Search the Community

I've looked for this topic to be discussed but have not found it, so if I have started this in error, please redirect me. I've found it curious that RONR offers that the motion to substitute "censure" for "ratify" is in order. A motion to censure does not seem germane to the motion to ratify. The motion to ratify has to do with the actions taken by an individual or a group that does not have the power to take such an action as discussed in RONR pp. 124-125. It is the action that requires ratification, or defeat ratification. If the act has already been carried out, I don't see how amending the motion to ratify deals with the action already taken. We already know that we cannot reconsider, rescind, or amend something previously adopted that cannot be undone. Again, we are dealing with the action taken by impoperly adopting a motion or acting without approval of the body that has the power to approve. Censure, on the other hand, has to do with dealing with the person or persons, and in the RONR example censure would apply to those who have taken such action(s) - it has no effect on the action taken whatsoever. If the motion to censure is substituted and adopted, the assembly/board has not yet dealt with the unauthorized action, it has only censured the person or body that took the action. What happens if no vote to authorize the action is ever taken? Is consent implied because no one ever proposed the motion to ratify so it could be voted down? I seems, then, that a motion to censure, while maybe desired, is in order if the motion to ratify were defeated, but should not be a substitute for the motion to ratify. Also, after reading the other discussions on "ratify", I am of the opinion that the motion to ratify an action should be an up or down vote; it's hard to see how an assembly can amend something that has already taken place. I look forward the discussion on this. As a presiding officer, I have had not had to deal with the motion to ratify except by consent. Glen