City of Norman Business Committee Affairs Meeting - October 1, 2026

The City of Norman's Business Committee Affairs meeting convened on Thursday, October 1, 2026, at 4:00 PM. The meeting focused on two main agenda items: updating the ordinance for the Economic Development Advisory Board (EDAB) and discussing potential conflicts of interest among city-appointed board, commission, and committee members who are parties to litigation against the city or its public trusts. City Attorney's Office representative Miss Walker led both discussions. No formal votes were taken; the committee provided direction for staff to prepare revised language for further consideration.

Discussion Items

1. Updating the EDAB Ordinance

• Miss Walker presented proposed changes to the EDAB ordinance, which were previously discussed in August. Key changes included: increasing the board size from seven to nine members, making appointments ward-specific (with one at-large member from within Norman city limits), maintaining a majority of members with required expertise (originally 4 of 7, proposed 5 of 9), updating ex-officio membership from NEDC to the Cleveland County Economic Development Coalition, updating quorum requirements, and adding duties related to reviewing economic and risk analyses for proposed TIF projects.
• A transition plan was outlined to handle existing members and fill vacancies: current members would not be removed but would be replaced with ward-specific appointees as their terms expire. Miss Walker noted that if the ordinance passes by December, new appointments could begin in January.
• Councilmember Steele proposed temporarily expanding the board to 11 members to allow appointments from all currently unrepresented wards (1, 2, 5, and 7) while retaining all current members. The board would then revert to nine in August 2027 when current terms expire. Some councilmembers (e.g., Bruce, Gainsburg) expressed concerns about board effectiveness with 11 members, preferring to keep it at nine and fill wards through natural attrition.
• Councilmember Bruce argued that the required expertise majority should be raised to 6 or 7 of 9, saying a 5-of-9 majority was too low for the board's responsibilities. He emphasized needing members with senior-level decision-making backgrounds in economics, business, finance, or law.
• Councilmember Kirby and Grant suggested broadening the expertise categories to include small business owners, home occupations, and community development experience, not just traditional roles like economists or bankers.
• Councilmember Perry supported 7 of 9 for expertise and agreed on broadening qualifications, noting successful businesspeople without college degrees should be eligible.
• Councilmember Gainsburg favored keeping the board at nine members for ward representation and supported 7 of 9 expertise to ensure qualified advice on economic development.
• Councilmember Steel agreed with 7 of 9 if broadening requirements, but noted that if the board temporarily went to 11, the expertise requirement should also increase proportionally.
• On handling unfilled ward seats, some (e.g., Steele, Gainsburg) suggested leaving a seat vacant if no qualified applicant from that ward applies, to allow future applicants from that ward.
• Consensus emerged to: (a) increase the required expertise majority to 7 of 9; (b) expand expertise criteria to explicitly include small business owners and other relevant experience; (c) consider both 9- and 11-member options for the board size; and (d) bring revised language back to the October 27 committee meeting.

2. Conflicts of Interest Among Board/Commission Members in Litigation Against the City

• Miss Walker provided an overview of current ethics policies, which require recusal for actual pecuniary conflicts but do not specifically address being a party to litigation against the city. She noted that ad hoc committees are exempt from conflict provisions.
• Councilmember Bruce expressed concern about the appearance of impropriety when a board member is a plaintiff or attorney in a lawsuit against the city, even if unrelated to the committee's work. He argued that self-reporting of lawsuits should be required, and for related lawsuits, the member should step aside.
• Councilmember Steel worried about First Amendment implications of removing someone solely for suing the city, but Miss Walker clarified that appointment is a privilege and that the city could set qualifications without violating rights.
• Councilmember Deck suggested a policy where a member voluntarily steps aside during active litigation but retains their seat, returning after the case is resolved. However, concerns were raised about extended vacancies affecting quorum.
• Councilmember Grant noted that in unrelated cases, the conflict is less clear, and she would not want to remove a passionate member serving on a different committee (e.g., a plaintiff in the Overhead policy lawsuit serving on a public safety ad hoc committee). She agreed that related conflicts should require recusal or removal.
• Councilmember Bruce emphasized that bringing up litigation in a committee meeting without being on the agenda is a violation, regardless of the lawsuit's relevance.
• Councilmember Deck proposed adding language that prohibits discussion of any city litigation in committee meetings unless it is agendized or requested from city staff.
• Councilmember Steel supported that idea, adding that if a committee member discusses litigation off-agenda, it could be an ethics violation leading to removal by council vote.
• The city clerk noted that historically, complaints about committee behavior have been handled internally through discussion; council removal via majority vote (5 of 9) is possible but rarely used.
• It was agreed that staff should be reminded and empowered to keep meetings focused on agendized items. Miss Walker will work on ethics policy and ordinance changes to address these issues and return with proposals.

Key Outcomes

• EDAB Ordinance Update: The committee provided directional consensus to: raise the required expertise majority to 7 of 9 members; expand expertise criteria to include small business owners and other relevant experience; and prepare both 9-member and 11-member transition options for the board size. Staff will bring revised language to the October 27th study session for further discussion before a formal vote.
• Conflicts of Interest: The committee directed staff to develop language for ethics policy and ordinance changes that: (a) add a qualification barring service on boards/commissions if a member is party to litigation against the city that directly relates to the committee's duties; (b) prohibit discussion of unagendized city litigation in committee meetings; and (c) clarify process for removal or recusal. Staff will bring proposals back for consideration.
• A reminder was issued to empower committee chairs and city staff to maintain order and relevance in meetings, with the city clerk’s office to coordinate training and handle any complaints.