Most councils adopt rules of procedure, use them for a few years, and then stop reading them. The document sits in a binder in the clerk's office or on a page of the city website, and meetings run on habit. Habit works until it doesn't. A new member asks why a motion needs a second. A resident challenges a public comment time limit at the podium. Two members disagree about whether an item can be pulled from the consent calendar, and the mayor turns to the clerk for an answer the rules never gave.
From the management side, the cost of outdated rules shows up in three places: meeting time, staff time and legal exposure. A meeting that stalls on procedure burns the time of everyone in the room, including the department heads waiting on their items. Staff spend hours digging through old minutes to find out what the council did last time. And a written rule that conflicts with state law, or a practice that contradicts the written rule, is a problem your city attorney would much rather find in a quiet review than in a demand letter.
This article walks through a revision from start to finish. It covers deciding whether to revise at all, auditing what you have, building a redline, running public review, adopting the changes and training the people who will use them. It also lists the sections most rules contain and questions worth asking about each.
One caution before we start. What local rules can and cannot say depends on your state's open meeting law, your charter and your municipal code. Some provisions, such as quorum or the vote needed for certain actions, may be set by law and are not open to local choice. Treat everything here as a framework, and confirm specifics with your city attorney before anything goes to council.
Why rules drift, and what the drift costs
Rules rarely go stale all at once. They drift, one small gap at a time, until the written document and the actual meeting are two different things.
The usual causes are familiar:
- Piecemeal amendments. The council fixed one problem in one year and another problem a few years later. Each fix made sense, but nobody went back to make the whole document consistent, so cross-references now point to sections that moved.
- Practice that changed without the text. Remote participation, hybrid public comment or a new consent calendar habit may have started as a temporary measure and become permanent without ever being written down.
- Changes in state law. Open meeting laws, notice requirements and public comment rules get amended. Local rules written under the old law may now say something the city cannot legally do.
- New tools. Agenda software, livestreaming and online comment forms change deadlines and workflows. Rules written for paper packets often describe a process no one follows anymore.
- Turnover. The clerk, attorney or mayor who knew why a rule existed has moved on, and the reason left with them.
You can usually spot drift without opening the rules. Watch for these signs:
- The chair regularly asks the clerk or attorney what the rule is, and the answer is "we usually do it this way."
- Different chairs run the same agenda item differently.
- Staff keep an informal cheat sheet that contradicts the adopted rules.
- Council members cite the rules during disagreements, and they cite different versions.
- No one can quickly produce a single, current, complete copy.
The cost is not only inefficiency. When a council follows a practice its own rules do not allow, the action itself may be open to challenge, depending on your state and the nature of the rule. Even where the legal risk is small, the credibility cost is real. Residents notice when a council cannot explain its own procedures.
When a revision is worth the effort
A full revision is a real commitment of clerk and attorney time, plus several council discussions. It is worth doing when the payoff is clear. Good triggers include:
- An election that brings in several new members. New members are open to process questions and have not yet built habits around the old rules. Revising early in a term also separates the discussion from any particular vote.
- A change in state law that affects meetings, notice, public comment or remote participation.
- A procedural dispute that exposed a gap. Wait until tempers cool, then fix the gap for everyone going forward.
- A charter amendment or change in form of government.
- A change in meeting format, such as a move to hybrid meetings or a new committee structure.
- Simple neglect. If no one has reviewed the rules in years, that alone is a reason.
Timing matters as much as the trigger. Avoid starting a revision right before an election, during budget adoption, or while a contentious item is pending, because every proposed change will be read as aimed at that item. The quietest stretch of your calendar is usually the right one.
Before committing staff time, decide on scope. Not every problem needs a rewrite.
| Approach | When it fits | Staff effort | Main risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Targeted amendment | One rule is unclear or out of compliance | Low | Leaves other drift in place |
| Cleanup revision | Text is outdated but the underlying choices still work | Moderate | Small policy changes slip in unnoticed |
| Full rewrite | Format, law or structure has changed substantially | High | Long timeline and broad debate |
Make the scope decision explicitly, with the manager, clerk and attorney in the room, and tell the mayor or chair what you plan before you start. A cleanup that quietly turns into a rewrite is how these projects run over schedule.
Step 1: Audit what you have and how you actually run meetings
The audit is where most of the value comes from. It is also where most of the staff time goes, so plan for it.
Find the official version
Start by establishing what the rules actually are. That sounds obvious, and it often isn't.
- Locate the adopting resolution or ordinance for the current rules, and every amendment since.
- Compare that record against the version on the website and the version in the clerk's binder. They may differ.
- Check whether any provisions live in the municipal code or charter rather than in the rules document itself.
- Note any council actions that suspended or waived a rule, and whether those were meant to be one-time or ongoing.
The output of this step is a single, verified current text with a list of its sources. If you cannot build one, that finding goes at the top of your audit memo.
Compare the text to practice
Next, compare what the rules say to what actually happens. Review minutes and recordings from a sample of recent meetings, including at least one long or contentious meeting, because that is where procedure gets tested. For each section of the rules, note where practice matches, where it departs, and whether anyone noticed.
Check the text against law
Ask your city attorney to review the current rules against state open meeting law, the charter and the code. The attorney's list of conflicts is the part of the audit you cannot skip, and it is the strongest argument for doing the project at all.
Talk to the people who use the rules
Interview the mayor or chair, the clerk, the manager, the attorney and a few department heads who present often. Talk with council members too, but do it individually or in a properly noticed meeting, and confirm with your attorney how your state treats a series of one-on-one conversations on the same topic. Some states treat serial communications among a majority as a meeting.
Useful interview questions:
- Where do meetings slow down for procedural reasons?
- Which rules do people ignore, and why?
- What questions do new members ask most often?
- What procedural moment in the last year felt unfair or confusing?
Write the audit memo
Sort everything you found into three lists:
- Legal conflicts. Provisions that conflict with state law, the charter or the code. These must change.
- Practice gaps. Places where the council's actual practice differs from the text. For each, the council must choose: change the rule to match practice, or change practice to match the rule.
- Policy questions. Issues where reasonable people could disagree, such as public comment time limits or how items get added to an agenda.
That three-part structure carries through the rest of the project. It tells the council which changes are mandatory and which are genuine choices.
Common sections and the questions to ask about each
Rules of procedure vary widely, but most contain some version of the sections below. Use this table as a review guide during the audit and redline.
| Section | What it usually covers | Questions to ask |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose and authority | Legal basis for the rules, parliamentary authority | Which parliamentary authority applies when the rules are silent? Is that still the right choice? |
| Meetings | Regular, special and emergency meetings, location, start time | Do notice provisions match current state law? Who can call a special meeting? |
| Agenda preparation | Deadlines, who can place items, packet distribution | Can an individual member add an item, or does it take more? Are deadlines realistic for staff? |
| Consent calendar | Routine items approved in one vote | Who can pull an item? Is a pulled item heard right away or later in the meeting? |
| Order of business | Sequence of agenda sections | Does the order still serve the public and staff? Where does public comment fall? |
| Public comment | Timing, time limits, sign-up, written and remote comment | Has the attorney reviewed every limit? How are remote commenters handled? |
| Motions and voting | Making and seconding motions, amendments, voting methods | How are abstentions treated? What happens on a tie? How does reconsideration work? |
| Decorum | Conduct of members, staff and the public | Who enforces decorum, and what are the steps? |
| Closed sessions | Process for convening and reporting out | Does the process match state law on permitted topics and reporting? |
| Council requests and staff direction | How members request information or staff work | Does a single member's request create staff work, or does it take a majority? |
| Committees and appointments | Standing and ad hoc committees, appointments to boards | How are committee members chosen? Do committees trigger open meeting requirements? |
| Remote participation | When members and the public may join remotely | Does this match current state law and the city's technology? |
| Minutes | Format, approval and corrections | Action minutes or more detail? Who can request corrections? |
| Suspension and amendment | How rules are waived or changed | What vote is needed? Can a single meeting suspend any rule? |
A few sections cause most of the trouble in practice. They deserve extra attention.
Public comment
This is the section residents care about most and the one with the most legal sensitivity. Time limits, speaker order, how the chair handles off-topic remarks, and whether comment is allowed on every agenda item are all shaped by state law and free speech principles. Sample questions for the council:
- Should time limits be fixed, or can the chair adjust them based on the number of speakers?
- How should written comments be handled and recorded?
- How should remote commenters be called on, and what happens if the connection fails?
Draft this section carefully and keep the attorney close.
Consent calendar
The consent calendar saves meeting time, which is why it exists. It also creates friction when members pull items without notice or when pulled items take over the meeting. Decide who can pull an item, whether a reason is required, and when pulled items are heard. From a staff time perspective, it helps if members tell the clerk in advance when they plan to pull an item, so the right staff member is present.
Motions and voting
The questions here sound technical, but they decide outcomes. How is an abstention counted? Can a member who voted on the losing side move to reconsider? What happens on a tie? Some answers come from state law, some from your parliamentary authority, and some from local choice. The rules should say which is which.
Council requests for staff work
This section matters more to the manager than almost any other. If any individual member can direct staff to prepare a report, staff workload follows the most active member rather than the council's priorities. Many councils require a majority, or a set process, before a request becomes an assignment. Whatever your council chooses, write it down. A clear rule protects staff and treats every member equally.
Remote participation
Remote rules are often the newest and least tested. Confirm what your state allows for members and for the public, what happens if a remote member loses the connection during a vote, and whether your technology can support what the rules promise.
Step 2: Build the redline
The redline is the document the council will actually read. Its job is to make every change visible and every reason clear.
Start from the verified text
Always draft from the verified current text you built in the audit, not from the website copy or an old draft. If the starting point is wrong, every redline mark is wrong too.
Separate cleanup from policy
The single most useful drafting choice is to keep technical cleanup separate from policy changes. Some cities do this with two documents. Others use one document with a clear label on each change. Either way:
- Cleanup covers renumbering, fixing cross-references, updating titles, removing obsolete references and conforming to current law. The council should be able to approve these as a group.
- Policy changes are genuine choices. Each one deserves its own explanation and, where appropriate, options.
When the two are mixed, members either spend meeting time debating renumbering or approve a policy shift they did not notice. Neither outcome serves anyone.
Use a three-column format
For substantive changes, a three-column layout works well: current text, proposed text, and the reason for the change. The reason column is where you cite the audit finding, the legal requirement or the practice gap. Keep reasons short and factual.
Offer options on policy questions
On real policy questions, give the council two or three workable options with the tradeoffs of each, rather than a single staff recommendation presented as the only answer. Rules of procedure are the council's own rules. Members will accept them more readily if they made the choices themselves. The manager can still state a recommendation, especially where staff workload or operations are affected.
Draft in plain language
Write rules a new member can read on the night before a first meeting. Some practical habits:
- Use one term for one thing throughout. If it is "presiding officer" in one section, do not switch to "chair" in another without a definition.
- Prefer short sentences and numbered steps for processes.
- Define terms once, in a definitions section.
- Avoid restating your parliamentary authority at length. Refer to it, and write out only the local choices that differ.
Borrow ideas, not text
Rules from comparable cities are useful as a menu of options, and clerk associations are a good place to find them. Avoid copying text wholesale. The other city operates under its own charter, code and possibly a different state's law, and language that works there may conflict with yours.
Assign clear roles
In most cities the clerk and attorney draft together. The clerk knows where meetings run into trouble, and the attorney checks every provision. The manager reviews for operational impact, such as packet deadlines and staff presence at meetings. Set a short internal review cycle before anything leaves staff hands, so the council sees one coherent draft rather than competing staff versions.
Step 3: Public review and council discussion
Once the redline is ready, the project moves from staff work to council work. The staff role shifts from drafting to framing.
Start with a study session
A study session or workshop gives the council room to discuss options without the pressure of a vote. Walk through the cleanup items quickly, confirm there are no objections, and spend the session on the policy questions. Keep a running decision log of the direction the council gives on each item.
Be careful with subcommittees
Some councils assign the review to a two-member subcommittee to save meeting time. That can work, but confirm with your attorney how your state's open meeting law treats such a group, and make sure the subcommittee does not become a way for a majority to discuss the item outside a noticed meeting.
Post the draft publicly
Put the redline in the agenda packet and on the website well before the council acts. Some cities also invite written comment for a set period. Residents tend to focus on public comment rules, so consider a short plain-language summary of any changes to that section. Some charters or codes require specific notice or more than one reading before rules can change. Confirm what applies to you.
Keep the discussion on the rule
Members will naturally test proposed rules against recent disputes. That is useful, as long as the conversation stays on how the rule should work for future councils rather than on who was right last spring. A chair who frames each question as "how should any future council handle this" keeps the discussion productive. Staff can help by describing scenarios in general terms rather than referencing specific members or meetings.
Bring back a final draft
After the study session, update the redline to reflect the council's direction, note any items still unresolved, and bring back a final draft for adoption. If the council changed course on several items, a short cover memo listing each decision saves time at the adoption meeting.
Step 4: Adoption and making the change official
Adoption is a single vote, but making the change official involves a surprising number of follow-up tasks. Most problems after a revision come from skipping them.
Use the right instrument
Adopt the rules by whatever instrument your charter and code require, whether that is a resolution, an ordinance or both. Confirm the required vote, any notice period and whether more than one reading is needed. Your attorney should sign off on the adopting document.
Repeal what came before
The adopting document should expressly repeal the prior rules and all amendments, so there is no question about which version governs. If some provisions are in the code, update the code at the same time.
Pick a clean effective date
Avoid having new rules take effect in the middle of a meeting cycle with items already noticed under the old ones. A clean start, such as the first regular meeting after training, reduces confusion. If an item spans the transition, the attorney should advise which rules apply.
Adoption checklist
- Adopting resolution or ordinance approved by the attorney
- Required notice and readings completed
- Prior rules and amendments expressly repealed
- Effective date set and announced
- Certified copy filed in the official records
- Website copy replaced, with the adoption date and instrument shown
- Code updated if any provisions live there
- Agenda templates, packet deadlines and cover sheets updated
- Chair's meeting script updated
- Public comment cards, forms and online instructions updated
- Agenda software settings and deadlines updated to match
- Old versions removed from shared drives and staff desks, or clearly marked superseded
That last item matters more than it looks. Outdated copies on staff computers are how old rules keep showing up in new meetings.
Step 5: Training, rollout, and the first few meetings
A revision that no one learns is just a nicer document. Training is where the staff time spent on the project pays back.
Train the council and the chair
Hold a briefing for the council on the new rules, either individually or in a noticed meeting if a quorum will attend. Spend extra time with the mayor or presiding officer, since that person applies the rules in real time. A short mock run of a few scenarios, such as a pulled consent item, a motion to amend and a public comment that runs long, builds confidence faster than reading.
Give everyone a quick reference
Most people will not reread the full rules. Prepare short reference tools:
- A one-page summary for the dais covering the order of business, motions and public comment
- An updated chair's script with the exact language for opening public comment, calling votes and handling pulled items
- A staff memo for department heads on any changes to deadlines, presentations or attendance
- A plain-language public summary for the website and the meeting room
Prepare the clerk for live questions
In the first few meetings, questions will come. The clerk should have the new rules tabbed and indexed, with the section numbers for the most likely questions ready. Agree in advance with the chair and attorney on how procedural questions will be raised and answered during the meeting.
Debrief and adjust
After the first two or three meetings, hold a short debrief with the chair, clerk, manager and attorney. What worked, what caused confusion, and is any rule unclear in practice? Keep a log of questions. If a real problem emerges, fix it with a targeted amendment rather than living with it until the next full review.
Build in regular review
Put a light rules review on the calendar, such as annually or after each election, owned by the clerk with attorney input. Add the rules to new member orientation so every incoming member learns them before their first meeting. Regular small reviews cost far less staff time than another full rewrite years from now.
Next steps
If your council's rules have not been reviewed in some time, start small and move in order:
- Build a single verified copy of the current rules, with every adopting action and amendment.
- Ask your city attorney for a review against state law, the charter and the code.
- Watch a few recent meetings with the rules in hand and note where practice departs.
- Meet with the manager, clerk and attorney to decide on scope: targeted amendment, cleanup or full rewrite.
- Brief the mayor or chair on the plan and a realistic timeline that avoids elections and budget season.
The audit is usually the slowest step, mostly because finding past actions and practices means searching years of minutes and resolutions. If your archive is hard to search, a tool such as Govera, which searches the full archive and cites the source document, page and meeting, can shorten that work, with staff reviewing every result. Whatever tools you use, the decisions stay with the council and the legal review stays with your attorney.
