February 19, 2026 Consent Agenda

[Shane Saum]

Dear Council Members,

On Thursday we have 8 consent agenda items on the agenda. I admit, some of these are wishful thinking on my part in hopes we can move forward to other business. To help facilitate speeding up the meeting. If you have any concerns on a consent agenda item, could we discuss them here in the discussion board prior to the meeting. If it appears there are easy fixes to any of these items, we can make them prior to the meeting and keep them on consent. If there are items you know you cannot come to consensus on and intend to pull off of the consent agenda without discussion on this board, please let me know and I will plan accordingly.

For your reference, here are the 8 items:

1. Action regarding the January 15, 2026, City Council Meeting Minutes.
2. Action regarding the February 5, 2026, City Council Meeting Minutes.
3. Consideration and possible action to approve Resolution No. 26-2194 dissolution of the Economic Development Committee.
4. Consideration and possible action regarding the designation of an Acting City Manager in the event of an emergency, absence, or disability.
5. Consideration and possible action to appoint code diagnostic sub-committee.
6. Consideration and possible action to approve Ordinance No. 26-02-19-01; Amending Chapter 9, Article 9.8, Section 9.805 Of The Code Of Ordinances Also Known As “Duties And Powers”; Providing For A Finding Of Fact Clause; Providing For Severability; Providing For A Repealer; Providing An Effective Date; Providing For A Projects In Transition Clause; Providing For A Codification And Publication Clause And Providing An Open Meetings Clause.
7. Consideration and possible action regarding amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Ethics policies.
8. Consideration and possible action regarding the removal of the City Council social media policy.

Thank you in advance for your collaboration.

Best regards,

Shane

 

[Adam Benefield]

As of now: 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 should be removed.

 

[Karen Van Ness]

I would ask that Items 7 & 8 come off the consent agenda.

7. Consideration and possible action regarding amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Ethics policies: I don't think we have had a complete discussion on the proposed revisions to these documents. I am in favor of amending / updating them both. However, the proposed versions were not redlined so it's taking more time to compare current with proposed. Additionally, I think something as important as Ethics and Rules of Procedure revisions should be highlighted as separate agenda items.
8. Consideration and possible action regarding the removal of the City Council social media policy: I thought we were considering taking the approach of guidelines on SM, and/or even a "Code of Conduct" approach the Mayor Pro Tem proposed, which could include guidelines on SM. These guidelines should specifically include the advice and recommendations we have received from our legal counsel.

 

[Shane Saum]

As of now: 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 should be removed.

Thank you for flagging the consent agenda items you would like removed.

Several of these items have appeared on prior agendas without written proposals or alternative language being offered. If members intend to revisit or modify them, I respectfully ask that specific feedback, draft edits, or replacement proposals be posted here on the discussion board in advance of the meeting.

The purpose of this board is to move policy work forward between meetings so that our time on the dais is focused, efficient, and action oriented. Verbal discussion alone, without written concepts to evaluate, tends to prolong meetings without producing clear outcomes.

If there are substantive changes being requested, please outline them here so staff and council can review in advance and we can make measurable progress when the item returns for consideration.

Thank you.

 

[Shane Saum]

I would ask that Items 7 & 8 come off the consent agenda.

7. Consideration and possible action regarding amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Ethics policies: I don't think we have had a complete discussion on the proposed revisions to these documents. I am in favor of amending / updating them both. However, the proposed versions were not redlined so it's taking more time to compare current with proposed. Additionally, I think something as important as Ethics and Rules of Procedure revisions should be highlighted as separate agenda items.
8. Consideration and possible action regarding the removal of the City Council social media policy: I thought we were considering taking the approach of guidelines on SM, and/or even a "Code of Conduct" approach the Mayor Pro Tem proposed, which could include guidelines on SM. These guidelines should specifically include the advice and recommendations we have received from our legal counsel.

Here is a stronger version that keeps it professional, solution oriented, and firm without sounding accusatory:

---

Thank you for flagging the consent agenda items you would like removed.


Several of these items have appeared on prior agendas without written proposals or alternative language being offered. If members intend to revisit or modify them, I respectfully ask that specific feedback, draft edits, or replacement proposals be posted here on the discussion board in advance of the meeting.


The purpose of this board is to move policy work forward between meetings so that our time on the dais is focused, efficient, and action oriented. Verbal discussion alone, without written concepts to evaluate, tends to prolong meetings without producing clear outcomes.


If there are substantive changes being requested, please outline them here so staff and council can review in advance and we can make measurable progress when the item returns for consideration.

Yes, it was my understanding council already gave consensus that the social media portion will move to Charles' training of council members and that is done without a written policy. The current social media policy is unenforceable and keeping policies in place that don't follow state law and have no real impact on the desired results shouldn't be kept in place because Council can't be efficient in its meetings. If council members want certain aspects including in the social media training, please get with Charles and ask that it be input into his training.


Thank you.

 

[Norma Owen]

After reviewing the research below, I lean toward less rather than more when it comes to procedural regulation and why I am in favor of moving forward with items 7 and 8 in the packet.

In revisiting items 7 and 8, I spent time reviewing recognized municipal governance best practices, and I offer that context to help inform our discussion. I am sharing the link to the proposed City Council Code of Conduct here that I posted February 5th as part of this discussion for consideration. It is concise, non-punitive, and designed to reinforce courtesy, relevance, professionalism, and efficiency. If there is interest, it could be brought forward in March as a follow-up to the simplification of the Rules of Procedure and Ethics Policy and the elimination of the City Council social media policy. In addition, in watching the CRC, a Board of Ethics will be recommended.
Across credible governance authorities, the message is consistent: effective meeting management relies on clear parliamentary structure, shared norms, and an empowered presiding officer, not increasingly detailed or punitive rules. The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) emphasizes effective local government leadership and structured meeting management practices that reinforce professionalism and civility. The Texas Municipal League (TML) similarly underscores that Rosenberg’s Rules provide authority for managing relevance, tone, and efficiency, and that the presiding officer plays the central role in maintaining order during meetings.

Because Lago Vista relies on Rosenberg’s Rules, it is instructive that Rosenberg’s framework itself emphasizes the responsibility of the chair to actively manage debate and maintain focus. The structure is intentionally simple so meetings remain efficient and decision-focused. The National League of Cities (NLC) also recommends clear behavioral expectations for elected officials, encouraging concise Codes of Conduct that reinforce meeting purpose while avoiding overly punitive structures.

Governance training literature and municipal best-practice guidance frequently note a common pattern: disruptive behavior leads to more rules; the rules become longer and more complex; ambiguity increases; and meetings often worsen rather than improve. In this area, less is often more. A streamlined framework that relies on Rosenberg’s Rules, an empowered chair, and clearly articulated shared norms aligns with recognized best practices and is more likely to improve meeting function than adding additional procedural complexity.

---

Sources - added here as resource

ICMA – Practices for Effective Local Government Leadership
https://icma.org/documents/icma-practices-effective-local-government-leadership

ICMA – Better Public Meetings Training Series
https://icma.org/events/better-public-meetings-training-series

Texas Municipal League – Handbook for Mayors and Councilmembers (2025 Edition)
https://www.tml.org/DocumentCenter/View/5614/2025-Handbook-for-Mayors-and-Councilmembers-pdf-FINAL

Rosenberg’s Rules of Order (League of California Cities PDF)
https://www.cacities.org/UploadedFiles/LeagueInternet/77/77d4ee2b-c0bc-4ec2-881b-42ccdbbe73c9.pdf

National League of Cities – Promoting Healthy Community Dialogue: Civic Discourse 101
https://www.nlc.org/article/2025/04/15/promoting-healthy-community-dialogue-civic-discourse-101/

 

[Norma Owen]

Regarding item 7:
Rules of Procedure: As part of simplifying our procedures, I suggest that Council consider removing or prohibiting substitute motions while operating under Rosenberg’s Rules. Substitute motions often lengthen debate, introduce procedural complexity, and can shift discussion away from the main question before the Council.

If Council’s goal is clarity and efficiency, requiring amendments to be handled through friendly amendments or clear up-or-down votes on the main motion may better align with a streamlined approach.

Section 4 – Parliamentary Authority​

Suggested language:
Notwithstanding the adoption of Rosenberg's Rules of Order, substitute motions shall not be permitted. Amendments to a main motion may be made only through friendly amendment accepted by the maker and seconder, or by voting down the main motion and introducing a new motion.

 

[Karen Van Ness]

Thank you Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem for the above inputs. I want to stress again that I am in favor of streamlining the Ethics Policy and ROP. I found that reviewing both without a redlined version, making it clear where the Mayor and our legal counsel made changes, eliminated previous rules that served as controls, or otherwise changed the document, means it has taken longer for me to review and feel comfortable with the proposed changes. As a new Councilor, I lack the experience of working within these governance frameworks so do not have the point of reference our sitting councilors have.

I've created, reviewed, edited, transformed plenty of governance, policy, and procedural documentation over the years (albeit in the arena of financial services and financial crime and compliance, not municipal government). Any revisions were done through discussion and a redline process that helped make clear what the proposed changes were, as well as the justification for each proposed change (such as compliance with law / regulations, consistency with other policy / guidelines, enforceability, etc.) If the Mayor or Legal Counsel have redlined versions, it would be helpful to see them.

 

[Amanda Chavarria]

I want to state clearly that I agree with Council Member Van Ness. As a fellow new council member, I believe it is essential that revisions to foundational governance documents be handled through a transparent and well-documented process. As newer members, Councilor Van Ness, Councilor Hall and myself do not have the benefit of "institutional" memory regarding how these documents have evolved. That makes clarity in the revision process even more important.

I support the goal of streamlining these documents. However, reviewing proposed revisions without a redlined version that clearly identifies what has been added, removed, or materially changed is not consistent with best governance practices. When prior language that may have functioned as a safeguard is altered or eliminated, it is important for the public and the entire council to be able to see those changes plainly in order to understand the rationale behind them.

In professional governance environments, revisions are typically presented in redline format along with explanations for substantive changes, whether for legal compliance, consistency, enforceability, or operational clarity. That level of documentation ensures efficiency, alignment, and accountability. So, if redlined versions reflecting the proposed revisions exist, I would like to review them. If they do not, I believe they should be prepared before we move forward. My position is not about slowing progress; it is about ensuring we proceed in a manner that reflects the standards of transparency and diligence our community expects from us. I know we are striving to that end and I appreciate all the hard work each of the council members is putting forth.

 

[Charles West]

Dear Council Members,

On Thursday we have 8 consent agenda items on the agenda. I admit, some of these are wishful thinking on my part in hopes we can move forward to other business. To help facilitate speeding up the meeting. If you have any concerns on a consent agenda item, could we discuss them here in the discussion board prior to the meeting. If it appears there are easy fixes to any of these items, we can make them prior to the meeting and keep them on consent. If there are items you know you cannot come to consensus on and intend to pull off of the consent agenda without discussion on this board, please let me know and I will plan accordingly.

For your reference, here are the 8 items:

1. Action regarding the January 15, 2026, City Council Meeting Minutes.
2. Action regarding the February 5, 2026, City Council Meeting Minutes.
3. Consideration and possible action to approve Resolution No. 26-2194 dissolution of the Economic Development Committee.
4. Consideration and possible action regarding the designation of an Acting City Manager in the event of an emergency, absence, or disability.
5. Consideration and possible action to appoint code diagnostic sub-committee.
6. Consideration and possible action to approve Ordinance No. 26-02-19-01; Amending Chapter 9, Article 9.8, Section 9.805 Of The Code Of Ordinances Also Known As “Duties And Powers”; Providing For A Finding Of Fact Clause; Providing For Severability; Providing For A Repealer; Providing An Effective Date; Providing For A Projects In Transition Clause; Providing For A Codification And Publication Clause And Providing An Open Meetings Clause.
7. Consideration and possible action regarding amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Ethics policies.
8. Consideration and possible action regarding the removal of the City Council social media policy.

Thank you in advance for your collaboration.

Best regards,

Shane

Attached is the updated letter regarding the designation of an individual to serve in charge in the event of an emergency, disability, or absence.

It was brought to my attention that the wording in the previous version could be interpreted as appointing someone to the position of Assistant City Manager without following the proper procedures. To avoid any confusion, I have revised the language to clearly reflect the intended purpose of the designation.

Charles

 

[Shane Saum]

I want to state clearly that I agree with Council Member Van Ness. As a fellow new council member, I believe it is essential that revisions to foundational governance documents be handled through a transparent and well-documented process. As newer members, Councilor Van Ness, Councilor Hall and myself do not have the benefit of "institutional" memory regarding how these documents have evolved. That makes clarity in the revision process even more important.

I support the goal of streamlining these documents. However, reviewing proposed revisions without a redlined version that clearly identifies what has been added, removed, or materially changed is not consistent with best governance practices. When prior language that may have functioned as a safeguard is altered or eliminated, it is important for the public and the entire council to be able to see those changes plainly in order to understand the rationale behind them.

In professional governance environments, revisions are typically presented in redline format along with explanations for substantive changes, whether for legal compliance, consistency, enforceability, or operational clarity. That level of documentation ensures efficiency, alignment, and accountability. So, if redlined versions reflecting the proposed revisions exist, I would like to review them. If they do not, I believe they should be prepared before we move forward. My position is not about slowing progress; it is about ensuring we proceed in a manner that reflects the standards of transparency and diligence our community expects from us. I know we are striving to that end and I appreciate all the hard work each of the council members is putting forth.

Councilors Van Ness and Chavarria, there is no redline because these are not edits to the existing policies, they are complete rewrites. I did not use any of the existing policies to draft these.

 

[Amanda Chavarria]

I am including the current Ethics Policy and Social Media policy here for ease of public access and review. I would kindly ask that Mayor Saum also upload the proposed re-writes ( I don't believe I have a copy of the finalized drafts) to this thread so that the public can review them side by side.

 

[Shane Saum]

Councilor Chavarria, attached is the proposed ethics policy. For those reading, this policy is a complete rewrite and not an edit of the current policy, so there is no redline. There is no proposed draft of a social media policy as my proposal is to eliminate the current policy and have the City Manager include social media best practices in his council training. I hope this helps. Looking forward to the dialogue.