A RESOLUTION adopting General Rules and Procedures of the Seattle City Council; superseding Resolutions 31489 and 31561.
Agenda item number seven, Resolution 316 39. Adopting General Rules and Procedures of the Seattle City Council. Superseding Resolution three 149 and 315 61. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended. Thank you. Every two years, the Council reviews its rules and procedures, and this resolution in front of us today has modifications to our rules and procedures. Some are organizational. For example, the rules affecting committee meetings have been moved to one section so that you can read all the rules about meetings at one place and don't have to flip around. Among the rules, there's also some stylistic changes. We've changed some phrasing for clarity, and we have made the document general gender neutral throughout. There are also some substantive revisions which have been reviewed. We clarify the President's responsibilities in acting as the Presiding Officer. We add language related to the President pro tem and how that assignment is made. We remove. The. Authority of the President to grant emergency absences of council members. We add language to make the introduction, referral and referral process explicit within the rules for the first time. We add language requiring that resolutions be circulated at least 2 hours before a full council meeting. As is the current practice with bills and amendments. We clarify that bill and resolution amendments must be circulated via email to all council members and to the city clerk. We remove language that requires council members to stand when making comments in the Parliamentary Procedures section, we clarify two subsections related to laying a matter on the table or holding indefinitely that that motion requires a majority of council members present, not a majority of the entire city council. We remove a sentence related to other council members. Attending meetings shall not leave without notifying the committee chair, which by the way, is practice. We tend to come and go from committee meetings. We remove the requirement for divided reports and replace it with a requirement that committee clerks notify council members when a committee vote has not been unanimous. This section was recommended to us from central staff and divided reports are now optional, with the request being made by any council member that such a report be prepared by central staff. We add more detail explaining the Budget Committee process, including the suspension of regular committee meetings, quorum requirements, and how the Budget Chair presents a proposed balancing package to council members. We remove language around a specific town hall committee. We clarify that the President may amend or abolish select committees by memos, just as the President may create them by memo. We add language that states that the attorney client privilege communication with the Council can only be waived by a unanimous agreement by all nine council members in executive session. We add language about the central staff director or her designee to the list of attendees that are allowed at executive session, which is consistent with current practice. We add language that the Presiding Officer may suspend or modify the requirement to electronically record meetings to protect the safe and responsible functioning of the Council. This authority to suspend or modify in extraordinary circumstances already exists for other rules around public access. And we clarify the language around the use of the Council Chamber and referring directly to the separate council policy and procedure on use of the chamber. So I will move adoption of resolution 31639 and thank you and we'll take comments and there are some amendments as well. And so, Councilmember Licata, let's begin with your amendments. Great. Thank you. There is an order of three amendments that I have, but I know there is also a technical amendment that is out there as well. So we just move that. We're going to make that last. I'll make that last. Okay. So my First Amendment is and we should all have copies in front of you. It's an underlying read has to do with the Labor Committee. And I believe I may have mentioned it this morning at the briefing meeting the Labor. Committee is a select committee comprised of the president, the chair of the Budget Committee and three council members selected by the President. And secondly, the primary purpose of the Labor Committee is to serve on the Labor Relations Policy Committee and perform the functions established by Inadmissible Code Section 4.0412 Show. This language is in conformity with the description that was just made by the Council President Burgess. It just basically codifies it our rules to make sure that we understand what's going on. Thank you. And I would second this amendment. Number one, are there any questions or comments? Councilmember Harrell Just to clarify in question, um, when I was looking at this during and sort of earlier draft, I was sort of confusing the Labor Committee with the LRP. C, so. What's the difference there in terms of what we're trying to do? LRP c we have five members on the labor committee. We have how many members? I'm just looking. Positive. So the Labor Committee is the five council members that are then the members of the Labor Relations Committee, which also includes representatives from the executive side. So this, in effect, changes the PC as well. No, no, no. It has no effect. It's just correct. Okay. Our Labor Committee, all five members are members of the LR PC, which includes other members from the executive branch. Other questions or comments. Arena. You have this halo effect over your head. That. Happens when you're in the new vein. That's right. Yes. All right. Let's vote on Councilmember Lakatos First Amendment on the membership of the Labor Committee. And I will say that paragraph one of this amendment is essentially the practice that we have today. So this codifies that in our rules, all in favor of amendment number one vote. I oppose vote no. So amendment number one is unanimously adopted. Thank you. Amendment number two. Amendment number two. This one. Amend subsections one. See? Seven and six b5 to attach to attachment A in resolution 31639 to establish that the Council President cannot serve as Finance Committee Chair. And by extension, this would preclude the President from acting as the Budget Committee chair. The change in wording would be under C president. Point seven is provided in section six B of these rules. The President will not serve as a chair of the Finance Committee and then under membership is repeated. The person will not serve as the chair of the Finance Committee. This, again, like the First Amendment, is a practice that we have been following for many, many years. Again, it just basically codifies it and our rules. No Second Amendment questions or comments. All in favor of them. And amendment number two, vote I. I oppose vote no. The amendment is unanimously adopted. Amendment number three, Amendment three, amend subsection six, h five and 7g5 to attachment eight, resolution 31639. To provide the option for a council member participating in a non unanimous committee recommendation to request a written divided report. And the changes are shown and read. And there's a section that would now be called Optional Divided Report and it again in vernacular pretty much repeats what Council President Burgess just described in going over the council rules, except that this actually again puts it in writing. The first line probably summarizes the past, which says if a committee recommendation is not unanimous and if requested by a council member having voted and this is either I or no a recommendation the divide report contained a different recommendation shall be made available after the committee meeting for signing by council members who voted No were I and wish to subscribe to the report. This again follows procedures we've been following for years. It does clarify at least three days before the scheduled presentation of the recommendation to the full council. The same report shall be made available to all council members. I'm not sure we've followed that strictly, but I think again, it's good to put this in here to have as much scheduling as possible. So there are no surprises or mistake in a bad timing. And the third element is reporting recommendation to the full council. The position signed by the majority shall be considered first. And if there's no majority position, the position of the Chair shall be considered first. Again, this is alignment with what we've done the past. Is there a second? Second? Any questions or comments? Councilmember Harrell, I. Just wanna make sure I understand it. So. Right now, our current practice and maybe the proposal could just sort of explain it to me and I'm sorry I wasn't following some of this as closely as I could have. If there's a split vote at a committee level right now, it's mandatory to have a divided report. And you're suggesting that it be an option. As opposed to it being mandatory? Well, actually. As opposed to not having it at all. Well, the language in. I'd have to have the current rules in front of me. Do not require it. I believe the old language did require it. The intent of the current language, as was preserved and passed out of committee, is the expectation that it would be optional. So what this does is. Go. We basically caught a firework. But I believe the intent was they came out of committee. So if I could just follow up, I guess I'm not sure what problem we're fixing here and that quite. If I could be so bold as to say whatever seemed to be working with respect to divided reports was working for me, because whenever there was contentiousness at the committee level, I was actually looking forward to see the minority opinion and the majority opinion, and I was looking forward to having a week, an extra week to make some decisions and walk the floor and talk to constituents. And that system worked. And so by changing and that year end, I'm just not sure what we accomplish. And I probably need to know what's going on behind it. You're saying that we're codifying something that we're doing anyway, which would lead me to believe that we don't have to change it then if we're doing it anyway. So if we're codifying it and something's changing, I guess I need to know what the practical effects are. I actually like to divide a report, and I like a little additional time to see where we fall. Well, I am actually in agreement with you under percent. Problem is, that's no longer in the proposal before in front of us. It's not there. So let me give you the history of this. The current council rules require if there is a committee vote that is not unanimous. The rules require central staff to prepare a divided report, and the rules also require a delay in when the council will consider the matter for at least one full week unless the council president and the committee chair waive that requirement. So we're not changing the timing. There will still be a delay unless the council president and the committee chair waive that requirement. Central staff came to the committee that reviewed the rules and recommended that we eliminate the mandatory central staff prepared divided report which has existed for decades because and there are their argument was that technology has changed. Any council member can view committees that they weren't at. Any council member can still request that a presentation of their position be developed, which they can develop on their own, or they can ask central staff to help them. So basically what the committee that reviewed the rules is saying is, let's get rid of this mandatory obligation that central staff prepare a divided report and leave that to council members to argue and advance their own positions how they see fit. Now, this particular amendment from Council member Licata I oppose because it we might refer to it as the optional mandatory divided report because while it says it's optional, any council member who requests a divided report, it requires the council members who voted differently to then prepare the divided report. And I think what we should do is go with what the Rule Rules Committee recommended to us, which is keep the time delay on on non-unanimous committee votes, but rely on council members to advance their own positions however they see fit. Whether they want to work with their colleagues or work with outside constituents, that's totally up to them. Council members, as you all know, can still ask central staff for assistance in preparing materials. So I don't think that this particular amendment is necessary. Any other questions or comments? And the response was. Well, I want to quote it in response to this, because it may be continue. I, I do not read this in the same manner that you do. The first line says the committee recommendation is not unanimous, and if so, it's conditioned, if requested by a council member having voted I or no. And a recommendation, a divide report contain the different regions shall be made available. So you're reading this as if someone says no, they're requiring the ice side to do a report. Well, reading this very same paragraph that you just read from the bottom of page two, who's going to prepare that divided report? Well, is actually sign on that. It could be the council member or the staff. And I actually I had talked to the staff and don't want to drag them into this, but I did not get the impression that there was a strong will condition not to do that. I didn't see anything in writing my discussion. It was basically a comment that they didn't need to. But when when I discussed the central staff, they said they'd be glad to. So, you know, I don't want to cast aspersions on what. We're we're saying central staff is saying. But I just didn't get the same response that you did. And let me just say, my intent here is pretty much as Customer Harrell's, I think it's really important to have some sort of. Now codify that historic record of what the positions were on the council. And I would think actually that the council members might feel more comfortable having the central staff actually write something and then having the council members sign off on it. But this is silent net in that fashion. So Councilmember look kind of good points but there is a record of course of all the positions council member takes take all of our committee meetings are recorded. Both. Audio and visually. That's all available to anyone on demand. So I think what's at central staff appeared in front of the committee on at least two occasions and made this recommendation. They made this recommendation to the committee, the staff committee that formed these recommendations. I don't think this recommendation originated with any council member. This came from central staff to the council, and they testified that way in front of the committee. So I think if you look at your language at the bottom of page two, it says that any council member may request a divided report, and it's clear that that has to be prepared by somebody. Yeah. And that's going to be council members. In this in this whatever format they wish to take. And that and. And I don't know what that accomplishes. And I also don't think this is that big of a deal. And so we probably shouldn't be spending so much time on it. We're just following the recommendations of the Rules Committee that looked at these rules, trying to streamline a bit as one central staff said in front of the committee , we're just trying to avoid a lot of unnecessary work. Let me just say that. Having it digitally recorded and having it in a written report, it just makes it so much easier doing research and look it up. And I'm sure that council members who feel strongly about their opinions are going to write things, say things, publish things, and try to influence all of us to share their view. And that's healthy and that's good. I don't think anyone is going to find that. We can't figure out how you or any other council member believes or what position they take. So let's vote on amendment number three from council member. Oh, excuse me. Councilmember O'Brien. Yeah. So my sense is that we're not really arguing over much. Council President Burgess If I could just ask some clarity. My understanding is that without Council Member Luke Hodges amendment as is proposed, that eliminates the requirement to do a divided report where there may be situations where folks are doing work that no one really is asked to do, but it doesn't prohibit folks from doing it from a timeframe or from folks submitting other types of reports. They could work with central staff to produce that or do it on their own. Is that. Accurate? That's correct. It does not change the time delay issue that stays intact. It just it places the burden on us as individual members. If we want to have help in preparing materials, we can either do that ourselves in our own offices, or we can ask central staff to help us. And that's all. Available. Okay. And so I haven't had I wasn't at the committee meetings to hear it. I think what you're saying and what I think Councilmember Carter's language is trying to suggest to the same thing, I'm comfortable with it as is if that's now we have this great legislative record of what we're talking about. So we're going to we. Certainly. Do look to the video. Do we want to do this report? Do it. And if it turns out it's not, we can amend that. COUNCILMEMBER So I want. I also have a clarifying question if. If the. Well, first thing, I just wanted to say that in terms of facilitating democracy, I think this is a good idea to have monetary divider reports, not mandatory, but, you know, divide report as part of the record because there's just tons and tons of video and audio. I don't think we can expect people to wade through stuff like that. So for important things, there will be there should be a record that is easily accessible. The question I had was if if we if without Gutenberg Lakatos amendment, what does it mean for the delay that we have now? So if there is a if there is a lot of a stand off in a committee, and then one of those sides decides to issue a report of their own, but the other guns are there. A council member or council members decide they don't want to, or for whatever reason, they don't do it. Does that still give the council member who issued that their own side of the report? It's not divided per se because there's no opposing report. Does that still allow that council member to then have a delay as long as the chair and the president don't agree? I mean, don't don't disagree. Yes, it does. We're not changing the time delay issue that that's staying exactly as it is today. So even if one of the sides issues a report in that divided about it. Well, actually, actually, there doesn't have to be a divided report. If there is a divided vote in a committee, then it's an automatic delay until at least a full week unless the council president and the committee chair rule otherwise, which is happens. But, you know, it's fairly rare that that happens. May I have a closing statement on this? Well, Councilmember Rasmussen, I'll. Just say something. But no. I'm not going to say anything. I think it's all been said. I like the idea of divided reports. I think our sort of staff does a great job. They help us create a good legislative history. It helps us focus our comments either for or against. So I find them really convenient. Great. Councilmember Licata Let me just say that if I do believe we don't adopt this amendment, what we're facing is you could have literally four or five different cast members writing different opinions. We might both vote against something, but I have a good reason you do. This basically allows for, quite honestly, more structured approach where you've got working with the central staff, coming up with something that people sign off with, it or not, I think it makes for a better record. That's all. Thank you. We'll now vote on amendment number three. Those in favor of vote i, i. Those oppose vote no. No. The amendment fails. Excuse me. The amendment passes. Yes. I'm sorry. Oh, the clerk wants a vote by hand, please. So those in favor, please raise your hand. I'm a little confused. Are we voting on Councilman? The colors of. Yes. Yes. His amendment number three on optional divided reports. Those in favor of amendment number three, raise your hand. Those opposed. Raise your hand. So it's 4 to 4. The amendment fails. We now have the rules in front of us, which is resolution 31639. Are there any other comments on the resolution? Who understood the last amendment and the difference between. And for the public? Welcome to our discussions. Was not that significant. But central staff is back there celebrating right now. So we appreciate the good work they do. We'll now vote on resolution 316. No, I'm going to make another amendment. Sorry, this is amendment attachment number one. And it is an amendment to the general rules and procedures. Each of you have this it was passed out this morning and these are non substantive amendments. It would fill in the appropriate resolution number on the cover page of attachment number one, which is resolution number 31639. And it would correct the header on page 25 by deleting the word regular to correctly identify the article title, I would move this amendment second. So any discussion? All in favor of the amendment vote. I oppose vote no. The amendment is adopted and now we will vote on resolution 31639 as amended. All in favor. Vote I. I oppose. Vote No. The resolution is unanimously adopted and I will sign it. Please read items eight, nine and ten.