Key Points
- San Tan Valley Town Council is developing a Policies and Procedures Manual covering meeting procedures, ethics, and council conduct.
- Council favored a values-based approach — combining clear procedures with language reflecting the council’s principles.
- Rosenberg’s Rules of Order was preferred over Robert’s Rules for its simpler, local-government-friendly structure.
- Ethics provisions will cover public trust, conflict of interest, fiduciary duties, and confidentiality — format still to be determined.
- No date has been set for the return presentation and full draft review.
SAN TAN VALLEY, AZ — San Tan Valley Town Council is putting its governance standards in writing. On March 18, 2026, council heard a presentation from Pierce Coleman attorney Michelle Stinson on the framework for a new Town Council Policies and Procedures Manual covering meeting procedures, public participation, and ethics. Council provided feedback; no formal action was taken.
What the Manual Will Cover
Stinson told council the manual would be built around four foundational decisions: purpose and tone, ethics and conduct, meeting procedures and rules of order, and council liaisons.
She noted that some cities use manuals ranging from 60 to 80 pages, while others keep them in the 25-to-30-page range.
Stinson emphasized the document would be a living document. It can evolve and change over time through council action.
Purpose and Tone
Stinson presented two options for the manual’s approach. Option one would focus strictly on procedures — how meetings run and what council members are expected to do. Option two would also include language reflecting the council’s values, such as expectations around civility and professionalism.
Councilmember Rupert Wolfert said he believes in values-informed conduct but cautioned against rigidity. “I frown on rigidity,” he said. “I think this town is aspirational. We’re reaching for a vision that rises above what we see in other communities. I am a firm believer in values-informed conduct. I do not want to lock our future council members into some type of manual. I would like for them to become inspired and then fill in the blanks with their best interpretation and the faith that the community has given in them.”
Councilmember Brian Tyler agreed with Wolfert in principle but asked about the risks of being less rigid. Stinson responded that adding aspirational language does not carry additional legal risk — it is simply a different approach.
Mayor Daren Schnepf described the choice as one between a document that is more mechanical versus one that provides more opportunity and flexibility. He then asked Stinson how the council appeared to be functioning from her perspective.
Stinson replied that the council had managed a very smooth meeting. “We certainly are sitting at an inspirational and aspirational time,” she said.
Town Attorney Allen Quist added context. “Council’s doing great. The town’s doing great. There’s just a lot of camaraderie. Things are functioning well,” he said. He noted that the policies were designed for this council but also for the future — to memorialize the tone and procedures currently in place. “Maybe this council’s in a position where it doesn’t need a lot of policies, but maybe in the future these policies could be helpful,” Quist said.
Vice Mayor Tyler Hudgins acknowledged an internal tension. “Clarity is kindness, and I think it’s really important to have clarity,” he said. “On the other hand, I hate restrictive rules.” He landed on a middle position: be clear on the things that need to be clear, and be flexible where it is not as important.
Councilmember Gia Jenkins said she favored the aspirational option. Speaking to her fellow council members, she said: “I feel like you don’t have much guidance right now as a council, and I think we all show a passion, and I think that’s key. It’s almost like common sense. And you have a passion for it. So I like the aspirational aspect of it.”
Councilmember Daniel Oakes cautioned against overconfidence in the current council’s harmony. “We can’t be naive enough to assume we’re always going to agree, or that five years from now others won’t,” he said. He argued that writing policies around a theme or principle — rather than specific requirements — provides legal protection and allows the spirit of the rules to be described well. He also said the manual should include guidance on how productive disagreement can happen. “We need that built into the procedure a little bit — what that looks like,” he said.
Stinson said she heard council leaning toward option two — clarity in procedures based on themes rather than specific requirements, applying to both this council and future ones.
Council Ethics: One Document or Two?
The ethics provisions will address public trust, fiduciary duties, conflict of interest, and confidentiality, much of which mirrors state law. Council discussed whether those obligations should be included in the procedures manual or established in a separate standalone code.
Wolfert favored a standalone code of ethics separate from the procedures manual. “I think it’s a co-equal document — not something to be buried in language,” he said.
Jenkins preferred a single document. “I like the idea of having everything in one place,” she said, adding that most of what the town is producing will be living documents that can be amended as needed.
Schnepf said the decision might be easier to make once the draft is written. “If we see it’s not so convoluted, maybe it’s just one document,” he said. “But if I’m having a hard time trying to get through it and find the information I need, maybe that’s where two documents come in handy.”
Rules of Order: Rosenberg’s vs. Robert’s Rules
Stinson told council she does not recommend adopting any parliamentary set of rules as a strict authority. “That kind of creates issues where folks could challenge your actions if you did not follow the parliamentary rules to a letter,” she said. Instead, she recommended the manual reference whichever rules of order council preferred as a guide — not a binding standard.
Two options were presented. Option one is Robert’s Rules of Order, the most widely known parliamentary guide. Stinson described it as highly technical and similar to how large legislative bodies operate. She noted it is not designed for local government and can slow down meetings significantly due to its complex motion hierarchy and procedural challenge rules.
Option two is Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, a seven-page document written by a judge specifically for local governments and smaller boards. It features fewer motions, clearer sequencing, more active chair management, and an emphasis on efficiency. Under Rosenberg’s Rules, the council discusses an item informally, the chair calls for a motion once discussion has matured, and amendments are handled one at a time.
Stinson observed that the council was already operating in a manner similar to Rosenberg’s Rules. She noted the key distinction: Rosenberg’s places more responsibility on the presiding officer — in this case, the mayor — to manage the meeting, while Robert’s Rules is more member-driven.
Councilmember Bryan Hunt pointed directly to one of the listed cons for Robert’s Rules. “The one thing that stands out to me is ‘very technical, can slow down meetings,'” he said. “I think it was said earlier, we like speed. We like going fast. I would say my preference would be to avoid the slow-down-meetings part.”
Councilmember Tyler agreed. “I think the Robert’s Rules would be a nightmare,” he said. He added that he liked how the council was already operating under a Rosenberg’s-style approach.
Stinson added that Rosenberg’s flexibility allows the town attorney’s office to help council work through difficult motions more quickly while keeping the official record clear.
Council Liaisons: Transparency and Open Meeting Law
Three options were presented. Option one allows no council liaisons at all. This carries the least open meeting law risk but limits council members’ ability to gather information from outside bodies and bring it back to the full council.
Option two allows council liaisons with clear limits. Council members could serve on outside boards and committees for information-sharing purposes only, with no decision-making authority.
Option three allows only formal council committees. Any committee a council member sits on would be established by a formal council action, fully agendized, publicly noticed, and open to the public — just like a regular council meeting. This approach is the most transparent but also the most administratively intensive.
Hudgins said he did not favor option one. He expressed a personal preference for agendizing and posting all committees the town creates. He asked whether option two would allow council members to serve as liaisons on bodies elsewhere in the state. Stinson explained that appearances on outside bodies could not be agendized. Hudgins said he did not want that. “In that case, I’d be landing on option three,” he said.
Schnepf noted that the council had already begun operating under an option three structure. He pointed to IPAC, an existing body for which Councilmember Tyler serves as liaison. Town Manager Brent Billingsley confirmed that committee is fully agendized and publicly noticed, adding that the town had already started down that path.
Wolfert asked for clarification on whether a hybrid approach — combining option two for certain external information-gathering functions with option three for formal committees — would be possible. Jenkins agreed. “I think it should be a hybrid kind of approach, because the two and three are serving two different kinds of purposes,” she said.
Draft Manual Coming at a Future Session
Stinson said she would return with a full Council Policies and Procedures Manual based on council’s high-level direction. No date has been set for the return presentation.
