J. J. Posted December 14, 2022 at 05:01 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2022 at 05:01 PM 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted December 14, 2022 at 05:46 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2022 at 05:46 PM 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.") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted December 14, 2022 at 05:53 PM Report Share Posted December 14, 2022 at 05:53 PM (edited) I don't see why it cannot. 35:6 notes an unexecuted part of an order can be rescinded. So if C is unexecuted and can be rescinded, why would it be improper to have C rescinded and expunged? Edited December 14, 2022 at 05:54 PM by George Mervosh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted December 14, 2022 at 06:02 PM Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2022 at 06:02 PM I agree that it can be, based on 35.1; as Rescind is a different form of the motion Amend Something Previously Adopted and Rescind and Expunge seems to another form of Rescind, it does follow that expunging part of the resolution is in order. I could be persuaded otherwise, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted December 15, 2022 at 04:53 PM Report Share Posted December 15, 2022 at 04:53 PM 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 I do not see why it cannot be rescinded and expunged from the record.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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puzzling Posted December 15, 2022 at 05:33 PM Report Share Posted December 15, 2022 at 05:33 PM (edited) 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 December 15, 2022 at 05:34 PM by puzzling typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 15, 2022 at 06:18 PM Report Share Posted December 15, 2022 at 06:18 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puzzling Posted December 16, 2022 at 10:25 PM Report Share Posted December 16, 2022 at 10:25 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 17, 2022 at 01:42 AM Report Share Posted December 17, 2022 at 01:42 AM 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caryn Ann Harlos Posted December 19, 2022 at 09:54 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2022 at 09:54 PM I find myself in agreement with Gary on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 19, 2022 at 10:31 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2022 at 10:31 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 20, 2022 at 08:12 AM Report Share Posted December 20, 2022 at 08:12 AM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 20, 2022 at 12:45 PM Report Share Posted December 20, 2022 at 12:45 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted December 20, 2022 at 01:57 PM Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2022 at 01:57 PM 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 20, 2022 at 02:17 PM Report Share Posted December 20, 2022 at 02:17 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted December 20, 2022 at 02:28 PM Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2022 at 02:28 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 20, 2022 at 02:40 PM Report Share Posted December 20, 2022 at 02:40 PM In case anyone is wondering, we all know that "deck" here really means "desk". 🙂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted December 20, 2022 at 02:42 PM Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2022 at 02:42 PM On 12/20/2022 at 9:40 AM, Dan Honemann said: In case anyone is wondering, we all know that "deck" here really means "desk". 🙂 Maybe it is yacht club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puzzling Posted December 20, 2022 at 02:58 PM Report Share Posted December 20, 2022 at 02:58 PM 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted December 20, 2022 at 04:32 PM Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2022 at 04:32 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 20, 2022 at 07:47 PM Report Share Posted December 20, 2022 at 07:47 PM (edited) 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 December 20, 2022 at 07:53 PM by Gary Novosielski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted December 20, 2022 at 08:04 PM Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2022 at 08:04 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 23, 2022 at 12:31 AM Report Share Posted December 23, 2022 at 12:31 AM (edited) 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 December 23, 2022 at 12:32 AM by Gary Novosielski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 23, 2022 at 12:50 AM Report Share Posted December 23, 2022 at 12:50 AM 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". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 27, 2022 at 11:42 PM Report Share Posted December 27, 2022 at 11:42 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts