Durham City Council Procedures Committee Meeting - March 27, 2024

The Durham City Council Procedures Committee convened on March 27, 2024, at 7:30 PM (as specified) to continue its review and potential revision of the City Council's Rules of Procedure and Code of Ethics. The meeting featured extensive presentations and discussions led by City Attorney Kim Rehburg, who presented draft documents for both the Rules of Procedure and the Code of Ethics. Committee members debated key provisions relating to council member conduct, complaint processes, remote participation, agenda setting, and organizational meeting structure. No final votes were taken on the drafts, and the committee agreed to reconvene for further deliberation.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Minutes (January 31, 2020): The committee unanimously approved the minutes from the previous Procedures Committee meeting held on January 31, 2020. (Motion by Councilmember Caballero, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Middleton, passed unanimously.)

Discussion Items

• City Attorney Overview: City Attorney Kim Rehburg provided a historical overview of the Durham City Council's Rules of Procedure and Code of Ethics. She noted that the current procedures were originally drafted in 1994 and have been revised multiple times by prior city attorneys. Rehburg assured the committee that her office is well equipped to handle the revisions and emphasized that work would be performed under attorney supervision, not solely by interns. She also highlighted that many peer cities' codes are simpler and more user-friendly, which informed her draft.
• Draft Code of Ethics: Rehburg presented a comprehensive rewrite of the Code of Ethics tailored specifically for the city council. Key elements included:
  • Five mandatory components required by state statute (following the law, integrity, avoidance of impropriety, faithful performance of duties, open conduct).
  • Expanded definitions and examples under each principle, drawn from model codes and peer cities (Wilmington, Charlotte, Cary).
  • New disclosure requirements (forms due February 1 after swearing-in, rather than the previous May deadline).
  • A detailed enforcement section with escalating actions: admonition (majority vote, non-specific), warning letter (majority vote, member-specific), reprimand (written or verbal), and censure (two-thirds vote, reserved for serious or repeated violations).
  • A formal complaint process allowing any individual to submit a complaint to the city clerk's office, with review by the city attorney's office and potential referral to independent outside counsel for investigation. The complaint must cite a specific provision of the code or state/federal law.
  • Discussion of a 'gatekeeping' mechanism to address frivolous or repeated complainants; consensus to require complaints to cite specific provisions, which could discourage baseless filings.
  • The committee generally supported the draft but requested minor adjustments, including clarifying that the presiding officer can issue an admonition without a formal vote, and ensuring the complaint process explicitly requires citation of a specific code provision or law.
• Draft Rules of Procedure: Rehburg explained a complete reorganization of the Rules of Procedure to consolidate separate rules for regular meetings and work sessions, eliminate redundant charter language, and add new provisions. Key discussion points included:
  • Organizational Meeting: The committee debated whether the initial meeting after an election should be purely ceremonial. The draft limits business to legally required and necessary items. Committee members expressed a desire to clarify that the organizational meeting is not combined with a business meeting, to preserve a celebratory atmosphere. The city attorney agreed to refine the language.
  • Remote Participation: A new section on remote council participation (via audio/video) was presented. The committee discussed whether remote attendance should count for quorum and voting (state law generally requires physical presence for voting). There was consensus that remote participation could be counted as attendance for purposes of excused absences, but not for voting or quorum. Councilmember Rist suggested that remote participation should be noted in the record as "present remotely". The city attorney was asked to add language stating that remote participation constitutes attendance for attendance record purposes.
  • Council-Initiated Agenda Items: The draft included a process for council members to request items be placed on future agendas, with an objection provision requiring a two-thirds vote to override an objection from another council member or the city manager. Councilmember Middleton raised concerns about the city manager having veto power over council agenda items, arguing the agenda is the council's purview. The committee discussed typical practice: council members request items at work sessions, and if no majority objects (simple majority consent), the item is added. Consensus was to codify the current practice of simple majority consent at work sessions, without city manager veto. The two-thirds requirement would be removed.
  • Attendance Rules: The draft clarified attendance requirements and linked excessive unexcused absences to potential discipline under the code of ethics. It also referenced the charter provision that a seat becomes vacant after five consecutive unexcused absences unless excused by a majority resolution.
  • Summer Recess: The committee noted the existing procedure lacks a July recess; the draft would formalize the current practice of having a work session in July but not a regular meeting. City Attorney Rehburg was asked to research statutory requirements for a public comment period at least once per month, which may necessitate a July work session.

Key Outcomes

• No Final Approval: The committee did not take a vote to approve either the draft Code of Ethics or the draft Rules of Procedure. It was determined that more time is needed to refine both documents based on the day's discussion.
• Further Committee Meeting: Chair Caballero noted that the initial goal of passing the revisions by the June 17 budget vote was unlikely due to the substantive scope. The committee agreed to reconvene for a subsequent meeting to continue the walkthrough and finalize language. The city attorney will incorporate the discussed changes and circulate revised drafts.
• Action Items for City Attorney:
  • Refine the organizational meeting language to specify no combined business meeting.
  • Clarify remote participation as counting for attendance but not voting/quorum, with a notation in the record.
  • Adjust the agenda item initiation process to require only majority consent at a work session, without city manager veto.
  • Add a requirement that complaints under the Code of Ethics must cite a specific provision of the code or applicable law.
  • Research July meeting requirements regarding public comment.
• Next Steps: The committee chair will work with the city attorney and clerk to schedule the next Procedures Committee meeting.