Motion to Censure

[J. J.]

The fact that the subsidiary motion to amend is in order when it proposes to change a ratification or commendation to a censure does not change the status of censure from a form of punishment.

Those obviously are not "punishments." Further, p. 125 "A motion to ratify can be amended by substituting a motion of censure, and vice versa .... (emphasis added)."

A motion to censure someone, e.g. "That X be censured," is not a punishment. A penalty of censure may be inflicted by the assembly as a result of disciplinary action. Those are two different things.

[Tim Wynn]

It is a seven member assembly, so why would the chair be precluded?

There's been no indication that this is a small board or committee or that the assembly has adopted rules similar to what is described on p. 16, ll. 12-16, so the formal rules would apply.

[J. J.]

There's been no indication that this is a small board or committee or that the assembly has adopted rules similar to what is described on p. 16, ll. 12-16, so the formal rules would apply.

However, this very well may be a board. There is no indication it is not a board (of some type) or that they, by ciustom, permit the chair to participate. If the latter case, it could be subject to a timely Point of Order.

[Guest Guest]

I am confused re. the trial requirements and those for a simple censure motion. Is it considered a due process requirement that the person subject to censure be given an opportunity to speak in their own defense - for example if the censure motion contains relates to specific allegations of misconduct outside of the meeting itself.

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, Guest Guest said:

I am confused re. the trial requirements and those for a simple censure motion. Is it considered a due process requirement that the person subject to censure be given an opportunity to speak in their own defense - for example if the censure motion contains relates to specific allegations of misconduct outside of the meeting itself.

Such a motion to censure is a debatable motion, and so, if the person who is the subject of the motion is a member of the assembly considering it, he is entitled to speak in debate on the motion. Other than that, there is no requirement that a person who is the subject of a motion to censure be given an opportunity to speak in his own defense .

[Guest Guest]

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Such a motion to censure is a debatable motion, and so, if the person who is the subject of the motion is a member of the assembly considering it, he is entitled to speak in debate on the motion. Other than that, there is no requirement that a person who is the subject of a motion to censure be given an opportunity to speak in his own defense .

Thanks Daniel for your quick response. My question relates to censure of a member of the assembly.

Follow up question: Can the chair move to put the censure motion to a vote without debate - and if this motion is passed - prevent the person who is the subject of the motion from speaking to it? I was wondering how this sits with the requirement attached which indicates that a member be given the chance to respond to allegations against her good name.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Please post as a new topic.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

Please post as a new topic.

What, and make Mr. Honemann have to type his answer all over again? 

Perhaps Guest Guest should have posted the question as a new topic, but it looks to me like it might be a bit late for that now.

But, I'll go with the flow either way. 

For now, though, Guest Guest, a motion of censure (or a censure resolution ) may not necessarily be an allegation against a member's good name. It is essentially nothing more than an expression of disapproval. In its basic form, according to RONR, it is not discipline or an accusation of wrongdoing.

Ultimately, in this case, it may turn on a bylaws interpretation question, which is something only your organization can do.

Edited to add: btw, Guest Guest , since a motion of censure is a debatable motion, the chair cannot put it to a vote without an opportunity for debate without the rules being suspended or the adoption of a motion limiting debate or the adoption of a motion ordering the previous question.

Edited again to add:  Guest Guest, I initially thought that the rule which you quoted via a copy andn paste above was from your own bylaws or rules.  However, I now realize it is a quote from Chapter XX on Discipline from the 11th edition of RONR.  It is in the section on "Investigation and Trial".  I think it is clear that in the context in which that statement is made, it is referring to disciplinary action and not an ordinary "non-disciplinary" motion of censure.  As Mr. Honemann stated, the person who is the object of the motion of censure has no special rights to speak to the motion.   My apologies for thinking that you had quoted a provision from your bylaws or special rule of order.   Based on this, I don't see how this is a matter of bylaws interpretation unless your bylaws contain a relevant provision addressing this.

Edited September 18, 2017 at 06:38 PM by Richard Brown
Added last two paragraphs

[J. J.]

1 hour ago, Guest Guest said:

Thanks Daniel for your quick response. My question relates to censure of a member of the assembly.

Follow up question: Can the chair move to put the censure motion to a vote without debate - and if this motion is passed - prevent the person who is the subject of the motion from speaking to it? I was wondering how this sits with the requirement attached which indicates that a member be given the chance to respond to allegations against her good name.

There is no "accused" in motion "That ______ be censured."  This is the expression of the opinion of the assembly of the named entity; it is not a finding of guilt nor a punishment.  The blank could be filled with a name of a member, officer, any nonmember or entity.  The could be filled with the name "North Korea," for example.  You certainly could not fit North Korea in most venues.  (see p. 137, ll. 20-29 for an example).

It is treated as a main motion, usually.  As such, it could be amended by striking out "censured," and insert "commend," leaving the motion reading "that _____ be commended."  It would be out of order, IMO, to amend a penalty after a finding of guilt to do the same thing.

The chair would say "what penalty shall be imposed on the member" in cases of disorderly conduct within a meeting (p. 647, l. 14), but the member may offer a defense (ll. 21-3).  Censure could be a penalty.  Note that, if the motion "That ______ be censured" referring to the member was made, it would be out of order, technically, because it is a main motion. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Guest]

Thanks all - what a great forum. Please accept my apologies for not starting a new thread. I came across this one via a google search and didn't notice how old it was.

My confusion I think is when a motion should treated as a simple censure motion and when the requirements of Chapter XX kick in. The motion of censure I am concerned with isn't a simple case of "That ____ be censured" - it was circulated immediately before the meeting with a series of recitals that describe the alleged infractions of the member - which appear to be "allegations against [her] good name" as described in the excerpt above.

In my case there was a motion "calling the question" which was passed with a 2/3 majority - and thus the motion came for vote without debate. My understanding is that this would be consistent with the Rules in relation to a simple censure motion, ie. "That ____ be censured" - but I guess the question is whether Chapter XX kicks in when the motion includes recitals of specific allegations of misconduct against the member.

[Richard Brown]

32 minutes ago, Guest Guest said:

Thanks all - what a great forum. Please accept my apologies for not starting a new thread. I came across this one via a google search and didn't notice how old it was.

My confusion I think is when a motion should treated as a simple censure motion and when the requirements of Chapter XX kick in. The motion of censure I am concerned with isn't a simple case of "That ____ be censured" - it was circulated immediately before the meeting with a series of recitals that describe the alleged infractions of the member - which appear to be "allegations against [her] good name" as described in the excerpt above.

In my case there was a motion "calling the question" which was passed with a 2/3 majority - and thus the motion came for vote without debate. My understanding is that this would be consistent with the Rules in relation to a simple censure motion, ie. "That ____ be censured" - but I guess the question is whether Chapter XX kicks in when the motion includes recitals of specific allegations of misconduct against the member.

 

Guest Guest, I think the fact remains that RONR, in the footnote on page 643, makes it plain that an ordinary motion of censure is not considered disciplinary action and that the "due process" provisions of Chapter XX on discipline do not kick in.  Here is the text of the footnote on page 643:  "*It is also possible to adopt a motion of censure without formal disciplinary procedures." 

I think that, unless the motion of censure provides for some sort of discipline, it is not considered discipline pursuant to RONR.  I don't think that a bunch of "whereas" clauses preceding the statement of censure necessarily turn it into a disciplinary proceeding.  Those same "whereas" statements could be stated in debate on the motion. 

[Josh Martin]

21 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Guest Guest, I think the fact remains that RONR, in the footnote on page 643, makes it plain that an ordinary motion of censure is not considered disciplinary action and that the "due process" provisions of Chapter XX on discipline do not kick in.  Here is the text of the footnote on page 643:  "*It is also possible to adopt a motion of censure without formal disciplinary procedures." 

I think that, unless the motion of censure provides for some sort of discipline, it is not considered discipline pursuant to RONR.  I don't think that a bunch of "whereas" clauses preceding the statement of censure necessarily turn it into a disciplinary proceeding.  Those same "whereas" statements could be stated in debate on the motion. 

Nonetheless, I think there are limits to what may be placed in a motion to censure without using formal disciplinary procedures. The following is an excerpt from what RONR has to say about a resolution to appoint an investigative committee.

"For the protection of parties who may be innocent, the first resolution should avoid details as much as possible. An individual member may not prefer charges, even if that member has proof of an officer's or member's wrongdoing. If a member introduces a resolution preferring charges unsupported by an investigating committee's recommendation, the chair must rule the resolution out of order, informing the member that it would instead be in order to move the appointment of such a committee (by a resolution, as in the example above). A resolution is improper if it implies the truth of specific rumors or contains insinuations unfavorable to an officer or member, even one who is to be accused. It is out of order, for example, for a resolution to begin, "Whereas, It seems probable that the treasurer has engaged in graft, . . ." At the first mention of the word "graft" in such a case, the chair must instantly call to order the member attempting to move the resolution." (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 657-658)

Based on this, I would assume that a resolution to censure which began in a similar manner would also be out of order.

 

[J. J.]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

Nonetheless, I think there are limits to what may be placed in a motion to censure without using formal disciplinary procedures. The following is an excerpt from what RONR has to say about a resolution to appoint an investigative committee.

"For the protection of parties who may be innocent, the first resolution should avoid details as much as possible. An individual member may not prefer charges, even if that member has proof of an officer's or member's wrongdoing. If a member introduces a resolution preferring charges unsupported by an investigating committee's recommendation, the chair must rule the resolution out of order, informing the member that it would instead be in order to move the appointment of such a committee (by a resolution, as in the example above). A resolution is improper if it implies the truth of specific rumors or contains insinuations unfavorable to an officer or member, even one who is to be accused. It is out of order, for example, for a resolution to begin, "Whereas, It seems probable that the treasurer has engaged in graft, . . ." At the first mention of the word "graft" in such a case, the chair must instantly call to order the member attempting to move the resolution." (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 657-658)

Based on this, I would assume that a resolution to censure which began in a similar manner would also be out of order.

 

A resolution suggesting some action has taken place would be in order, e.g.  "Resolved, the assembly censures the treasurer for engaging in graft."  (It would probably be libelous, but that is not the issue.)

It would be amended to strike out,  "for engaging in graft," but other things could be added.

The clause, "Except as may be necessary in the case of a notion of censure or a motion related to disciplinary procedures ... (p. 344, ll. 1-2, emphasize adde)," exempts censure from the improper language clause.

However, the motion to censure does not impair any of the rights that the treasurer may have as both as an officer but as a member.

[Josh Martin]

23 hours ago, J. J. said:

A resolution suggesting some action has taken place would be in order, e.g.  "Resolved, the assembly censures the treasurer for engaging in graft."  (It would probably be libelous, but that is not the issue.)

It would be amended to strike out,  "for engaging in graft," but other things could be added.

The clause, "Except as may be necessary in the case of a notion of censure or a motion related to disciplinary procedures ... (p. 344, ll. 1-2, emphasize adde)," exempts censure from the improper language clause.

However, the motion to censure does not impair any of the rights that the treasurer may have as both as an officer but as a member.

RONR provides that "A member or officer has the right that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground." (pg. 656) If you can put whatever you want in a motion to censure, this right doesn't seem to be worth much.

[J. J.]

3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

RONR provides that "A member or officer has the right that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground." (pg. 656) If you can put whatever you want in a motion to censure, this right doesn't seem to be worth much.

The assembly can express an opinion without making a judgement or an allegation.  That opinion may be highly negative, but it contains no allegations.  For example, "Resolved, that Member Smith be censured for being a thief."  That is an opinion.  It, technically, does not allege.  It certainly does not find any guilt, so, in that respect, it is not a judgement. 

That is a bit different than saying, "Member Smith, the Society finds you guilty of being a thief and, as such, censures you." That a is a judgement a finding of guilt.  The allegation is is resolution described on p. 660, and does not express an opinion.

The former is a main motion that expresses an opinion, could be amended to "Resolved, that member Smith Smith be commended for being a treasure-finder." 

The latter motion would be something like, "I move that the penalty be censure."¹  While amendable, it could not be amended to  "I move that the penalty be commendation." 

 

 

¹I wonder if this could be treated as filling a blank as well?