Governmental Processes
Committee Memorandum
TO: GOVERNMENTAL PROCESSES COMMITTEE DATE: AUGUST 5, 2026 FROM: CITY CLERK WARDS: ALL
CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: REVIEW CITY COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE AND ORDER OF BUSINESS – RESOLUTION NO. 24389 ISSUE:
Pursuant to City Council direction on October 21, 2025, this staff report was prepared in order for the Governmental Processes Committee to review the amendments adopted to the City Council Rules of Procedure and Order of Business, Resolution no. 24389.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Governmental Processes Committee review the City Council Rules of Procedure and Order of Business documented in Resolution no. 24389.
BACKGROUND:
Resolution No. 24389 outlines the City Council Rules of Procedure and Order of Business. These rules were established to ensure that meetings are conducted in an orderly and efficient manner, while also providing opportunities for public participation. The Resolution also requires City Council to review and revise the rules of procedure and order of business as needed or every two (2) years.
This biennial review began with the Governmental Processes Committee (GPC) during the June 4, 2025 and August 6, 2025 meetings. Several possible revisions to Resolution No. 24255 were discussed during the meetings. The Committee ultimately made several recommendations for revisions to the Rules of Procedure and Order of Business and directed staff to bring a revised resolution to the City Council for consideration. The City Council reviewed these revisions on October 21, 2025 and adopted Resolution no. 24318. Resolution no. 24318 included all of the proposed revisions, with the exception of number 6, which was not adopted.
Resolution No. 24318, was subsequently revised on January 27, 2026 and March 24, 2026, to make changes to Article XIV regarding nominations to Boards and Commissions and on June 23, 2026, to amend Article VIII.J to comply with SB 707 regarding telephonic or internet disruption during meetings.
The current City Council Rules of Procedure and Order of Business are found in Resolution no. 24389.
During the October 21, 2025 City Council meeting, the Council directed that the adopted amendments to be taken back to the Governmental Processes Committee in six months for review.
DISCUSSION:
The table below summarizes the specific revisions adopted by the City Council on October 21, 2026, with the exception of number 6, which was discussed but not adopted.
GPC Recommendation
Resolution Revision
Meeting Schedules
Amend summer schedule to remove September and July and August meetings to be on second and fourth Tuesdays.
Remove sentence in section VIII.D regarding meetings in April, June, and October Add language to VIII.D providing for changes to meeting times by Mayor with concurrence of the Mayor Pro Tem The GPC further recommends that at least one City Council meeting per month be scheduled for an evening session, but did not feel that a revision to the resolution on this point was necessary.
Revisions in Art. VIII.D:
For the months of July, and August and September, meetings shall occur on the second first and fourth third Tuesdays of the month.
For the months of April, June, and October, meetings shall occur the second, third, and fourth Tuesdays of the month.
The appointed hours noted herein are set forth for the convenience of the City Council and are subject to change by the Mayor with the concurrence of the Mayor Pro Tem.
Agenda Sequence
Language in section IX authorizing Mayor with the concurrence of the Mayor Pro Tem to adjust agenda sequence during the agenda setting meeting.
Sequence Council reports/ ward updates first on agenda. [NOT ADOPTED] No vote or abstention on consent calendar items without an explanation, results in the item automatically pulled from consent for discussion.
Revisions in Art. IX.D
During the agenda setting meeting, the Mayor with the concurrence of the Mayor Pro Tem, may adjust the agenda sequence and order of business, provided for in section F of this Article, for any agenda that has not yet been published.
Revisions in Art. IX.F
Agenda sequence to move Public Comments, Announcements and Ceremonial items as first three items.
Revisions in Art. X.B [NOT ADOPTED]
Any member desiring to abstain or vote no on a consent calendar item, should provide an explanation therefore. If no explanation is given, the item shall be removed from the Consent Calendar. The presiding officer will announce which items have been removed from the Consent Calendar.
Public Comment
Revise speaker card language to encourage or recommend speakers to fill out card.
Revise language giving discretion to curtail public comment time for all speakers to the presiding officer.
Consolidation of public comment provisions into one place in the resolution.
Revisions in Art. X.F
Each person desiring to address the City Council during Public Comment, City Council Discussion Items, Workshops, or Public Hearings is strongly encouraged to fill out and file a form provided by the City Clerk.
The presiding officer may exercise discretion in curtailing the duration of all speakers’ comments based upon factors including, but not limited to, the length of the agenda or the number of public comment speaker cards submitted.
Public Comment provisions were consolidated into Art. X Section F and were removed from other areas of the Resolution.
Other Considerations
Recommended attire for members of the City Council to match City’s HR dress code policy.
Allotted time for members to debate an item with the presiding officer to keep time.
Additional research was determined necessary regarding appointments to Regional Organizations. The GPC requested research from City departments to determine the potential number of regional boards in which the City participates.
Appointments and terms for Boards and Commissions will be referred to the next Charter Review Committee.
Revisions in Art. IV.D
During City Council and Standing Committee meetings, members are expected to adhere to the City’s Human Resources Policy IV-2 entitled Standards for Dress and Appearance.
Revisions in XII.E
Allotted Time for Debate. Unless waived by a majority of the City Council, each member may speak on an item for up to fifteen (15) minutes as provided in this paragraph. The first time a member is recognized to speak on an item, the member shall limit his/her remarks to ten (10) minutes. Subsequent opportunities to speak shall be no more than five (5) minutes. The presiding officer shall be responsible for tracking time and shall utilize the timing system for this purpose.
Eligibility for appointment to a regional organization board is based on the law or agreement governing each specific organization. Appointments are made in accordance with each organization’s rules. Based on this research the following revision was made to Article XIII, Section A: “Regional organizations are external organizations where the City Council directly appoints a person to represent the City’s interests in that organization. The provisions of this section shall not apply to organizations where the City Council is not the appointing authority. When possible, appointments to regional organizations should be limited to elected officials.” GPC Chair Falcone also requested this report include discussion on the current procedure for Motions for Reconsideration. Motions for Reconsideration are in Article XII, Section D. Resolution no. 24389 states the following:
Motion To Reconsider. A motion to reconsider any action taken by the City Council must be made not later than the third succeeding official regular meeting of the City Council. Such a motion can only be made by a member who voted with the majority. The motion to reconsider must be specifically agendized as a motion for reconsideration and cannot be acted upon under Future Agenda Items. However, if the motion to reconsider is made at the same Council meeting when the motion was originally adopted, it does not have to be included on the agenda. At the time such reconsideration is heard by the City Council, testimony shall be limited to debate in support of the motion. No question shall be twice reconsidered, except by unanimous consent of the City Council, except that action relating to any contract may be reconsidered at any time before the final execution thereof.
A survey of other cities in California showed that many variations of motions to reconsider exist. Common differences are the time limit for bringing a motion for reconsideration. Cities such as Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Long Beach require the motion to be made the same or next day. While Los Angeles requires the motion to be made on the same legislative day or at the next regular meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no immediate fiscal impact from this report.
Prepared by: Ruthann Salera, Senior Deputy City Attorney Approved by: Donesia Gause, City Clerk
Approved as to form: James Johnson, City Attorney
Attachments:
Resolution R-24389
Presentation
Rules of Procedure and Order of Business Review● Page 3