Ask MRSC Archives

Yes, Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) grant applications are considered public records and we are not aware of any exemption within the Public Records Act (PRA) that would prevent their disclosure. An LTAC is an advisory body to the city council, created by statute under RCW 67.28.1817(1). MRSC regards the LTAC as a subagency of the public agency city under RCW 42.30.020 (1)(c). As a subagency, LTAC’s records, including grant applications submitted to LTAC for consideration, are considered public records under the PRA. As you know the definition of public record is extremely broad, encompassing essentially all records of the agency, including their subagencies and committees.

(Link to this question)

There is a provision in state law that addresses the recording of “private conversations.” RCW 9.73.030(1)(b) (the ‘Privacy Act’) makes it unlawful to record a “private conversation…without first obtaining the consent of all persons engaged in the conversation.”

The nature and location of the meeting or conversation affects whether it is a private conversation requiring consent to record. The key consideration is whether a person has an expectation of privacy in a given situation. If the conversation was held in a public place where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (such as in the lobby of city hall, the city council meeting chambers before a public meeting, or at the permit counter), then it is possible the meeting is not considered “private.” But, if the discussion or meeting was held in a private area, such as an internal conference room not open to the public, then all participants would need to consent to the recording. Under RCW 9.73.030(3), if an individual announces to the other party that he/she is recording the conversation (and that announcement is also recorded), consent is considered to be obtained.

Under the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), a municipality cannot prohibit the recording of a public meeting subject to the OPMA. See RCW 42.30.040 and AGO 1998 No. 15.

(Link to this question)

We are aware of a couple of testing programs in the cities of Vancouver and Lynden. See this Bellingham Herald story (Here’s where Whatcom sewage is being sampled for COVID-19 and what it might tell us) reporting on the Lynden testing program that includes testing at two schools in the city. Here is a Vancouver press release detailing the testing program there. The Vancouver page includes a few links to additional references. We monitor a lot of the local newspapers in Washington for general local government news and have not noticed any reports other than the Vancouver and Lynden programs. Our guess is that there are probably not a lot who are doing this.

We sent a survey out to public works directors in cities over 20,000 population. You can view the results here. The results so far indicate that one other city, Spokane, has participated in a pilot study for wastewater COVID-19 testing.

(Link to this question)

Normally, impact fees are paid before construction begins because they are a condition for receiving a permit. However, RCW 82.02.050 requires cities, towns, and counties to adopt an impact fee payment deferral system for small single-family residential developments, allowing developers to pay the fees after construction instead of beforehand. For details and examples, see MRSC's Impact Fee Payment Deferral Programs page. More general information is on MRSC’s Impact Fees page.

(Link to this question)

MRSC has information on consent agendas at the bottom of our Council Meeting Agendas webpage. The webpage states:

• The consent agenda is a tool used to streamline council meeting procedures by collecting and grouping routine, noncontroversial topics into a single agenda item that can be discussed and passed with a single motion and vote. In some cities, items to be placed on each consent agenda are selected at a meeting of the city’s department heads. In other cities, a special agenda committee chooses the consent items. Commonly, no debate is allowed on items included in the consent agenda.
• Consent items may be read by title only in the body of a single consent agenda resolution. However, any councilmember can have an item removed from the consent agenda for separate consideration. In addition, cities may allow any person attending the regular council meeting to request that an item be removed from the consent agenda, read completely, and voted on independently. In such a situation, the remainder of the consent agenda can be voted on, omitting the challenged items. Setting up a consent agenda system usually requires preliminary action by the council in the form of adopting an ordinance or resolution.

The council/board generally has discretion to determine if it wants to have a consent agenda at its meetings, and if so what items to include on the consent agenda. Again, however, the consent agenda is typically reserved for non-controversial, routine items that the council/board may not need to discuss individually before approval.

Most local governments outline their procedures for agenda preparation in their council/board procedure manuals. You can see many examples on MRSC’s Council/Board of Commissioners Rules of Procedures page. You can open any of these sample documents and do a “Ctrl-F” search for “consent” to quickly locate the relevant sections.

(Link to this question)

We reviewed the Governor’s memo on high risk employees and this only applies to employees who are: (1) 65 years or older; (2) listed by the CDC under the “at increased risk” category; or (3) listed by the CDC under the “might be at increased risk,” with a few additional conditions.

Unless an employee falls under one of the criteria above, they do not qualify for the high risk category and they don’t benefit from the protections of Proclamation 20-46.2. Even if a spouse is considered “high risk,” a spouse doesn’t benefit from the protections of the proclamation – an employee must meet one of the criteria.

If the employee is considered high risk, then the following apply:

• Employee must be provided with alternative work assignments (even including reassignment) if they request it
• Employee must be permitted to use unemployment insurance
• If the employee’s paid time off exhausts during the period of leave, the employee must be permitted to take unpaid leave
• Employer must maintain their health insurance benefits until they are able to return to work, even if the employee has exhausted their paid leave and are on unpaid leave
• Employer may not terminate or otherwise take adverse employment action against an employee for not reporting to work

There are a few other allowances detailed in our blog Additional Rights for Employees at High Risk for Coronavirus Complications.

(Link to this question)

Lodging tax has two different components. The state shared retail sales tax portion (2%) RCW 67.28.180, and the additional 2% authorized under RCW 67.28.181(1)

Here is a link to the Revenue Guide for WA Counties that explains the two components of lodging tax (aka: Hotel/Motel Tax). These are both excise tax options available to cities and counties that do not require a vote of the citizens.

There is no difference in the allowed use of these two components of the lodging tax, both of which are restricted resources that may only be used for tourism activities or tourism-related facilities. The distribution by the state for lodging tax is always remitted separately for each component of the tax because the statutory authority to impose the taxes are separate.

RCW 67.28.180 is a credit against the state’s sales tax and therefore is not an increase in taxes but rather a sharing of state sales tax with local government, while the additional 2% authorized in RCW 67.28.181 is an increase in the excise tax. All of the remaining definitions, allowed use, and distribution processes are the same.

The state decision to label one of these tax distributions as a ‘transient rental tax’ is only intended to designate a difference between RCW 67.28.180 and RCW 67.28.181.

(Link to this question)

Yes, overpayment to an employee is a gift of public funds and should be recovered. State law sets forth a process for an employer to recover the overpayment of wages. See RCW 49.48.200. If recovery of the overpayment is made by deduction from future wages, the deductions cannot exceed 5% of the employee’s disposable earning in any pay period, other than the final pay period, unless the employee agrees to a greater deduction. For more information, see our 2015 blog article, What if We Accidentally Overpaid an Employee?

(Link to this question)

If the capital project was a project listed within the capital facilities plan (CFP) of the city (RCW 82.46.010 (2)(b) and 82.46.035(3)), then yes the city can use its REET funds for debt service. The statute provides for the financing of capital projects as identified within the CFP element of the city’s comprehensive plan.

• RCW 82.46.010(2)(b) After April 30, 1992, revenues generated from the tax imposed under this subsection (2) in counties over five thousand population and cities over five thousand population that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 must be used solely for financing capital projects specified in a capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive plan and housing relocation assistance under RCW 59.18.440 and 59.18.450.
• RCW 82.46.035(3) Revenues generated from the tax imposed under subsection (2) of this section must be used by such counties and cities solely for financing capital projects specified in a capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive plan. However, revenues (a) pledged by such counties and cities to debt retirement prior to March 1, 1992, may continue to be used for that purpose until the original debt for which the revenues were pledged is retired, or (b) committed prior to March 1, 1992, by such counties or cities to a project may continue to be used for that purpose until the project is completed.

You did not specify what type of capital project was bonded, so here are the statutory references for the definition of capital projects within REET 1 (RCW 82.46.010(6)(b)) and for REET 2 (RCW 82.46.035(5)).

(Link to this question)

There is not a threshold number of employees for the ADA accessibility rules for public facilities to apply. Here are some resources you may find helpful:

Several ADA FAQs regarding State and Local Governments

Q. Does title II cover a public entity's employment policies and practices?
A. Yes. Title II prohibits all public entities, regardless of the size of their work force, from discriminating in employment against qualified individuals with disabilities. In addition to title II's employment coverage, title I of the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities by certain public entities.

Q. What changes must a public entity make to its existing facilities to make them accessible?
A. A public entity must ensure that individuals with disabilities are not excluded from services, programs, and activities because existing buildings are inaccessible. A State or local government's programs, when viewed in their entirety, must be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. This standard, known as "program accessibility," applies to facilities of a public entity that existed on January 26, 1992. Public entities do not necessarily have to make each of their existing facilities accessible. They may provide program accessibility by a number of methods including alteration of existing facilities, acquisition or construction of additional facilities, relocation of a service or program to an accessible facility, or provision of services at alternate accessible sites.

Q. What does title II require for new construction and alterations?
A. The ADA requires that all new buildings constructed by a State or local government be accessible. In addition, when a State or local government undertakes alterations to a building, it must make the altered portions accessible.

Q. How will a state or local government know that a new building is accessible?
A. A state or local government will be in compliance with the ADA for new construction and alterations if it follows either of two accessibility standards. It can choose either the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards or the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities, which is the standard that must be used for public accommodations and commercial facilities under title III of the ADA. If the state or local government chooses the ADA Accessibility Guidelines, it is not entitled to the elevator exemption (which permits certain private buildings under three stories or under 3,000 square feet per floor to be constructed without an elevator).

Here is a link to MRSC’s Americans with Disabilities Act page.

For more specific questions, there is an ADA Hotline number staffed by Department of Justice accessibility experts (800-514-0301). The ADA has a website with Information and Technical Assistance at www.ada.gov.

(Link to this question)

This type of expenditure appears to meet the eligibility requirements for use of the currently available CARES Act Coronavirus Relief Funds (CRF) program administered by the Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC). Here is a link to the Eligible Cost Test provided by the DOC. There is flexibility and discretion for cities and towns to document the eligibility of a particular expenditure due to the COVID-19 public health emergency. If your city is holding remote council meetings because of COVID-19 and efforts to comply with the Governor’s Proclamation 20-28.11, then this expenditure should be considered necessary. It will be important to document the reasons for the purchase and to meet the other eligibility requirements including that the expense was incurred during the eligibility period of March 27, 2020 through November 30, 2020, and not otherwise budgeted by the city as of March 27, 2020, the effective date of the CARES Act.

Here is a link to the Commerce CRF webpage providing further guidance on Local Government Coronavirus Relief Funds.

You may also want to visit the State Auditor's Office new COVID-19 Guidance Toolkit with information on the CARES Act, auditing guidance, accounting and reporting resources, and more.

(Link to this question)

No, mixing rosters is not permissible. Additionally, you will confuse contractors and vendors if you try to manage their participation between multiple rosters. It could also lead to a protest if a vendor/contractor did not get a solicitation because you were trying to manage projects between separate lists.

The agency’s contract for the MRSC Rosters service refers to MRSC Rosters as being the exclusive roster for public works projects (and related to certain purchases via a vendor roster if the agency’s contract with MRSC includes that service), so that is our expectation. MRSC Rosters is a service that we provide to agencies, but it’s important for each agency to consult with its legal counsel to ensure that the agency is in compliance with all legal and local policy requirements that apply to that agency specifically.

(Link to this question)

Under state law, a subdivision process is required to divide property into smaller lots. MRSC has a webpage with a lot of information on what is required to subdivide property. The type of process that would apply to the situation you describe is a “short subdivision” or “short plat,” which is a simplified process that can be used for simple subdivisions involving less than five lots. Here is the information from the webpage on short subdivisions:

Short Subdivision Process

No process is set out in state law for approval of short plats. Cities and counties are required by RCW 58.17.060 to adopt by ordinance their own regulations and procedures that provide for "summary approval" of short plats through an administrative process.

Approval Process

Because it must be an administrative process, there is no public hearing for a short plat application, and the legislative body is not involved in the process. To approve a short plat, the administrative personnel assigned to review short plat applications must make the same written findings in RCW 58.17.110 that are required for subdivision (plat) applications.

Time Limitations for Approval

Short plats must be approved, disapproved, or returned to the applicant for modification within 30 days of the filing of the short plat application, unless the applicant consents to an extension. See RCW 58.17.140.

Recording and Filing Requirements

They must be filed with the county auditor and are not deemed "approved" until such filing. See RCW 58.17.065.

Vesting Rules

There is no limitation on the vesting of an approved short plat as there exists with respect to approved final plats. See Noble Manor v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269, 281-82 (1997).

A drawing prepared by a surveyor is generally required to subdivide property. You should check to see if the Town has a subdivision ordinance that would apply to this situation. The Town will want to be sure that the subdivided lots comply with the Town’s minimum lot size and dimension requirements, and that each lot has access to right of way.

(Link to this question)

Most local government advisory board members serve without compensation as you can see in this code search. However, a few cities do compensate members of their planning commissions. After city councilmembers, planning commission members probably devote more time than most other advisory board/commission members. See the following examples (including the amounts paid):

• Bonney Lake Municipal Code - 2.26.060 Compensation - Each member of the planning commission shall be compensated in the amount of $50.00 per planning commission meeting attended, including joint meetings of the planning commission and the city council; provided, that no planning commission member shall be compensated for attendance at more than two planning commission meetings per calendar month, including attendance at any joint meetings of the planning commission and the city council; and provided further, that the chair or designee of the planning commission shall, in addition, be compensated $25.00 for attendance at a council meeting where such attendance is required by BLMC 2.26.030.
• Monroe Municipal Code - 4.60.010(C) Planning Commission - Salaries of Commissioners. Each city planning commissioner may be paid for attending commission meetings and workshops an amount not exceeding fifty dollars per meeting for not more than one meeting each week.
• Duvall Municipal Code - 2.15.040 - Payment to planning commissioners - Beginning on January 1, 1994, each member of the planning commission shall be paid twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for attendance at each regular meeting of the planning commission and twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for attendance at each special meeting of the planning commission but not to exceed three such special meetings for compensation in one calendar year.

Several cities only reimburse for expenses, such as in the following:

• Goldendale Municipal Code - 2.48.030 - The members of the planning commission shall serve without compensation, but they shall be reimbursed for expenses necessarily incurred in performing their official duties. The city council shall from time to time, as may be necessary, provide by ordinance for funds for the necessary expenditures and costs of operation of such commission.
• Maple Valley Municipal Code - 2.35.050 - Compensation - The members of the Planning Commission shall serve without compensation, but necessary expenses of the Commission actually incurred shall be paid from appropriate City funds.
• Kent Municipal Code - 2.57.020(F) Compensation - The appointed members of the land use and planning board shall serve without compensation except that reimbursement for authorized travel and subsistence may be made to the extent such may be budgeted for by the city council. Reimbursement for such shall come from the city budget category designated land use and planning board, travel and mileage and subsistence.

As a personal aside, I served as a member of the city of Kirkland’s planning commission for 8 years and can attest to the large time commitment that is typical of most planning commissions, which are characterized by voluminous meeting packets, many long evenings spent in monthly and often more frequent meetings, and no small amount of stress when controversial land use issues draw large and sometimes angry crowds.

(Link to this question)

The limitations are set forth in RCW 69.50.505(10), which provides:

Forfeited property and net proceeds not required to be paid to the state treasurer shall be retained by the seizing law enforcement agency exclusively for the expansion and improvement of controlled substances related law enforcement activity. Money retained under this section may not be used to supplant preexisting funding sources. [emphasis added]

This general question was addressed in a 1995 attorney general opinion, AGO 1995 No. 11. Here’s an excerpt from the AGO:

The focus of RCW 69.50.505(10), and chapter 69.50 RCW as a whole, is regulation of controlled substances. Considering the ordinary meaning of the term “related” and the context in which it appears[], it seems evident that RCW 69.50.505(10) is intended to ensure that law enforcement agencies use drug forfeiture proceeds to enhance and improve law enforcement activities having a close and demonstrable relationship to enforcement of controlled substances laws.

The Attorney General Opinion suggests that you should be cautious before determining how much, if any, proceeds from drug seizure and forfeiture funds are used.

Looking at the statute and its ordinary meaning, we conclude that RCW 69.50.505(10) authorizes use of drug forfeiture proceeds for law enforcement activities having a close connection to controlled substances. Where such a close connection exists, we do not believe that such law enforcement activities become ineligible for drug forfeiture simply because they also relate to additional law enforcement objectives.

(Link to this question)

MRSC has consistently advised that absent a written city policy to the contrary, the administration can apply for a grant without council approval. However, under RCW 35A.11.040, acceptance of any grant requires council approval. In addition, a grant is a contract, and under RCW 35A.11.010, the city council is the contracting authority for the city.

Because the council is the contracting authority, there is no statutory reason why it could not adopt a policy regarding applying for grants. Some cities have tied grant application authority to purchasing or contracting authority; if the grant amount is within the mayor’s signature authority no prior council authorization is needed. Some cities have adopted policies saying that if the grant requires city matching funds, especially if those funds have not been allocated in the city’s budget, the administration needs council approval to apply.

Accepting a grant always comes with conditions; sometimes those are financial, and sometimes they are policy. For example, grants for historical renovations frequently ties the recipient’s hands in some management aspects for decades. Each city needs to find the balance between recognizing council’s policy and budget roles with the need for the administration to move quickly on some applications.

(Link to this question)

The contractor would not be required to provide the Payment/Performance bond if it is being waived, which requires 10% retainage being held instead. However, if this bond waiver option is selected, then you will need to hold retainage even though retainage can be waived in the small works roster process. The only small works roster process where you can waive both retainage and the bond is for limited public works projects.

Some agencies do request separate payment and performance bonds. This waiver could waive both; you would need to determine what you will require and communicate the requirement to your bidders.

(Link to this question)

The mayor pro tem retains all the rights and responsibilities of a councilmember, including the right to vote on council business.

Here are the legal authorities for this issue:

• RCW 35.27.160 provides, in relevant part: “A mayor pro tempore may be chosen by the council for a specified period of time, not to exceed six months, to act as the mayor in the absence of the mayor.”
• RCW 35.27.280 provides, in part, that “a majority of the councilmembers shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business”. This statute also references the authority for the council to appoint a “president pro tempore” (mayor pro tem) to run a council meeting in the absence of the mayor.

A councilmember does not cease being a councilmember by virtue of undertaking the additional duties of pro tem to conduct a meeting in the absence of the mayor.

(Link to this question)

Having your offices closed during the “Stay Home-Stay Healthy” order does complicate this a little bit. MRSC has advised that agencies can decide what “essential functions” are if that decision doesn’t violate the governor’s guidance. So, you could set up an appointment to allow for physical service of process. If you choose not to open your office for physical service, a plaintiff has the right to ask a court to allow service by some other method – publication in a newspaper under RCW 4.28.100, or by mail under CR 4(d)(4).

Improper service of process is a defense to a lawsuit. A party can voluntarily give up that defense. So, you can (but are not required to) agree to accept service some other way – either by fax, email, or something else. We recommend that you discuss your options with your agency’s attorney.

Service of process is generally controlled by Chapter 4.28 RCW and by Rule 4 of the Civil Rules for Superior Court (CR 4). The only governor’s proclamation we are aware of related to service of process is specific to protection orders (see COVID-19: Protection Orders and Personal Service). We also are not aware of an order from the Washington State Supreme Court suspending or amending CR4.

Absent any specific order, it appears that the provisions of RCW 4.28.080 apply. There is no specific provision for transit agencies. RCW 4.28.080(9) appears to be the most applicable provision:

• If against a company or corporation other than those designated in subsections (1) through (8) of this section, to the president or other head of the company or corporation, the registered agent, secretary, cashier or managing agent thereof or to the secretary, stenographer or office assistant of the president or other head of the company or corporation, registered agent, secretary, cashier or managing agent.

That language may seem applicable only to private corporations, but note that subsection (2) of RCW 4.28.080 covers cities and towns and subsection (3) covers school and fire districts. As a result, we think the reference in subsection (9) to corporations “other than those designated in subsections (1) through (8) of this section” includes municipal corporations, which includes public transit districts.

(Link to this question)

Agencies are required to conduct a reasonable search of the likely locations for responsive records. If you are confident that nothing is stored on the local device, then the personal device would be an unlikely location to find responsive records.

Note that sometimes users will opt to download records to the local device. The PRO will still need to coordinate with the staffer and potentially have the staffer search their own device for responsive records. See the section on “Searching for Records on Personal Devices” our Searching and Producing Public Records topic page.

Also, you would want to confirm that the personal device was set up so that it is in fact fully synced with the remote server. For example, the Outlook app for iPhone can be configured so that changes made in the local view are not necessarily the same as the desktop view (like “mark as unread”, etc.).

It is possible that some sort of transitory/temporary file is stored on the local device, but this data is of a temporary nature and usually overwrites very quickly and is not generally accessible by reasonable means (but you will want to confirm this with Microsoft.) Keep in mind that metadata only needs to be produced if specifically requested, and only if technically feasible and financially reasonable for the agency to do so.

You will want to fully document your decision-making process, evidence that all records are actually stored on the remote server such that comprehensive searching of a personal devices by the staff member is probably not necessary, as well as any configuration requirements. Make sure the public records officer has a copy of that documentation.

As an aside, we here at MRSC have been looking into using Microsoft Teams (we are currently on the older Office 365 suite) precisely because the remote server captures all the communications and makes retention and search of such records much more centralized.

(Link to this question)

Independent contractors are exempt from minimum wage requirements. See RCW 49.46.010(3)(d) defining "employee" for purposes of the state minimum wage act, to specifically not include "[a]ny individual engaged in the activities of an . . . local government body . . . where the employer-employee relationship does not in fact exist . . ."

As stated by the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) in its administrative policy on the Minimum Wage Act Applicability, "A bona fide independent contractor is exempt from the MWA (Minimum Wage Act) because that person is not 'employed' by an employer."

The critical thing here is to make sure that the individual is truly an independent contractor. The test for whether someone is an independent contractor depends to a great extent on the amount of control the employer has over the worker. Some guides that may be of use to you (in the event you are unsure whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor) are:

• FLSA Advisor - Independent Contractors, U.S. Department of Labor
• Independent Contractor Guide, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries
• Independent Contractor (Self -Employed) or Employee? IRS

(Link to this question)

We have provided relevant guidance on our COVID-19 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) webpage:

• Can lodging tax allocations be changed or rescinded?
• Is it legal to expend lodging tax revenue for festivals and events that are cancelled?

These detailed FAQs cover various scenarios including when distributions have been made and costs already incurred by a recipient of funds whose event has been cancelled, or when money has been awarded but no contract has yet been executed.

As noted in the first response, both the use and the dollar amount of lodging tax allocations that have been approved by the legislative body may be changed, but the use of funds must always be consistent with RCW 67.28.1816 and RCW 67.28.080. Lodging tax funds are restricted resources that must be used according to state statute, regardless of the pandemic and its attendant financial challenges. Limits on the use of these restricted resources have not been waived by any of the governor’s proclamations to date.

(Link to this question)

The allocations of the motor vehicle fuel tax (MVFT) are done by percentage according to RCW 46.68.090, based upon the various portions of the MVFT collected in RCW 82.38.030:

• Of the first 23 cents per-gallon in RCW 82.38.030(1) – cities receive 10.6961% of the tax collected, counties receive 19.2287% and the state retains the remainder.
• Of the 2005 tax (RCW 82.38.030(3)) imposed for an additional 3 cents per gallon – the cities receive 8.3333% of the tax collected.
• Of the 2006 tax (RCW 82.38.030(4)) imposed for an additional 3 cents per gallon – the cities receive 8.3333% of the tax collected.
• Of the tax imposed in sub-section (7) and (8) for 11.9 cents per gallon the distribution by the state is a direct appropriation of $5,859,500 to cities which is allocated on a per capita basis. There is no % of allocation.

As you can see, the formulas for calculating the distribution of the various portions of the MVFT are complicated, with allocations being made to numerous programs of the state on specific portions of the tax.

(Link to this question)

City councils are required to keep minutes pursuant to RCW 42.30.035:

The minutes of all regular and special meetings except executive sessions of such boards, commissions, agencies or authorities shall be promptly recorded and such records shall be open to public inspection.

State law does not impose any additional requirements, so individual cities typically adopt rules or procedures regarding meeting minutes. Meeting minutes are usually approved by the city council. If a councilmember wants to make a change to minutes that have been previously approved, he or she should bring a motion to amend the minutes at a council meeting. The council would decide whether or not to approve the motion.

(Link to this question)

Here is an excerpt on calling the question from our Parliamentary Procedures webpage, which summarizes Robert’s Rules of Order:

• Previous question or close debate. Used to bring the body to an immediate vote. It closes debate and stops further amendment. Contrary to some misconceptions, the majority decides when enough discussion has occurred, not the moderator. The formal motion is to "call for the question" or "call for the previous question," or simply, "I move to close debate." The motion requires a second, is not debatable and requires a two-thirds majority.

In addition, Ann Macfarlane on her Jurassic Parliament webpage has a nice summary of how to call the question (as well as how not to). And finally, Robert’s Rules has an FAQ on “calling the question” (a.k.a. “previous question”)—see FAQ #11.

(Link to this question)