Parliamentary Journal Winter 2026 by American Institute of Parliamentarians

PARLIAMENTARY JOURNAL

OFFICERS AND DEPARTMENT CHAIRS

President

Robert M. Peskin, DDS, CP-T President@aipparl.org

Vice President

Atul Kapur, MD, MSc., CPP-T, PRP VP@aipparl.org

Secretary Laura Meade, CPP, PRP Secretary@aipparl.org

Treasurer

Daniel Ivey-Soto, CP-T, PRP Treasurer@aipparl.org

Accrediting Director

Kay Allison Crews, CPP-T, PRP Accrediting@aipparl.org

Education Director

W. Craig Henry, CPP-T, PRP Education@aipparl.org

Communications Director Brandon Walters, CP-T, PRP Communications@aipparl.org

Parliamentarian

Lucy Anderson, CPP-T, PRP

OTHER OFFICIALS

Parliamentary Journal Editor Manushag N. Powell, PhD, CP PJ@aipparl.org

Chairman, Opinions Committee Atul Kapur, MD, CPP-T, PRP Opinions@aipparl.org

The Communicator Editor David Jackson, DHSc, PA-C, CP-T, PRP Communicator@aipparl.org

The American Institute of Parliamentarians is a nonprofit organization founded for the general purpose of improving parliamentary procedures.

Regular Member

First Two Years $55

After Two Years $70

Full-time Student $20

Certified Parliamentarian $105

Certified Professional Parliamentarian $130

Annual membership dues include subscription to the Parliamentary Journal.

NOTES FROM THE EDITOR

Like a pushmi-pullyu, our newest issue of the Parliamentary Journal looks both forward and backward the reader in the middle thus has the best of all vantage points for their parliamentary practice.

Geoff Alan and Justin Pappano offer us a series of attentively analyzed examples of where generative AI can and can’t augment human engagement with parliamentary law; their work is both optimistic and cautionary. Complementarily, Kay Allison Crews has submitted an example of praxis for us to contemplate: an AIassisted piece, which began with a teaching presentation by the author and then used a large language model as part of the process of revising it into essay form.

Both these pieces form a perfect lead-in to the AIP Virtual Spring Practicum (2026), whose topic is A.I. and Parliamentary Procedure. The practicum will take place between 12-14 June, is entirely online, and will cover issues from the practical (using generative AI in writing scripts or bylaws) to the philosophical (the ethics of using generative AI in professional practice). Your editor will also offer a hands-on workshop for using LLMs in teaching. Registration is open now.

And yet. While it is essential to come to grips with the way changing technologies intersect with our work, the Parliamentary Journal will never neglect to hold a place for the kinds of knowing that come only of deep human experience and long professional practice: this is a venue where practitioners will always be welcome to cite the deep magic, so to speak. The motion Rescind and Expunge from the Minutes is not one a practicing parliamentarian is likely to see very often so much so that AIPSC opts not to include it at all, taking the Other Book at its word: “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 35:13). Jonathan M. Jacobs, however, makes the argument that there are circumstances where Rescind and Expunge really is the best option, even guiding us through a case study for which he came out of retirement to underscore the point.

The editor hopes you will find that this eclectic issue inspires you to write your own explorations of any and all aspects of contemporary parliamentary practice. Author questions and queries are welcome at pjeditor@aipparl.org.

Manushag N. Powell, PhD, CP

P.S. The Editor salutes the great Libby Willis, PRP, and extends special thanks to David Jackson, DHSc, PA-C, CP-T, PRP and Brandon Walters, CP-T, PRP for their assistance with this issue.

PARLIAMENTARY LAW & ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Geoff Alan, PRP and Justin G. Pappano, PRP

Abstract: This article explores the intersection of parliamentary law and artificial intelligence; in particular, the authors intend to discuss how parliamentary law interacts with artificial intelligence in both positive and negative ways.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines generative artificial intelligence as “Artificial intelligence designed to produce output, esp. text or images, previously thought to require human intelligence, typically by using machine learning to extrapolate from large collections of data; (also) a system, piece of software, etc., used to create content in this way; abbreviated generative AI.”1 In recent years, programs utilizing generative artificial intelligence with large language models (LLMs) have been developed e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, and Grok that are trained on vast corpora of textual information, including information relating to parliamentary law.

This article explores the intersection of parliamentary law and artificial intelligence primarily through the lens of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th Edition) (RONR), the most widely used parliamentary authority among assemblies and parliamentarians alike.2

The advent of large language models (LLMs)3 now invites consideration of how these systems

can be responsibly incorporated into the work of professional parliamentarians. The central question is not whether artificial intelligence will influence parliamentary practice, but rather how that influence can be guided toward accuracy, transparency, and ethical use.

Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Parliamentary Law

While there are many potential applications of artificial intelligence in parliamentary law, this article focuses on matters specific to the work of a parliamentarian that are not common to other professions. As such, the application of artificial intelligence with regard to prospecting work, organizing emails, bookkeeping, or other administrative business tasks is not discussed.

Writing scripts, parliamentary opinions, and bylaw provisions are common language-based tasks that many generative artificial intelligence models can perform with varying levels of fruitfulness. In writing this article, the authors have explored the parliamentary law capabilities of various artificial intelligence models; the results are varied. Some models provide a passable understanding of basic parliamentary law, while others frequently fabricate citations and seldom provide correct answers to specific queries. Herein, the authors endeavor to

show examples of the good, the bad, and the ugly of artificial intelligence in parliamentary law using real-life examples.

In the authors’ experience, custom artificial intelligence agents trained and refined with developer feedback deliver dramatically superior results. General-purpose, “off-the-shelf” models those accessible to the public through commercial artificial intelligence platforms are typically inconsistent and occasionally misleading when addressing nuanced procedural questions.

The authors have developed such a custom model tailored to parliamentary law, designed to reference legitimate authorities and avoid speculation. The following examples illustrate how a purposebuilt system compares to a general model when answering practical parliamentary questions.

Example 1: Debatability of the Motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn

Prompt: “Under Robert’s Rules of Order, is the motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn debatable?”

ChatGPT-5 Response:

“Under Robert’s Rules of Order, 12th edition, the motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn is not debatable when it is made while another question is pending that is, when the assembly is in the middle of business.

However, if it is made when no other business is pending, it is debatable (and amendable) because it then becomes a main motion rather than an incidental or privileged one.”4

Analysis:

To the novice, this answer may seem accurate, but it contains two classification errors:

1. When business is pending, the response incorrectly states that the motion becomes “incidental or privileged.” It is specifically a privileged motion only, not incidental.5 In this case, the lack of intelligence of artificial intelligence is clearly evinced: the predictive ability of an LLM can falter; in this case, the model has predicted an answer which does not comport with the true difference between incidental motions and incidental main motions: in parliamentary law, precision matter: prediction is seldom precise. Imprecision such as this will cause confusion among readers who do not know the difference between those motions.6

2. When no business is pending, the response incorrectly calls it simply a “main motion.” It is specifically an incidental main motion, not an original main motion.7

These distinctions matter, as they affect how the motion interacts with others and determine its proper precedence. While the rules on debatability are correct, the misclassification could easily mislead users about the motion’s procedural rank.

Custom Artificial Intelligence Agent Response:

“The motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn can be either debatable or not debatable, depending on when it is made:

• When it is a privileged motion (made while a question is pending): it is not debatable. This privileged form takes precedence over all other motions.

• When it is a main motion (made when no question is pending): it is debatable and subject to the rules applicable to main motions. The key distinction is timing. The motion is privileged only when made while another question is pending; if no business is pending, it becomes an incidental main motion and is fully debatable.

In both forms, the motion is amendable as to the date, hour, or place, though such amendments to the privileged form are undebatable.”8

Analysis:

The custom agent correctly distinguishes between the privileged and incidental main forms of the motion and presents the key timing distinction clearly. However, even here, the statement that the main-motion form is “subject to all the rules applicable to main motions” is slightly overbroad, as Objection to the Consideration of a Question applies to original main motions, not incidental ones.9

This example underscores how even well-trained artificial intelligence tools benefit from expert human oversight to ensure technical precision in classification and application.

Example

Article

2: Drafting a Bylaws Amendment

A second comparison concerns the ability of artificial intelligence systems to generate a model bylaws section governing amendments.

Prompt: “Create a bylaw section for amendment of the bylaws.”

ChatGPT-5 Response:

ARTICLE X – AMENDMENTS

Section 1. How Proposed Amendments to these bylaws may be proposed by the Board of Directors, by a duly appointed bylaws committee, or by any five (5) voting members submitting the proposal in writing to the Secretary.

Section 2. Notice The full text of any proposed amendment shall be sent to all members at least thirty (30) days before the meeting at which it will be considered. Notice may be given by mail or electronic means, as permitted by law.

Section 3. Adoption These bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the members present and voting at any regular or special meeting, provided proper notice has been given.

Section 4. Consistency with Law No amendment shall conflict with the Articles of Incorporation or with applicable federal or state law.

Section 5. Effective Date Unless otherwise stated in the motion to adopt, amendments take effect immediately upon approval.10

Custom Programmed Artificial Intelligence Agent Response:

ARTICLE IX – AMENDMENT OF BYLAWS

These bylaws may be amended at any regular meeting or special meeting of the Society by a two-thirds vote of the voting members present and voting, provided that written notice of the proposed amendment has been given to all

voting members at least thirty (30) days prior to the meeting at which the amendment is to be considered. Such notice shall include the exact wording of the proposed amendment and, when practical, the existing provision to be amended. Amendments to proposed bylaw amendments are permitted only if they are within the scope of the notice given. No amendment to the bylaws shall take effect until the close of the meeting at which it was adopted, unless the motion to amend specifies a different effective date.11

Analysis:

Both systems produce plausible drafts, but neither could replace the perspective of a professional parliamentarian familiar with the organization’s structure and governing documents. The ChatGPT version’s “Consistency with Law” section, for example, is redundant laws would supersede conflicting bylaws regardless of such a clause. Moreover, its “immediately upon approval” language could be confusing if amendments affect rules that apply to the remainder of the same meeting; an experienced parliamentarian is often needed to determine the correct timing for amendments to take effect since optimal timing varies depending on the amendments.

By contrast, the custom model offers more accurate notice language, includes the scope limitation for amendments to proposed bylaw amendments, and provides a more practical default for the amendment’s effective date. Yet even here, a professional parliamentarian would adjust the language to meet local legal requirements or organizational custom. In particular, the suggested language from the custom

model includes a second paragraph that is largely duplicative if RONR is the adopted parliamentary authority12 a seasoned parliamentarian would not include much of this redundant language. Moreover, it is strange that the custom model recommends, “Such notice shall include the exact wording of the proposed amendment and, when practical, the existing provision to be amended.” The quoted provision, where the authors have added emphasis, seems to create a caveat for the intended rule with the statement that it shall only be done when practical; such conditional language in bylaws is feeble and will invariably lead to an objection regarding what is or is not practical and who makes such a determination: this type of parliamentary writing is slipshod.

Together, these examples demonstrate that custom-trained artificial intelligence systems can markedly improve the precision and reliability of procedural output, but their results can only be relied upon with the addition of expert supervision. Generative artificial intelligence can accelerate drafting, highlight alternative formulations, and provide starting points for professional review. However, the nuanced, context-dependent nature of parliamentary law still requires human judgment to ensure that outputs are both technically correct and appropriately adapted to each organization’s governing framework, while maintaining an effective drafting style for parliamentary writing.

Example 3: Quoting Authoritative Parliamentary Texts The Perils of Hallucination

Now for the truly problematic side of using generalpurpose LLM artificial intelligence systems in parliamentary contexts: When asked to cite

authoritative material, even advanced models can produce confident but entirely fabricated quotations a phenomenon often referred to in artificial intelligence research as hallucination. This is particularly concerning when users rely on the model to quote or interpret Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, where accuracy of language and citation is paramount.

Prompt: “Quote the section in RONR that deals with debatability of the motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn.”

ChatGPT-5 Response:

“The relevant passage appears in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition (RONR 12th), under the section on the Privileged Motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn. The discussion of its debatability is found in:

RONR (12th ed.) § 22, p. 242, ll. 26–32:

‘When the motion is made while another question is pending, it is not debatable; but when made when no question is pending, it is an incidental main motion and therefore debatable and amendable.’

Additionally, the same paragraph distinguishes its two forms:

RONR (12th ed.) § 22, p. 242, ll. 18–25:

‘The motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn is privileged only when made while another question is pending; otherwise it is a main motion and is subject to the rules applicable to such motions.’”13

Analysis:

At first glance, this answer appears confident and

well-formatted. However, none of the page numbers or line references exist in the 12th edition of RONR. 14 Moreover, the quoted material is not text taken verbatim from the book: it is a synthetic summary that the model falsely presents as a direct quotation; this illustrates a serious hazard. When an artificial intelligence model generates plausible-looking “citations,” the errors are not always stylistic but can amount to complete fabrication of source material.

To a trained eye, these types of errors may appear comical, but to the unknowing, these errors are fatal for those trying to understand parliamentary law correctly. In the event of a serious procedural or legal challenge, these errors can be truly devestating.

Custom Programmed Artificial Intelligence Agent Response:

“Based on the training data provided to me, the relevant sections from RONR (12th edition) regarding the debatability of Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn are:

• For the privileged motion (when made while business is pending): Section 22:6, Standard Descriptive Characteristic #5:

‘Is not debatable. (But see 43:31–32 regarding allowable explanation of an undebatable motion, as in the example beginning 22:14.)’

• For when made as a main motion (when no question is pending): Section 22:4:

‘If a motion to fix the time to which to adjourn is made in any assembly when no question is pending, it is in order and is debatable and subject to all of the other rules applicable to main motions.’

The distinction is clearly made that the motion’s

debatability depends entirely on whether other business is pending at the time it is made.”15

Analysis:

The custom agent produces accurate citations with correct section numbering, referencing RONR 12th edition 22:4 and 22:6. Its response is both transparent about its data source and faithful to the text. This contrast highlights the difference between surface fluency and source reliability.

In the hands of a layman, the ChatGPT quotation might appear authoritative, but it is materially false. The custom agent, while still requiring human verification, demonstrates the kind of traceable and text-bound reasoning essential for any artificial intelligence intended to support professional parliamentary practice.

Shortcomings

When examining the use of artificial intelligence in the discipline of parliamentary law, the authors note the importance of human supervision; artificial intelligence can often render absurd musings,16 which, if unfiltered by a qualified parliamentarian, can lead to incorrect and potentially harmful advice being rendered to clients.

Further, the authors do not believe that any widely available generative artificial intelligence model or program can currently produce consistently accurate and high-quality parliamentary writing. In particular, generative AI script writing is often of poor quality and incomplete from the perspective of a qualified parliamentarian. As such, the application of artificial intelligence in some of the core functions of a professional parliamentarian remains limited at the present time.

Since artificial intelligence models rely on corpora of (hopefully) high-quality data that they are trained on to render their deliberations and high-quality parliamentary writing, especially writing relating to the trade of a professional parliamentarian, is either copyrighted (and therefore verboten) or not widely available online artificial intelligence models are presumably being trained on data of uneven quality.

If an artificial intelligence model created and trained on high-quality parliamentary materials and work were to come to market, perhaps the application of artificial intelligence would be heightened in the practice of a professional parliamentarian. At present, however, significant barriers remain to this becoming a reality. One issue, as previously noted, is copyright: many parliamentary authorities are copyrighted, and therefore those creating and training artificial intelligence models are potentially restricted in the use of such materials. Another issue is the time and financial investment required to develop a model that could function at a high level of efficacy. The authors believe that the limited size of the market of professional parliamentarians who would financially benefit from the development of such a model currently outweighs the demand of practicing parliamentarians willing to pay for such a service. Consequently, it is unlikely that a model will be developed solely for professional parliamentarians without changes in technology or market conditions.

In sum, using a generative artificial intelligence system to answer the questions of an untrained parliamentarian is inherently problematic. The responses of general artificial intelligence systems are not uniformly reliable and may contain

substantive errors. At present, the most tangible benefit lies in the hands of experienced professionals who can use artificial intelligence to accelerate their workflow, verify routine information, and generate alternative formulations they might not otherwise consider. This advantage, however, depends on the discerning judgment of a trained parliamentarian, who must remain vigilant to the model’s tendency to produce plausible but mistaken answers.

Current off-the-shelf artificial intelligence models frequently misquote or inaccurately summarize Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, which can have significant procedural consequences if repeated or relied upon in real-world deliberations. Such mistakes underscore the necessity of domainspecific oversight and the development of specialized models grounded in authoritative texts.

4. Conclusion

The intersection of new technology and parliamentary law is exciting; as computers, word processors, and the internet once changed the work of parliamentarians, artificial intelligence may also prove to be a long-lasting technological advancement. Parliamentarians must exercise caution to safeguard clients, the public, and themselves from the misuse of artificial intelligence. As discussed, there are several novel and productive uses for artificial intelligence systems, but laypeople without parliamentary training may be prone to misunderstanding the nuances of parliamentary law, and artificial intelligence models may provide incorrect or misleading advice.

The near-term promise of artificial intelligence in this field appears greatest when paired with professional

oversight and custom development. Properly implemented, generative artificial intelligence can become an assistant that enhances research efficiency and offers alternative perspectives, while the final responsibility and interpretive authority remain with the human parliamentarian.

As always, parliamentarians remain the keepers of procedure, safeguarding the democratic process. On this journey, parliamentarians ought to understand generative artificial intelligence and its effects on parliamentary law and on the professional practice of parliamentarians. Although exciting and novel, parliamentarians should remain dubious of the advent of an “AI parliamentarian” and continue to place human judgment and expertise at the center of procedural integrity.

Notes

1Oxford English Dictionary, “generative artificial intelligence (n.),” September 2025, https://doi. org/10.1093/OED/9657191441.

2Slaughter, Jim. “Parliamentary Practices of CPP’s in 2000.” Parliamentary Journal, 42 (Jan. 2001), 1-11.

3Regarding LLMs, see Cole Stryker, “What Are Large Language Models (LLMs)?” Think. https:// www.ibm.com/think/topics/large-language-models

4Text generated by ChatGPT-5, OpenAI, October 7, 2025, chat.openai.com/chat.

5RONR, (12th ed.) § 22

6RONR, (12th ed.) 6:2

7RONR, (12th ed.) 10:2-7

8Text generated by custom AI Agent, October 7, 2025.

9RONR, (12th ed.) 26:2(2)

10Text generated by ChatGPT-5, OpenAI, October 7, 2025, chat.openai.com/chat.

11Text generated by custom AI Agent, October 7, 2025.

12RONR (12th ed.) 35:2 (6)

13Text generated by ChatGPT-5, OpenAI, October 7, 2025, chat.openai.com/chat.

14See RONR (12th ed.) § 22

15Text generated by custom AI Agent, October 7, 2025.

16See “What Are AI Hallucinations?” Think. https:// www.ibm.com/think/topics/ai-hallucinations

WHAT’S IN YOUR TOOLBOX? A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICERS

Kay Allison Crews, CPP-T, PRP

Abstract: Once elected, organizational officers must rely on a well-prepared “toolbox” consisting of physical materials, knowledge of governing documents, and essential skills like impartiality, time management, and consensus-building. Thorough officer preparedness whether president, secretary, treasurer, or parliamentarian is essential to efficient meetings, protection of members’ rights, and faithful institutional stewardship.

The moment an election concludes, a new set of responsibilities begins. Whether an individual has just been voted in as president of a civic association, secretary of a professional society, or treasurer of a local club, the question newly elected officers most commonly face is the same: What now? The answer lies in understanding a deceptively simple concept the officer’s toolbox.

Before the Election: Know the Office

Before a candidate’s name ever appears on a ballot, a clear-eyed understanding of the office being sought is essential. What are its specific duties? How long is the term? Are there eligibility requirements? All of this information should be spelled out in the organization’s bylaws and if it is not, that gap deserves attention before any nomination is accepted.

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), the gold standard of parliamentary procedure, defines officers broadly as those elected or appointed to positions of authority and responsibility. The real substance of any office, however, lives in the governing documents of the specific organization.1

Some organizations impose duties on their presiding officers that no parliamentary manual would anticipate hosting national commemorations, managing ceremonial events, or fulfilling obligations tied to the organization’s particular history and mission. The bylaws must be read before the election, not after.

Three Kinds of Toolboxes

Officer preparedness can be usefully organized into three distinct categories and only one of them involves anything that can be physically carried.

The physical toolbox is the most literal: the tote bag, briefcase, or rolling cart an officer brings to every meeting. The knowledge toolbox is what an officer carries internally an understanding of the organization’s culture, history, and governing documents. The soft skills toolbox is perhaps the most underestimated of the three: demeanor, time management, the ability to build consensus, and the capacity to ease tension in a room. These last

qualities cannot be packed in a bag or learned from a rulebook, but they are often what separates a forgettable officer from an effective one.

The President’s Toolbox

Of all officer roles, the president carries the most complex set of responsibilities. The physical materials are straightforward: a gavel, office supplies, and a computer loaded with all meeting documents downloaded in advance, so internet access is not required.

The document list is substantial. It should include a complete order of business, a meeting script (particularly valuable for large or complex meetings, and a useful safeguard in case another officer must step in unexpectedly), all relevant bylaws, standing and special rules, committee lists, and a current edition of the parliamentary authority. Keeping a script on hand is sound practice even for experienced presiding officers; emergencies are unpredictable.

The president’s most important tools, however, are intangible. Their core duties at the meeting are to open the meeting, recognize members entitled to the floor, state and put motions to a vote, enforce the rules, and maintain strict impartiality. That last duty deserves particular emphasis. The president does not make motions, participate in debate, or vote (except by ballot). When a president wishes to weigh in on a pending question, the chair must be relinquished to the vice president or other officer first and cannot be reclaimed until the matter is fully resolved.

Beyond procedure, the effective president cultivates a set of interpersonal capacities that no parliamentary manual can supply. Chief among these is the ability

to project calm authority to hold the room without dominating it, and to manage conflict without inflaming it. A president who commands genuine respect does so not through positional power alone, but through consistent fairness, transparency of process, and a demonstrated commitment to the rights of every member.

Equally important is the skill of reading a room: recognizing when debate has become exhausted, when tensions are running high enough to warrant a recess, or when a moment of levity might defuse what could otherwise become an impasse. Time management, too, is a soft skill of considerable consequence an efficient meeting is as much the product of a president who can gently but firmly move business along as it is of a well-prepared agenda. These qualities are developed over time and through experience, but new presiding officers would do well to treat acquiring these skills as seriously as any procedural competency.

But procedural competency is also essential. For new presiding officers, sound practice includes following parliamentary steps consistently, restating all motions before voting, explaining the effect of proposed amendments, and announcing vote results before recognizing the next speaker.

The Secretary’s Toolbox

If the president is the public face of the organization, the secretary is its institutional memory. The secretary’s physical materials should include a draft of the prior minutes, an agenda, a membership roll, copies of officer and committee reports submitted before the meeting, and all relevant governing documents.

The secretary’s duties are wide-ranging. They include keeping the official minutes, maintaining the membership roll, sending out meeting notices (the “Call”), conducting general correspondence, furnishing delegates with credentials, and preparing the order of business. In the absence of both the president and vice president, the secretary calls the meeting to order and presides until a temporary chair is elected.

Procedurally, the secretary also functions as the president’s closest operational backup. A prepared secretary sees that motions are written down, stands ready to read them aloud on request, helps track quorum, and monitors the number of speeches given during debate.

The Treasurer’s Toolbox

The treasurer’s toolbox is the most quantitatively oriented. Materials should include financial reports (with sufficient copies for distribution), audit reports, the current budget, bylaws, standing rules, committee lists, and a calculator.

Core duties include disbursing funds as authorized by the organization, collecting dues as prescribed in the bylaws, making regular financial reports, and working cooperatively with the audit committee. One procedural point worth highlighting: the treasurer’s report should never be adopted by the assembly. It is received and placed on file. Adoption is properly reserved for the audit committee’s report, which independently verifies the treasurer’s work.

An effective treasurer also understands parliamentary procedure well enough to function as a fully engaged member on financial matters using parliamentary

inquiries to seek clarification on ambiguous motions, requesting a ballot vote when deliberations become contentious, or moving the previous question when debate becomes repetitive.

The Parliamentarian’s Toolbox

The parliamentarian serves as the procedural guardian of the meeting. Essential materials include the agenda; all relevant bylaws and rules; the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, the American Institute of Parliamentarians Standard Code, or other relevant parliamentary authorities; parliamentary tracking aids for monitoring motions and debate; a method for timing speeches; and materials for conducting a ballot vote.

The parliamentarian’s role is advisory, never executive. The parliamentarian confers with the president in advance of meetings and during recesses to anticipate procedural challenges, offers guidance during the meeting when requested, and quietly notifies the chair of any error that may affect the substantive rights of members. Like the president, the parliamentarian maintains strict impartiality no motions, no debate, no voting except by ballot. And unlike the president, the parliamentarian cannot “step aside” from the role in order to speak in debate!

Conclusion

Every member of an organization holds a right to an efficient meeting. That right is realized, more than most members appreciate, through the preparedness of the officers presiding over it. When the president understands the rules, the secretary has the documents in order, the treasurer commands

the financial record, and the parliamentarian stands ready to advise, meetings proceed efficiently and business is conducted properly.

Officer preparedness is, at its core, a form of institutional stewardship and assembling the toolbox is where that stewardship begins.

Notes:

1RONR (12th ed.) 47:1-3

EXPUNGEMENT

Jonathan M. Jacobs, RP, CPP

Abstract: A detailed description on the process and effects of expunging items, in whole or in part, from the minutes. Two case studies are included.

People, as individuals, change their minds. Sometimes these individuals not only change their minds, but express their regret (and strong selfdisapproval) for taking their action in the first place.

Assemblies, like individuals, may also change their minds and wish to reverse a course of action. They do this through the motion Rescind and Amend Something Previously Adopted, which, under Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR, 12th ed.), are different forms of the same motion.1 Also under RONR, 12 ed., assemblies may express their regret and strong disapproval of a prior action by adopting the motion Rescind and Expunge from the Minutes.2 Likewise, it is possible to Strike Out and Expunge a portion of some action.

This article will explore how expungement, both of a full action and of a partial action, works in several parliamentary authorities. It will also provide two public case studies of a full and partial expungement.

Expungement in RONR, 12th ed., and Beyond

The decision to Expunge something in the parliamentary sense includes several broad characteristics, no matter the exact procedure. First, it does repudiate some prior action of the assembly. Second, it changes, in some form, previously adopted

minutes, but it does not make those old minutes unreadable. Third, it leaves a record of this action in the minutes of the current meeting. Because of this, it calls extra attention to the repudiation of the action. Expunging words from the minutes does not merely express this repudiation; it is the procedural equivalent of proclaiming it from the rooftops.

The motion Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted is a motion that changes some previous action, the former doing away with action completely.3 The motion, in either form, may be applied to anything created by a main motion.4 It is the assembly changing its mind. It would be noted in the minutes of that meeting that the action taken at a previous meeting was rescinded: e.g., the minutes of a meeting in August of 2023 might read, “Mr. Patterson moved to rescind the resolution to oppose Proposition Seven, adopted at the May 2019 meeting. The motion was adopted.” There would be no change to the May 2019 minutes. The vote needed to adopt this motion would be a two-thirds vote, a majority vote with previous notice, or a majority of the entire membership.5

Rescind and Expunge, like Rescind, does away with some action created by a main motion, but it also effectively changes previously adopted minutes. The words in the minutes that are expunged are circled or struck through with a single line by the secretary in the minutes of the previous meeting;

the secretary then writes “Rescinded and Ordered Expunged,” with the date and his signature over top of the words. The secretary does this at a meeting of the body that produced the minutes. If the minutes are published, the words rescinded are not included; they remain marked, but readable, in the minute book only. Uniquely in RONR, the vote needed to expunge is a majority of the entire membership.6

The motion to Rescind and Expunge is an incidental main motion,7 and is included in the minutes of the current meeting.8 The motion to Rescind and Expunge would not necessarily have to repeat the text being expunged. For example, the mover, Mr. Patterson, could move “that the resolution to oppose Proposition Seven, adopted at the May 2019 meeting, be rescinded and expunged from the minutes.” The minutes of the current meeting would only show this motion and not repeat the entire resolution. This does provide a record of the assembly acting to rescind and expunge.

Under RONR, 12th edition, Rescind and Amend Something Previously Adopted are different forms of the same motion.9 It is possible to expunge something partially while leaving the remainder intact. For example, assume the resolution opposing Proposition Seven has three clauses in the preamble. Mr. Patterson may only find one of those clauses so objectionable that he wishes it removed and expunged. He could move “to strike out and expunge from the minutes the second clause beginning ‘Whereas’ from the resolution to oppose Proposition Seven, adopted at the May 2019 meeting.” Any time something is expunged from the minutes, the motion to expunge effectively strikes

out and amends something previously adopted, i.e. the minutes of that previous meeting.

The ability to expunge is not limited to RONR. Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure (2000) has a specific main motion, “Expunge,” which both removes some action from the minutes and rescinds it. It is treated identically to RONR in terms how the action is recorded in the minutes; unlike in RONR, the secretary need not make the notations in the presence of the assembly.10 As a main motion, it may be amended and would require a majority vote.11

Riddick’s Rules of Procedure also treats “Expunge” as fully amendable and requiring a majority vote and assigns it a precedence equal to a main motion, but does not specifically classify it as such; it is minuted as in Mason.12 Demeter’s Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure (1969) treats the separate motion “Expunge” as a “restoratory motion,” fully amendable, but requiring either a two-thirds, or a majority with notice; it is minuted as in Mason.13

The American Institute of Parliamentarians Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (AIPSC, 2012) does not have a process for expunging nor a mention of it; likewise, the current second edition does not include expunge as a process. This is interesting, because AIPSC states that it “continues Alice Sturgis’ philosophy,” though not as an official successor.14 From the first edition of the Sturgis Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (Sturgis, 1950), through the fourth edition to bear the name of Alice Sturgis, The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (TSC, 2001), expungement is included as a separate motion, described in the section on rescind; it is also minuted as in Mason.15 Both of

these authorities provide that expunge may be adopted by majority vote.

Modern Parliamentary Procedure (Keesey, 1994) includes the motion “Expunge from the Record,” which is minuted as in Mason. Keesey lists this in the chapter called “Motions Not Recommended,” noting that since an action can “be nullified by a motion To Rescind, the strong feeling implied in expunging from the record has little justification.15 That, however, is the purpose. If adopted, it is the expression, by the assembly, of repudiating an action, not only a correction of a past act.

Traditional Expungement: The Smith Case

On 17 January, 2022, the Libertarian National Committee (LNC), the governing body of the Libertarian Party, adopted a resolution censuring one of its members, Joshua Smith, then a memberat-large. Then on 28 May, 2022, at the Libertarian National Convention, Smith was elected Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party, on the fourth ballot. The parliamentary authority of the LNC is RONR, 12th ed.

The LNC met at its post-convention board meeting and the new chair entertained a motion “that the LNC rescind the January 2022 censure of Joshua Smith and direct the Secretary to expunge [it] from the minutes.” The maker of the motion described it as an effort to “wipe the slate clean.” Debate on the motion quickly went into the merits of expunging the record. The Chair noted that there seemed to be “some concerns that this was getting into revisionist history.” The mover indicated, correctly, that this was “a strong statement of disapproval.”

The seventeen-member LNC, by a vote of fourteen

yes, one abstention, and three absences, expunged the motion censuring Smith from the minutes.17 Ironically, Smith was one of the absentees, as he had emergency that prevented his attendance.

The Smith case is a good example of how expungement is used. The purpose of expungement was not to hide something, but to express disapproval. As the meeting was recorded on video, the concerns and assurances of the members can be viewed. The record of what happened is still there, online and public. In fact, a recording of the meeting that censured Smith is also on-line, and public.18

Complicated Expungement: The DiGangi Case19

On April 14, 2022, Marie DiGangi attended the monthly meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Huntington Township, the three-member governing body of the small, rural township in Adams County, PA to which she had retired. What happened at this meeting, an exchange between her and one of the Supervisors, Jeff King, prompted DiGangi to hire an attorney, J. G. Bergdoll of York, PA.

In a May 10, 2022, letter to the Board Chair, Bergdoll noted that at the April meeting, “statements and comments of a personal nature were made against Ms. DiGangi. Comments were also made and Ms. DiGangi was questioned concerning her Open Records Requests as her legal right under the Right to Know Law.” A statement of things of this nature was put into the minutes of that meeting, which were approved by the Board. Bergdoll concluded the letter with the line, “In going forward, it is important that the Supervisors, Township Officials, and staff not take any action that directly or indirectly inhibits her speech or intimidates her from speaking freely.”20

While it is the general rule that minutes should include “what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members,” the objectionable material was included in the draft minutes.21 A majority of the Supervisors did approve the minutes with the comments, so the Board had complied with the rule that the majority may order “the inclusion of additional information” in the minutes of a given meeting.22 When DiGangi obtained a copy of the approved minutes in early June, she was outraged about the inclusion of these “statements and comments of a personal nature” but was unsure how to proceed. After several months of searching, she contacted the author for an opinion.

This situation presented several unusual wrinkles in writing the opinion. First, there was the potential audience reading the opinion: it would not be the supervisors alone; it would be the Township Solicitor and, if the case went to litigation, a judge or perhaps a panel of judges at the appeals-court level. So, the opinion would have to cover other potential questions, in addition to the questions of “revisionist history” and would thus have to explain how the motion to strike out and expunge would function.

The first problem was that, traditionally, the motion is Rescind and Expunge, not a motion “to strike out and expunge,” i.e., it is intended to be a motion to strike out a full motion and not a statement placed in the minutes. This could be answered solely by RONR, 12th ed, where Amend Something

Previously Adopted and Rescind are “two forms of one incidental main motion governed by identical rules,” that the rule that something could be expunged fully could be partially expunged.23 This

was helpful because Huntington Township used RONR, 12th ed., by custom. Several other manuals, notably Mason, supported this position as well, showing that expungement was a broadly accepted, if rarely exercised, procedure within the general parliamentary law, and not some idiosyncrasy of RONR, 12th ed.

The second wrinkle was that as these are minutes of a local government, they are public records. It was necessary to anticipate the concern that anyone reviewing the expungement would argue that it was an attempt to falsify a public record. If not addressed, it could be used as an excuse, frankly, for not expunging the minutes. That Mason, a parliamentary manual designed for state legislatures, permits it, was the first step in addressing the potential argument; if Mason permits expungement, then expungement must not be falsification. There was also precedent from the body that creates and regulates all municipalities within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the General Assembly, the state’s bicameral legislature. Both the Pennsylvania House and Pennsylvania Senate have precedents permitting expungement.24 The State Senate’s commentary was most telling in this case. It noted that, “The point of order having been raised on a motion to expunge remarks from the record, the President ruled that the motion was in order, and that it was the prerogative of the Senate to expunge inflammatory and derogatory remarks from the record.” Further, there was precedent from the US Senate, the 1837 rescission and expungement by the Senate of the censure of then President Andrew Jackson.25 These precedents clearly established the propriety of expungement even in a public record.

Other factors pointing away from expungement being an attempt to falsify public records was that this would take place at a public meeting, potentially with press coverage. Before writing the opinion, the author discussed the possibility that, due to media coverage, many more people might be exposed to the story than if there was no proposed expungement. DiGangi, however, understood the disapproval effect of expungement, and wished to continue.

Prior to the April 2023 regular meeting of the regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the author, in conjunction with DiGangi and Bergdoll, drafted a motion that the Board could adopt. The text was: “To correct the previously adopted minutes by striking out and expunging, in the April 14, 2022 regular meeting minutes the words which begin with ‘Mr. King would like to speak to Marie DiGangi,’ and end with the words, ‘how we do business and peoples likes and dislikes.’”26 This draft motion had the effect of removing the objectionable language in the 2022 minutes, without requiring that language be repeated in the current, 2023, minutes.

On April 13, 2023, DiGangi, Bergdoll, a court reporter, and the author attended the meeting of the Huntington Township Board of Supervisors. Bergdoll spoke, explaining the process, briefly, and then noting that the comments were “outside the scope of official business.”27 Bergdoll detailed the problem with the specific claims from the minutes. He noted that the minutes were detailed at some points but that there was a “generalized statement that discussion occurred for about an hour.”28 He also noted that “at least one other procedural guide

provides reasoning for excluding commentary and interpretation to avoid possible legal action.”29 At the end, he explained the mechanics of expungement.

One of the supervisors asked the author to read the summary of the opinion. It indicated that, “It was improper for the remarks in Paragraph 7 [to be] in the minutes. While it was perhaps ill advised to include it, the Board of Supervisors has it within its power to order its inclusion.”30 The opinion also noted that the words could be expunged. The Board of Supervisors, by a unanimous vote, adopted the draft motion to strike out and expunge.31

Several weeks later, the author sent the secretary an overview of the mechanics of expungement. One interesting point is how the secretary handled the expungement in publically distributed copies of the minutes. In these, the expunged language was whited out, with a notation of the expungement; the words are struck with a single line in the Township’s minute book.32 While RONR, 12th ed., only notes that the material is to be omitted from the public copy,33 this method has the advantage of showing that something was expunged, and the date the action was taken, in the minutes that were subject to expungement. It is very useful in general and for public documents in particular.

Several days later, a front-page story appeared in the Gettysburg Times printed the story under the headline “Uproar over temporary road closure; year-old minutes altered.”34 It noted that “resident Marie DiGangi brought a civil rights attorney, parliamentarian, and a court stenographer, to the April 13 meeting, and contested the veracity of minutes adopted nearly a year ago.”35 The story gave

a very brief overview of what was being removed. Thus, the act of expunging certainly could not be said to have hidden anything in the DiGangi case.

Conclusions

The first conclusion regarding expungement is that, while it may be rarely practiced, it is well established as parliamentary law. The number of parliamentary authorities that expressly provide for expungement is evidence of it being broadly established. In addition, there is precedent is some legislative bodies. Since one those precedents is more than 185 years old, it is also long established.

The second conclusion is that expungement is not necessarily rescission. It may involve that different form of the same motion, Amend Something Previously Adopted. It is possible to “strike out and expunge” part of a motion or resolution. It is also possible to “strike out and expunge” words from the approved minutes that are not connected to a main motion, as the minutes themselves are subject to Amend Something Previously Adopted.36

The third conclusion is that expungement always strikes out something from the approved minutes. In the Smith case, where a resolution was completely expunged, the minutes of the meeting were not completely rescinded, but the resolution was expunged. The DiGangi case shows the situation where no main motion is rescinded, but the minutes are subject to a form of the motion Amend Something Previously Adopted; in that case it is applied to the adopted motion to approve the minutes. It is interesting to note that correcting minutes, without expungement, after adoption is done as a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, and that

RONR, 12th ed., notes that it may be “advisable” to include a marginal note referencing the later meeting that corrected the minutes.37

The fourth, and final, conclusion is that the purpose of expungement is to express disapproval of some action taken, not to hide some action or to rewrite history. The actual language of the material expunged remains, readable, in the minute book. It is only in publicly available copies of minutes where it is excluded, and even then, there is a reference to the action being expunged. Certainly, in dealing with an assembly that meets publicly, there is the possibility for even greater exposure, as this article demonstrates.

Notes:

1Henry M. Robert, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th Edition, Eds. Henry M. Robert, III, William J. Evans, Daniel H. Honemann, Thomas J. Balch, Daniel E. Seabold, Shmuel Gerber (New York: Public Affairs, 2020), 35:1.

2RONR (12th ed.) 35:13.

3RONR (12th ed.) 35:1.

4RONR (12th ed.) 35:2.

5RONR (12th ed.) 35:2(7).

6RONR (12th ed.) 35:13.

7RONR (12th ed.) 6:9, t28 86.

8RONR (12th ed.) 48:4(6).

9RONR (12th ed.) 35.1.

10National Conference of State Legislatures, Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure (Eagan,

Minnesota, 2000), Sec. 444, 1.

11Mason, Sec. 444, 2.

12Floyd M. Riddick and Miriam H. Butcher, Riddick’s Rules of Procedure (Lanham, NY, 1985), 94-5.

13George Demeter, Demeter’s Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure (Boston: Little, Brown, 1969), 167-8.

14Alice F. Sturgis, Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, 4th Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001), vii.

15Ray E. Keesley, Modern Parliamentary Procedure (Washington: American Psychological Association, 1994), 74.

16Joshua Smith resigned as Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee in February 2023. He was also a candidate for the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States in 2024. See https://lpedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Smith; accessed: 8/21/23.

17LNC Meeting, 28, May 2022, https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=2OTqe3lZVGU Timestamp: 1:20:25-1:29:55. All quotations are from this video.

18See LNC Meeting, 17 January 2022, https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=v-FqG2eY4sY Timestamp 45:00 – 3:22:00.

19Marie DiGangi, neé Akromas, is a retired legal secretary from Philadelphia. Coincidentally, one of the founders of the firm for which she worked, though not contemporaneously, was Owen J. Roberts.

He was both an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and an advisor to Alice Sturgis on the first edition of Sturgis Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, (1950). The author is grateful for DiGangi’s permission to write this, and for her legendary “enthusiasm.”

20J. G. Bergdoll, Letter to Paul Guise, Chair, Huntington Township Supervisors, May 10, 2022.

21RONR (12th ed.) 48:2.

22RONR (12th ed.) 48:3.

23RONR (12th ed.) 35:1.

24Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Manual, Ed. Sarah Mattos (2021). See 3-237, 15c; 3-82, 11a.

25United States Senate, “Senate Reverses a Presidential Censure,” https://www.senate.gov/ about/parties-leadership/senate-reverses-apresidential-censure.htm. Accessed 3 March 2026.

(Like the Smith case, this motion was to rescind and expunge a censure.)

26Huntington Township, Supervisors’ Minutes, April 13, 2023, 1.

27Transcript, Huntington Township Supervisors Meeting (York, PA: Brown’s Court Reporting Service, April 13, 2023), 4.

28Transcript, 5-6.

29Though not specified in Bergdoll’s comments, this appears to be a reference to AIPSC (2012), 231, which was also alluded to in the opinion.

30Transcript, 7.

31Minutes, April 13, 2023, 1.

32Huntington Township, Supervisors’ Minutes, April 14, 2022 [expunged], 1.

33RONR (12th ed.) 36:13.

34Scott Pitzer, “Uproar over temporary road closure; year-old minutes altered,” Gettysburg Times, April 26, 2023, A1.

35Pitzer, A7.

36RONR (12th ed.) 48:15 t18 (49).

37RONR (12th ed.) 48:15.

Do You Have a Paliamentary Procedure Question?

The AIP Opinions Committee welcomes requests for parliamentary opinions from members. The Committee responds to all requests informally. An informal response may be published as a formal opinion in the Opinions Column without identifying information. Please direct any requests for opinions to: AIP Opinions Committee Chair: Atul Kapur, M.D., CPP-T, PRP at vp@aipparl.org

AIP Opinions Committee:

Atul Kapur, M.D., CPP-T, PRP; Chairman Michael Malamut, J.D., CPP-T, PRP

Ann Rempel, CPP-T, PRP

Christopher J. Cavin, J.D., CPP-T, PRP, Advisor

CONTRIBUTORS

Geoff Alan, PRP

Geoff Alan is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian (PRP) based in South Carolina. He is the greatgreat-grandson of General Henry M. Robert, the author of Robert’s Rules of Order, and continues his family’s longstanding tradition of service in parliamentary law. Geoff serves on the Executive Committee of the Robert’s Rules Association and acts as the author’s agent for Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised and Robert’s Rules of Order in Brief.

With experience advising nonprofit boards, associations, local government, and professional societies, Geoff combines expert knowledge of parliamentary procedure with a practical understanding of how realworld organizations operate.

Kay Allison Crews, PRP, CPP-T

Kay Allison Crews, PRP, CPP-T, is the Accrediting Director of the American Institute of Parliamentarians, as well as a part president. She was also Project Manager for the authorship team that edited the current, second edition of the AIPSC. In 2020, Kay was chosen as the Chair of the Joint Committee on the Review of the Code of Ethics, a committee populated by professional parliamentarians representing both the National Association of Parliamentarians and AIP. That Committee drafted and adopted the Joint Code of Professional Responsibility, which is used by all members of professional parliamentary associations. Kay is routinely hired as a parliamentarian, but she also provides services as a professional presiding officer, recording secretary, and teller. Outside of meetings, she provides parliamentary opinions, script-writing and bylaws-writing services.

Jonathan M. Jacobs, RP, CPP

Jonathan M. Jacobs, RP, CPP actually came out of retirement to take the DiGangi case. This is at least the fifth article for the Parliamentary Journal that he has written about parliamentary procedure in Central Pennsylvania.

Justin G. Pappano, PRP

Justin Pappano, PRP, leads Pappano Consulting Inc. (PCI), a boutique management consultancy firm specializing in Rules of Order and Parliamentary Procedure. Justin is one of the few full-time professional parliamentarians working in this capacity throughout North America. As a District Representative, he is a member of the NAP Board of Directors. Justin is a two-term District Director for NAP’s District IV. He is a former President of the Ontario Association of Parliamentarians. Justin serves on two NAP national committees and has previously served on two others. Justin’s client base includes various multi-milliondollar clients with combined budgets of more than a billion dollars and combined memberships in excess of millions of members.

INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS

By the submission of material the author grants AIP permission to publish that material in any form. Material proposed for publication may be submitted by e-mail to PJ@AIPparl.org. A short biographical note should accompany each submission.

Parliamentary Journal uses The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th Edition as the guide for preparation of manuscripts. The deadline for submission of articles for the Spring 2026 issue is Friday, 1 May 2026. Information regarding probable publishing date will be furnished when the manuscript via email.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

The Parliamentary Journal is copyrighted by the American Institute of Parliamentarians; all rights reserved. Brief portions of material in this publication may be copied and quoted without further permission, with the understanding that appropriate indication of the source of the excerpt will be included in such copying. Single copies of the material in this publication for the use of scholars in their scholarly research, and a reasonable number of copies for classroom use by teachers within a few days after copying, may be made without further permission if (a) such work is not for profit and does not involve republication of the material in another work, (b) appropriate credit is given to the author or authors of the material and to this publication, and (c) appropriate notice of copyright is included on the copies. Copying within these bounds is considered

“fair use,” but for any copying beyond fair use, permission must be obtained from the Parliamentary Journal Editor and, in appropriate cases, from the individual author or authors of the materials in question.

The Parliamentary Journal is published online in April, August and December by the American Institute of Parliamentarians. The opinions expressed in the Parliamentary Journal are the opinions of the authors of the articles and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Editor or of the American Institute of Parliamentarians.