There is a reason the law allows for an emergency clause.
It exists for moments when time truly matters. When public safety is at risk, when infrastructure fails, when a delay could cause real harm. It is meant to be used sparingly, carefully, and with a clear understanding that bypassing the normal process should be the exception, not the rule.
Lately, however, it has started to look more like the rule.
Across communities, municipalities are attaching emergency clauses to routine ordinances. Not because of a pressing public danger, but because it allows them to skip a step: publishing a legal notice before the ordinance takes effect.
That should concern every citizen.
Legal notices are not bureaucratic clutter. They are not red tape. They are one of the most basic ways a community stays informed about what its government is doing. They are how residents learn about changes that affect their property, their businesses, their taxes, and their daily lives, before the changes are made.
They are, in many ways, the public’s invitation to pay attention. When an ordinance follows the normal process, there is time; time for it to be published, time for it to be read, time for questions to be asked, and time for voices to be heard. That process is not an inconvenience. It is the point.
An emergency clause removes that time.
It allows an ordinance to take effect immediately, often before the public even knows it exists. Used properly, that can be necessary. Used improperly, it becomes a way to avoid transparency.
And when emergency clauses are applied to nearly every ordinance, no matter how routine, it sends a troubling message: that speed is being prioritized over openness, and convenience over accountability.
When the term emergency is stretched to cover ordinary business, zoning updates, fee adjustments, rate increases, administrative changes, it loses its meaning entirely. Worse, it undermines public trust. Residents begin to wonder whether the label is being used as a tool rather than a truth.
Government works best when it is seen and understood.
Legal notices are part of that visibility. They create a public record. They ensure that actions are documented, accessible, and available to anyone willing to look. They place information in a consistent, reliable location where citizens know to find it.
Bypassing that process, even legally, should not be taken lightly. There is also a practical concern. Not every resident is online. Not every resident attends meetings. Not every resident hears about changes through word of mouth. Legal notices exist to bridge that gap, to ensure that information reaches beyond the room where decisions are made.
Removing them from the process narrows the flow of information at a time when it should be broadened.
To be clear, municipalities have the authority to use emergency clauses. That authority is not in question.
The question is how it is being used.
When emergency clauses become automatic rather than intentional, they stop serving the public and start serving the process itself. They turn what should be a safeguard into a shortcut.
And shortcuts in government, especially those that limit public awareness, should always be approached with caution.
Communities deserve to know what is happening in their cities and towns before it happens, not after.
They deserve the chance to read, to understand, and, when necessary, to speak.
Emergency clauses have their place. But that place is not on every ordinance, every time.
Transparency should never be treated as optional.
More often than not, it’s the municipal attorney who recommends attaching an emergency clause to routine ordinances. Doing so sidesteps the full publication process—and the work that comes with preparing and placing a legal notice.
Many of these attorneys operate under a monthly retainer that already covers that work. Skipping publication reduces time and hassle, and from a business standpoint, it can be more efficient. But emergency clauses are not there to make an attorney’s work easier. It was never intended as a convenience tool to streamline workflow or cut administrative corners—it exists for genuine emergencies affecting public health, safety, or peace. Using it otherwise turns a narrow exception into standard operating procedure that erodes transparency and public trust.
It is the duty of the elected officials to question emergency clauses attached to ordinances and determine whether a true emergency exists, or if an emergency is actually a matter of convenience at the expense of public trust.