HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-07-16 Study Session
CITY OF
ASHLAND
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
Monday July 16, 2018
Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
5:30 p.m.
1. Public Input (15 minutes, maximum)
II. Video Arraignment and Jail Bed Usage Report
III. Review and Proposed Revisions to Council Rules (continued)
IV. Executive Session - Immediately following conclusion of study session
*Purpose of Executive Session Item - Conduct deliberations for labor negotiations,
pursuant to ORS 190.660(2)(e).
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-
2900). Notffcation 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
I
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9. STARTING APRIL 15, 2014,
CHARTER CABLE WILL BROADCAST MEETINGS ON CHANNEL 180 OR 181.
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT W WW.ASHLAND.OR.US
Council Stud Session
July 16,
Title: Clarification of Council Rules and Protocols
Item Type: Discussion
Requested by Council? Yes
From: David Lohman City Attorney
David.Lohman@ashland.or.us
Discussion Questions:
This agenda item is a next step in an extended conversation on clarifying and modifying, if
appropriate, expectations about Council practices at study sessions and regular business
meetings. At this July 3 meeting, Council is asked to address highlighted Questions #13 through
# 15 in Attachment A. The other questions in Attachment A are ones that Council has already
addressed in previous meetings (#1 through # 16, #22, #30, and #31) or has yet to address in
future meetings.
Resource Requirements:
N/A
Suggested Next Steps:
As time permits at upcoming study sessions - or at a future retreat Council will be asked to
address the unanswered questions in Attachment A, along with questions Councilors may wish to
add to the list. Once agreement is reached on clarifications or changes to Council meeting
practices, at future business meetings, staff will propose ordinance amendments or resolutions
needed to effect those changes or, perhaps, simple written interpretations of some rules.
Policies, Plans and Goals Supported:
Council Goal 2: Promote effective citizen communication and engagement.
Background and Additional Information:
Robert's Rules of Order serve as the default reference for meeting procedure. Over time,
refinements or alternatives to Robert's Rules have been adopted to accommodate Ashland City
Council's particular needs and circumstances.
In 2014, the ordinance concerning formal Council rules, AMC 2.04, was updated again. Since
then, more ambiguities, uncertainties, and inconsistencies have surfaced and occasionally have
become sources of frustration. Discussions in 2014 did not, for the most part, address informal
Council practices. This agenda item, and similar ones to follow, is intended to give the Council
an opportunity to identify problems with both codified and informal Council meeting practices
and decide whether changes are in order.
Page I of 2 CITY OF
ASH LAN D
Based on issues and questions about Council meeting practices that have arisen since 2014, staff
so far has identified 37 questions believed to be worthy of Council discussion for purposes of
either clarification or revision. Council may wish to add more items to Attachment A, merge
some, or strike some off the list.
The questions are grouped into the following general topics: agendas; study sessions; comments,
presentations, and correspondence from citizens; deliberation rules; Councilmember requests for
information or actions from staff, and miscellany.
At its November 20, 2017 study session, Council reached conclusions on questions #1 through
#3 and # 16 and #21. Agenda and minutes from the November 20, 2017 Study Session. At its
regular business meeting on January 16, 2018, taking up the agenda item originally set for the
December 18 study session, Council modified its previous conclusion on Question #2 and
addressed questions #4 through #7. Agenda from the December 18, 2017 study session and
minutes from the January 16, 2018 regular business meeting. At its April 3, 2018, regular
business meeting, Council reached conclusions on questions #8 through # 12 and #30 and #31.
Agenda and minutes from the April 3, 2018 regular business meeting.
The "Council Conclusions" text under Questions #1 through #16, #22, #30, and #31 constitute
staff's summary of what seemed to be the provisional position of a majority of Councilmembers
on each question; Council has not taken votes on those conclusions, and may well modify those
conclusions when the time comes for formal approval in ordinance amendments, resolutions or
written policies. Councilmembers may well want to review these tentative conclusions from
previous meetings and point out at the July 3 meeting any inaccuracies in the stated conclusions.
In particular, staff requests scrutiny of statement (g) under Question 9 and statement (c) under
Question 10. These two statements are italicized to flag Staff's uncertainty as to what the
Council's majority positions on these matters really were at the April 3 meeting. The minutes of
the meeting, staff's notes, and even the video of the meeting left room for doubt. So staff made
best guesses and seeks correction as needed.
The main reason for this agenda item, however, is to seek Councilmembers' responses to
questions #13 through #15, which are highlighted in gray in Attachment A. For each of these
questions, a staff-suggested conclusion is provided, along with some factors ("Points and
Authorities") and, under #13 and #14, alternative conclusions to consider.
The questions not previously addressed and not slated to be addressed as part of this July3
agenda item (which are Questions #17 through #29 and #32 through #37) are set forth in the rest
of Attachment A simply as questions, without staff-suggested conclusions or considerations to be
weighed. As time permits, these remaining questions will be scheduled for discussion at future
Study Sessions or Regular Council meetings.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Council Rules and Protocols (7113/18 Version)
Page 2 of 2 CITY OF
-ASHLAND
ATTACHMENT A
COUNCIL RULES AND PROTOCOLS
(4/3/18 Version)
AGENDAS
1. Question: Should contracts above a specified dollar amount be presented as individual matters
for Council decision, as opposed to being included on the Consent Agenda?
Council Conclusion (11/20/17): On a trial basis, the City Administrator should place approval of any
contract/procurement in excess of $100,000 on the regular business agenda.
2. Question: Should minutes of City advisory bodies be included in the Council agenda packets,
along with a summary of which advisory bodies have met recently?
Council Conclusion (1/16/18, modifying 11/20/17 tentative decision): Minutes for all standing and
ad hoc advisory bodies are available on the opening page of the City website by clicking on the "City
Commissions" tab or by clicking "Agendas and Minutes" in the Quick Link section of the homepage
and using the dropbox to select the desired commission, committee, or board. Minutes are to be
posted on the website shortly after each meeting whether approved or in not-yet-approved
draft. Electronic versions of agendas for regular City Council meetings include an item providing
hyperlinks to the minutes for each standing board or commission.
3. Question: During a Council meeting, under what circumstances should the scheduled order of a
meeting agenda be altered?
Council Conclusion (11/20/17): Councilors and the Mayor agree to adhere to the regular order of
meeting agendas except in very rare circumstances and only after approval by a majority of the
Council. No ordinance revision is necessary.
4. Question: During a Council meeting, how should a Councilor go about adding an item to the
agenda?
Council Conclusion (1/16/18): Retain current procedure, as provided in AMC 2.04.030C. During a
meeting, a Councilor may move to add an item to the agenda for that meeting (or a future meeting).
In the normal order of business, a motion to add an item to an agenda should be made at the time
designated for "Other Business from Council Members." But the Mayor could change the order of
business so as to take up the motion to add the item earlier in the meeting. If the motion to add an
item to the current meeting's agenda receives a second, any debate, and majority approval, the
item normally would be placed in the "Other Business from Council Members" section of the
agenda. The Mayor, however, could decide to modify the order.
i1)
S. Question: Outside of a meeting, how should a Councilor go about getting a matter added to an
upcoming meeting agenda?
Council Conclusion (1/16/18): Retain current procedure as provided in AMC 2.04.030B. An
individual Councilor can get a matter added to a future Council meeting agenda by making a timely
written request to the City Administrator, unless the item requires more than two hours of
preparation by staff- in which case consent from a majority of the Council at a Council meeting is
required.
6. Question: How should a citizen go about getting a matter added to a Council meeting agenda?
Council Conclusion (1/16/18): Retain current procedure. A citizen should make the request to any
Councilor or the Mayor or City Administrator or to a City advisory board, commission, or committee
or make the request as part of testimony during Public Forum.
7. Question: During a Council meeting, how should a Councilor seek removal or postponement of a
scheduled agenda item?
Council Conclusion (1/16/18): Retain current procedures, as provided in AMC 2.04.040C.4.b(3) and
2.04.040C.4.j and k. Before or at the outset of consideration of a matter, a Councilor may "object to
consideration of the question." After consideration of a matter has begun, a Councilor may "move
to postpone the matter to a certain time" or "move to postpone the matter indefinitely." These are
parliamentary mechanisms for deferring an agenda item which is believed to be not yet ripe for
consideration.
8. Question: Should the pre-meeting Council packet include any presentation slides to be shown at
the following week's meeting?
Council Conclusion (4/3/18): Staff should make every effort to complete presentation slides in time
for inclusion in the Council agenda packet. If, after agenda packets are mailed out, changes to
presentation slides become necessary to avoid misinformation, staff should highlight such changes
early in Council's consideration of the apposite agenda item.
STUDY SESSIONS
9. Question: Should/could Study Sessions be made more useful by treating them less like briefings
and more like sessions for interactive exploration of key topics, adopting minimal formalities for
presentations by and questioning of staff and for discussion among Councilmembers?
Council Conclusions (4/3/18):
a. Study Sessions should continue to be televised and held at Council Chambers.
b. Amore roundtable-like seating arrangement for Study Sessions at Council Chambers should
be tried on a provisional basis to determine whether such an arrangement would further
informal, wide-ranging, and inclusive dialogue.
[2]
c. Study Sessions should continue to begin at 5:30 p.m. on the Mondays before Tuesday
business meetings. Unless a majority votes to extend an additional 30 minutes, Study
Sessions should conclude no later than 7:00 p.m.
d. The preferred time for any Executive Sessions is just after adjournment of Study Sessions.
e. The Look Ahead need not be presented as an agenda item at Study Sessions; instead, it
should be distributed in advance via email, allowing Councilmembers to ask about particular
planned future agenda items either before or at a Study Session.
f. The Council should observe the current requirement in AMC 2.04.020C.2 that public forum
presentations at a Study Session be limited to topics on the agenda for that Study Session.
g. ??Allow citizens the normal time for presentation but allow Councilmembers unlimited time
for follow-up dialogue with and exploratory questioning of presenters.
10. Question: Should Council be precluded from making decisions at Study Sessions?
Council Conclusions (4/3/18):
a. Study Sessions should be for providing Councilmembers background information and
providing staff a rough sense of Councilmembers' interests and concerns about impending
public issues.
b. Retain current practice, as provided in AMC 2.04.0200.1: "Study sessions are for Council
members to receive background information and recommendations from staff or invitees
with expertise on City business; to ask questions, discuss options, express their individual
views on matters that may be voted on in subsequent Regular or Special Meetings and to
provide guidance to staff. The Council may vote in Study Sessions on guidance to staff
concerning matters to be presented to Council for decision at subsequent meetings. By
consensus, the Council also may direct staff to take action on other matters that do not
require Council decision by ordinance or resolution...."
c. In brief, provisional deliberations and decisions, including motions on directions to staff, are
allowable at Study Sessions, but final decisions about resolutions, ordinances and policies are
to be made at Regular business meetings.
11. Question: Should someone (the Mayor or City Administrator) be responsible for providing a
summary of action taken/direction given at the end of each Study Session agenda item?
Council Conclusion (4/3/18): Yes
COMMENTSIPRESENTATIONSICORRESPONDENCE FROM CITIZENS
12. Question: Should a person speaking before the Council be required to state his or her street
address?
Council Conclusions (4/3/18): Require that persons making presentations to Council state (1) which
city they reside in; or (2) which county they reside in, if in an unincorporated area; or (3) the
organizations for which they are speaking or with which they are affiliated with respect to their
presentations. Persons speaking at Public Forum or during public testimony on agenda items should
include current contact information on the "Speaker Request" forms they submit to reserve an
[3)
opportunity to address the Council.
13. Question: How should time limits on speakers on scheduled agenda items be determined?
Staff-Suggested Conclusion: Retain current AMC 2.04.050G.2, which makes the presiding officers
responsible for setting time limits on public testimony on scheduled agenda items
Points and Authorities
a. Current AMC 2.04.0506.2 says, "The presiding officer will set time limits for people to ask to
speak on agenda items. In general, the time limits should be set to enable all people who
wish to_ present testimony. Time limits shall not be so short as to not allow speakers to
address t--- ~ heir topics•._1"
b. The time available for public testimony depends on multiple variable factors, such as time
`required for other items on the agenda, and the number of submitted "speaker request
forms--j
c. Es on controversial issues, many members of the public may wish to be heard at
Council meewn
d. Especially on controversial issues; elected decision-makers may well need significa t
meeting time for thoughtful deliberations among themselves.l
e. The standard time limit for public testimony at Study Sessions is 15 minutes, but a majority
of Cour ncilors can vote to extend that time. AMC 2.04.050D.2!'
f. Public testimony at Regular Council business meetings is only one of the available forms of
input from citizens. Correspondence and direct personal conversations with
Councilmembers (except on quasi-judicial land use matters) can be at least as helpful
elected decision-makers as necessarily time-limited statements at formal Council meetin s
Alternative Conclusions to Consider:
a. As with Study Sessions, make 15 minutes the standard time for public testimony at business
meetings, but allow a majority of Councilors to vote to extend that time.
b. Allow citizens the 15 minutes for presentation, but allow Councilmembers unlimited time
for follow-up dialogue with and exploratory questioning of presentersi
c. Invite multiple citizen advocates for a particular position to testify "together" under an
agreement to take less overall time than if each one signed up to speak separately,
14. . Question: At what point during consideration of a scheduled agenda item, should members of the
public be invited to present their views on the item?
Staff-Suggested Conclusion: Following staff's initial presentation on an agenda item and
Councilmembers' opportunity to ask staff clarifying questions, members of the public should be
invited to present their views. Then Council should begin deliberation on the agenda item, either in
the form of general colloquy~or in the form_ of specific motions and debate. During this period of
Council deliberation, members of the staff or invited "experts" may present additional information
to the Council in response to a specific request from a Councilmember; during such Council
deliberation, additional testimony, from members of the public should be allowed only aft a
successful motion to suspend the rules.
[4j
Points and Authorities:
a. Clear guidelines on when members of the public and staff can make oral presentations on
agenda items would likely facilitate efficient decision-making and reduce frustrationsj
b. To avoid distraction, once Council deliberation begins, additional external input should be
limited to specific information requested by Councilmembers for purposes of making a w I
considered decision, and not for advocacy pu poses
Alternative Conclusion to Consider:
a. A successful motion to suspend the rules could be required foran presentation of
additional information by anybody not on the Council during the period of Council
reratio
delib
uestion: If a persoq goesto the trouble to provide public input on a matter, should the Council
respond to that input immediately after? During Council's deliberation on the matter?i
Staff-Suggested Conclusion: Councilmembers should refrain from responding to Public Forum oq
agenda item testimony by members of the public, except upon approval by the presiding officer in
response to a Councilor's request to correcta potentially misleading error in a purported statement
ofr few
Points and AuthoritiO
a. Unless an erroneous statement needs to be corrected in order to avoid public
misunderstanding orconfusion, engaging in dialogue or debate with members of the public
at Council meetings would likely increase the contentiousness and duration of meetings.
b. Allowing dialogue on some topics with some presenters but denying that opportunity in
other instances would be inequitable.
c. Members of the general public have opportunities for oral and written input at.publid
meetings, and in other venues; Councilmembers are elected to make their best judgments
on Council business matters after personally weighing both public input and other,
consider- eras
15. Question: Should follow-up questioning of speakers be permitted without suspension of Council
Rules?
Council Conclusion (11/20/17): Follow-up questions or responses by Councilmembers should be
allowed without suspension of the rules (1) in Study Sessions; and (2) when the speaker is a subject
matter expert invited by staff or Council to make a presentation. Follow-up questions or responses
by Councilmembers should not be allowed with respect to testimony by members of the public
during Public Forum or during testimony on agenda items except in unusual circumstances and after,
suspension of the rules. However, Councilmembers or City staff may be recognized by the presiding
officer following testimony by members of the public for purposes of correcting for the record any
patent errors of fact.
16. Following a presentation to Council from staff or an invitee, should members of the public be
permitted to direct arguments or questions to the presenter?
[sj
17. If discussion of an agenda item begins in one meeting and is continued to a subsequent meeting,
should a member of the general public who spoke before the Council at the first meeting have
opportunity to speak before the Council on the same topic at the subsequent meeting?
18. Should a citizen's wish to testify on a matter on the Consent Agenda automatically cause the item to
be pulled from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration by the Council, including public
testimony?
19. How should Councilmembers and staff respond to citizens' correspondence sent directly to the
entire Council? Sent to the City Administrator or the department director with copies to the entire
Council? Sent to the City website? Sent Directly to an individual Councilmember?
20. Should the Council adopt formal guidelines for those attending and making presentations at Council
meetings?
DELIBERATION RULES
21. Question: Should every Councilor get a "turn" to speak on an issue before any Councilor gets a
follow-up turn?
Council Conclusion (11/20/17): During Council business meetings, every Councilor should get a turn
to speak about an issue under consideration before any other Councilor gets a follow-up turn.
During Study Sessions however, this rule should not be observed.
22. How should the Council's deliberation rule against negative remarks about the motivations or traits
of others (AMC 2.04.040C.2) and the rule against criticizing any person in public meetings or emails
(AMC 2.04.070D) be enforced?
23. Should the list of rules that Council can suspend be expanded?
24. How should a Councilor seek a suspension of Council rules?
25. Should suspension of the rules always require a formal vote?
COUNCILMEMBER REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION OR ACTIONS FROM STAFF
26. Outside of a meeting, how should a Councilor go about getting information from staff if the request
likely to require no more than two hours of staff time? If the request is likely to require more than
two hours of staff time?
27. How should an employee handle a request for information that is likely to require more than 2
.hours of staff time?
28. Is the two-hour rule appropriate?
29. Question: Should staff's response to a Councilor's inquiry always be sent to all Councilmembers?
Council Conclusion (4/3/18): Staff should provide all the Councilmembers copies of any responses to
a Councilmember's inquiries or suggested guidance.
30. Question: Should Councilmembers contact staff with questions or concerns about agenda items
for upcoming meetings in advance of the meetings?
[6)
Council Conclusion (4/3/18): If possible, after receiving agenda packets, Councilors with questions
or concerns they would like to have addressed at an upcoming meeting should so advise the
relevant staff presenters or the City Administrator in advance of the meeting.
31. What protocols, if any, should Councilmembers observe for questioning or making suggestions to
staff other than Department Heads and those in the office of the City Administrator?
MISCELLANY
32. Should individual Councilors serve as Council liaisons to the various City departments, similar to
their roles as liaisons to City advisory bodies?
33. Could changes be made to the Look Ahead to enhance its usefulness to Councilmembers?
34. What role should Councilmembers play in hiring for positions below Department Head level?
35. Should the current format for proposed ordinances and resolutions be revised?
36. What should enforcement consist of in the event of noncompliance with the rule against negative
personal remarks about the motivations of others (AMC 2.04.040C (2) and (3) or noncompliance
with the rule against criticizing any person (or staff) in public meetings or emails (AMC 2.04.080D
and E)?
[7]