Council debates notice, recording and scope for "noticed meetings" under proposed SOP

City staff proposed changes to the council’s rules and procedures to formally define "noticed meetings"—meetings between multiple council members outside regular sessions—and to require notice, published topics and clerk‑maintained minutes and audio recordings.

"I put in here as a starter number, posted no fewer than 5 calendar days prior to the day the notice meeting is held," the staff attorney said, citing a conservative starting point while noting Orange County uses a 48‑hour rule.

Council members were divided. One councilor argued the proposed structure could feel untransparent and even implicate First Amendment concerns if it restricted time, place or manner of speech. Another member said the meetings as they have been conducted were legally defensible and could be an opportunity to improve legislative governance.

Discussion points included whether recordings and clerk attendance should be mandated for meetings outside normal business hours, whether agendas should be specific or broad, and whether a 2‑day or 5‑day notice window best balances transparency and flexibility. Several council members said they would accept a 5‑day posting requirement so long as meetings were held in city facilities and recorded; others favored a shorter 48‑hour notice to allow more responsiveness.

Council directed staff to redraft the SOP with agreed clarifications (broad agenda language, recordings, and a 5‑day posted‑notice baseline as a starting preference) and return for further consideration.