Rules Committee Meeting Review of Council Rules – August 19, 2026
Rules Committee Meeting Review of Council Rules – August 19, 2026
The Rules Committee of the Council of Commissioners met on August 19, 2026, to continue reviewing the Council's rules of order, focusing on Communication 2026-270 which requests a professional outside review. The committee discussed multiple rules, identified inconsistencies, and agreed on amendments to be included in a future redline version.
Discussion Items
- Rule 31 – Abstentions and Excused Votes: The committee agreed to define criteria for conflicts of interest, referencing Montana Code Annotated (MCA) Title 2, Chapter 2, Part 1. Members must state on the record the reason for abstaining, and a majority vote of present members is required to excuse a vote. The effect of an abstention on majority calculations was discussed, with the intent to clarify that an abstention does not reduce the total number of commissioners for supermajority requirements.
- Rule 32 – Signed Ballot: The committee agreed to replace “signed ballot” with “recorded vote” (e.g., roll call) to ensure public transparency, as secret ballots are not permitted for public officials.
- Rule 34 – Motion for Reconsideration: Clarified that a second is not required from a member of the prevailing side; any commissioner may second. The motion must specify a time and date, but no later than the next regular meeting. The committee noted that a motion for reconsideration cannot be made after a right has vested (e.g., a signed contract).
- Rule 36 – Ordinance/Resolution Introduction: The current rule conflicts with charter and ordinance requirements for two readings. The committee decided to split the rule to align with standard procedures and define emergency ordinances separately, noting that suspension of rules should be reserved for genuine emergencies (e.g., disaster response), not missed deadlines.
- Contract Review Process: The rule requiring all bonds and contracts to be referred to the county attorney is not currently followed. The committee discussed the need for clear language on when and how contracts are reviewed, including the distinction between “form” and “substance.” Concerns were raised about workload and potential for attorney gatekeeping. No final decision was reached; the committee will consider options for the next meeting.
- Standing Committees – Quorum and Public Comment: The committee reviewed Rule XLI (Committee on Committees) and the process for filling vacancies. They also discussed compliance with open meeting laws, noting that standing committee meetings are subject to MCA requirements for posting notices, allowing public comment, and keeping substantive minutes. The committee agreed to consider adding a public comment period and ensuring minutes capture discussion, not just action items.
Key Outcomes
- The committee voted to hold Communication 2026-270 in abeyance (motion passed unanimously) to allow further refinement of the rules. The next meeting is expected to produce a redline version of the rules for the full Council.
- Specific directives:
- County Attorney Matt Enruth to draft language incorporating MCA conflict-of-interest standards into Rule 31.
- Staff to prepare a revised Rule 32 replacing “signed ballot” with “recorded vote.”
- The committee will revisit contract review process and standing committee public comment procedures at the next meeting.
- No formal votes were taken on the substantive rule changes; all decisions were directional and will be incorporated into the redline document.
Meeting Transcript
All right, I will call to order the rules committee meeting for um today, August nineteenth. Um, for roll call. Um, all commissioners are present. Commissioner Morgan, Commissioner Fisher, myself, Commissioner Shea. Um, also in attendance is Ashley Kent from the local government center and county attorney Matt Enruth. Um, item on the agenda is communication 2026-270, Michelle Shea District 2 Commissioner requesting Council of Commissioners to request a professional outside review of the Council of Commissioners rules and order of business. Um we will kind of pick up where we left off at the last meeting from the last meeting. Or adjourn early and then hopefully move towards a red line version of the rules at the next meeting next month. Okay, so I believe we ended at Rule 31 on page 11 of the PDF copy of the rules. So I would turn the floor over to Ms. Kent. Thank you so much, Commissioner. Um Rule 31, there's a couple of notes in this one, and it is related to majority vote and ex or abstention or excusable vote. Um says majority vote of members of the council present. Let me go back up. Each member shall vote on every question submitted to the council unless excused by a majority vote of the members of the council present. Um my note in here is that I would consider defining what the criteria are for a conflict of interest or a reason to abstain. Well, I do appreciate the majority vote of the members, so we're not leaving that decision to an individual. I think it's helpful to have a clear set of criteria that would qualify uh someone for not taking part in a vote. So that's first piece. Second piece, it well, let's do that one first. They can be separate. I agree. They need to state why they are abstaining, because we we have ran into problems with this that people were using it just, you know, I know Michelle Shea, and so I'm not gonna vote on this one. And it's like that's by definition of the MCA, that's not a reason. So that's why that came into play. Yeah, I would agree with that. I know that it had come up. Um, you know, it's a small town, so um we had a former member of the council whose company entered into contracts with the company. This person was simply an employee, not an owner, or nor did they have any other interest in the in the company. So uh in my mind that would that does not constitute necessarily something worth disclosing, but I also don't know that it's our job up here is to make decisions. Um so anyway, we can defer to the county attorney when we get to adding criteria. And a lot of that criteria is established in the statutes. You know, you can look at what an actual conflict is with regards to a commission member owning a business, you know, voting on something that directly affects their business or a contract that's involved in that business. I mean, that's clearly defined by statute, which is nice. Um I do agree that I don't think you can go as far as well. I'm uh an employee of that company. You have no, if you have no authoritative power over the company, just like the statute states, you know, I don't think that you should be able to abstain from voting because you just don't want to vote. Uh yeah, and we can we can parse that out. I think that's a good thing to put in here that they have to put on the record why they're not voting. And the next question would be though, is well, I guess that's why you would have a majority vote of the members say okay, you take a majority vote of all members based off of what they've presented as their conflict. Yeah. Uh thank you, Chairman Jay. Thank you, County Attorney and Ruth. I believe uh somewhere I read that it was just stated it has to be a direct benefit. You know, the word benefit is the word, whether it'd be financial or you know, some type of benefit. It's that's thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Fisher. Um, I'm wondering if uh the committee would consider just adding reference to the statute in the rules. Adding a reference to multiple statutes.
openpublica.com