Objecting to consideration --- Striking from the minutes?

[Nathan Zook]

Doing some digging this evening.  I thought that there was a motion to strike things from the minutes.  But all I can find is in reference to rescinding a previous action by the body.

In particular,  RONR (11th ed.) p469 ll. 13-15 states that the minutes shall contain "All main motions...that were made...".  I am imaging a situation where even the fact that the motion came before the assembly could be an embarrassment to the society.

The motion that I was anticipating would of the form, "I object to the consideration of the motion and move that it be struck from the minutes."  In a similar fashion to rescinding and striking from the minutes.

It feels odd to me that a motion formally taken by a body can be struck from the minutes, but a motion which the body did not wish to consider could not be.

Or are we in the weird situation similar to the GDPR, wherein if someone successfully demands that their data not be retained, that this fact has to be retained?  Is it because if the matter is struck from the minutes that its non-consideration could not then be reconsidered?

But if this is so, then how is it that actions rescinded and struck from the minutes can be reinstated?  Again, this feels like an odd situation.

 

[Joshua Katz]

5 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

It feels odd to me that a motion formally taken by a body can be struck from the minutes, but a motion which the body did not wish to consider could not be.

 

Well, technically it can be - just amend the minutes while pending to remove it. It makes for an incomplete record, of course.

5 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

But if this is so, then how is it that actions rescinded and struck from the minutes can be reinstated?  Again, this feels like an odd situation.

 

If the motion to rescind and expunge from the minutes is itself rescinded, the original motion to do so would still appear in the minutes, as would the motion to rescind that action. At least, I would think. I've only used this motion once.

[Dan Honemann]

If RONR is the adopted parliamentary authority, the association's rules (assuming no special rule, bylaw, etc. to the contrary) require that main motions that have been made during the course of a meeting are to be included in the minutes of that meeting. As a consequence, it seems to me that it will require a suspension of the rules in order to approve minutes of a meeting which knowingly and deliberately fail to include a main motion which was, in fact, made during that meeting. 

[Nathan Zook]

Of course!  I had not considered suspending the rules for such a thing. Thanks.

[Josh Martin]

10 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

The motion that I was anticipating would of the form, "I object to the consideration of the motion and move that it be struck from the minutes."  In a similar fashion to rescinding and striking from the minutes.

It feels odd to me that a motion formally taken by a body can be struck from the minutes, but a motion which the body did not wish to consider could not be.

There is no motion to rescind and strike from the minutes, and a motion adopted by the body cannot be struck from the minutes. The motion to rescind and expunge is not used to remove the motion from the minutes, but to express the assembly’s disapproval.

”On extremely rare occasions when it is desired not only to rescind action but also to express the strongest disapproval, a member may move to Rescind and Expunge from the Minutes (or the Record). Adoption of this motion requires an affirmative vote of a majority of the entire membership, and may be inadvisable unless the support is even greater. Even a unanimous vote at a meeting is insufficient if that vote is not a majority of the entire membership. If such a motion is adopted, the secretary, in the presence of the assembly, draws a single line through or around the offending words in the minutes, and writes across them the words, "Rescinded and Ordered Expunged," with the date and his signature. In the recorded minutes the words that are expunged must not be blotted or cut out so that they cannot be read, since this would make it impossible to verify whether more was expunged than ordered. In any published record of the proceedings, the expunged material is omitted. Rather than expunging, it is usually better to rescind the previous action and then, if advisable, to adopt a resolution condemning the action which has been rescinded.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 310)

Although not specifically addressed, I suppose it would be in order to expunge an unadapted motion from the minutes for similar reasons, and the same vote would be required to do so. Again, this is not the same thing as striking the motion from the minutes.

2 minutes ago, Nathan Zook said:

Of course!  I had not considered suspending the rules for such a thing. Thanks.

If the organization is indeed considering striking a main motion that was not withdrawn from the minutes in its entirety, I would also advise consulting a lawyer. The minutes are the official record of the society’s proceedings, and it may be that there are consequences to deliberately falsifying such a record.

[Nathan Zook]

I agree that there is no such motion.  I was considering that this is an odd state of affairs.

Uggh.   I should have reread about expunging from the minutes.

The motivation for expunging (in my mind) would be avoid embarrassment for the body that the motion was ever brought up.  Inspired by the Congressional motion (I believe), that a member's remarks be "taken down" (from the record).

My intent was to follow the line-through process.  But your concern regarding the nature of the minutes is well taken.  We cannot amend history, and if history reveals us to be a bunch of braying jackasses, well...

[Dan Honemann]

I think we ought not lose sight of the fact that there is a substantial difference between (i) expunging from the minutes a main motion which has been adopted, and (ii) agreeing not to include in the minutes a main motion which was not considered because an objection to its consideration was sustained, as was posited here. In the latter instance, I think a two-thirds vote will suffice.

[Gary Novosielski]

6 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

I agree that there is no such motion.  I was considering that this is an odd state of affairs.

Uggh.   I should have reread about expunging from the minutes.

The motivation for expunging (in my mind) would be avoid embarrassment for the body that the motion was ever brought up.  Inspired by the Congressional motion (I believe), that a member's remarks be "taken down" (from the record).

My intent was to follow the line-through process.  But your concern regarding the nature of the minutes is well taken.  We cannot amend history, and if history reveals us to be a bunch of braying jackasses, well...

Your understanding of a directive that words be "taken down" is exactly backwards.

When words are "taken down" they are not removed from the record.  They are taken down (written down) by the secretary, at the direction of the chair, preparatory to imposing discipline for saying them, so that the offensive words can be entered in the minutes, should the chair find it necessary to "Name" the offender.  See RONR §61.

[Steven Britton]

On ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 11:59 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

If RONR is the adopted parliamentary authority, the association's rules (assuming no special rule, bylaw, etc. to the contrary) require that main motions that have been made during the course of a meeting are to be included in the minutes of that meeting. As a consequence, it seems to me that it will require a suspension of the rules in order to approve minutes of a meeting which knowingly and deliberately fail to include a main motion which was, in fact, made during that meeting. 

Question for Dan:

When is the question to suspend rules, which requires a two-thirds vote, put to a vote; at the time of the individual correction.or at the final approval of the amended secretary's draft?

Edited February 12, 2019 at 11:42 PM by Steven Britton

[Gary Novosielski]

There is no final vote on the minutes as corrected.  Once there are no (further) corrections offered, the chair announces that the minutes stand approved.

So the motion "I move to Suspend the rules that interfere with deliberately falsifying the minutes, and strike <language>" would be made at the time the "correction" is offered.   The motion is not debatable, so the vote would occur at that time.

[Steven Britton]

13 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

,,There is no final vote on the minutes as corrected.  Once there are no (further) corrections offered, the chair announces that the minutes stand approved.

So the motion "I move to Suspend the rules that interfere with deliberately falsifying the minutes, and strike <language>" would be made at the time the "correction" is offered.   The motion is not debatable, so the vote would occur at that time.

I'm not sure I would agree with the above analysis, and was politely asking for DAN's clarification. I am well aware of the procedure for approving minutes (RONR, 11th ed., pp. 354 - 355) and the proper contents of minutes (RONR, 11th, pp. 468-469), but  I'm questioning if proposing the subsidiary motion to amend-by striking-out the paragraph (11th, pp. 354. l. 31) actually requires suspending rules, or would the breach occur by giving final approval to minutes, which intentionally omit the embarrassing main motion, thus requiring a two-thirds vote to give final approval to these particular minutes by application of the motion to suspend rules.

Edited February 13, 2019 at 03:36 PM by Steven Britton

[Dan Honemann]

Let's take this one step at a time.

First of all, it seems to me that an organization could adopt a special rule of order providing that the minutes of its proceedings shall not include any motion which was not considered due to an objection to its consideration having been sustained. If this is so, then I would also think that such a rule could be adopted for a single session by a two-thirds vote. And if this is so, then I would also think that the rules could be suspended so as to allow the assembly to agree that a particular motion which was not considered due to a sustained objection to its consideration not be recorded in the minutes.

Drafting of such a rule or motion won't be as easy as it might seem because allowance may have to be made for the possibility of the undesirable motion being carried over to a subsequent meeting or session due to a motion to reconsider the vote that sustained the objection to its consideration being made but not taken up at the meeting at which it was made, but I suppose this won't present an insurmountable problem. Or I guess the rule could also ban reconsideration.  

[Gary Novosielski]

7 hours ago, Steven Britton said:

I'm not sure I would agree with the above analysis, and was politely asking for DAN's clarification. I am well aware of the procedure for approving minutes (RONR, 11th ed., pp. 354 - 355) and the proper contents of minutes (RONR, 11th, pp. 468-469), but  I'm questioning if proposing the subsidiary motion to amend-by striking-out the paragraph (11th, pp. 354. l. 31) actually requires suspending rules, or would the breach occur by giving final approval to minutes, which intentionally omit the embarrassing main motion, thus requiring a two-thirds vote to give final approval to these particular minutes by application of the motion to suspend rules.

Understood, but since, as you know, there is no vote on final approval, it's not a particularly good opportunity to suspend the rules.  It seems to me that the breach would be in the offering of the correction (which is, as you correctly note, in the nature of a motion to amend) which seeks to strike the paragraph in question.  My reasoning is that if a correction is agreed to either by unanimous consent or a majority vote, the minutes are as good as amended at that point, at least with respect to that particular point.

[Dan Honemann]

If the question as to inclusion in the minutes of a motion which an assembly has refused to consider at one of its meetings is first raised when the secretary's draft (including, as it should, the spurned motion) is presented for approval, then I agree that it will have to be raised by moving to amend ("correct") the secretary's draft by striking out that portion of the minutes which makes reference to it. If the chair rules (as I think he should) that such a motion is not in order, then a member may move to suspend the rules which interfere with the consideration and adoption of this motion to amend ("correct") the minutes. This is the course of action I would suggest.

Or, I suppose, an appeal might be taken from the ruling of the chair, arguing that the rule in the book is only a "should" rule, not a "must" rule, and therefore the motion to correct the minutes is in order and can be adopted by a majority vote. Now all of us here on the Forum can cast a vote as to whether or not the ruling of the chair should be sustained.  🙂

[Steven Britton]

9 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

If the question as to inclusion in the minutes of a motion which an assembly has refused to consider at one of its meetings is first raised when the secretary's draft (including, as it should, the spurned motion) is presented for approval, then I agree that it will have to be raised by moving to amend ("correct") the secretary's draft by striking out that portion of the minutes which makes reference to it. If the chair rules (as I think he should) that such a motion is not in order, then a member may move to suspend the rules which interfere with the consideration and adoption of this motion to amend ("correct") the minutes. This is the course of action I would suggest.

Or, I suppose, an appeal might be taken from the ruling of the chair, arguing that the rule in the book is only a "should" rule, not a "must" rule, and therefore the motion to correct the minutes is in order and can be adopted by a majority vote. Now all of us here on the Forum can cast a vote as to whether or not the ruling of the chair should be sustained.  🙂

Would the application noted above hold true for Suspend Rules applied to embarrassing motions that are made, which don't receive a second?

Edited February 14, 2019 at 08:34 PM by Steven Britton

[Dan Honemann]

35 minutes ago, Steven Britton said:

Would the application noted above hold true for Suspend Rules applied to embarrassing motions that are made, which don't receive a second?

Yes, I would think so.

[Nathan Zook]

On 2/8/2019 at 12:20 PM, Nathan Zook said:

I agree that there is no such motion.  I was considering that this is an odd state of affairs.

Uggh.   I should have reread about expunging from the minutes.

The motivation for expunging (in my mind) would be avoid embarrassment for the body that the motion was ever brought up.  Inspired by the Congressional motion (I believe), that a member's remarks be "taken down" (from the record).

My intent was to follow the line-through process.  But your concern regarding the nature of the minutes is well taken.  We cannot amend history, and if history reveals us to be a bunch of braying jackasses, well...

On 2/8/2019 at 6:48 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Your understanding of a directive that words be "taken down" is exactly backwards.

When words are "taken down" they are not removed from the record.  They are taken down (written down) by the secretary, at the direction of the chair, preparatory to imposing discipline for saying them, so that the offensive words can be entered in the minutes, should the chair find it necessary to "Name" the offender.  See RONR §61.

The Congressional rule is quite backwards from Roberts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_taken_down

 

[Nathan Zook]

On 2/13/2019 at 9:25 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Let's take this one step at a time.

First of all, it seems to me that an organization could adopt a special rule of order providing that the minutes of its proceedings shall not include any motion which was not considered due to an objection to its consideration having been sustained. If this is so, then I would also think that such a rule could be adopted for a single session by a two-thirds vote. And if this is so, then I would also think that the rules could be suspended so as to allow the assembly to agree that a particular motion which was not considered due to a sustained objection to its consideration not be recorded in the minutes.

Drafting of such a rule or motion won't be as easy as it might seem because allowance may have to be made for the possibility of the undesirable motion being carried over to a subsequent meeting or session due to a motion to reconsider the vote that sustained the objection to its consideration being made but not taken up at the meeting at which it was made, but I suppose this won't present an insurmountable problem. Or I guess the rule could also ban reconsideration.  

Wow.  Okay, in detail this makes excellent sense. I now have something *special* to consider if I'm ever honoured with the request to help draft bylaws again.

If we're playing with the bylaws, I would suggest a new motion "To refuse and erase the motion" (???) that would refuse consideration, prevent reconsideration of the question, and prevent the record of the motion (and itself) beyond the meeting or session, which would require a 4/5ths vote.  Do I even mention that as a time-saving device, if the motion only receives 2/3rds of the vote, that it converts into a (carried) motion to refuse to consider?

But now, I'm just having fun...

[Shmuel Gerber]

13 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

The Congressional rule is quite backwards from Roberts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_taken_down

 

It's not backwards from RONR, but the procedure is somewhat different because Congress normally keeps a verbatim record of each member's remarks in debate.