Bloomington City Council Committee on Council Processes – October 27, 2026

The Committee on Council Processes met for about one hour on October 27, 2026, with a 6:30 p.m. special council session limiting the agenda. No agenda or minutes were provided; this summary relies on the raw transcript. Participants included committee members, City Clerk Nicole Bolden, Council Attorney Jake Rossman, Chief Deputy Clerk Sophia McDowell, and Deputy Clerk Crossley online. The raw transcript opens with “Monday, October 26, 2026” and says “Wilmington,” but the system-provided meeting date is October 27, 2026, and the agenda items reference Bloomington. Discussion covered the proposed removal process for council-appointed board and commission members, an update on Bloomington Public Transportation Board expansion, and continued Title II code review. No formal votes were taken; decisions were by consensus.

Discussion Items

• Bloomington Public Transportation Board expansion update: Councilmember Stoutburgh said there was no new update. Research was still in progress, and a pros-and-cons discussion could not be placed on the October board agenda. The item was deferred.
• Proposed removal process: Council Attorney Rossman presented a draft nine- or ten-step process, noting that current ordinance 2025 allows removal “for cause” but does not prescribe a procedure. The draft covered informal and formal complaints, review and verification of claims by council staff and legal, optional staff screenings, formal notice with specific code/rule violations and a logical nexus to diminished ability to perform duties or disrupted proceedings, recusal considerations, and a floor motion for due-process notice.
• Clerk Bolden said the proposal duplicated a process already administered by the board/commission staff position under her office and shifted work onto council staff; she said the committee had previously agreed to develop this with the clerk’s office. Deputy Clerk Crossley recommended removing step 3 or clearly assigning responsibility for screenings, and said the existing process could be outlined and streamlined while continuing to involve the council attorney.
• Councilmembers generally agreed that Clerk Bolden, Deputy Clerk Crossley, and Council Attorney Rossman should jointly prepare a second draft. One councilmember emphasized that the council attorney should remain closely involved in removals. The committee also discussed whether a commission itself could censure a member under Robert’s Rules; Rossman agreed to research that option for the next meeting.
• Title II review – committee of the whole: The committee examined committee-of-the-whole provisions and questioned what “freedom of committee procedures” adds, noted the section has not been used as written, and observed that committee of the whole is now used mainly for budget discussions where no vote is taken. Members decided to check Robert’s Rules and the prior code context before proposing changes. One councilmember also recalled former council member Steve Bolin’s caution that these provisions were written that way for a reason.
• Title II review – scheduling committee meetings: The committee agreed to remove the scheduling-committee-meetings section from city code and move it into council rules of procedure instead of leaving it in code.

Public Comments & Testimony

• A speaker involved in the HPC removal matter said they generally supported the memo and the standard the council adopted in 2023 in the Alexander matter, but argued that no council member should serve as both prosecutor and judge. They called for a real hearing with access to the full file, the right to question accusers, and the right to counsel; for the vote threshold and quorum to be stated; and for the vote to be by the full council. They also said the current removal should be dismissed and restarted under any newly adopted process, and that this was their first opportunity to speak after others had been heard.
• Eric Oz said the removal-for-cause process should be formal, precise, rigorous, cautious, and not easy, and that it should be aligned with legal and constitutional authority. He argued that removal authority belongs to the appointing branch, in this case the council, and that the clerk’s office role is supportive and non-authoritative. He recommended a uniform removal process developed in collaboration with the executive branch.
• Jeff Richardson, a former council member, urged more welcoming and deeper public dialogue, including panel discussions and longer formats rather than the three- or five-minute comment limits. He said the current process can feel like one-upmanship and diminishes everyone involved.
• Terry, a public commenter, praised the council’s recent deliberative sessions as beneficial to democratic governance and public trust, asked how the council will evaluate and learn from them, and noted that the city no longer has a public engagement director, though the position still exists and the mayor’s office reportedly intends to hire someone.

Key Outcomes

• No action was taken on Bloomington Public Transportation Board expansion; the update was deferred.
• The proposed removal process was not adopted. The committee directed the clerk’s office and council attorney to prepare a second draft, clarify who conducts screenings, and return it at the next meeting.
• The removal currently before the council is expected to continue moving forward without restarting while the formal process is drafted.
• Council Attorney Rossman will provide more information on formal censure options at the next meeting.
• Title II review will continue; committee-scheduling language will be moved from code to council rules of procedure.
• The next meeting was set for Monday, November 16, 2026, at 5:30 p.m.