The role of the consent agenda

One of the differences I’ve noticed since I started chasing news 30 years ago is the increased use of the consent agenda. It was not unheard of then, but a few institutional shifts have pushed it from an occasional parliamentary convenience into a standard operating tool.

The benefits of using a consent agenda are fairly obvious. Governing bodies are required to approve what are often called “housekeeping items,” such as the minutes of the prior meeting. Although Washington makes great sport of polishing the Congressional Record for future generations, local municipal minutes are terse summaries that seldom raise an eyebrow. Corrections are rare.

Other housekeeping items include noting formal receipt of staff reports, correspondence and board summaries. We see grants accepted, board members appointed, contracts renewed and financial reports filed. It is all part of parliamentary routine, and a body is wise to save itself some time.

Items typically not appropriate for consent include new policy decisions, zoning or land-use changes, new spending initiatives or personnel matters–though the latter usually leads to a closed session, which is another topic for another day.

I can’t say I have ever seen the consent agenda blatantly abused by any of the bodies we cover, but its contents and frequency of objections do reflect the character of the body. Those less inclined to public debate tend to have more inclusive consent agendas and fewer items pulled. Even then, we have not yet uncovered any bombshells buried inside.

Parliamentary procedure, typically Robert’s Rules, establishes a core safeguard: any member may request that any item be removed from the consent agenda for separate discussion. No second, vote or justification is required, and the chair has no discretion to deny the request.

The logic is straightforward. Consent items pass only in the absence of objection. One member’s request ends unanimous consent and returns the matter to ordinary deliberation. The safeguard is simple by design.

Interestingly, the public does not inherently possess the same automatic removal right, but citizen questions often prompt members to exercise it and some bodies even write a public invitation into the script.

We applaud that inclusion.

Nebraska law does not address consent agendas specifically. The Nebraska Open Meetings Act instead governs agenda notice and public deliberation generally. The removal right arises from a body’s adopted parliamentary authority rather than from state statute.

Here again, the frequency of removals reflects the body’s culture. In some, members pull items regularly. Others rarely do. Overall, however, the consent agenda remains a useful and appropriate tool.

The less positive note is that the growing need to formalize routine items reflects 30 years of expanding regulation and the reality that small, thinly funded public bodies, governed by minimally paid or unpaid members, must operate in an increasingly litigious world. Items appearing in consent agendas today that were seldom seen years ago often exist simply to cross Ts, dot Is and to cover one’s assets.

In the end, an astute politician will pull an item from the consent agenda from time to time, if only to remind colleagues and citizens alike that the consent agenda works only when its consent is genuine and public discussion is of no benefit.