New rules for addressing City Council ‘postponed indefinitely’

At the beginning of Thursday’s City Council meeting, Mayor Kirk Watson announced that a plan to cut back on public input had been “postponed indefinitely.”

Many speakers criticized rules originally proposed by City Clerk Myrna Rios, and they expressed hope that such restrictions would not come back at any time.

Drawing particular condemnation: a plan to prevent speakers from donating their time to others for a coordinated explanation of different groups’ positions.

Critics also expressed consternation about a proposed change to the rules that would prevent members of the public from pulling items from the consent agenda. Currently, the rules say an item may not remain on the consent agenda if two or more people have registered to testify at least 15 minutes before the scheduled start time of the Council meeting. That provision was stricken from the proposed new rules. (Any Council member could pull any item from the consent agenda, as well.)

This is the second time the proposed rules have been postponed. But this time, Watson used the words “postponed indefinitely” for Item 92, often an indicator that the item’s sponsor has decided not to seek Council approval. Interim City Manager Jesús Garza sent a memo to Watson and Council dated July 12 requesting that the item be postponed. However, many people did not hear about that request before Thursday’s meeting, so several frequent Council speakers became alarmed and signed up to oppose the item.

When the Austin Monitor asked for a comment on the postponement, a city spokesperson said via email, “The City Manager requested a postponement of the approval of a resolution modifying the Procedures for Austin City Council Meetings, Public Hearings, and Appeals to allow for further review.”

Roy Waley, conservation chair of the Sierra Club and a longtime advocate for Barton Springs conservation, was among the speakers in opposition. At Thursday’s meeting, he said, “I want to thank you for pulling and postponing Item 92. Now, if you would, let’s do a Dracula on this thing and drive a wooden stake through its heart. Never ever say we don’t want to hear from the citizens – and let’s go back to having the three-minute engagement.”

Waley pointed to a historic example of citizen engagement as a reason to reject the revised rules. On June 7, 1990, an estimated 900 to 1,000 people showed up at a Council meeting to oppose a Planned Unit Development on Barton Creek that critics said threatened Barton Springs. More than two years later, voters approved the Save Our Springs Ordinance.

“I don’t know how many of you swim at Barton Springs, but for those of you that do, you’re welcome, because … the community got up on its hind legs and kept Council here all night long and changed a vote that, I will say, preserved Barton Springs,” Waley said. “I don’t think that’s an overstatement. So never ever say, ‘Hey, we don’t want to hear from the citizens.’”

Kaiba White, who works for Public Citizen’s Texas office, said, “I know that the extensive public engagement that you get on many issues from Austinites might sometimes feel burdensome or might slow down the process of decision-making. I think it’s actually a huge asset for our community and we should be encouraging more engagement.

“I know that many communities across Texas have much lower voter turnout and engagement in civic discussions than we have here in Austin, and I think those other places are worse off for that lack of engagement,” said White. “We should be trying to encourage more people to either show up at City Hall and speak their mind or call in, like I am right now, to share their opinions on the items that you all as elected representatives are considering for our city. So just want to thank you for postponing that and I urge you to not bring it back at any time.”

In an email to supporters on Friday, the SOS Alliance wrote: “Yesterday, the Austin City Council voted to postpone indefinitely Item 92, the proposal to cut back on the public’s right to speak at City Council meetings. Hopefully this terrible idea stays dead. State law and many decades of City Hall practice have allowed and encouraged public participation in Council’s decision making processes.”

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.