Two Councilmembers Opposed the New Majority Support Requirement

CITRUS HEIGHTS, CA (MPG) - The consent calendar for Citrus Heights City Council meetings often includes second readings of items already publicly discussed and approved, so the Council generally votes on the consent calendar without further discussion.  But the October 8 consent calendar included an item requesting approval of amendments to the City of Citrus Heights City Council Handbook—an item that had not received any public discussion.

The City Council Handbook is frequently reviewed and updated to reflect current Council policy. After a recent review, City staff suggested changing the procedure for councilmembers to request future agenda items for Council consideration. Under the established policy, an item would be placed on a future agenda if it were suggested by one councilmember and seconded by another. The proposed amendment would require the item be supported by an additional councilmember, so majority support would be needed for an item to be considered.  

According to the staff report, the cities of Rancho Cordova, Roseville, Folsom, Davis, and Elk Grove all require majority support for proposed agenda items. The report states that the amendment will “bring the city in conformity with the best practice” of other cities in the region and ensure “that time and resources are expended upon researching and developing programs that a majority of the council is interested in exploring.”

Citrus Heights resident David Warren submitted a public comment opposing the amendment: “City residents must have guaranteed access to request agenda items for consideration … That can only be accomplished when the minority of councilmembers have sufficient strength to break through popular consensus.” He stated that the proposed change would ensure that “only the prevailing majority of councilmembers will have matters considered for public discussion.”

Warren referred to the change as “an end run around the Brown Act’s guarantee of public discourse.” He argued that the majority support requirement would mean that a councilmember would have to “lobby at least two other councilmembers before a meeting to obtain concurrence, effectively a tacit vote in support of an agenda item even before a public hearing, comment and vote on a proposed matter.” He said this change would result in issues being “decided secretly among the majority councilmembers.” Warren said the idea was “repugnant and should be rejected.”

Tim Schaefer, current chair of the Citrus Height Planning Commission and a 2020 candidate for the District 3 seat on the City Council, wrote that requiring the agreement of at least three councilmembers “gives the appearance of attempting to prevent a minority of councilmembers from setting a matter on the agenda.” He said the item “should be removed from the agenda and sent to a committee for public hearing to allow all members of the community to submit recommendations for and/or object to the City’s proposed amendments.”

When the Council moved forward to vote on the consent calendar, Councilmember Bret Daniels requested that the handbook amendment item be pulled for a separate vote. He also asked the City Manager Chris Boyd whether there were problems with the two-person system and to provide a public explanation of the issue.

Boyd stated that majority support is “a more common practice” and the proposed amendment would ensure that items coming before Council are “more actionable.”

Councilmember Daniels said, “We’re elected to represent citizens, residents. We’re their voice, and we bring their voice to council meetings.” Daniels pointed out that there are less than four weeks until the election, and the current Council will only have two more meetings before a new Council is seated.

With the new district-based election system going into effect this year, seats for Districts 1 and 3 are up for election in November. District 3 is currently vacant, so at least one new member will be joining the Council. Councilmember Daniels and Mayor Jeff Slowey are both in the new District 1. While Mayor Slowey is not running for re-election, Daniels is running again, along with a new candidate for that District.  Daniels said, “We may see two new councilmembers on the Council, and it would seem to me that it would be better for them to decide if they want to go forward with that in the future.”

Without any evidence of problems with the established two-person system, Daniels said it was “premature” to push for the amendment at this time: “Simply because other cities or entities do it, doesn’t seem to be a very strong argument that we should do it. We’ve always been leaders; we haven’t been followers. … I think we would better serve our citizens if we did not do this, but at the very minimum if we would continue it until at least after the election.”

Mayor Jeff Slowey called for a vote on the item, and the Council approved the amendment 3-2, with Councilmembers Bret Daniels and Steve Miller dissenting.