Dear Council,
Please see the attached Rules of Procedure proposal. I ran these by Brad, Charles and a chair of one of our commissions. Brad provided a few edits, which I accepted including adding the motions chart to the end and he stated these proposed rules are sufficient and comply with the Charter requirement. Our City Charter, the Texas Open Meetings Act, state law, and established parliamentary authorities like Rosenberg’s Rules and Robert’s Rules already govern much of how meetings must be conducted. When our local Rules of Procedure restate, reinterpret, or expand on those authorities, we do not add clarity. We add complexity, inconsistency, and confusion.
The proposed draft intentionally avoids duplicating what is already spelled out elsewhere. It does three important things well:
Council gets bogged down spending hours and multiple meetings trying to create policies to restrict behavior of their fellow council members, which is a waste of taxpayer time and prevents us from working on substantive policy to improve our city. Those behaviors can be addressed in our elections. The existing Rules of Procedure are long, prescriptive, and attempt to anticipate every possible situation. In practice, this creates several problems. First, it makes the rules difficult for council members, board members, and the public to understand. Second, it increases the likelihood that well intentioned actions are challenged on technical procedural grounds rather than discussed on the merits of policy. Third, it shifts focus away from substantive policy discussions and toward procedural maneuvering.
In short, this proposal reflects a disciplined approach to governance. It trusts existing law. It relies on established parliamentary rules. It reduces redundancy. And it gives current and future councils a clear, understandable framework that supports good decision making rather than complicating it.
For those reasons, I believe adopting the streamlined Rules of Procedure is the right step forward.
Please see the attached Rules of Procedure proposal. I ran these by Brad, Charles and a chair of one of our commissions. Brad provided a few edits, which I accepted including adding the motions chart to the end and he stated these proposed rules are sufficient and comply with the Charter requirement. Our City Charter, the Texas Open Meetings Act, state law, and established parliamentary authorities like Rosenberg’s Rules and Robert’s Rules already govern much of how meetings must be conducted. When our local Rules of Procedure restate, reinterpret, or expand on those authorities, we do not add clarity. We add complexity, inconsistency, and confusion.
The proposed draft intentionally avoids duplicating what is already spelled out elsewhere. It does three important things well:
- It clearly establishes the hierarchy of authority.
The draft makes explicit that federal law, state law, the Charter, and city ordinances control, and that our Rules of Procedure are meant to supplement, not replace, those authorities. This reinforces that it is each council member’s responsibility to understand and comply with the Charter and applicable law, rather than relying on a local procedural document as a substitute for that knowledge
- It relies on recognized parliamentary authorities instead of reinventing them.
Rosenberg’s Rules are expressly adopted, with Robert’s Rules available as supplemental guidance when needed. This avoids the problem we currently have, where detailed procedural prescriptions in our local rules sometimes conflict with, or unintentionally modify, the very parliamentary authorities they claim to rely on. The appendix motion table provides practical guidance without embedding pages of rigid process into the rules themselves
- It preserves flexibility while remaining compliant.
Meetings are not static. Councils and boards face different fact patterns, different audiences, and different legal contexts. A shorter Rules of Procedure allows the presiding officer and the body to manage meetings efficiently and lawfully without being boxed in by overly specific provisions written to address hypothetical scenarios that may never arise.
Council gets bogged down spending hours and multiple meetings trying to create policies to restrict behavior of their fellow council members, which is a waste of taxpayer time and prevents us from working on substantive policy to improve our city. Those behaviors can be addressed in our elections. The existing Rules of Procedure are long, prescriptive, and attempt to anticipate every possible situation. In practice, this creates several problems. First, it makes the rules difficult for council members, board members, and the public to understand. Second, it increases the likelihood that well intentioned actions are challenged on technical procedural grounds rather than discussed on the merits of policy. Third, it shifts focus away from substantive policy discussions and toward procedural maneuvering.
In short, this proposal reflects a disciplined approach to governance. It trusts existing law. It relies on established parliamentary rules. It reduces redundancy. And it gives current and future councils a clear, understandable framework that supports good decision making rather than complicating it.
For those reasons, I believe adopting the streamlined Rules of Procedure is the right step forward.
