The City Council’s new rules for how it will conduct business should go a long way toward putting the city’s governance back on the right track.

The rules, approved by the Council on April 17, lay out a simple and clear way to run the council and make policy and other decisions deliberately and efficiently so that all members of the council and the public will have a chance to be heard.

That’s how you make good decisions.

And that’s what has been sorely missing for years.

The council, before the most recent election, was run without proper consideration of public opinion or the opinions of all council members. On top of all that, the council was downright uncivil.

Under the new rules, any two members of the council can now add items to the agenda; notice of agenda items will be made in advance, so everyone will know what’s coming; and decisions will typically be made over two or three meetings – with plenty of time for the public and the full council to consider the matter and weigh in.

The proposal was approved because new members of the council ran for office on the platform of doing just that – restoring good decision mak- ing and civility to the council.

Mayor Josh Cohn, who along with Deputy Mayor Julie Souza were among the primary targets of that criticism, objected to the proposed reforms. Cohn, in a written statement, argued that the proposal curbs the “prerogatives” of the mayor and alters local government norms.

Ironically, these reforms are actually very much to the benefit of Cohn and Souza, who now frequently find themselves in the council minority. Under the old council rules, the new majority could have just routinely cut them out of the decision-making process. But now, they can’t. Under these new rules, the minority will be able to fully participate in decision-making.

In addition, any “prerogatives” past mayors may have had grew from support — and at times mandates — from their council colleagues. Cohn has no such mandate – not even close. In fact, the primary reason the new council proposed these reforms in the first place is that Cohn and his former coalition consistently blindsided council members with agenda items, cut them and the public out of discussion before proceeding to a vote, and openly gave the public short shrift. We have a council-manager form of government here in Rye, and the mayor should always be looking to build consensus.

The level of council dysfunction reached its apex when Cohn and his former coalition announced they had sued the city’s Board of Ethics after the board criticized them for an apparent conflict of interest. Then they had the nerve to vote for the city to finance not only their lawsuit against the city, but the ethics board’s defense against that suit.

They then dropped the whole embarrassing undertaking when the public voiced its shock and outrage.

It’s especially welcome then that these new reforms also clarify that appointments to city boards and commissions are to be made by the mayor ONLY with the approval of the full council. Previously, the mayor made almost all of those appointments without council approval. Recently he sought to make an appointment to the very ethics commission that had criticized him. Now, council members will know in advance what names the mayor will put forward for consideration. It’s painfully obvious why that advance notice is crucial.

Another major problem spurring this call for reform was the lack of civility demonstrated by the mayor’s former coalition on the council — sometimes referred to as “The Gang of Four” — which was dismissed in the last election.

The proposal said: “All council members and members of the public shall be respected, permitted to speak without undue interruption, are expected to act with decorum, and shall refrain from any personal attacks against council members or members of the public.”

During meetings conducted by the previous council, it was appalling how some members of the council talked to Rye residents who had come out to voice their opinions. Council members work for the public and should always treat their constituents with respect. In addition, members of the so-called Gang of Four clearly thought it was acceptable to shout at, scold, and insult colleagues on the council. That has to end.

As Council Member Sara Goddard stressed at a recent discussion of the proposed reforms, the proposal is an effort to “provide an objectivity to what has been a very contentious, dysfunctional last six years. The public has noticed it and council members have noticed it and staff have noticed it….

“I would say, everybody who has had some interaction with the council agrees that the dysfunction is just really sad. So, what I read when I read this draft was an attempt to address that and say to our residents, we’re trying to at least minimize the emotions and the rancor. I feel that it comes from a very, very good place. It’s a place that’s trying to solve our major problem.”

As a symbolic, yet important, marker of the expected new civility, the council is also getting rid of the jarring buzzer that cuts residents off after they have spoken for three minutes. The buzzer will be replaced by a three-minute clock — and gentle reminders of the time limit from members of the council.