Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Approval of Agenda - City Council


Pascal Jouvence

Recommended Posts

I am a newly elected Councilman of the City of Gallatin, TN. Every board or council I attended before being elected did vote to approve the agenda before starting the meeting. This is not the case here.

City ordinances Sec. 2-93. - General rules of order states: The rules of order and parliamentary procedure contained in Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, shall govern the transaction of business by and before the city council at its meetings in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with provisions of the charter or this Code.(Code 1979, § 1-103).

 

I asked our City attorney about not having to approve or amend the agenda before the meeting and this was her answer:

Municipal Code Section 2-71(c) sets out the framework for what is placed on the Council Committee (work session) agendas, which conflicts with/supercedes Robert’s Rules, as the Mayor does not simply just set the agenda at will. The Mayor follows the rules established by the Municipal Code. The Council Committee may vote to consider any non-agenda matter, as set out in GMC 2-71(c).  Additionally, items may be brought under other business for the Council Committee to consider.

Council sets the agenda for the Council meetings by moving items from the Council Committee meetings to the Council meetings. The Mayor does not set the agenda. The Council sets the agenda, and matters are placed on the agenda according to the Order of Business set out in GMC Sec. 2-92.

 

Should the agenda be brought for approval at the start of the meeting or is this the right way (per charter and code of the City)? Thank you for your input.

 

Bellow are extract from the municipal code.

Municipal Code Section 2-71(c) says: All department heads and all other persons desiring to present any matter to the council committee shall notify the mayor in writing of the matter(s) to be placed upon the council committee agenda. Such notification must be made at least five (5) calendar days in advance of the date of the council committee meeting in order to be placed upon the agenda. The council committee may, upon majority vote, waive the five-day written notice. The mayor shall prepare the agenda and deliver such to the council committee at least two (2) days in advance of any meeting of the council committee. The council committee, may upon majority vote, consider any non-agenda matter.

Municipal Code Section 2-92: At each meeting of the city council the following regular order of business shall be observed unless dispensed with by a majority vote of the members present: (1)Call to order; (2)Roll call; (3)Approval of minutes of previous meeting(s); (4)Recognition of public on agenda-related matters; (5)Mayor's communications; (6)Old business; (7)New business; (8)Recognition of public on non-agenda related matters; (9)Adjournment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As with most city councils and other public bodies, your city council appears to have customized procedures and is subject to certain laws for setting the agenda for council meetings.  This is not unusual and, in my experience, is actually the norm.  This is due at least in part to state open meetings laws (aka sunshine laws) which require that the agendas for meetings of public bodies be purlixhed in advance of the meeting for the benefit of the public.  Those laws generally make it difficult (or even impossible) to change the agenda less than a set number of days prior to the meeting (or even at the meeting).  For example, in Louisiana, the state open meetings law requires agendas to be published at least 24 hours prior to the meeting and the unanimous approval of council members to add anything to the agenda less than 24 hours prior to the meeting. Any one council member can prevent adding something to the agenda at the meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2023 at 9:09 AM, Pascal Jouvence said:

Should the agenda be brought for approval at the start of the meeting or is this the right way (per charter and code of the City)?

Ultimately, this is a question concerning the meaning of the Gallatin charter and ordinances and the City Council's rules, not a question concerning Robert's Rules of Order. Such a question is beyond the scope of RONR and this forum and should be directed to the city's attorneys and clerks. To the extent that the code and the council's rules are unclear on this matter, it may be desirable in the future to amend them for clarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2023 at 11:06 AM, Atul Kapur said:

BTW, it sounds like you, the attorney, or both believe that RONR requires the adoption of an agenda at the beginning of every meeting.

 

It does not.

And neither does RONR say that a Mayor may set the agenda items at will.   RONR getting a bad rap today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2023 at 11:06 AM, Atul Kapur said:

BTW, it sounds like you, the attorney, or both believe that RONR requires the adoption of an agenda at the beginning of every meeting.

 

It does not.

But RONR does require that if an agenda is to be binding on the assembly, it must first be adopted: 

"41:61    Procedure for Adoption. In cases in which an agenda is adopted, usually this is done at the outset of a session and the agenda is intended to cover the entire session. At a session having no prescribed or adopted order of business, such an agenda is followed as a guide by the chair pending its formal adoption and can be adopted by majority vote, even if it contains special orders; it is then the order of business for that session. At a session that already has an order of business, an agenda can be adopted by a majority vote only if it does not create any special orders and does not conflict with the existing order of business; otherwise, a two-thirds vote is required (see also 25:12).

"41:62    Agenda Provided in Advance. In some organizations, it is customary to send each member, in advance of a meeting, an order of business or agenda, with some indication of the matters to be considered under each heading. Such an agenda is often provided for information only, with no intention or practice of submitting it for adoption. Unless a precirculated agenda is formally adopted at the session to which it applies, it is not binding as to detail or order of consideration, other than as it lists preexisting orders of the day (41:40ff.) or conforms to the standard order of business (3:16, 41:5ff.) or an order of business prescribed by the rules of the organization (2:16, 3:16)."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2023 at 11:06 AM, Atul Kapur said:

BTW, it sounds like you, the attorney, or both believe that RONR requires the adoption of an agenda at the beginning of every meeting.

It does not.

On 3/16/2023 at 4:11 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

But RONR does require that if an agenda is to be binding on the assembly, it must first be adopted

On 3/16/2023 at 6:57 PM, Atul Kapur said:

I do not believe that what I said conflicts with the sections that you have quoted (which I am reading as implied by your use of the word "but").

I was simply pointing out that if an assembly is going to be bound by an agenda for the meeting, then under the rules in RONR that agenda would need to be adopted (or the agenda must solely reflect a preexisting applicable order of business). If there is no agenda, or if the agenda is not to be binding, then no agenda needs to be adopted. Simply saying that RONR does not require the adoption of an agenda at the beginning of every meeting is not incorrect if understood properly, but it does not tell the whole story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in this case we are told that the city attorney, citing the red text of the municipal code, opines that the agenda presented by the mayor in advance of the meeting is binding, though additional items may be added by a vote of the council.  If that's true, we would not expect a motion to adopt the agenda.

This is consistent with sunshine laws I've worked under, where the presiding officer or his designee prepared an agenda which was published in advance, and was deemed to be binding without formal approval, though a majority vote could modify it.  

The agenda prep was covered by regulations.  I believe the majority vote was as a result of case law, as a court had decided (wrongly in my view) that elected boards could not be held to a vote requirement beyond a majority with a few exceptions.  In particular, suspending rules or amending something previously adopted, did not require a two-thirds vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...