Newton changes its city council meeting procedures

Editor’s note: The following it the first of a two-part article covering the city council’s long discussion about meeting rules and procedures on March 6.

Updated guidelines and procedures of Newton City Council meetings removed the rule that public comments must be germane and relevant to city business, an action that arrives after — but was not a reaction to — a judge’s ruling stating the city’s citizen participation rules were too broad and violate the First Amendment.

The changes were adopted by the city council on March 6 with much discussion.

“Rule 36: Remarks of Citizens to be Germane” was completely eliminated from the council’s guidelines. Documents attached to the city council agenda show the rule stricken from the amended copy, and as a result of that action it changed the numbering of every subsequent rule in the next three sections.

As written, the rule states: “Citizen comments must be directed to the subject under consideration and must be related to city policies or the provision of city services. If the presiding officer finds it appropriate, he or she may refer items not on the agenda to further study by city staff or to a city board or commission.”

It then goes on to say citizens making irrelevant remarks or who use profanity may be barred by the presiding officer from further comment. In most cases, the “presiding officer” would be the mayor or mayor pro-tem. The rule finishes by saying the presiding officer shall rule on the germaneness of citizen comments.

Now that rule no longer applies. However, citizens are still limited to speaking for three minutes during citizen participation. But council members can vote to extend the time limitations depending on the situation. Of course, citizens are given another three minutes to speak during any public hearing on the agenda.

HOW DID COUNCIL GET TO THIS POINT?

The city council held a workshop in August 2022 that was facilitated by Callahan Municipal Consultants, LLC. One of the exercises was having council members rank ideas and suggestions for potential policies, procedures or action items. Council ranked updating council meeting rules and procedures as a top priority.

In November 2022, council held another workshop to update its rules. Council members directed the city attorney on specific changes they would like to see.

Attorneys encouraged council members to identify which rules they would like to amend and provide specific language for those changes, which rules they would like to delete and which rules they would like to add to the current procedures and, again, provide specific language.

In a court case against Newton resident Noah Petersen — who made critical remarks against the police department and was eventually arrested for disorderly conduct — the judgement of the Iowa District Court for Jasper County stated the citizen participation rules were too broad and violative of the First Amendment.

Citizen participation allows residents to speak for three minutes, but the rules printed on the agenda say their comments must not include derogatory statements or comments about any individual. Court documents say Petersen’s comments did not use profane language nor identify any individual by name.

While some may not agree with the content of Petersen’s comments, the court found the statements were not derogatory nor about an individual.

The court also determined the City of Newton did not meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that disorderly conduct occurred. It also found Petersen’s actions and statements did not exceed any authority he may lawfully claim under the free speech provision of the U.S Constitution.

OTHER CHANGES WERE ADOPTED

Several other changes were included in the updated rules, like allowing the entire city council to attend meetings and vote on action items electronically, provided a meeting in person is impossible or impractical. Council members can participate electronically as long they can be heard by the public during the meeting.

Apart from grammatical and formatting changes, the other alterations allow council members to contact the city administrator or mayor to request a consent item to be considered separately from the consent agenda, which is typically approved in a lumped group with a single vote from the city council.

In the past, council members had to contact the city clerk.

Council members made amendments to Rules 16, 33 and 34, which prompted long discussions and debates.

The amendment that required the least discussion was regarding “Rule 34: Manner of Addressing Council.” Council member Mark Hallam noted the rule would prevent council members from speaking to citizens during the citizen participation portion of the meeting.

While the rule was specifically trying to limit back-and-forth dialogue between citizens and council members, Hallam felt it was too restrictive and reasoned there might be situations where officials need clarification. The city administrator said a discussion could cut into a citizen’s three-minute time limit.

Council voted 6-0 to pass Hallam’s amendment, which removed “or speak” from the language in Rule 34. The sentence now reads: “Elected officials and City staff will not answer questions or debate a citizen during the Citizen Participation portion of the meeting.”

DALTON AND ERVIN DEBATE VETO OVERRIDE VOTE

The change to Rule 16 makes it so the council vote to override the mayor’s veto would require two-thirds majority, or at least four of the council members. Previous procedures required three-fourths super majority vote, or at least five votes. Hallam requested the old rule to remain.

“The purpose of an executive veto is to allow the executive — our highest elected official, the mayor — the opportunity to check legislative actions,” he said. “…The concept of an override is to require a super majority … I’m leaning towards recommending strongly that the vote to override should remain at five, not four.”

Council member Melissa Dalton was very much against the request, arguing it was not democratic. Council member Randy Ervin said the reason it has been a 5-1 vote in the past — before he was even on the council — is because there were some issues with past council members.

Although officials did not go in-depth on the practices of past council members, it was suggested council members colluded or abused the 4-2 veto override vote.

Which later prompted the change to 5-1 in the first place.

In Ervin’s three years on the council, there have been two vetoes. Neither of them were overridden by council members. Ervin said both of them, in hindsight, were necessary. He argued it already takes a 4-2 vote to pass a measure. If the measure comes to a veto, the new rules would require the same 4-2 vote.

“If we turn around and ask that same vote, you’re going to get the same — most of the time — the same 4-2,” Ervin said. “Five-to-one makes people reconsider and think for sure before we go to the power of overriding the veto, are we sure we want to do that? The veto has worked extremely well as 5-1 in recent years.”

MAKING OVERRIDE VOTE A SIMPLE MAJORITY WOULD BE A MISTAKE

Council member Evelyn George said it is easy for a group of people to get elected on the council and as mayor and disrupt the democratic process.

“There’s no restrictions to how many times the mayor can veto; the mayor could veto every decision made by the council, have two friends on the council and suddenly council members are not making any decisions,” George said.

Newton Mayor Mike Hansen said he has listened to this argument of a “rogue mayor and two council members” before. Hansen served as a council member before he was elected mayor, and he said concerns should be aimed at four council members that are “in cahoots with one another” and damaging the city.

“Like was done when I was first elected (as a council member),” Hansen said. “Council members are elected to four-year terms. A mayor is elected to a two-year term. A mayor is easily replaced and called out if a mayor is being a rogue individual and using that veto.”

There is no other legislative body that does not use a super majority to override legislation, the mayor added, and the Newton City Council would be “making a mistake” by making it simple majority vote. Ervin said removing the super majority veto override vote would also remove a lot of the power of the mayor.

“As a person who would like to be in that chair someday, I think you’re really disarming the mayor,” Ervin said. “…That mayor needs to have a voice.”

DESPITE DALTON’S RESISTANCE, OVERRIDE STAYS SUPER MAJORITY

Hansen recalled a conversation he had with past mayor David Aldridge, who served three terms in Newton since 1994.

“He told me after the fact that had he had a five-vote veto, he could have stopped some of the silly stuff that we did my first year-and-a-half here,” Hansen said. “…He didn’t veto it because he knew when it was brought back before the council, it would be four votes to approve and two votes to disapprove.”

George noted Hansen made some convincing arguments, saying she did recall those times he spoke about. But Dalton’s position was unwavering.

“Regardless of those four people that maybe made bad decisions, the public elected them. They elected them for a reason. So if they’re up here making the decisions they elected them to make, then that’s their prerogative,” Dalton said. “…It’s not a majority. Why are we here? Why are four of us here?”

Ervin pushed back against Dalton, saying that kind of thinking was incorrect. Dalton argued every decision the council makes could be turned around.

“Absolutely,” Ervin said, later noting that a majority of the time the council is in full agreement when voting on city business matters.

The city council voted 5-1, with Dalton voting no, in favor of the Hallam’s amendment to leave the veto override vote as a super majority.