The big loophole in the proposed “Rules of Council”

Hey, boys and girls it’s that time again!! Yes, we’ve just had a City Council election so now it’s time for the body to revisit the rules under which it operates. And these rules, after they are adopted at Tuesday’s City Council meeting, will be in effect until the next municipal election.

You can read the proposed rules for yourself as well as everything else connected with the council’s upcoming agenda right here.

For the most part, none of the rules are anything to whine about. There are some rules that are interpreted, shall we say, a little goofily. Like the one labeled "Opening an item for discussion." What the rules states is this: "To initiate discussion, the Mayor or Chair shall introduce an agenda item, in most cases by reading the heading of the proposed legislation. After the Mayor or Chair has introduced the agenda item, the item will be brought forward for discussion. Council members shall then adhere to the procedures defined herein for general discussion or debate of the pending item."

Sounds simple enough, doesn’t it. Translated that means, after completing one agenda item, the council moves on to the next agenda item simply by reading the item as it is presented on the council’s agenda. In most cities I’ve covered, that reading is handled by the city secretary, but in Kyle that becomes the mayor’s responsibility. After that, discussion, although not debate, can begin on the item. (According to Robert’s rules, debate can only begin after a motion is made to take action on the particular item.)

But for some unknown reason, although it’s definitely not called for in the council’s rules of procedures, the mayor takes the added step of asking if there is any objections to placing the item on the table for discussion. That’s the goofy part. For one thing, it would be illegal if anyone had any objections because once an item appears on a council agenda, it must be addressed in some form or fashion, even if the action decided upon is to remove the item from consideration. But the main reason is, as you can read for yourself in the printed "Rules of Council," there is no rule providing for such an action. One could actually argue such an action is, in reality, a violation of the council’s rules. (From what I have been told, there is a known reason for this irrational behavior and that reason, which is totally irrelevant, is "That's the way it's done in the state legislature." The reason that reasoning is irrelevant is because, unlike city councils, state legislative sessions don't follow a preset agenda.)

But here’s the rule I have a real problem with.

"Council and/or the staff shall not respond to questions or comments submitted under the "Citizens Comment Period with City Councils" section of any meeting unless responding factually to a question, or to request clarification. Responses to said discussion will be considered for proper reply at an appropriate time."

That rule, I have been told, means the council is not supposed to engage in conversations with any citizens making comments during the Citizen Comments period. The rationale given is that city attorneys have advised such discussions are illegal because the subject being addressed is not a subject on the agenda." Which is pure bullfeathers because this interaction comes during the Citizens Comment period and the Citizens Comment period is part of the agenda. So there.

Although such interaction is legally permissible, regardless of the bad advice I’ve been told our council is receiving from its legal representatives, the Municipal Research and Services Center advises "Don't allow verbal exchanges to drag on between citizens and council members, especially if they concern administrative problems that can be solved by the staff during regular city hall hours." Now you don’t think the MRSC would be saying that if responding to citizens comments was illegal, do you?

But, if you look closely, you will find this big, fat, glaring loophole that allows council members to interact with citizens during this period at their respective whims. That loophole is the wording that allows council members to "request clarification." I could argue that any discussion between a council member and a citizen during Citizens Comments period could be labeled a "request" for "clarification." "Hey, I’m just trying to clarify in my own mind what the concern of this citizen is."

Badges? We don’t need no stinking badges.