Chair Wannick opened a discussion of quorum and voting thresholds, saying the committee must decide whether the charter should require an affirmative vote of six members to adopt ordinances or whether an alternate rule is preferable. The committee reviewed model options that would require either a majority of the entire body or language that limits abstentions.

The matter matters because the current charter language requires six votes to adopt an ordinance even when only seven council members constitute a quorum. Several members said that rule can allow a small number of members to prevent action by walking out or abstaining. The chair said the committee should consider alternatives in which abstentions are barred except for declared conflicts of interest or where abstentions are recorded but counted as negative votes in a tally.

Commissioner France and others noted a practical history of strategic abstentions and walkouts in earlier years; members referenced a court ruling discussed by counsel that shaped how abstentions have been treated in the past. Legal counsel cautioned that treating abstentions as equivalent to "no" can conflict with parliamentary authorities such as Roberts Rules of Order and that courts have sometimes relied on the body's chosen parliamentary rules in deciding disputes. Counsel also reminded the committee that charter language can be drafted to make the intended effect explicit.

No formal vote was taken at the workshop. Members generally agreed to further study and to prepare draft charter language outlining the three discussed options (majority of the whole body, a prohibition on abstentions except for conflicts, or a prescribed rule counting abstentions as negative) for the next meeting. The chair said the aim is to resolve items with clear consensus and place them on a future consent agenda if there are no objections.

Proposed motions and thresholds discussed at the workshop will be presented as draft charter text for a formal committee vote at the next meeting.