Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Partly expunged


J. J.

Recommended Posts

Could a motion be party expunged?

The assembly adopted a resolution consisting of resolving clauses A, B, C, and D.  Sometime, several sessions in the future, they decide that clause C is very objectionable.  They wish not only to remove it, but to expunge that clause.  Clauses A, B, and D are fine, however.   A majority of the entire membership is present and will vote to remove it.  May they, under the rules?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RONR 35:13 seems to refer only to expunging an entre motion. and does not explicitly address expunging only a portion of a motion. Nevertheless, I think it should be permissible. If anyone disagrees,  I would be very interested in the logic (other than "because the rule says so.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Mr. Mervosh. I do not see why it cannot be rescinded and expunged from the record. This is based on my interpretation of the rules as written and also on the general principle that an assembly should generally be able to do anything it wants to do unless it is prohibited by some rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2022 at 5:01 PM, J. J. said:

Could a motion be party expunged?

The assembly adopted a resolution consisting of resolving clauses A, B, C, and D.  Sometime, several sessions in the future, they decide that clause C is very objectionable.  They wish not only to remove it, but to expunge that clause.  Clauses A, B, and D are fine, however.   A majority of the entire membership is present and will vote to remove it.  May they, under the rules?

Because it is "only" about a resolving clause and the result (material side) of the motion stays the same  I cannot see why not.

I do think if any of the two  conditions was not met there could be a debate

Edited by puzzling
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2022 at 11:01 AM, J. J. said:

Could a motion be party expunged?

The assembly adopted a resolution consisting of resolving clauses A, B, C, and D.  Sometime, several sessions in the future, they decide that clause C is very objectionable.  They wish not only to remove it, but to expunge that clause.  Clauses A, B, and D are fine, however.   A majority of the entire membership is present and will vote to remove it.  May they, under the rules?

I see no reason why not.

While the rule as written, strictly speaking, appears applicable to rescinding an entire motion, I think this is simply due to the fact that this is an uncommon motion which is not discussed in great detail, not because it was the intent to exclude a "partial expungement."

On 12/15/2022 at 11:33 AM, puzzling said:

Because it is "only" about a resolving clause and the result (material side) of the motion stays the same  I cannot see why not.

I do think if any of the two  conditions was not met there could be a debate

I am not certain what you are trying to say here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

puzzling a bit longer on the question, I came to the conclusion that no a motion cannot be partially expunged from the minutes.

The motion is to rescind and expunge from the minutes.

In the given example the motion is not rescinded at all so there is nothing to expunge.

Maybe it could be done by amending the minutes, but then the minutes don't give a truthfull account of what was decided at that meeting.

Another option is to really rescind and expunge the old motion and then adopt a new motion without the offending clause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2022 at 1:18 PM, Josh Martin said:

While the rule as written, strictly speaking, appears applicable to rescinding an entire motion, I think this is simply due to the fact that this is an uncommon motion which is not discussed in great detail, not because it was the intent to exclude a "partial expungement."

Well, Rescind, strictly speaking, is a motion to strike the entirety of a motion.  Rescinding part of a motion is actually a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted by striking portions of the original motion.

There does not seem to be a motion to Amend and Partially Expunge Something Previously Adopted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2022 at 12:01 PM, J. J. said:

Could a motion be party expunged?

The assembly adopted a resolution consisting of resolving clauses A, B, C, and D.  Sometime, several sessions in the future, they decide that clause C is very objectionable.  They wish not only to remove it, but to expunge that clause.  Clauses A, B, and D are fine, however.   A majority of the entire membership is present and will vote to remove it.  May they, under the rules?

 

On 12/15/2022 at 1:18 PM, Josh Martin said:

I see no reason why not.

While the rule as written, strictly speaking, appears applicable to rescinding an entire motion, I think this is simply due to the fact that this is an uncommon motion which is not discussed in great detail, not because it was the intent to exclude a "partial expungement."

I agree with Mr. Martin's response, especially because it appears that we have here four different resolutions resolving clauses A, B, C, and D, adopted under one enacting clause.  If they were divisible, I see no reason why one of them could not be rescinded and expunged, and this would be especially so if they were divisible on demand of a single member.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2022 at 5:31 PM, Dan Honemann said:

 

I agree with Mr. Martin's response, especially because it appears that we have here four different resolutions, A, B, C, and D, adopted under one enacting clause.  If they were divisible, I see no reason why one of them could not be rescinded and expunged, and this would be especially so if they were divisible on demand of a single member. 

Are you saying that whenever a resolution has more than one resolved clause that it is multiple resolutions?  I think there is a difference between a resolution that resolves more than one thing, and a motion to adopt a number of individual resolutions. 

I also think there's a difference between a resolution that could have been divided on demand of a single member and one that was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2022 at 3:12 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

Are you saying that whenever a resolution has more than one resolved clause that it is multiple resolutions?  I think there is a difference between a resolution that resolves more than one thing, and a motion to adopt a number of individual resolutions. 

No, I'm not saying that whenever a resolution has more than one resolving clause that it is more than one resolution, and I should have been more precise in this regard. In what I wrote, strike "different resolutions" and insert "resolving clauses".

On 12/20/2022 at 3:12 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

I also think there's a difference between a resolution that could have been divided on demand of a single member and one that was.

As do I, but I don't this this matters in determining the applicability of a motion to Rescind and Expunge from the Minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2022 at 7:45 AM, Dan Honemann said:

 

As do I, but I don't this this matters in determining the applicability of a motion to Rescind and Expunge from the Minutes.

You are getting as bad as I am.  :)

Seriously, to illustrate this, suppose this motion was adopted, "that the society buy a new deck and chair for the secretary."

In theory, using rescind/amend something previously adopted the assembly could strike out and expunge the words "and chair," because there is still a coherent motion.  Do I have the nuance of this correct? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2022 at 7:45 AM, Dan Honemann said:

As do I, but I don't this this matters in determining the applicability of a motion to Rescind and Expunge from the Minutes.

 

On 12/20/2022 at 8:57 AM, J. J. said:

You are getting as bad as I am.  :)

Probably worse.  😀

On 12/20/2022 at 8:57 AM, J. J. said:

Seriously, to illustrate this, suppose this motion was adopted, "that the society buy a new deck and chair for the secretary."

In theory, using rescind/amend something previously adopted the assembly could strike out and expunge the words "and chair," because there is still a coherent motion.  Do I have the nuance of this correct? 

This example goes well beyond the sort of factual situation previously being considered, but if I understand correctly what you mean by "nuance", I believe that what you have said is correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2022 at 9:17 AM, Dan Honemann said:

 

This example goes well beyond the sort of factual situation previously being considered, but if I understand correctly what you mean by "nuance", I believe that what you have said is correct.

I was looking at saying that something could be partly expunged, provided that it would not leave an incoherent motion (though I will concede that there could be other limitations).  Neither example would. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2022 at 10:31 PM, Dan Honemann said:

 

I agree with Mr. Martin's response, especially because it appears that we have here four different resolutions resolving clauses A, B, C, and D, adopted under one enacting clause.  If they were divisible, I see no reason why one of them could not be rescinded and expunged, and this would be especially so if they were divisible on demand of a single member.  

If Mr Honemann says it is okay

then I have bow to better knowledge and  agree it is okay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2022 at 9:58 AM, puzzling said:

If Mr Honemann says it is okay

then I have bow to better knowledge and  agree it is okay

Like so many others, in general, I cannot find a reason why it would violate a rule to strike out and expunge part of something that was previously adopted.  I'm willing to listen a counter argument, but none have been provided. 

For me the key that rescind and amend something previously adopted are different forms of the same motion; rescind and expunge also appears to be a form of the same motion.

I would take it for granted that a motion to Rescind could be amended to a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted and that a motion to Rescind could be amended to Rescind and Expunge or vice versa (though with a different vote threshold to adopt).  For me, that would cover the relationship. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2022 at 8:57 AM, J. J. said:

You are getting as bad as I am.  :)

Seriously, to illustrate this, suppose this motion was adopted, "that the society buy a new deck and chair for the secretary."

In theory, using rescind/amend something previously adopted the assembly could strike out and expunge the words "and chair," because there is still a coherent motion.  Do I have the nuance of this correct? 

What bothers me about this is that there is not a motion called "Rescind/Amend something previously adopted."   There is a motion to Rescind, and one to Amend.  In RONR, §35 refers to them as motions, plural, throughout.

In 35:1, we see that: "The effect of Rescind is to strike out an entire main motion, resolution, order, or rule that has been adopted at some previous time. Amend Something Previously Adopted is the motion that can be used if it is desired to change only a part of the text, or to substitute a different version."

So although you would probably get away with it, striking the words "and chair" would require a motion to ASPA, not Rescind, since it does not strike an entire resolving clause at a minimum.  And per 35:13, it looks like it is only the Rescind form that gets the optional expunge feature, which requires a majority of the entire membership.  This may be why that section advises that "[r]ather 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." 

Such a condemnation would only require a majority vote, not MEM.

I have no quarrel with anyone who asserts that Amend and Expunge would not violate the spirit of these rules, and should be allowed.  I'm just recalling the admonishment (which I have myself received) that until revision n+1 is published, we are to go by what RONR actually says, and not what we wish it said.

Edited by Gary Novosielski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2022 at 3:04 PM, J. J. said:

The book refers to Rescind and Amend Something Previously Adopted as being "two forms of one incidental main motion governed by the same rules (35:1)."  That would be my basis for permitting "and chair"  to be amended by striking out and expunged. 

And I submit that this would amount to creating a yet a third form, which may not be a bad idea, but that doesn't make it in order.  The use of "expunge" has its own paragraph and refers specifically to the motion to Rescind, rather than being in the standard descriptive characteristics that apply to both motions.

I still think you would probably get away with it because "expunge" requires a vote of a majority of the entire membership, which is probably enough to suspend the rules.  Or is it?

Edited by Gary Novosielski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/22/2022 at 7:31 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I still think you would probably get away with it because "expunge" requires a vote of a majority of the entire membership, which is probably enough to suspend the rules.  Or is it?

No, but it can do even more by adopting a special rule of order.

In any event, look particularly at the fourth and fifth sentences of 35:13 and their focus on "words".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/22/2022 at 7:50 PM, Dan Honemann said:

No, but it can do even more by adopting a special rule of order.

In any event, look particularly at the fourth and fifth sentences of 35:13 and their focus on "words".  

That's fine, but my contention is that if we pay attention to the first sentence, we never reach the fourth and fifth.  They say "words" because that's what the line gets drawn to: the words of the rescinded resolution.    If we look at the last sentence, we see that it is still talking about rescision. 

As a wise man once said: 

Quote

Our job is to recognize and apply the rule or rules in RONR which are applicable to that situation.  Hopefully, these rules do in fact make sense in virtually all circumstances to which they apply, but that does not mean that everyone will think that the rule in RONR makes the most sense in every particular case.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...