04-27-26-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—APRIL 27, 2026 6 amending or suspending the rules, which requires a majority vote. She indicated the Council could adopt rules of procedure by code or resolution. City Attorney Kirchoff indicated the second question that was posed to her was how the City could amend something that has already been approved. She noted there were three ways to accomplish this under Roberts Rules of Order. She stated the first option would be to make a motion to reconsider. She reported a motion to reconsider has to be made at the same meeting an item was acted on. She explained once a meeting was adjourned the Council could not make a motion to reconsider an item that was already approved at a future meeting. She commented the second way to amend something that was approved was to make a motion to rescind or a motion to amend. She indicated these were essentially the same procedure, noting a member of the body could make a motion to rescind or amend an item that has already been approved. She reported a member would have to make a motion to add an item to the next agenda, which would give the city clerk notice to add this item to a future agenda. She explained the Council could also ask the city clerk or give notice that they would like a particular item added to the agenda before the agenda was posted. She reported notice would then be given to the body that a motion to rescind would be added to the agenda. She noted the third way to amend something that has already been approved would be to make a motion at a meeting when nothing else is pending. She indicated a motion to rescind, if approved, would mean the previous action did not happen. She commented a motion to amend, if approved, would amend the previous action. Mayor Grant stated this item was brought up after appointments were made to a City board. He recalled that appointments could not be rescinded after appointments were approved. He indicated if this were to come again, he should rule the matter out of order. City Attorney Kirchoff reported this was the case. Councilmember Weber stated the memo from staff did not reflect this. Mayor Grant reported the memo did reflect this under the rescind section. He explained this was an interesting topic and noted he went back to the Minnesota State Association of Parliamentarians. He noted he spoke with the President on this topic and reported he provided the City Attorney with a response from the President regarding this matter. He indicated the opinion of the State Association of Parliamentarians President was that it was the City's custom for the past 25 years that an agenda was approved and when the agenda was approved, the items within the Consent Calendar are set. He reported within Roberts Rules of Order a member can pull an item from the Consent Calendar and items can also be added to the agenda prior to the approval of the agenda. He stated it was the opinion of the Parliamentarians that action can be done this way for the good of the order as a long standing custom. He commented if the Council does not want to do things in this order, a change could be made, but based upon their determination, that was the City's custom and the custom was to be followed. He indicated there were organizations that do things slightly different than Roberts Rules of Order depending on how the group operates. He understood some Councilmembers were newer than others, but this was the manner in which the agenda was approved with items added or removed and the Consent Calendar was set. He explained this then allowed the Council to dispense with the matters at hand. He clarified that the President is not an attorney, does not give legal advice,but rather was a parliamentarian. Councilmember Weber stated he just heard the Mayor tell the Council what the City's custom is or has been for the past 25 years and then attributed this custom to the letter he received without