OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

February 10, 2026 City Council Study Session: Better Public Meetings and Rules of Procedure Review

City Council — Tuesday, February 10, 2026
BodyRochester, Minnesota
SessionCity Council
DateTuesday, February 10, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:34:49

Transcript — Verbatim
0:00

Okay, folks, I think we're gonna get started.

0:03

Welcome to our uh February 9th City Council study session.

0:08

We have two agenda items better public meetings update, and then we have uh city council rules and health procedure uh discussion, and then uh after that we will have an executive session and we will go into room 104 for that.

0:26

So with the better public meetings update, I see our our uh colleague, our uh consultant Nick on the line, and uh I uh I think I'll just turn it over to you, Nick, to give us uh a report on all the good work that you and uh many of us in this room and members of the community have contributed to.

0:51

Great.

0:52

Well, thanks so much for uh having me and uh I'm delighted to give an update on the work that we've been doing for the past several months in the community.

1:01

Let's give a second here to get going.

1:03

So we're gonna talk a little bit about um better public meetings and the objectives for today are to brief you all on the process to date um and what we've done.

1:18

Talk a little bit about um the recommendations of the community uh specifically, and then think and sort of hopefully tee us up uh to short create a shared framing for a leadership discussion on the next stages of of this work.

1:39

So currently, so we have about three stages of the process uh to date.

1:44

This is I would say we're roughly let's say one third of the way through the process, um, one third heading towards one fifth uh uh uh halfway through the process.

1:56

So far, we've conducted a bunch of research.

1:58

I'll talk a little bit about that.

2:00

Um there's two presentations to the community.

2:02

Uh one I'll mention um right after, but I would consider this the second presentation of the findings to the community.

2:09

And then after this, what we want to do is iterate and implements some form of recommendation or plural recommendations.

2:18

So this is what we did a little bit of the research.

2:21

Uh we conducted 25 uh interviews with uh uh a good cross section of the community from within the government, boards and commissions, city council members, staff, and then outside with residents um with um some grassroots groups with nonprofits and uh local media as well.

2:41

And then we implemented a community survey, and the survey was about was roughly four buckets of information, how the community uh views community engagement, how the community views civic infrastructure, how the community thinks about um places and spaces and digital um platforms and participation.

3:02

Uh simultaneously we and there's 58 uh responses to that survey.

3:08

Uh simultaneously you would should all be uh familiar with the scorecard.

3:13

We have this uh civic engagement scorecard that was piloted uh across your city council meetings, and that was just to provide a snapshot of um participants' experiences of the meeting to give us a general sense of so how are people participating, what are they seeing that's that's good about the meetings, where are the opportunities and what they would like to see change, and then some reflections on their their engagement with the community.

3:40

And then we had a public forum on December 4th, and there were roughly 41 people, and we had uh um a pretty constructive conversation about the um things that work well, some of the challenges and some of the opportunities that that they would like to see.

3:56

Talk about that uh in a moment.

3:59

So that's uh on the research.

4:01

And maybe I can I don't know how we want to do this.

4:05

We pause for questions now, or maybe we can move through the presentation and then you can ask questions maybe towards the end.

4:12

That might be a little bit more efficient.

4:14

What do you think?

4:15

Yeah, Nick, what I'll do is I will keep an eye on my colleagues and and uh staff.

4:21

And if there's a question, I will let you know.

4:23

Sure.

4:24

And then they will ask their question.

4:26

Happy to definitely answer any questions.

4:30

Okay.

4:32

So the outputs uh is the immediate outputs.

4:35

And I don't know if it was part of your current council packet for this, but there is there is a set of there is a very brief memo of recommendations.

4:45

So it's a it's a scoped five, I think it's roughly five pages or so that talks just strictly about the recommendations, some of the thoughts around what those would look like, and then the sort of benefit to council on why you might want to consider those.

5:00

Those are not in a inner in uh any particular order.

5:04

I'll present uh uh a similar frame of those um in a moment.

5:08

And then we have a full research report.

5:10

So I do have the full research report, um, just some slight tweaks, but um if for for those of you that want uh you know a little bit more nuanced information on how you sort of connect those recommendations to specific data and outputs.

5:26

So we have four sources of information that we're working towards, and that's um you know, the the community forum, the scorecard, the community survey, and the interviews.

5:37

And so it's a lot more detailed in in those regards, and so I thought having two separate uh documents, one more high level and scoped, and then a more detailed report um to sort of back up you know some of the things that were were said for the community forum.

5:53

This was on December 4th.

5:54

It was great to visit your community.

5:56

It was cold, uh, but it was it was still nonetheless the turnal is was was pretty good, all things considered.

6:01

41 people um we did a little bit of a uh research update, and then we broke out into round table conversations, and we have a good set of information that came from that as well.

6:16

So I believe that was also shared um with the community.

6:20

So one of the key things here is being transparent about you know the things that we've been talking about, and I think that's online.

6:27

Uh so all of the data points that were collected through our Mentimeter, it's a live poll are available to the community, and that became um part of us thinking about the research as well.

6:39

So I've been thinking, you know, you know, conducting this research, coming to the community, um uh reflecting on what we've had with the community and refolding that back into the research.

6:51

So this is a really uh uh iterative process so that you're familiar with your own co-design, but you know, you're all it's pretty much uh it's everything is almost all in your own words.

7:02

So here is as a high level of what we've been learning, like really high level.

7:06

Like I said, like there's a lot more detail in that memo, and then even further detail in that research report, which um I'll be sharing with you all.

7:15

So uh what we learned.

7:17

So what's working?

7:18

Um, there's very clearly across all of the data points a very strong civic pride and volunteer culture.

7:24

This is noted um throughout the community survey um and throughout the interviews.

7:30

Um we know that you know some of the really deep involved uh processes like co-design are are really good and unique to your community, and that even your own council meetings are run if they're viewed by through the scorecard and through others uh through other four sources of information that they come across as quite efficient and quite orderly and even respectful.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Public Engagement███████████████████████████████31%
Community Engagement███████████████████████████27%
Procedural█████████████████████21%
Ethics And Governance████████████12%
Remote Participation████4%
Legislative Advocacy██2%
Ethical Practices Board██2%
Technology and Innovation█1%
Summary of Proceedings

February 10, 2026 City Council Study Session: Better Public Meetings and Rules of Procedure Review

This study session covered two main agenda items: an update on the Better Public Meetings initiative and a review of the City Council's rules of procedure and code of conduct. The meeting was held on February 10, 2026, at 9:30 AM. No formal votes were taken; the session was largely deliberative, with council members sharing perspectives and identifying areas for potential changes.

Better Public Meetings Update

Consultant Nick presented findings from the community engagement process, which included 25 interviews, a community survey (58 responses), a civic engagement scorecard piloted at council meetings, and a public forum on December 4, 2024, with 41 attendees. Key findings highlighted:

  • Strong civic pride and volunteer culture.
  • Tensions: perceived low influence of public input, limited dialogue during meetings, and fragmented pathways between boards/commissions and council.
  • Nine community-generated actions to strengthen engagement, including improving timing and accessibility of information, engaging earlier in decision cycles, evolving meeting formats (e.g., roundtables), reinforcing safety and belonging, making public input visible, closing the feedback loop, partnering with youth/newcomers, strengthening pathways to council, establishing council visibility in the community, and sustaining co-design.

Council members discussed:

  • Remote participation: Councilmember Miller raised the barrier of requiring physical presence for public comment. Nick noted digital/async participation was touched on in the larger report.
  • Earlier engagement: Mayor and Councilmembers Keen and Palmer stressed the difficulty of getting input at the policy level vs. project level. Councilmember Wall suggested ward-based dialogues. Councilmember Keen noted that co-design implies collaboration, but input does not mean ceding control.
  • Council visibility: Several members supported having a city council tent at community events (Rochester Fest, Safe City Nights) and using city communication tools to invite residents. Councilmember Miller advocated for closing the feedback loop on public comments. Councilmember Dorring emphasized flexibility in the glide path to decision-making.
  • Digital tools: Mayor mentioned a digital platform to target invitations by ward, age, etc. Councilmember Miller noted that communication support would require budget.
  • Board and commission alignment: Councilmember Keen cautioned that council sometimes overrides board recommendations, creating frustration.

City Council Rules of Procedure and Code of Conduct Review

Administrator Zelms facilitated a discussion on the purpose and specifics of the rules. Key topics:

  • Council Initiated Actions (CIAs): There was broad agreement that CIAs should be used to direct staff to bring back a report, not to take immediate action or spend money, unless an emergency is declared by suspending the rules (requiring 5 votes). Councilmembers Palmer, Keen, and Mayor supported this two-step process. Councilmember Miller suggested adding a requested motion to the CIA form. Mayor noted that CIAs have been overused.
  • Other Business: Councilmembers expressed discomfort with voting on substantive items under other business due to lack of notice. Councilmember Palmer and Fredericks emphasized the need for well-vetted decisions. Councilmember Keen noted that suspending rules could allow emergency votes.
  • Remote Participation for Council: The state law changed in May 2024, allowing unlimited remote participation. Council discussed two options: fully aligning with state law (Councilmember Keen) or a narrow tweak allowing remote participation for official city travel (Councilmember Miller). Councilmember Palmer supported aligning with state law. There was also discussion of allowing more flexibility for study sessions (no votes). Administrator indicated they would bring back a proposal. For boards and commissions, consensus was to limit remote participation to a few times per year.
  • Travel and Training: The budget increased back to pre-2024 levels. Councilmembers generally felt the current process worked, with Councilmember Keen noting that it can make city representation look like personal spending. Councilmember Dorring suggested renaming to include professional development.
  • Legislative Advocacy Letters: Councilmember Palmer and Keen emphasized that letters should align with council-adopted priorities to avoid confusion. Mayor noted that letters for national league events follow a different process. Administrator suggested clarifying that letters of support for grants should be reviewed by council.
  • Council Presence in City Hall: Council President Schubring proposed a more visible council space for drop-in meetings. Councilmembers Wall and Keen felt ward meetings outside City Hall were more effective. Councilmember Keen noted existing third-floor space is rarely used. Councilmember Miller supported the idea for safety and visibility. No strong consensus, but interest in piloting a first-floor space.
  • Voting Order: Councilmember Miller proposed rotating the voting order every six months to share the advantage of voting later. Councilmember Fredericks preferred the current system; Councilmember Keen was open to rotation. No decision.
  • Public Comments at Study Sessions: Council President Schubring suggested adding a public comment period at the end of study sessions. Mayor preferred a roundtable format to allow dialogue. Councilmember Keen noted it could be a listening session and suggested using public hearings more often. Councilmember Palmer opposed, citing potential for extended meetings.
  • Agenda Process: Council President Schubring requested a longer glide path (10 days) and oversight of the agenda. Councilmember Palmer opposed sharing draft agendas publicly. Councilmember Keen suggested training council members on how to find information rather than sending drafts. Administrator noted the challenge of forecasting less predictable items.
  • Mayor's Proposed Changes to Board and Commission Rules: Mayor proposed minor technical changes: (1) attendance reporting should be done by staff/chair, not each member; (2) term limits should be “two full consecutive terms” to avoid ambiguity; (3) align public comment time from 4 minutes to 2 minutes to parallel council rules. Councilmembers Keen and others supported the two-minute change. Mayor will bring the package to a consent agenda.
  • Parliamentary Training: Councilmember Keen suggested training on motions, points of order, and other procedural rules to improve meeting conduct.

Key Outcomes

  • The Better Public Meetings consultant will digest the council's feedback and bring back a refined set of recommendations and a work plan for piloting engagement strategies.
  • The city administrator will draft an updated council remote participation policy aligning with state law, likely with a limited number of exceptions, and bring it back for a vote.
  • Council-initiated actions will be encouraged to request staff analysis rather than immediate action, with a potential form adjustment to include a requested motion.
  • The mayor will bring forward a consent agenda item with minor technical changes to board and commission rules (attendance reporting, term limits, public comment time reduced to 2 minutes).
  • No formal votes were taken; all outcomes are consensus-based directions for staff to prepare future proposals.

Meeting Transcript

Okay, folks, I think we're gonna get started. Welcome to our uh February 9th City Council study session. We have two agenda items better public meetings update, and then we have uh city council rules and health procedure uh discussion, and then uh after that we will have an executive session and we will go into room 104 for that. So with the better public meetings update, I see our our uh colleague, our uh consultant Nick on the line, and uh I uh I think I'll just turn it over to you, Nick, to give us uh a report on all the good work that you and uh many of us in this room and members of the community have contributed to. Great. Well, thanks so much for uh having me and uh I'm delighted to give an update on the work that we've been doing for the past several months in the community. Let's give a second here to get going. So we're gonna talk a little bit about um better public meetings and the objectives for today are to brief you all on the process to date um and what we've done. Talk a little bit about um the recommendations of the community uh specifically, and then think and sort of hopefully tee us up uh to short create a shared framing for a leadership discussion on the next stages of of this work. So currently, so we have about three stages of the process uh to date. This is I would say we're roughly let's say one third of the way through the process, um, one third heading towards one fifth uh uh uh halfway through the process. So far, we've conducted a bunch of research. I'll talk a little bit about that. Um there's two presentations to the community. Uh one I'll mention um right after, but I would consider this the second presentation of the findings to the community. And then after this, what we want to do is iterate and implements some form of recommendation or plural recommendations. So this is what we did a little bit of the research. Uh we conducted 25 uh interviews with uh uh a good cross section of the community from within the government, boards and commissions, city council members, staff, and then outside with residents um with um some grassroots groups with nonprofits and uh local media as well. And then we implemented a community survey, and the survey was about was roughly four buckets of information, how the community uh views community engagement, how the community views civic infrastructure, how the community thinks about um places and spaces and digital um platforms and participation. Uh simultaneously we and there's 58 uh responses to that survey. Uh simultaneously you would should all be uh familiar with the scorecard. We have this uh civic engagement scorecard that was piloted uh across your city council meetings, and that was just to provide a snapshot of um participants' experiences of the meeting to give us a general sense of so how are people participating, what are they seeing that's that's good about the meetings, where are the opportunities and what they would like to see change, and then some reflections on their their engagement with the community. And then we had a public forum on December 4th, and there were roughly 41 people, and we had uh um a pretty constructive conversation about the um things that work well, some of the challenges and some of the opportunities that that they would like to see. Talk about that uh in a moment. So that's uh on the research. And maybe I can I don't know how we want to do this. We pause for questions now, or maybe we can move through the presentation and then you can ask questions maybe towards the end. That might be a little bit more efficient. What do you think? Yeah, Nick, what I'll do is I will keep an eye on my colleagues and and uh staff. And if there's a question, I will let you know. Sure. And then they will ask their question. Happy to definitely answer any questions. Okay. So the outputs uh is the immediate outputs. And I don't know if it was part of your current council packet for this, but there is there is a set of there is a very brief memo of recommendations. So it's a it's a scoped five, I think it's roughly five pages or so that talks just strictly about the recommendations, some of the thoughts around what those would look like, and then the sort of benefit to council on why you might want to consider those. Those are not in a inner in uh any particular order. I'll present uh uh a similar frame of those um in a moment. And then we have a full research report. So I do have the full research report, um, just some slight tweaks, but um if for for those of you that want uh you know a little bit more nuanced information on how you sort of connect those recommendations to specific data and outputs. So we have four sources of information that we're working towards, and that's um you know, the the community forum, the scorecard, the community survey, and the interviews. And so it's a lot more detailed in in those regards, and so I thought having two separate uh documents, one more high level and scoped, and then a more detailed report um to sort of back up you know some of the things that were were said for the community forum. This was on December 4th. It was great to visit your community. It was cold, uh, but it was it was still nonetheless the turnal is was was pretty good, all things considered. 41 people um we did a little bit of a uh research update, and then we broke out into round table conversations, and we have a good set of information that came from that as well. So I believe that was also shared um with the community. So one of the key things here is being transparent about you know the things that we've been talking about, and I think that's online.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com