Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-10-19 City Council Minutes Approved t9 w City Council Minutes—October 19, 2012 At 1:00 p.m. Mayor Dean Maxwell called the advertised special Anacortes City Council meeting of October 19, 2012 to order. The meeting was called for the purpose of conducting a facilitated review of City Council procedures. City councilmembers Eric Johnson, Ryan Walters, Erica Pickett, Brad Adams, Bill Turner, Cynthia Richardson and Brian Geer were present. Staff present included Human Resources Director Emily Schuh, Finance Director Steve Hoglund, Planning Director Ryan Larsen, Public Works Director Fred Buckenmeyer and City Attorney Brad Furlong. The following members of the public introduced themselves: Art Shotwell, Bill Ballentine, Barbara Ballentine, Terry Christiansen, Frank Spargo, Virginia Heiner, Sharene Elander, Hal Rooks, Gene Derig, Marilyn Derig, Brenda Lavendar, Joe Barnes, Richard Bergner, Ellen Berg, Nancy Ridgeway and Dave Ridgeway. The meeting was facilitated by Ms. Rhonda Hilyer of Agreement Dynamics who introduced a list of discussion topics for the session based on earlier feedback she had solicited from each councilmember independently. She clarified that no action would be taken at the current meeting but that Council was encouraged to agree on some directions for staff to proceed with developing procedures for subsequent review and eventual adoption by Council. Councilmembers referred to a draft of changes to the City Council Procedures that was prepared by an ad hoc committee of Erica Pickett, Eric Johnson and Cynthia Richardson in August, 2012 for consideration by the entire City Council. A. AGENDA ➢ Who sets it? ➢ How can Council Members add items? ➢ What is the timeframe for finalizing the agenda? ➢ When are agenda and materials available to Council and the public? ➢ How do we ensure "no surprises"? Councilmembers discussed a variety of options for publishing the agenda earlier to provide councilmembers more time to study issues before they are acted upon and provide the public more time to contact their elected representatives about upcoming issues. The ideas discussed included maintaining the current process, moving publication of the agenda anywhere from one to ten days earlier than current practice, publishing a preliminary list of upcoming agenda topics one to several months in advance of each meeting, moving council meetings to Tuesday or Wednesday instead of Monday, moving the weekly staff meeting earlier in the week, mentioning upcoming agenda topics during Mayor/Council Communication at each meeting, publishing the agenda and packet separately, adopting a two-read rule for ordinances, and making every meeting an action meeting. Mr. Furlong suggested that whatever rules are adopted be written so that items can be added to an agenda up to the time of the meeting if necessary. Councilmembers generally agreed that handling of routine business such as awarding contracts and approving vouchers did not require significantly more advance notice than at present. Ms. Hilyer observed councilmember consensus on openness and providing as much information as possible and suggested asking staff's opinions. Staff spoke to the time that would be required to prepare multiple levels of agendas and the difficulty in pinning down in advance agenda dates for topics such as the current round of development regulations that depend on many levels of review from and interaction with many parties. Mr. Furlong said that setting a preliminary agenda 10 days prior to a meeting may not be difficult but having packet materials ready 10 days early is probably not feasible, at least not materials that require legal review. Mrs. Richardson responded that it was difficult for councilmembers to see final documents for the first time when they arrive at a council meeting. She suggested publishing an agenda ten or fourteen days prior to each meeting, then the Thursday before each meeting publishing a revised draft agenda and packet as is done now, then at the meeting receiving revised final versions if necessary with specific notice of any changes since the Thursday version. Anacortes City Council Minutes October 19, 2012 1 Mayor Maxwell noted that four weeks out the agendas may show a blank slate but that requests come in all the time to place things on the agenda. He said staff reviews the preliminary agenda at each Wednesday morning staff meeting for the following Monday. He suggested providing Council on the first of each month a preliminary look at what's coming up for the month ahead. He cautioned against setting procedures that would invite complaints from the public about suddenly adding something to an agenda and reminded that Council needs to conduct timely business. Ms. Hilyer observed that the main interest appeared to be public notice, not council study time and that the tradeoff was potentially increasing the required staff time. She urged councilmembers to come to some consensus on what changes to try. Mrs. Pickett said keeping council meetings on Mondays was important because of the publication schedule of the Anacortes American. Mayor Maxwell repeated his offer to publish preliminary agendas for the month at the first of each month, with the caveat that there would be additions and so forth. Mrs. Richardson said they would actually need a weekly update with a rolling 4-week calendar. Ms. Hilyer summarized that Council would like to try a weekly updated tentative calendar to include agenda items for next four weeks. Mayor Maxwell said staff would be willing to try it and would email the calendar to councilmembers as well as posting it on the website. Mr. Furlong suggested adding a Rolling Agenda tab to the City Council page on the website. Councilmembers endorsed that idea. Ms. Hilyer then directed the discussion to the topic of adding items to the agenda asked how that happens now. Mayor Maxwell said typically councilmembers ask him to add items to the agenda. He said three members can request that an item be added to an agenda and asked that the request be in writing. Mrs. Richardson said any councilmember can ask the mayor to put something on the next available agenda but that if three councilmember feel something is so important that it needs to go on a particular agenda regardless of what else is on that agenda, it has to go on the agenda. She reminded that it is the Council's meeting. Mayor Maxwell said there needs to be flexibility in case critical staff is not available or the City Attorney can't be there or some other similar constraint. Mr. Walters noted that Council can always vote to postpone consideration of an agenda item if staff is not available. Mr. Geer expressed concern about three councilmembers effectively"taking action" by placing an item on the agenda. Mr. Walters observed that the MRSC sample rules say a two-person request for an agenda item is valid. Mr. Furlong agreed and underscored that whoever initiates a request cannot ask more than two other councilmembers to agree, otherwise they are acting outside a public meeting. Mr. Geer suggesting using the existing Council committees to request agenda items. Ms. Schuh said working agenda item requests through committees was good because each committee has some staff support. Mr. Walters observed that the existing procedures allow three councilmembers to add an agenda item and the committees are three-person committees but that Council doesn't have committees for everything so that can't be the only way for councilmember to add to the agenda. Mr. Johnson said committees should take requests to the mayor before the council meeting for which the agenda item is requested so there are no surprises. Mr. Furlong said he would like to adjust the existing three-member request rule, as well as others, to ensure no business is conducted outside of public meetings. Ms. Hilyer said it sounded like Council was satisfied with the existing procedure. Mr. Johnson said not quite because the current procedure says to notify the City Clerk-Treasurer, not submit in writing to the mayor. Ms. Hilyer said it sounded like everyone agreed on "no surprises." Mrs. Richardson said if councilmembers have documents to introduce for an agenda item, they should give them to Mr. Larsen to distribute with the Council packet. Ms. Schuh handed out a page of Suggested Guidelines for Anacortes City Council Minutes October 19, 2012 2 Council/Mayoral Communication. Ms. Hilyer asked if something similar would capture the essence of the issue. Mr. Furlong remarked that the 24-hour rule is probably not sufficient for Monday meetings since the notice period begins Sunday evening. Mr. Walters said the OPMA rule requires sharing all documents at a public meeting. He said councilmembers should be able to request an agenda item at a meeting and introduce documents at one. He emphasized that Council should conduct all its business before the public. Mr. Turner said that implied councilmembers were somehow adverse to one another. He said councilmembers aren't there to win against one another, they should be working together. He said sharing information in advance allows everyone to consider it and find the best solution. Mr. Furlong said he'd be happy to draft something based on what he'd heard at the meeting. He agreed with Mr. Walters that councilmembers sending documents to each other via email is not appropriate and that documents should go to staff for distribution to the entire Council. Mayor Maxwell reminded everyone that to protect the record, all documents need to go through staff to be distributed to councilmembers. Mrs. Richardson warned that she didn't want councilmembers to be charged with "pre-judging" an issue by sending notice of their position on an issue to staff. She suggested councilmembers advise staff about topics raised by the public without stating a position on them. Ms. Hilyer summarized that Council wished to reaffirm that within the legal requirements of the OPMA it wants to be as open and forthright as possible on each issue, including staff and the mayor, with no hiding the ball. B. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ➢ What is the best opportunity/process for public input at regular business meetings? ➢ Should citizen comments be limited to items not currently on the agenda? ➢ Are there some items on the agenda that should not be open to public discussion? ➢ What is the amount of time each person may speak at a Council meeting? ➢ What is the Mayor's authority to deal with disruptive/inappropriate types of public comments and/behaviors? Mr. Johnson said the ad hoc committee felt the public should be able to speak on a topic whether or not it is on the agenda and that he favored the current citizen comment period at the beginning of each meeting for that purpose. Mr. Furlong recommended against public discussion of consent agenda items and of items that may come before Council in its quasi-judicial function. He said all comment on such items needs to be presented during a hearing or prescribed public participation plan. Mr. Walters asked why exclude consent agenda items. Mr. Furlong said that many such items, such as final approval of findings of fact, have already been through a complete public process. Mr. Walters suggested it would be more precise to exclude public comment on quasi-judicial matters rather than consent agenda items. Mr. Furlong suggested instead excluding any topic Council has already made a decision on, including vacation ordinances. Mr. Walters argued that until final action is taken during the Consent Agenda vote public comment is still appropriate. He noted that development regulations amendments are not quasi-judicial and zoning code amendments are not quasi-judicial so the public should be able to comment on them. He emphasized that Council needs to write this as a rule because it doesn't have any rule at all in place now. Mr. Furlong said that some rezones are quasi-judicial and that more importantly even legislative actions that have a required public participation component such as comprehensive plans, Shoreline Master Programs, and so on have specific public participation requirements. He said if a topic falls under such a specific process with notice requirements then it's not fair to everyone to allow public comment at other, non-advertised times. Mrs. Richardson pointed out that the committee's suggested wording regarding public comment excludes quasi-judicial topics and others with specific public participation plans. She underscored that she needs to hear what the public thinks to make good decisions. Anacortes City Council Minutes October 19, 2012 3 Mr. Walters reported that Oak Harbor City Council rules do not allow action on any topic without opportunity for public comment. He said that led to extremely long meetings. He said he preferred one comment period at the beginning of the meeting, or, like the Port of Anacortes, a comment period at the beginning of the meeting for any topic on the agenda and a separate comment period at the end for topics not on the agenda. He suggested limiting comment time based on a sign up sheet available before each meeting and installing a time keeping device with red, yellow, and green lights for speakers. Staff indicated that such a device had already been ordered. Mr. Walters said he favored allowing the public to speak on Consent Agenda items. Mayor Maxwell said that if the public expresses a concern with a consent agenda item prior to the meeting it is generally pulled off the consent agenda for discussion. He added that when he was a councilmember and a constituent had an issue with a consent agenda item, he would request the item be removed from the consent agenda during the meeting. Mr. Turner said he didn't want to exclude people from speaking and that meetings might routinely become longer as a result, which was fine. He said he was concerned that the mayor would be in a difficult position of cutting speakers off if they tried to comment on a topic that was excluded, such as a quasi- judicial topic. He suggested citizens wishing to comment sign up before the meeting and indicate the topic on which they wished to speak. Mr. Adams agreed with Mrs. Richardson that the agenda should indicate which items would not have some other public comment opportunity. Mrs. Richardson reiterated the committee's support for giving the public an opportunity to speak about agenda items. She said Mr. Johnson preferred taking such comment at the beginning of the meeting but she'd prefer to hear comments on each agenda item as it occurs so it is more timely to the discussion. She supported Mr. Adams' idea of marking on the agenda which items the public can comment on, stating on the agenda that citizens must sign up in advance to speak, and providing a sign up sheet prior to the meeting so the mayor could call speakers to the podium at the appropriate time. She also supported continuing the current practice of allowing citizens to comment at the beginning of the meeting on anything not on the agenda. Mrs. Pickett, Mr. Adams and Mr. Walters agreed with that idea. Mr. Furlong agreed to draft a rule providing for: • indicating on each agenda which topics are open for public comment (excluding quasi-judicial matters and possibly some or all consent agenda items); • indicating on each agenda that citizens wishing to speak must sign up prior to the meeting and state a topic; • providing a sign up sheet prior to each meeting; • allowing comment by signed-in speakers on topics not on the agenda at the beginning of the meeting; • allowing comment by signed-in speakers on agenda topics during the discussion of that topic; • allowing the mayor to adjust the default three-minute speaker time limit based on the number of people wishing to speak. Mr. Furlong noted that he would need to review each agenda in advance of publication to mark items not appropriate for public comment due to legal restrictions. Councilmembers then briefly discussed the appropriate amount of time for public comments. The mayor said that the common practice of allowing three minutes to each speaker seems to work well. Mr. Turner said it was awkward to make the mayor have to decide at each meeting based on a guess of how many people will want to speak. Mr. Johnson said having speakers sign up ahead of time would let the mayor know how many speakers to plan for. Mr. Furlong reminded that in the quasi-judicial realm, the applicant needs more than three minutes to respond to comments made by appellants during a hearing. Mr. Walters asked if the time limits applied to public hearings too and suggested that they should apply to both public hearings and citizen comments. Councilmember next discussed the Mayor's authority to deal with disruptive/inappropriate types of public comments or behaviors. Anacortes City Council Minutes October 19, 2012 4 Mr. Johnson said councilmembers should tell mayor if they think something is inappropriate and let him run the meeting accordingly. He added that Council actually needs to vote if the disruption is such that the meeting needs to be suspended and moved to a new location. Mr. Walters urged establishing a set of neutrally stated rules and posting them on line and in the Council chambers, including at the podium for speakers. He said that speakers should be able to appeal to Council if the mayor rules them out of order. The mayor said it is his job to call bad behavior but that there should be some protocol that is published so everyone knows there can be no cat calls, no signs, and so on. Ms. Hilyer added that such rules commonly state no yelling, no profanity, no threats and generally call for basic civility. Mr. Adams said having that standard set of rules that could be reviewed aloud before public hearings would be good. Mayor Maxwell referenced the City of Bothell rule that says speakers must address the Council as a body, not pick on individual councilmembers, and asked if Council felt a need to adopt such a rule. Ms. Hilyer advised that councilmembers and citizens should both address the chair. Mr. Geer said the State legislature posts a list of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Mr. Larsen said that Mr. Buckenmeyer would be bringing a sample of such rules to a future meeting. Mrs. Richardson asked if councilmembers could review it first. Mr. Walters asked about prohibitions on things such as applause and head nodding and asked what Anacortes was actually going to enforce. He asked to discuss this at a regular action meeting. Mayor Maxwell said it is his job to defend everyone's right to speak and that some people are effectively intimidated from speaking by that kind of overt behavior. Mr. Walters said he didn't disagree with a no applause rule but said Council needed to discuss what rules it wants to establish. The mayor reiterated it is his job to make sure the meeting doesn't get out of hand. Ms. Hilyer encouraged Council to define a clear set of rules for the chair to enforce. Mrs. Richardson said the current City Council procedures include such rules but they are too wordy and that they need to be distilled into bullet points for posting. C. COUNCIL ETIQUETTE ➢ What behaviors will the Council commit to in order to maximize respect, civility, patience and productive discourse? Councilmembers discussed the need to minimize disrespectful behaviors and to address each other rather than the physical or television audience. Councilmembers agreed that the shape of the platform makes it difficult for them to address one another since they face the audience rather than one another. Mr. Adams reminded that when a major issue is before Council each councilmember needs to have a chance to speak before moving to the next round of comments. He encouraged councilmembers to make their points concisely. D. RULES FOR CONDUCTING BUSINESS ➢ Should Roberts Rules or a modified version be adopted as the standard for parliamentary procedures (making motions, tabling, etc.)? ➢ If not, what structure/procedures will be used? ➢ How strictly will the procedures be applied (guidelines versus "by the book")? ➢ Should Council procedures be provided to the public at every meeting along with information on how they can be accessed on the web? Councilmembers conducted an extended discussion on whether to adopt Robert's Rules of Order, a modified set of those rules, Robert's Rules for Small Boards, or some other set of rules. Mr. Furlong referred to a set of draft rules he had prepared and handed out based on the City of Tumwater rules. He said the draft rules he had prepared were condensed but covered the motions commonly used such as tabling, delaying, and calling for the question. Anacortes City Council Minutes October 19, 2012 5 Mrs. Richardson said the ad hoc committee suggested using Robert's Rules as general guide and having a copy in the Council Chambers to refer to during meetings. She said that would not preclude Council from adopting rules such as those proposed by Mr. Furlong and still referring to Robert's Rules if further guidance were needed. She added that the current procedures address "Validity when rules not observed." Ms. Hilyer noted that Robert's Rules is comprehensive but the downside is the rules can become an impediment if not everyone understands them. She asked what standard fits the Anacortes City Council best and suggested trying something out and revising later if necessary. Mrs. Pickett suggested considering Mr. Furlong's proposed rules to see if they are comprehensive enough. Mr. Furlong said there needs to be some level of rules established but warned against turning Council meetings into contests of parliamentary procedure. He said he would look into the Rules for Small Boards and encouraged adopting a set of rules that is brief and simple enough for everyone including the public to understand. Mayor Maxwell said most cities use a modified version of Robert's Rules because it's easier for everyone and said he did not want to encourage gamesmanship. He said legal counsel at Foster Pepper advised against adopting Robert's Rules. Several councilmembers suggested that whatever rules are adopted, the City Council and Planning Commission should both receive training using those rules. Mr. Johnson encouraged reviewing that training after each election cycle when new members may join the council. Mrs. Richardson suggested that training happen before deciding which rules to adopt. Mr. Furlong offered to incorporate Council feedback into his proposed rules then review them with Council in study session to provide training. Mr. Walters urged changing the current requirement for roll call votes on everything including amendments. Mrs. Pickett disagreed and said the secretary needs to have roll call votes to record the proceedings and that quasi-judicial decisions should always have a roll call. Mr. Furlong suggested that in many cases the mayor can ask for voice vote and only if it is not unanimous proceed with a roll call vote. Mr. Walters said the mayor can also ask if there is unanimous consent, which results in a clear decision without a roll call. He strongly urged that the motion on the floor always be restated before the vote. Ms. Hilyer summarized the consensus that councilmembers should review Mr. Furlong's proposed rules and send him their feedback within a week, then Mr. Furlong would develop a revised draft and present a training on them at a study session before Council further discusses and eventually adopts a set of rules. Councilmembers agreed that the rules should be communicated to the public on the website and made available in the Council chambers. Mrs. Richardson said that the ad hoc committee found quite a bit in the 1995 rules that is out of date and asked what process Council would follow to address those detailed changes and get them into revised Council procedures so Council is operating consistent with its procedures. After brief discussion between councilmembers and the City Attorney, Ms. Hilyer summarized that Ms. Schuh would draft a set of procedures starting with the MRSC sample rules, making sure no statues are restated, making them consistent with current practice, using plain concise language, and incorporating the present meeting's discussion. She added that the committee may propose alternate options for consideration at a study session. Mr. Furlong clarified that the rules on motions would be discussed separately from the larger set of procedures. Mrs. Richardson suggested starting the discussion on the motion rules and getting those adopted separately from the procedures, then eventually incorporating the motion rules into the procedures. There being no further business, at approximately 4:05 p.m. the special Anacortes City Council meeting of October 19, 2012 was adjourned. Anacortes City Council Minutes October 19, 2012 6