Houston City Council sets rules for considering member-led municipal proposals

The Houston City Council has set rules for considering proposals submitted by its members, intended to give district representatives more power over policy.

Voters passed Proposition A last November, a charter amendment that allows three council members to add items to a meeting agenda as long as they are legal. This historic change was meant to act as a form of checks and balances for Houston’s “strong mayor” system, where the mayor has historically held almost all control over city policy and meeting agendas.

The vote comes after months of wrangling between council members and Mayor John Whitmire’s administration over how the historic charter change would play out in practice. The newly established rules include several amendments from council members that ensure feedback in the proposal development process, as well as assurance that items will not die in committee.

This is not the final step for the rules – they will be voted on by the City Council at a later meeting.

Shortly after taking office, Whitmire created the Proposition A committee, designed to help council members develop policy by having a mechanism to review proposals before placing them on the agenda of a meeting. But board members argued the committee shrouded the process in unnecessary red tape and violated the true intent of the rule change.

PROPOSAL A IN PRACTICE: Tensions flare at Houston City Council over historic rule change approved by voters

Council members will now have the option to submit their proposals directly to the council or send them to Proposal Committee A. The proposal will then be subject to legal review.

When the committee last released its rules in April, council members were concerned about undue influence in the proposal process, since the city attorney’s office and department heads report directly to the mayor. The administration said it would cooperate with council members on the proposals.

If a proposal comes before the committee, members can now vote to send it to the board’s agenda, send it back to administration who can then involve relevant department heads and legal departments before sending it to another committee for a vote, or vote against the proposal.

A negative vote on a proposal means the item will no longer be heard by the commission, but may be rewritten and heard again, said commission Chairwoman Mary Nan Huffman.

Council member Julian Ramirez wanted the rules changed to make it clear that council members had the right to have an item heard by the council, regardless of the committee’s decision on the matter.

While some council members questioned the redundancy of Ramirez’s amendment and a representative from the city attorney’s office said it was not legally necessary, Ramirez said the change served as a reminder to those who are skeptical of the committee that their proposals would be heard as indicated in the charter.

“Part of this is a message to council members: Nothing here is going to infringe on their right to submit (a proposal),” Ramirez said.

Joaquín Martinez proposed that department representatives and experts on the proposals be present at the meetings to provide support and answer questions.

A proposal A proposal floated by council member Edward Pollard in April would have changed parking meter monitoring times at all meters across the city, but it drew anger from community stakeholders and council members whose districts would be affected. Their comments were not solicited by the proposal’s authors before it appeared on the agenda, and none of the parking meter proposal authors had parking meters in their neighborhoods. The districts of Martinez and Councilor Mario Castillo are home to the majority of meters.

The proposal was tabled by Pollard’s team for an indefinite period.

Martinez’s amendments also require the city’s legal department to provide information or answer questions 48 hours before the council considers the proposal, and if no meeting is scheduled to discuss the proposals, the president must call a extraordinary meeting to discuss the item at least 14 days later. The legal department completes its review.

SET THE RULES:City Council members clash over Proposition A rules, saying they put Houston at risk of ‘dictatorial’ mayors

While Council Member Amy Peck proposed a rule change that would make Council member proposals automatically appear on the Council agenda even if quorum was not present at the committee meeting, Council member Carolyn Evans-Shabazz questioned the need for a quorum at the committee meeting. to start.

Since all 16 council members are part of the Proposition A committee, nine must be present to vote on any matter brought before it.

Evans-Shabazz said she saw the committee as a space to “air out” proposals and didn’t want a lack of quorum to impact whether proposals moved forward or not.

“This could also be an opportunity for people to come together and say ‘We’re not coming, we’re not going to this meeting,'” Evans-Shabazz said.

Steven David, the mayor’s deputy chief of staff, said a quorum is required to avoid violating city rules regarding discussing municipal business without a sufficient number of council members present.

If the committee wanted to change its rules to change the committee from a body as a whole to one made up of fixed members, it could, David said.

Huffman said she is confident the committee will continue to meet quorum requirements in the future.