Appleton Common Council Informal Organizational Meeting - April 15, 2025
Appleton Common Council Informal Organizational Meeting - April 15, 2025
The Appleton Common Council held an informal organizational meeting on April 15, 2025, to discuss proposed changes to the council rules, review existing rules, and address other business including a resolution on council member attendance. The meeting was led by the Mayor and included roll call, an explanation of the consent agenda format, and a rule-by-rule walkthrough. No formal votes were taken, but the discussions set the stage for the formal organizational meeting scheduled for April 16, 2025.
Discussion Items
- Consent Agenda Format Explanation: The Mayor and council president explained the consent agenda procedure, noting that items pulled for separate votes are removed from the consent agenda and that approval of the consent agenda finalizes committee decisions.
- Rules of Council Review: The council reviewed each rule from the 2024 adopted rules. Key points included:
- Invocation Limits: Alder Hartzheim raised a question about an informal two-invocation limit per alder. After discussion, it was agreed to start with two per alder, but to allow additional invocations if slots remain unfilled, relying on common courtesy.
- Rule 5 – Recognition/Time Limits: The Mayor noted that the five-minute speaking limit has not been enforced but remains an option if needed.
- Rule 6 – Motions: Clarified that the chair does not always restate motions unless requested.
- Rule 8 – Voting/Conflicts of Interest: Attorney Barons explained that conflicts are self-identified and that members must refrain from debate if abstaining. Alder Hartzheim noted the abstention also prohibits discussion.
- Rule 9 – Majority Rules: The Mayor reminded that the Rule of Eight requires at least eight affirmative votes to pass an item.
- Rule 10 – Reconsideration: Discussion about time limits (same or next meeting) and the importance of notifying the clerk's office in advance to place reconsideration on the agenda.
- Rule 14 – Call the Question: Alder Wolf explained the procedure; the Mayor noted it requires a second and a two-thirds voice vote, and it is not debatable.
- Rule 16 – Amendments: The Mayor cautioned against straying into debate on the main motion when an amendment is pending.
- Rule 22 – Committee Meetings: Alder Hartzheim asked about attendance expectations; it was clarified that committee chairs should be notified of absences and that standing committee meetings cannot start before 4:30 p.m. (but transit commission is separate).
- Rule 25 – Meeting Schedules: Alder Schultz proposed adjusting park and rec committee start times to 6:15 p.m. (successful) and suggested safety and licensing could start 15 minutes early. This will be discussed further.
- Rule 33 – Remote Meeting Participation: No changes proposed.
- Resolution 24-129 – Council Member Attendance: Alder Meltzer introduced a resolution to address unexcused absences. The resolution proposes that three unexcused absences from any council or committee meeting within a council year could lead to forfeiture of all committee assignments, with the mayor appointing replacements (subject to council ratification). Alder Meltzer emphasized it is a starting point for discussion. Several alders expressed mixed views:
- Support: Alder Firkus and Alder Hayden saw it as a way to ensure committee functionality and reduce burden on chairs. Alder Fenton noted that unexcused absences are a low bar (just notify someone) and that constituents are aware of quorum issues.
- Concerns: Alder Jones worried about burdening other alders with extra committee assignments and whether members can decline appointments. Alder Van Zeeland raised potential for manipulation (e.g., deliberately missing to get reassigned). Alder Hartzheim questioned the frequency of the problem and suggested alternative approaches like mandatory meetings with leadership.
- Amendments Suggested: Alder Van Zeeland proposed a tiered approach (meeting with mayor/president before forfeiture). Alder Stanzel Martin suggested swapping committee assignments to balance workload.
- Outcome: No formal action taken; the resolution will be taken up again at the formal meeting on April 16.
- Other Business:
- Meeting Schedule Modifications: The council discussed canceling the July 2 and January 7, 2026 meetings (proximity to holidays). Alder Meltzer supported keeping the annual vote for public awareness. No formal vote, but consensus to proceed.
- Alder Handbook: Alder Van Zeeland presented a draft “quick start” handbook for alders. Attorney Barons noted it supplements the existing official handbook. Several alders (Hartzheim, Fenton) supported it as a useful resource without formal adoption. Alder Van Zeeland suggested making it a duty of the council president to review annually.
Key Outcomes
- No formal actions were taken; all decisions will be finalized at the formal organizational meeting on April 16, 2025.
- The council will vote on the attendance resolution (24-129) with potential amendments.
- The council will vote on proposed rule changes (e.g., invocation limits, meeting schedules, committee start times) and the cancellation of July 2 and January 7 meetings.
- The alder handbook draft will be reviewed by the attorney's office and considered for future distribution as an informal guide.
- The council will also hold elections for council president, vice president, and committee chair positions at the formal meeting.
Meeting Transcript
All right, good evening. We're gonna informally call to order the informal meeting. All right. And my tie has been removed. In recognition of the informality, but uh first uh let's rise and uh join me in the Pledge of Allegiance, please. I pledge allegiance one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice. Roll call of Alders. All are represented. And roll call of officers and department heads. And all are represented. Right. So before we uh proceed here, I want to welcome our new colleagues who are with us. Welcome. Uh we'll we'll try and slow things down a little bit as as we go, especially in the informal meeting. But um even tomorrow night we'll we'll try and take our time a little bit. And if if at any point you have questions, you you all have helpful neighbors, and um please don't hesitate to raise a point of order and ask if if you have a question. And you don't even really need to raise a point of order, just flag me down or you know, get up get our attention if you have a question. It's okay, nobody expects you to know everything right now, right away. Um you may not even know where the bathroom is, uh, which is right through this hallway. Um if your card's working, otherwise hold it. Um and good luck. Uh long line of alders who've held it. Uh but but um as as we get as we get settled in here, we'll we'll make sure to build some time in. And if you have questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Um first I think we'll just talk through a little bit of our agenda format uh to to give you a sense. Uh hopefully you've been following some meetings. I've seen seen a couple of at meetings, but uh the council uses a consent agenda format, and uh in on some agendas you might have seen that actually called out as a consent agenda. Um but the way this works is all of the committee reports from each of the committees where committees take action, then come in and populate the council meeting agenda, and so that shows up as reports uh uh of committees. So you'll see that on the council agenda for tomorrow night. Uh but then we we do this part of the procedure where we ask if anybody would like separate votes on items. So what's happening there is alders are requesting separate votes uh typically for discussion, but sometimes because uh of a conflict of interest, somebody's gonna abstain and they'd like a separate vote on the item. So those items then get pulled from the consent agenda and taken up separately. So if you've seen that in meetings before we get started, that's what's happening is the council all council members are asking for separate votes on items off of the consent agenda. Because the way the consent agenda works is anything on the consent agenda, once the consent agenda is moved, seconded, discussed, and then approved, is passed. Um so pulling it out for a separate vote removes it from the consent agenda, but anything that doesn't get pulled off of that consent agenda just stays in what we call the balance of the agenda. Uh so when when I ask for a vote on the balance of the agenda, effectively we're we're asking for a motion to approve the consent agenda. So that's that's just procedurally what's happening with that part of the meeting. I thought we'd just mention that now. Uh all the friend. I was just gonna point out also that sometimes we'll not worry about an item if there's somebody that just as a courtesy to separate vote on the item that they're interested in. Yes, and thank you for mentioning that. That is also something that's really helpful for alders to keep track of. So if you have constituents that you recognize that you've talked with who are here for an item, it's it is really nice uh to pull that off and and have a separate vote. Having a separate vote doesn't mean that it's a controversial or problematic item. It just is a procedural move to uh to to help make it more efficient. That way we can get folks on their way so that they don't have to hang out uh and and wait for their item uh with the consent agenda. Yeah, uh Sherry, Alder, Alder Hartzheim, excuse me. Uh it's important to note too that approving the consent agenda means that you're approving whatever was decided at those committee meetings. So if there was a denial included in the consent agenda, you're approving the denial. Yes, and thank you for that point too.
openpublica.com