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

I'm concerned that RONR 11 has a potentially dangerous loophole with respect to ratifying action taken at a special meeting. From p. 93: "If, at a special meeting, action is taken relating to business not mentioned in the call, that action, to become valid, must be ratified (see pp. 124-25) by the organization at a regular meeting (or at another special meeting properly called for that purpose)." By stipulating "a" regular meeting rather than "the next regular meeting at the latest" (or at least specifying that ratification should take place at subsequent special meeting called specifically for that purpose if not as a special order of business at the next regular meeting at the latest, allowing for it to be postponed definitely but disallowing it to be laid on the table such that ratification could ever fall to the ground), what is to keep a majority at a special meeting from abusing the rights of absentees? That actions "must" be ratified seems insufficient, creating an indefinite timeline. Is there no statute of limitations on the motion to ratify (as opposed to the motion to censure)? Or can an organization go on acting as though business conducted outside the scope of a special meeting is valid so long as it is 'eventually' ratified? I'm concerned that organizations which fail to ratify such actions in a timely manner may have several invalidated (i.e., not-yet-validated) actions indefinitely. Avoidance seems permissible by the current language of RONR. And such prolonged neglect seems to violate the rights of absentees.

For consistency and explanatory purposes, it seems like at it would be better for the motions to ratify or censure to be explained under the chapter on incendental motions rather than so cursorily at the end of the chapter on the main motion. In the very least, it seems as though the motions to ratify or censure are different enough from the motion to adopt (e.g., recommendations about action to be taken v. not-yet-validated actions perhaps already taken) that the motions should fall under separate subheadings. I raised more specific questions about the motion to ratify in an earlier post. But it also seems like the motions to ratify or censure deserve a more thorough treatment, if not with form and examples then at least with standard descritpive characteristics. I believe the motion to ratify (as opposed to the motion to censure) should not be allowed to be laid on the table such that it could ever fall to the ground. Actions requiring ratification should not go unratified. They should either be ratified or censured. I also believe the synonym to "approve" for the motion to ratify should be omitted. Otherwise the motion to "approve" (i.e., ratify) could become a conflicting term with the practice of approving minutes, which is not done by a motion. Worse, an organization could become mistaken that approving minutes which might include action in need of ratification, say from a previously held special meeting since the last regular meeting, is somehow tantamount to ratifying such actions. Which is bad.

A parent committee appointed non-members of the committee to its subcommittee. These appointments were never authorized by the assembly (c.f. p. 497, ll. 16-19). If the appointments are ratified by the assembly, does that also, by extension, also ratify all actions done by the subcommittee while the breach was occurring? Or, do the actions taken by the subcommittee also need to be ratified? If no one raises a point of order on the issue of continuing breach in this case, should the parliamentarian point out the error in proceedings?