Sarasota City Commission Rules of Procedure Workshop - March 18, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Sarasota City Commission Rules of Procedure Workshop - March 18, 2025
The Sarasota City Commission held a workshop on March 18, 2025, from approximately 10:01 AM to 12:53 PM in the SRQ Media Studio, to continue and finalize proposed revisions to the City Commission Rules of Procedure. The meeting was chaired by Vice Mayor Debbie Trice, with Mayor Liz Alpert arriving at 10:02 AM and Commissioner Kyle Scott Battie arriving at 10:04 AM. City Auditor and Clerk Shayla Griggs led the discussion through proposed changes page by page.
Discussion Items
- Rule V.B – Orders of the Day: Added language allowing changes to the Orders of the Day by consensus of the Commission; if no consensus, a formal motion is needed. The Commission expressed no additional input and agreed the language was working.
- Rule V.C – Consent Agenda Removal: Removed reference to “via email, telephone or in person” and replaced with “by advising the Charter Officials in advance.” The time certain requirement was eliminated per previous discussion; commissioners may still pull items at the dais.
- Rule VI.C – Presiding Officer / Parliamentarian: Changed “Consistent with the City Charter” to “Pursuant to the City Charter Article VI, Sec. 5, sub-section F.” The Commission commended the expanded role of the City Auditor and Clerk as parliamentarian and the Mayor's increased guidance.
- Rule VII.F – Citizens’ Input (30-minute limit): Extensive debate occurred. Some commissioners opposed any hard limit, while others argued a limit provides a procedural off-ramp. The final consensus: retain the 30-minute limit but allow the Commission to extend public comment by additional 30-minute increments via majority vote, consistent with Florida Statute 286.0114(4)(d).
- Rule VII.M – Public Hearing Time Limits: Approved as highlighted.
- Rule X.C – Rules of Debate (Question Rounds): After rejecting a fixed three rounds of three questions each, the Commission adopted: “ten minutes for the first round, five minutes for the second round, and three minutes for all subsequent rounds. Commissioners will not ask another round of questions until every Commissioner who desires to ask questions has had an opportunity to do so.”
- Rule X.D – Speaking Second Time: Changed “cannot” to “will not” to read “Commissioners will not speak the second time on a motion until every Commissioner who desires to speak on it has had an opportunity to do so once.”
- Rule XI.I.A.3 – Remarks by Commissioners: Discussed concerns that remarks had become performative or merely listing attended events. No formal rule change was made, but consensus favored shifting to brief, substantive reports on board/committee actions, with written summaries distributed via email or agenda attachments.
- Rule XI.II – Petitioner vs. Applicant: Changed “petitioner(s)” to “applicant(s)” throughout.
- Rule XII – Sergeant-at-Arms: Added “or the City Manager” to the line giving instructions for maintaining order. Also, it was agreed to add “Mayor and Vice Mayor” as individuals who can announce that a speaker’s time has expired, to provide clear escalation authority.
- Special vs. Emergency Meetings: Clarified that a special meeting is for business requiring a directive or policy vote (cannot vote at a workshop), while an emergency meeting addresses urgent, unforeseen circumstances. Two commissioners may request a special meeting through staff without violating sunshine laws.
- Workshop Public Input: Decided not to allow public input at workshops by default, but the notice may specify if input will be allowed.
- Cancelling Meetings: Authority rests with the City Manager in coordination with the Mayor/Vice Mayor during emergencies.
- Adjournment Time (Rule VII.R): Removed the parenthetical requiring a 2/3 vote to continue past 5:00 PM.
- Leading Motions: Agreed that the presiding officer should simply ask “Is there a motion?” rather than making a leading motion.
- Gender Pronouns: Agreed to replace “his/her” with “their” throughout.
- Friendly Amendments: Commissioner Ohlrich raised a point of order that denying a friendly amendment without a vote violates Robert's Rules of Order. The Commission agreed to follow Robert's Rules: an amendment is moved, seconded, debated, and voted on.
- Backup Material Deadlines: Reaffirmed that substantive changes to backup materials must be submitted by the Wednesday before the meeting (current deadline is 17 days for agenda items). Materials handed out at the dais should not be expected to be read during the meeting; changes must be clearly communicated, and if substantive, may require the item to be continued.
- Ringling Museum and TIF Discussion: Commissioner Ahearn-Koch alerted the Commission to a bill placing the Ringling Museum under New College and a potential request for the City to take over. Vice Mayor Trice raised the question of interpreting TIF fund usage for Van Wezel; the City Attorney noted the codified resolution governs.
Key Outcomes
- Consensus reached on most proposed rule changes; the final document will be presented as a Resolution and amended Ordinance for a formal vote at a future Commission meeting.
- Agreed to revisit the Rules of Procedure every odd-numbered year in January, shortly after new commissioners are seated.
- No formal votes were taken at this workshop; all decisions are guiding consensus for staff to prepare the final version.
Meeting Transcript
And we don't have the cheat sheet, so you don't need that for work. Shall we just start opening the meeting? Okay. I uh am calling the March 18th City Commission workshop meeting to order at 10 a.m. Sorry. Thank you. Um and the agenda item is the continued discussion of the City Commission rules of procedure. And I think I'm gonna turn it over to Ms. Griggs. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Okay, so today we are trying to do a little bit of a wrap-up on the commission rules and procedures so we can get this kind of finalized what you all are looking for and then bring it officially to the commission for a vote. We will also have to do um uh we have a resolution. Is it either resolution or orders change as well with that? So we'll we'll tie all that down. So first things first, I kind of want to go through this, highlight everything that was changed, and then we can discuss anything else that you all may have suggestions. Okay. Should we discuss it while you're go while we're going paragraph by paragraph? Well, let's do this. I will say let's go paragraph by paragraph that I the the things that we changed and what we heard from you all as a collective and make those suggested changes, and then if you want, we can go through come back and just say, okay, I would like to maybe suggest we change this. What do you all think? If if you don't want to do that, it's up to you. I'm just trying to make it easy and clean. Um so we'll start with page two. Up on the screen, Chia. Yes, please. Page two, rule five, agenda B on the underlying part here. Sorry, let me get my I was okay with that. Let me grow down to it here so everybody can see what we're talking about. Everybody's good with that. Yeah, and I think we've been doing that. It's worked well. Yeah. So it was already in our rules of procedure, we just weren't doing it. So okay, everybody's good there. Next page is missing some C on page three. Yes, on page three C and I would actually ask um the charter officials if that's working, because I haven't had any problem getting my requests to pull consent items uh in advance. And you know, you can say if everybody else has been doing it. So I'm so far it's been fine. If you guys have a problem with it, let me know. I was just wondering if we shouldn't state in there somewhere that um while it's preferred, right? That we give advanced notice that items it like we expressly stated items still can be pulled at the table. Like if something arises at that moment and you say, Oh gosh, I didn't know, you know, I mean we still have the opportunity and should that be expressly stated. But it does say that. Where the second paragraph on under item C, it says commissioners should make every effort. It doesn't say you have to, so but so my question was should we expressly state it so that commissioners in the future know they can still pull it at the table? I think they're smart enough to be able to see that they should do something. I don't read this as it's stopping you from do it. I'm reading it as hey, we would like for you to try to do it, but you know, in it's up to you all as a board how you want us to read. I've just I doesn't I don't read it as a stopping you all from that. To me, it's clear enough.
openpublica.com