December 19 2024 Council Meeting, Rules of Procedure

[Paul Roberts]

Beginning on page 74 of the packet, these are my proposed edits to the Rules of Procedure. The character count for this forum is 10k per post, so I'll post the balance in a reply.

https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/lagovistatexas/8507898f-a81e-11ef-ab4b-005056a89546-527a192e-532b-46ae-86e2-621bee7024c1-1734129866.pdf

2.4 Regular Meetings.
Regular meetings of the City Council shall be on the first and third Thursday of each month at 5:30 p.m. 1:00 p.m. in Council chambers. The regular session of the City Council shall begin at 6:30 2:00, but work sessions and executive sessions will be held before the regular session and may continue after the regular session. The City Council may, by majority vote at a regular meeting, change the days or times of meetings as circumstances may necessitate. Please refer to Section 1.331 of the Code of Ordinances for more information on meeting specifications.

2.5 Special/Town Hall Meetings.
Special meetings of the City Council may be called upon request of the mayor, or two members of the City Council then seated [is this really a violation of the City Charter as Cobby has stated previously?]. A request for a special meeting shall be filed with the city secretary or the city manager in written/electronic format unless made at a regular meeting at which a quorum of council members is present. The city manager and all Council members shall be notified of all special meetings.

2.8 Executive Sessions.
Executive sessions are sessions closed to the public. They are only permitted for the purpose of discussing matters enumerated in Chapter 551, Open Meetings Act of the Texas Government Code. Disclosure of topics to be discussed shall be made to the public in accordance with the requirements of the Open Meetings Act. The City Council can convene into an executive session as stated on a posted agenda during a regular or special meeting. However, before said session begins, the presiding officer shall announce that the executive session is commencing and identify the section or sections of the Open Meetings Act under which the closed meeting is held. The order in which an executive session may appear on the agenda is subject to the discretion of the City Council. A certified agenda of the meeting will be created by the presiding officer or his or her designee, sealed and permanently kept in accordance with state law, subject to opening by court order. No voting or action shall be taken by the City Council during an executive session. No other subject other than that posted on the agenda is to be considered. Adjournment of the executive session and any vote needed shall be made during the open public meeting.

Legal advice discussed in executive session shall remain confidential unless the City Council votes to waive the attorney‐client privilege. Except for action taken in open session, no Council Member, staff member, or legal counsel may disclose the deliberations [Do “deliberations” cover the legal advice only, i.e. can we discuss what the subject matter was but not the legal advice?] in executive session on matters discussed under other lawful exceptions under the Open Meetings Act

2.12 Presiding Officer.
Rules governing the presiding officer are defined in the City Charter.

The Presiding Officer shall serve as the chair of all meetings and shall make final rulings on all questions pertaining to these rules. All decisions of the presiding officer are final unless overruled by the City Council through a motion to appeal as described in Article 3.9 – Courtesy, Decorum and Order of these rules.

The presiding officer is entitled to participate in the discussion and debate and is entitled to vote on all business before the City Council. Because the presiding officer conducts the meeting, it is common courtesy for the chair to take a less active role than other members of the City Council in debates and discussions. This practice in no way precludes the presiding officer from participating in the meeting fully and freely; however the presiding officer shall not make a motion unless the remainder of the Commission or council members fail to make a motion.

The presiding officer shall not interrupt recognized speakers, including council members, staff, or public participants, except under allowable points of order or privilege as defined in Section 3.9(4). When addressing comments or questions during a meeting, the presiding officer must first recognize themselves to ensure they do not disrupt the speaker holding the floor.

The presiding officer of Commissions shall be the person selected according to the rules defined in the appropriate enabling ordinance and powers vested in that presiding officer will also be defined in that same ordinance.

2.15 Amendment of Rules.
These rules may be amended, or new rules adopted, by a super majority vote of the members of the city council present.

3.9 Courtesy, Decorum and Order.
These rules of order are meant to promote an atmosphere of courtesy and decorum appropriate for the efficient discussion of business. It is the responsibility of the mayor (and the members of the City Council) to maintain that atmosphere of courtesy and decorum. The mayor should always ensure that debate and discussion focus on the item and the policy in question, not on the personalities of the participants in the discussion. Debate on policy is healthy; debate on personalities is not. In order to assist in the creation and maintenance of that atmosphere, the following rules shall govern all meetings:

1. Request to Speak. Before a council member, staff member or an audience member may speak, they must first be recognized by the mayor. Upon recognition the person requesting to speak shall hold the floor and shall make their point clearly and succinctly. Public comments must be kept relevant to the subject before the Council. The mayor shall rule on the relevance of comments. Persons making irrelevant, personal, impertinent, overly redundant, or slanderous remarks may be barred by the mayor from further comment before the Council during the meeting. Audience members who wish to speak during an agenda must first complete a ‘request to speak card’ and submit it to the city secretary. The mayor has the right to cut a speaker off if the discussion becomes too personal, too loud, too crude, irrelevant, impertinent, redundant, or slanderous.

Once a Council Member is recognized, they shall retain the floor until they voluntarily yield it, are interrupted under allowable circumstances (Section 3.9(4)), or are deemed out of order by the presiding officer. The presiding officer must acknowledge the speaker's intent to yield before proceeding to address any comments or questions. Improper interruptions by the presiding officer or any council member shall be considered out of order.

When a recognized council member asks a question of anyone in attendance, including but not limited to someone speaking at the podium, staff, or another council member, they do not yield the floor by allowing the other person to respond. The council member retains the floor for any follow-up questions or comments unless they explicitly yield it or are ruled out of order.

1. Order. If a person fails to request to speak before speaking, the mayor shall rule them ‘out of order’ and remind them that they do not have the floor. While the City Council is in session, all council members must preserve order and decorum. A person shall neither, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or the peace of the meeting, nor disturb any other person while speaking or refuse to obey the orders of the mayor.

1. Improper References Prohibited. Every person desiring to speak shall address the entire Council and shall not single out a member of the Council, the audience, or a staff member. Speakers shall confine themselves to the question under debate, avoiding all personal attacks and indecorous language.

 

[Paul Roberts]

1. Interruptions. A council member, once recognized, shall not be interrupted when speaking unless it is to call him or her to order, or other such interruption expressed below. If the council member, while speaking, is called to order, he or she shall cease speaking until the question of order is determined, and if the council member is found to be in order, he or she shall be permitted to proceed speaking. No council member, including the presiding officer, shall interrupt a recognized speaker except for allowable points of order or privilege as defined below. Any improper interruption shall be considered out of order, and the presiding officer must immediately return the floor to the interrupted speaker.Allowable interruptions or points of order available to council, city manager, city secretary, or city attorney are as follows:
   1. Point of Privilege. The proper interruption would be: “Point of Privilege.” The mayor would then ask the interrupter to, “state your point.” Appropriate points of privilege relate to anything that would interfere with the normal comfort of the meeting. For example, the room might be too hot or too cold or a fan motor might interfere with a council member’s ability to hear.
   2. Point of Order. The proper interruption would be: “Point of Order.” The mayor would then ask the interrupter to, “state your point.” Appropriate points of order relate to anything that would not be considered appropriate conduct of the meeting. For example, if the mayor called for a vote on a motion that permits debate without allowing any discussion.
   3. Motion to Appeal. If the Mayor makes a ruling that a member of the body disagrees with, that member may appeal the ruling of the mayor by stating, “motion to appeal.” If the motion is seconded and after debate if it passes by a simple majority vote, the ruling of the mayor is reversed.
   4. Call for orders of the day. This is simply another way of saying, “let’s return to the agenda.” if a council member believes the discussion has strayed from the agenda. The motion does not require a vote. If the Mayor discovers that the discussion has strayed from the agenda, he or she simply returns to the business of the day.
   5. Withdraw a Motion. During the debate and discussion of a motion, the original maker of the motion on the floor, at any time, may interrupt the speaker to withdraw his or her motion. The motion is immediately deemed withdrawn and discussion on the motion shall cease. Council members are free to make the same motion or another motion.

3.10 Enforcement of Rules and Procedures.
The following provisions may be used to enforce the good order and decorum of the meeting. The action may be taken by the mayor under his or her own action, or upon a motion to enforce by any council member. Reference to sergeant at arms only refers to city council meetings and at Commission, meetings as requested by the council liaison and approved by the city manager.

1. Warning. The mayor may order any person (council member, staff member or audience member) in violation of these rules to be silent.

1. Removal. If, after receiving a warning from the mayor, the person continues to disturb the meeting or breech the peace and good order of the meeting, the mayor may order the person to leave the meeting. If the person does not leave the room, the mayor may order the sergeant‐at‐ arms to remove the person.

Upon instruction of the mayor, it shall be the duty of the sergeant‐at‐arms to remove from the meeting any person who intentionally disturbs the proceedings of the City Council. A violation of these rules may be deemed an attempt to disrupt, obstruct, and/or interfere with a lawful meeting and subject the violator to prosecution under state law for disrupting a lawful meeting. (Section 42.05, Texas Penal Code).

1. Sergeant‐at‐Arms. The sergeant‐at‐arms shall be the highest‐ranking police officer in attendance at the council meeting, or such other officer designated by the chief of police for that purpose.

1. Resisting Removal. Any person who resists removal by the sergeant‐at‐arms may be charged with violating Section 42.05 of the Texas Penal Code.

1. Motion to Enforce. Any council member may move to require the mayor to enforce these rules and the affirmative vote of a simple majority of the Council shall require the mayor to do so. A motion to enforce is an allowable interruption and is not debatable. Any council member may also move to enforce the rules against the presiding officer if they fail to respect the floor of recognized speakers. A majority vote shall uphold the motion, requiring the presiding officer to comply and immediately return the floor to the interrupted speaker.

4.4 Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag and Texas Flag and Invocation [Do we need to amend in lieu of Adam’s 12/5 ordinance regarding Invocations?]
The Council shall recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag and pledge to the Texas Flag. In addition, an Invocation may be made at this time. Commissions can independently determine if they would like to recite the pledges and conduct an invocation.

 

[Paul Roberts]

Regarding my posited question in 2.5 Special/Town Hall Meetings, per AI:

The city charter Section 3.11 Council Meetings explicitly states:

“The Council shall fix the time and dates for regular meetings by resolution and define by ordinance the manner in which meetings are conducted. The Council shall meet at a regular time at least once a month. Special and called meetings shall be held as determined by the Council or called by the Mayor. Notice of all meetings shall be in accordance with state law.”.

This language clearly states that special and called meetings are determined by the Council or called by the Mayor.

Analysis:​

1. Section 2.5 of the Rules of Procedure states that special meetings may be requested by the mayor or two council members.
2. Under the charter, the calling of a special meeting is explicitly reserved for the Council or the Mayor.

Therefore:

• While the Council as a body can determine to hold special meetings (by majority decision), there is no explicit authority granted in the charter for two council members to unilaterally request or trigger a special meeting.
• Section 2.5 of the Rules of Procedure appears to conflict with the charter because it allows a subset of the Council (two members) to call a meeting, whereas the charter requires action by the Council as a whole or the Mayor.

Regarding Town Hall Meetings:​

A town hall meeting where no action is taken might be interpreted differently, as it is not technically a "Council meeting" requiring formal authority under Section 3.11. However, if a quorum of the Council attends and deliberates city business, it risks being classified as a Council meeting, thus falling under the same requirements.

 

[Shane Saum]

Thank you Councilman Roberts, I like these updates.

 

[Adam Benefield]

Looks Great Councilmen Roberts. I think moving the meetings earlier will be great for everyone involved.

 

[Paul Prince]

Thank you for putting detailed thought into this Councilman Roberts. Some comments...

1. I also believe an improvement on our current situation of meetings starting at 6:30 and lasting until after midnight is sorely needed. I would like to hear public feedback on Council meetings being held in the early afternoon vs evenings as we have now. I'm open to this change. However, I still believe that single meetings lasting 6 hours leads to exhaustion and potentially bad decision making, even if those meetings start in the afternoon.

An alternative we may want to consider is not starting a new agenda item after a certain duration such as 5 hours after starting (e.g. 10:30pm on the current start time, or 7pm if we were to move to a 2pm start). I wonder if we need to consider allowing for more than 2 meetings per month if the agenda cannot be completed in a timely manner. Additional agenda-completion meetings could be held as needed only, and obviously we'd have to figure out the logistics on scheduling and agenda posting to meeting Open Meeting requirements.

2. I understand the desire to clean up handling interruptions, but I'm not sure we need any procedure changes. I think if we as a council simply need to start using the process already in here. For example: A council member who feels they have been interrupted while having the floor should state "Point of Order" which is not debatable. They then can state their case for why they should still have the floor. If the presiding officer does not rule in their favor, they can state "Motion to Appeal" the ruling. If seconded, debate on the motion to appeal and then vote ensues to resolve the situation.

Council has historically been fairly free flowing in making comments, including multiple opportunities for an individual council member to present their views. I think in general this point/counter-point approach, when done in-order and in good faith, yields a healthy discussion. So, even if a council member does "lose the floor" they can eventually get it back for any additional comments. If council were to move to some significant limitations on council discussion, which I do not in any way support, we would certainly need some significant additional safeguards against interruptions.

3. I think the language in here (In addition, an Invocation may be made at this time.) is OK. This council, under councilmember Benefield's recommendation, defined a process whereby each member of council on a rotating basis has the opportunity to bring in an individual who will lead an invocation, lead an invocation themselves, or choose to have no invocation. I think the flexible language here is consistent with this.

4. Calling special meetings... The consideration for me on this topic is who can and how to schedule unusual (special called) meetings that require staff attendance or preparation. The mayor has that authority. Two council members can get any topic on the council agenda, which includes proposing a special called meeting. Council then can debate and approve or deny holding such a meeting. I think using this approach is consistent with our charter and as (I believe you are suggesting) we should not have this language in the RoP

 

[Paul Prince]

BTW, looking again at tonight's agenda, item D says "Discussions concerning amendments to the Code of Ordinances and Rules of Procedure regarding various changes to the Advisory Boards and Committees". So, while this is a good discussion, I think the majority of this thread is not on the agenda for tonight. We should apply these thoughts when we next do a full RoP discussion in the future.

I have proposed specifically that we change the default meeting schedule of all advisory boards to be quarterly (some are now monthly). And, I would like to clarify the procedure for Liaisons making their committee chairperson aware before bringing proposed communications into council. My specific asks for discussion (that I suspect led to the RoP document being included in the packet) are in the cover page for item D in tonight's packet.

 

[Paul Roberts]

Dear Councilman Prince,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and creative ideas on improving our council meetings. I’ve taken the time to consider your points and would like to address them in detail.

1. I agree that our current late-night meetings are problematic, especially as they impact the quality of work and decision-making for staff, council members, presenters, applicants, and the public. While I understand the concern about long meetings, I don’t see the duration as inherently problematic—many professions routinely work 8–10 hour days. The primary issue lies in how late the meetings extend into the evening, often past 9 PM, 10 PM, or even midnight, which is when the quality of work diminishes for all involved. These late evenings not only affect our ability to deliberate effectively but also dissuade public input, as many residents find it too late to attend or participate meaningfully.

I appreciate your creative suggestion about limiting agenda duration to a set number of hours. If we were to start the Executive Session at 2 PM instead of 1 PM, with Regular Session beginning at 3 PM, we could naturally align public hearings/action items closer to 5:30 PM. This compromise would respect the concerns of working residents while maintaining an earlier start to improve efficiency and staff well-being.

2. Regarding your thoughts on handling interruptions, I completely agree that the existing "Point of Order" and "Motion to Appeal" mechanisms in Rosenberg’s Rules provide an excellent framework. The edits I’ve proposed don’t create new procedural changes but codify existing practices into our Rules of Procedure (ROP). This ensures there’s no ambiguity and that all council members and presiding officers can confidently follow a clear and consistent standard.

I also share your support for healthy, in-order, and good-faith discussions that allow all council members to present their views. My edits aim to enhance clarity and fairness, ensuring no one feels excluded or unfairly interrupted during deliberations.

3. Agreed.

4. Agreed. Let’s remove this item from the ROP, it’s in conflict with our Charter.

Lastly, I want to express my appreciation for your engagement on this message board. By utilizing this sanctioned medium for discussions requiring mark-ups and feedback, we can increase the efficiency and productivity of our meetings while amplifying transparency for our constituents.

I look forward to our continued collaboration and discussions tonight. I’m confident we can arrive at a solution that balances efficiency, public accessibility, and the needs of our staff and council.