Policy 029 (two minutes for agendized items and three minutes for public presentations), but with the addition of limits on the ability to cede time (8 minutes for agendized items and 12 minutes for public presentations); (3) special rules for public presentations, including the ability of the Mayor to bifurcate public presentations, with a second round at the end of the meeting as circumstances may warrant; and (4) prohibitions on disruptive/unruly behavior. [Policy Section C]
• Procedures and Protocols for Council Deliberations. Rules include a process for taking turns, a required focus on discussions of the matter presented (not extraneous matters), a prohibition on personal attacks, and avoidance of repetition and interruptions. Note: To encourage deliberations before formal actions are proposed, unlike Robert’s or Rosenberg’s (and consistent with current practices), the Meeting Policy expressly allows Council deliberations on an item before a formal motion is made. [Policy Section D]
• Terms for Main Motions and Secondary Motions. Terms for “main” and “secondary” motions are based primarily on procedures set forth in Rosenberg’s and other existing City /best practices. Consistent with current practice, all formal motions require a second, “friendly” amendments to motions are allowed, and the maker of a motion may “withdraw” their motion without a vote. A new proposal would allow the Presiding Officer to adjourn the meeting without a formal vote being required, with consensus of the Council. [Policy Section E]
• Council Action. Prior to any action, the City Clerk, with assistance from the City Attorney, is responsible for presenting the motion (orally or in writing) so all parties are clear on what is before them. If the motion is for staff’s recommendation, reference can be made to a staff presentation slide or the agenda. A simple majority vote of the Council (four votes) is sufficient to pass a motion, except where the applicable law requires a higher vote (e.g., under Section 1305 of the City Charter, a budget amendment with an appropriation requires 5 votes). Motions that receive less than the requisite number of votes “fail.” Motions that pass may be “reconsidered” under the terms of existing City Council Policy 042. [Policy Section E.10, 11 and 12]
• Standards for Decorum. At all times, the City Council is responsible for conducting themselves in a respectful and professional manner, without personal attacks. For further guidance on the standards for decorum, reference is made to the existing City Council Behavioral Standards. [Policy Section F]
• Enforcement of Rules and Appeals, Consistent with Rosenberg’s (and current/best practices), the Meeting Policy affords the Presiding Officer primary responsibility and deference for overseeing Meeting Policy requirements and points of order. Request for interpretations can be made by any party of the City Attorney, with any determinations subject to appeal by the Council. [Policy Section G]
• Reference to Other Relevant City Council Policies. The proposed Meeting Policy does not attempt to consolidate every policy and rule adopted by the Council regarding Council policies and procedures. This could, however, be something to consider in the future. In the meantime, the Meeting Policy does make reference to other applicable Council policies, including Council Policy 029-Time Limits for Speakers at Council, Council Policy 030 - Adding an Item on the Agenda; and Council Policy 042 - Reconsideration of Council Action; and City of Santa Clara Program in Ethics & Values, Behavioral Standards for Councilmembers. [Policy Section H]
In summary, the proposed Meeting Policy is not a dramatic departure from existing City practices. However, professional staff believes that it does offer improvements over the length and complexity of Robert’s Rules (some rules of which already aren’t followed to the letter), with the added benefit of putting in writing, and all in one place, a number of existing City meeting rules, using clear “user friendly” language. As proposed, the Meeting Policy also provides for the application of standard meeting rules to all of the City’s boards, commissions, and committees.
A Note on Abstentions. One provision worth considering as a possible addition to the proposed Meeting Policy, which was not discussed at the Governance and Ethics Committee level, would be a provision clarifying the rules that apply to abstentions. Under state law, a Councilmember is required to abstain from votes where they have a conflict of interest. This is commonly known as “recusal.” But how about when there is no such requirement? And if a party must, or chooses to, abstain, how is their seat/vote counted for purposes of determining a quorum or whether or not the requisite number of votes to pass a motion was obtained? Charter cities have a fair amount of discretion in this regard. Under the City’s current “modified” version of Robert’s, all parties are encouraged, but not required to vote. Further, if a member must legally “recuse” themselves on a particular matter, their “seat” is not counted towards the quorum for such matter. By contrast, if a member can lawfully participate in an item, their seat is counted towards the quorum, but their abstention is considered a “non-vote” (in other words, neither a yes or a no vote). Also, while a member abstaining is encouraged to state the basis for their non-participation, except as required by law for conflict of interest “recusal” purposes, they are not required to do so. Under Rosenberg’s, a number of options are explored for how to handle abstentions, but no specific rule is adopted. Staff recommends that, at a minimum, for clarity, a summary of the City’s existing practice regarding abstentions be drafted and included as an addition to the Meeting Policy.
Next Steps
If Council approves the proposed Meeting Policy, either in the form presented or with modifications, staff will prepare a final, formalized version, with any necessary corrections. This version will include embedded links to other referenced City laws and policies. Staff will then bring back for Council action an amendment to the City Code to replace existing references to “Robert’s Rules of Order” with references to new City Policy 055. Once the Code amendment is effective, the new Council Policy 055 will be uploaded onto the City’s website and distributed.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a) as it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City other than staff time.
COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the City Manager’s Office and the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the City Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet was made available on the City’s website at least 72 hours prior to this meeting A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email clerk@santaclaraca.gov or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Adopt by Resolution Council Policy 055, entitled “Council Meeting Procedures and Protocols,” in substantially the form presented, or with such changes Council may approve, and direct staff to come back with any necessary actions, including amendments to the City Code in order to implement such policy.
Staff
Approved by: Glen Googins, City Attorney and Jovan Grogan, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. July 2, 2024 Report to the Governance and Ethics Committee (RTC 24-628)
2. October 4, 2024 Report to the Governance and Ethics Committee (RTC 24-707)
3. Rosenberg’s Rules of Order
4. Council Policy 055 - Council Meeting Procedures and Protocols (Underline/Strikeout Version Showing Changes to Version Presented to the Governance Committee)
5. Council Policy 055 Draft - Council Meeting Procedures and Protocols (Clean Version)
6. Resolution