Rules of Procedure Draft

[Shane Saum]

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:

1. 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
   
   
2. 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
   
   
3. 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.

 

[Paul Prince]

I appreciate the effort to simplify and clean up the rules of procedure. I acknowledge the need to do something different.

I was a champion for coming up with rules that led to better behavior by council when I ran for my third term in 2024. As I discussed this with citizens back then I heard consistent feedback that this is important. That effort met with significant resistance from a vocal minority of the council at that time. In the end, after many hours of debate we approved rules two years ago which neither appeased council members who wanted to remove rules (similar to this proposal) but also did not lead to the desired behavior improvements. Witness the numerous unprofessional arguments between two council members (not always the same two) or a council member and member of the public over the time since these rules were put in place.

As proposed, the new language can be summarized as "we will run council and board meetings in accordance to Rosenberg's rules with deference to applicable laws and the Charter". The idea that behavior and decorum in meetings should simply be addressed in our bi-annual election cycles seems out of touch with citizen feedback that recent councils have failed to show the professionalism that citizens expected when we were elected. Something more on decorum and professionalism seems appropriate to me. But maybe I'm just being "Mr. Manners" here and it should be left to either the recall process or the next election cycle.

I'm curious on the meaning of, and method for enforcement for, the end of the sentence in 5.02 below (taken from the proposed language, with my italics/underline emphasis). Maybe fleshing this out a bit would help address this problem.

Section 5.02
Debate Debate shall be conducted in a manner consistent with Rosenberg’s Rules, with due regard for courtesy, relevance, and efficiency.

 

[Paul Prince]

EDIT: see also this discussion thread regarding the CRC's desire to address this issue

P

Thread 'Charter: Adding a Board of Ethics'

Feb 3, 2026

In the January 28, 2026 CRC meeting I was asked to create a council discussion thread relating to the CRC discussion on the merits of including the formation and associated rules of a Board of Ethics in the upcoming proposed City Charter. My understanding of the discussion thus far in the CRC indicates unanimous support for this by the five Commission members. Council is specifically encouraged to read the CRC’s discussion board on this topic, located at:


This material includes some background on other...

• Paul Prince
• Replies: 2
• Forum: City Council

 

[Norma Owen]

Thank you, Councilor Prince, for the added context and Mayor, appreciate the streamlined version you've put forward,

For your review and consideration, I am posting a draft resolution to adopt a City Council Code of Conduct. The intent is to broaden and reinforce shared expectations around courtesy, relevance, professionalism, and efficiency in City Council meetings.

This draft is aligned with Texas Municipal League (TML) and ICMA best practices. It is aspirational, non-punitive, and designed to support effective meeting management without expanding disciplinary authority or limiting protected speech.

The attached resolution is provided for reference during today’s meeting and for any discussion the Council may wish to have on this topic for the future.

 

[Amanda Chavarria]

Thank you to the council members who have spoken up and shared their concerns regarding council conduct. I firmly believe (my personal opinion) that thoughtful debate is both necessary and healthy; however, full blown arguments and personal attacks are detrimental to progress. Mutual respect and professionalism, particularly while serving on the dais, must always remain paramount. Passion for one’s position is admirable, but it should never come at the expense of civility or decorum. I look forward to what the CRC brings forth as well as finalizing the rules of procedure.

 

[Norma Owen]

Rules of Procedure Suggestion: 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 body.

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.

I will place this on the Consent Agenda thread for February 19 as well.

 

[Adam Benefield]

I wanted to share a streamlined alternative for consideration. My goal was to maintain the intent of simplifying the Rules of Procedure while still preserving the general structure and functionality of the current document so it remains familiar and practical for Council, boards and commissions, staff, and the public.

This version significantly condenses the current Rules of Procedure by removing duplicative language that is already governed by the City Charter, state law, the TOMA, and established parliamentary authorities such as Rosenberg’s Rules of Order.

It retains provisions related to meeting management, public comment, and orderly debate so that expectations for professionalism, courtesy, and efficient meetings remain clear.

I have attached three documents:

• The current Rules of Procedure (reference document)
• A redline version showing the proposed changes
• Standalone draft of the proposed Rules of Procedure

I welcome any feedback and suggestions as my intention is to place this proposal on the agenda for Council consideration at the next meeting.

I also reviewed the suggestion regarding substitute motions and amendments. Because the proposed rules rely on Rosenberg’s Rules of Order as the governing parliamentary authority, those procedures were left intact to remain consistent with that framework and to avoid creating conflicts with established parliamentary practice but welcome feedback.

 

[Shane Saum]

Council,

If it is Council's desire to continue using our current Rules of Procedure and continued editing it, then attached are my targeted edits and comments to the proposed Rules of Procedure draft. You can review the redline attached below.

Before getting into the specifics, I want to step back and explain why I originally proposed starting over with a new Rules of Procedure document instead of continuing to amend the current one.

Over the past several years, three different City Attorneys have advised the Council that our current Rules of Procedure are problematic. The document has accumulated layers of amendments over time and now contains sections that are redundant, legally questionable, or inconsistent with how our meetings actually operate.

This is similar to what the Charter Review Committee recently concluded about the City Charter. After decades of amendments, the Charter had become difficult to navigate and internally inconsistent. Rather than continuing to patch it with more edits, the committee recommended starting with a fresh document.

That same issue exists here.

The number of edits we are now having to make is itself evidence that the current document has grown overly complex and contains provisions that either duplicate state law, repeat the Charter, or create unnecessary procedural language.

My goal with these edits is simply to remove redundant or problematic sections and keep the Rules focused on the few areas where local guidance is actually needed.

Below are the major categories of edits I am proposing.

---

1. Removing Language that Simply Restates State Law​

Many sections of the draft simply repeat requirements that the City is already legally required to follow under state law.

Examples include references to:

• The Texas Open Meetings Act
• Executive sessions
• Emergency meetings
• Notice requirements
• Public meeting procedures

The City must follow these laws whether they appear in our Rules of Procedure or not, so repeating them adds length without adding clarity. In several cases the language is so general that it provides no additional guidance beyond saying “follow state law.”

My edits remove these redundant references.

---

2. Removing Provisions Already Covered in the City Charter​

Several sections attempt to restate authorities that are already clearly defined in the Charter, such as:

• Who presides at meetings
• Quorum requirements
• Appointment of boards and commissions
• Agenda authority

Because the Charter is the governing document above the Rules of Procedure, restating those provisions here is unnecessary and can actually create confusion if the language ever conflicts.

---

3. Removing Sections that Do Not Reflect How Council Actually Operates​

Some sections attempt to prescribe a specific structure for agenda discussion or parliamentary procedure that does not reflect how our meetings actually function.

For example:

• The document references Rosenberg’s Rules, but in practice the Council typically follows Robert’s Rules of Order for motions and debate.
• The model format for agenda discussion does not reflect the way items are typically handled during meetings.

My edits remove these rigid descriptions and instead allow parliamentary procedure to operate through standard rules of order.

---

4. Removing Sections that Raise Legal or Constitutional Concerns​

Several provisions governing:

• public comment
• speaker conduct
• removal of attendees
• decorum rules

may raise First Amendment or enforceability concerns.

Past legal advice has cautioned cities to be careful when adopting speech restrictions or removal policies that go beyond what state law allows.

For that reason, my edits recommend removing those sections and relying on existing legal standards instead.

---

5. Removing Sections that Add Administrative Detail but Not Policy​

Some portions of the document attempt to regulate things that are already handled operationally, such as:

• how agendas are delivered to council members
• detailed meeting formatting
• staff reporting procedures

These types of administrative practices can change over time and do not need to be locked into a formal Rules of Procedure document.

---

Why I Still Believe a Fresh Document is the Better Approach​

As you review the attached edits, you will notice how many sections require changes, deletions, or clarification.

That is exactly why I initially proposed creating a new, simplified Rules of Procedure document instead of trying to patch the existing one.

A clean document could:

• eliminate redundancy with state law and the Charter
• avoid potential legal issues
• reflect how Council actually conducts meetings
• be shorter, clearer, and easier for the public to understand

In many ways this mirrors the reasoning used by the Charter Review Committee when they recommended drafting a fresh Charter rather than continuing to amend the existing one.

---

I appreciate everyone taking the time to review the comments and edits. My goal here is simply to ensure we end up with a Rules of Procedure document that is clear, legally sound, and focused on the limited areas where Council actually needs local guidance.

Thank you.

 

[Adam Benefield]

Thank you Shane for taking the time to provide feedback and sharing your perspective.

I believe we are generally aligned on the overall goal of simplifying the document and removing language that is duplicative of state law, the City Charter, or other governing authorities. My intent with the draft I shared was to move in that same direction while still preserving enough structure to help ensure meetings remain orderly and understandable for Council, staff, boards and commissions, and the public.

In preparing the draft, I attempted to remove as much language as possible that either duplicates governing law or could be difficult to enforce. At the same time, I retained certain provisions related to meeting management, public comment procedures, and parliamentary process so that there remains clear guidance on how meetings are conducted.

I have also shared the draft with the City Attorney for review so that any provisions that may raise legal concerns or enforceability issues can be identified and addressed prior to Council consideration. My intent is that anything determined to be inconsistent with state law, the Charter, or otherwise not enforceable should be removed or revised.