South Lake Tahoe council adopts direction to revise meeting protocols after debate over long meetings and public comments

The South Lake Tahoe City Council unanimously voted to direct staff to revise its meeting protocols after hours of discussion on meeting length, repeated public testimony and how the council uses electronic devices during meetings.

Council Member Scott Robbins moved a package of changes that the council asked staff to draft into formal updates. The motion, which carried unanimously, asked staff to insert an explicit chain-of-succession procedure to elect an acting chair if both the mayor and mayor pro tem are unavailable; to replace a strict "prohibition" on repetitious comments with a public-participation request asking speakers to be concise; to relax an absolute ban on device use so that only electronic communications about city business during meetings are prohibited; to add on-screen speaking-time reminders for council members; and to allow the agenda planner to set "no earlier than" time‑certain start times for items expected to draw heavy public interest.

"I move to update the city council protocols to include a clause on chain of succession...and that the mayor shall include a public participation protocol request," Council Member Robbins said while laying out the motion. The council clerk confirmed the motion was seconded and the measure carried with all members present voting in favor.

The action followed public comment and an extended council exchange about long evening meetings, especially those that attracted repetitive testimony on short-term vacation rentals (VHRs). Public commenter David Gregor told the council: "This council recently has not been doing a good job of efficiently running through meetings, finishing night meetings before 10:00. That's of concern to me." Several council members said repetitive testimony and rehashing topics had lengthened meetings and offered operational fixes including using the Granicus timer as a visual reminder and placing more routine items on consent.

Councilors and staff also discussed the legal limits on restricting public speakers under the Brown Act. City staff and the city attorney advised that strict prohibitions of repeat comments could run afoul of state law and recommended that protocol language be framed as recommendations to the public rather than as enforceable prohibitions.

Council members asked staff to return with draft ordinance-language or protocol edits for formal adoption at a future meeting. The council instructed staff to draft the changes discussed — including the proposed wording of the public-participation request and practical guidance on timers, electronic-communication limits and possible time-certain scheduling for high-interest items — and bring the revised protocols back for consideration.