Rob Elsman

Oddly enough, the original post seems to have disappeared. That's too bad. A lot of readers on the forum might have liked to learn something from it. As to the answer, strictly speaking, any member can do what members can do when they can do it.

...or the motion could be worded in a more positive way, "That the admission of new members be suspended for this year".

You would want to amend the bylaws.

In ordinary societies whose members meet at least quarterly, an agenda is not used; rather, the society's established order of business is used. A member brings business before the assembly by making a main motion at a meeting.

A remark of this kind during debate on the motion involved is not in order, because it is not germane—that is, it does not have a direct bearing on whether it is advisable to do, or not to do, what the motion proposes. Is the City Manager, in this instance, even a member of the City Commission? If not (as I suspect), his remarks should be closely monitored by the chair to prevent him from straying from the subject for which he has been given permission to speak.

If I understand correctly, what is being suggested is, in effect, another class of membership in the organization. Such a class of membership, though it currently would include only one person, should be very carefully established in the bylaws, setting out the exact rights and responsibilities of members of that class. I will leave it to the assembly to fully deliberate the wisdom of such a proposal.

RONR is silent on the subject of recreating lost minutes.

Mr. Novosielski is referring to item 7) on p. 470. With respect to Recess, such a passing allusion would only rarely add anything of any lasting importance, clarity, or completeness. The only case that comes to my mind is a situation where an item of business was not taken up at its assigned hour because the meeting was in recess at that hour. Even then, one might ask why such a passing allusion to a recess would be of any lasting interest.

I have consistently interpreted pp. 468-473 in the light of the principle of interpretation 4) on pp. 589, 590. In effect, the inclusion of certain items to be recorded also implies the exclusion of other items of the same class. I have previously opined that recording something other requires a suspension of the rules by a two-thirds vote, since what is said on pp. 468-473 is a rule of order according to the definition given on p. 15.

A privileged motion to Recess need not be recorded in the minutes. See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 468-473.

I don't think there is a rule in RONR that speaks to this.

As to the only question asked, the proper motion to do away with a rule adopted five years ago is Rescind. I am not sure whether 2) is intended as a question or an assertion. RONR does not speak of a "statute of limitations", and I'm not certain what is intended. As far as I can tell, 3) is an assertion that does not have anything to do with RONR. As a fact, the rule seems to be gone. Okay.

The only thing I can suggest is to meet at the established time. At that meeting, a member can make a motion to Adjourn, "I move to adjourn". Before the vote is taken on this motion, the member should make a motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn, "I move that when this meeting adjourns, it adjourns to meet on [date] at [time]". This latter motion is amendable to modify the date and time. At length, the vote will be taken first on the motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn, then on the motion to Adjourn. This procedure can be followed, even if the meeting suffers from the absence of a quorum.

See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 576, 577. The article in your bylaws where the Executive Committee is established should say how the members are determined.

Yes, no, and yes, respectively.

In an executive board, debate is limited to members of the board. A visitor is not allowed to make a speech in debate unless the rules are suspended by a two-thirds vote. As to your question, though, debate, if allowed under the rules, commences after a motion has been made, seconded, and stated by the chair.

When a motion to Adjourn is made when another motion is pending, the motion to Adjourn (to the next regular meeting, as you note) is a privileged motion. Consideration of the pending main motion will be resumed at the next regular meeting, provided 1) the next regular meeting is held within the quarterly interval, and 2) the term of membership of some or all of the members has not expired (in a body where this is applicable). Where in the established order of business the question will be called up depends. It could be called up as the first unfinished special order or the first item of unfinished business.

They are your bylaws; you tell us. 🙂

RONR does not have a rule that would empower an executive board to dispose of an item of business that is in the control of the superior assembly.

I'm afraid RONR does not speak of the "auxiliary" relationship between two bodies, and I am quite unsure what exactly is meant.

The main motion that adopted the special rule of order appears to be an improper main motion. It's adoption seems to me to have given rise to a "continuing breach", about which a Point of Order can still be raised in the adopting body.

Mr. Kapur makes me doubt the accuracy of my previous response. All of a sudden, I get the feeling I don't understand the original post.

Yes, apparently he did get it wrong. I agree with Mr Mervosh, though, that it is too late to do anything about it. Your possible option, now, might be to give previous notice of a motion to Rescind the main motion.

Are remarks in Open Forum subject to the rules concerning debate?

No rule in RONR prohibits related persons from serving on an executive board.