Espounging evaluations recorded in minutes

[Guest Russell]

I am being asked to have evaluations of officers espounged from recorded minutes now that I am gone from the board. How do I do it?

[Chris Harrison]

I am being asked to have evaluations of officers espounged from recorded minutes now that I am gone from the board. How do I do it?

You don't. If you are talking about Rescind and Expunge From the Minutes (RONR p. 299) that will require a majority of the ENTIRE membership. Note the language would still be visible in the minutes, there would just a notation around the language stating that it has been "Rescinded and Ordered Expunged".

[Rob Elsman]

You don't. If you are talking about Rescind and Expunge From the Minutes (RONR p. 299) that will require a majority of the ENTIRE membership. Note the language would still be visible in the minutes, there would just a notation around the language stating that it has been "Rescinded and Ordered Expunged".

I agree. It is prohibited to deface the minute book by attempting to blot out, erase or "white out" the originally-approved language.

[hmtcastle]

there would just be a notation around the language stating that it has been "Rescinded and Ordered Expunged".

Well, there would also be a line drawn through the text (or around the text) but, as noted, not so you couldn't read it.

[Larry Cisar]

And the later minutes would record the exact words that were to be expunged. Expunging actually adds emphasis to the words. If left alone, people will forget about the original words over time.

[hmtcastle]

Expunging actually adds emphasis to the words.

Ironic, isn't it.

But the purpose is not to pretend something never happened, but rather to "express the strongest disapproval" of a previously approved action. It's "Rescision PLUS". Sort of like putting the action in a pillory in the town square for all the world to see. In other words, emphasis is the goal, not an unintended consequence.

So "expunge", as the term is commonly understood, might not be the best choice of words:

1. to strike out, obliterate, or mark for deletion
   
2. to efface completely : destroy
   
3. to eliminate (as a memory) from one's consciousness
   

Now if, by "recorded minutes", Russell is referring to an electronic recording, that could be ordered destroyed since the recording is not the minutes. But expunging officer evaluations would not be a proper use of this particular parliamentary tool since, presumably, the assembly does not "strongly disapprove" of the evaluations, they just think they shouldn't have been included in the first place (which, perhaps, they shouldn't). Unfortunately, approved minutes are one of the few things in the parliamentary world that are "carved in stone".

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I am being asked to have evaluations of officers espounged from recorded minutes now that I am gone from the board. How do I do it?

If the "evaluations" (whatever they are) were never officially adopted, then there is nothing to rescind.

You would then be striking out extraneous data.

I see no need to jump through hoops for this action, if the data was merely added as commentary, analysis, or a coda or appendix, etc., of some kind.

If the data is what I think it is, then it never should have been inserted into the minutes in the first place.

[David A Foulkes]

I am being asked to have evaluations of officers espounged from recorded minutes now that I am gone from the board. How do I do it?

Who is asking you? Why did they wait until you were off the board to ask you to do this? Why do you think you have authority to do so? These are just some of the questions that pop in.

If the "evaluations" (whatever they are) were never officially adopted, then there is nothing to rescind.

You would then be striking out extraneous data.

I see no need to jump through hoops for this action, if the data was merely added as commentary, analysis, or a coda or appendix, etc., of some kind.

If the data is what I think it is, then it never should have been inserted into the minutes in the first place.

And yet, apparently, there it is (or there they are, referring to "data" (n. pl.)). So, to "remove" these extraneous commentaries, better to simply Amend Something Previously Adopted? (I'm eschewing the familiar and handy acronym) (and smileys) (but using up a hefty portion of my daily parenthetical allowance)

[Kim Goldsworthy]

So, to "remove" these extraneous commentaries, better to simply Amend Something Previously Adopted?

Yes.

I draw a line between things which

(a.) can be rescinded; vs.

(b.) cannot be meaningfully rescinded.

• You can rescind main motions.

• I don't think you can rescind requests.

Here, it is a motion like "To include X in the minutes," like "That I voted in the negative," or "That the text of all 3 bids be included in the minutes".

There is nothing on-going which needs its execution halted.

To repeat the opposite:

If X was adopted officially as a main motion, and not as a request, then the parliamentary situation is different.