FREEPORT — The City Council took on the dysfunction that has plagued their agendas for months with a pair of items that did not pass unanimously.

The first ordinance approved during a lengthy meeting this week regarded the setting of agenda policies for the council that will limit both the number of items a member can request and how often a council member can request the same item.

The council also put in place a policy indicating any official statements to represent the city must go through the city manager or mayor.

“This ordinance amends the ordinance adopted by council in January that established specific procedures and deadlines for items to be placed on the city council agenda,” City Manager Tim Kelty said regarding the ordinance.

The amendments included a requirement to submit specific documentation in support of requested agenda times, a limit of four items each member may request and a three-month waiting period before an item may be reintroduced by the same council member if it is voted down by the council as a whole.

After Councilman Jeff Peña asked for clarification behind the need for the amendment, Kelty gave a further explanation.

“I’ve had a single council member, or a pair of council members, ask for 12 items and if I had every council member asking for 12 items, I think that the agendas probably would get more cumbersome than what you all would probably want to have heard,” he said.

Peña and Councilman Jerry Cain had some back and forth regarding how many agenda items should be allowed, with four being the final number coming from the council.

The restriction on an agenda item being requested multiple times would apply to measures that fail to receive a second, fail to come up for a vote or are voted down.

The ordinance passed 3-2 with Peña and Councilman Mario Muraira voting against.

Regarding the city’s press release policy, Kelty put forth a request that all official city press releases come from either himself or Mayor Brooks Bass, though council members could submit releases for consideration. He also said council members could speak for themselves, so long as they did not speak for “the city.”

Peña turned to address David Olson, the representative of the law firm Olson and Olson, which is acting as temporary City Attorney while the position awaits being filled.

“Mr. Olson, is this even legal? Does this violate First Amendment rights? Does this violate free speech? Does this violate the whole idea of transparency for the citizens?” Peña said. “This is a blatant attempt to handcuff city council members.”

It does not, Olson said.

“Mr. Peña, really the phrase with most meaning in this new, proposed policy is ‘on behalf of the city.’ As statement on behalf of the city, yes, I think there’s nothing wrong with having a policy. It’s more directed toward staff members, obviously. We can’t take action against council members other than censure-ship, but it in no way violates your First Amendment rights,” Olson said.

The vote fell along the same lines with Peña and Muraira voting against.

In other business, the city had a public hearing regarding a proposed land swap deal with Brazosport ISD to officially exchange the city-owned property on which the Brazosport High School baseball and softball fields sit and the former O.A. Fleming Elementary School site owned by the district.

The two entities have traded use of the land for years, but with a large improvement plan in the works for the stadiums, the district said they would like to own the property before making such an investment. They also have reportedly requested the city use the former school area for residential development.

“I’d love to develop a nice, new neighborhood down there,” Bass said, indicating he’d like to see further development of the soccer fields the city is using on the school land.

No action was taken, but some residents expressed dismay about the city having to bear the cost of tearing down the school, and Muraira had an issue with the property being cut off from the public.

“They could fence in that whole area there, couldn’t they? Once we remove the park restrictions?” he asked.

Kelty said that was correct, with Bass pointing out much of the area had already been fenced off for security reasons. It is unlikely the area around the fields would lose all public access, given the nature of the structures, they said.

The district would receive a little more than 13 acres in the deal, and the city would get nine blocks of land. While he did not know the acreage, he said it was “significantly more” than the amount the district would receive.

Council took no action on the matter after the hearing.

Kent Holle is a reporter for The Facts. Contact him at 979-237-0154.