Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Censure


Guest Gary

Recommended Posts

Chapter XX page 643 lines 12-13 state "Punishment that a society can impose generally fall under the headings of censure, * The footnote on that same page states " It is also possible to adopt a motion of censure without formal disiplanary procedings." Would that only aply to "Offenses in a Meeting"? Could a Board adapt a motion to censure for "Offenses Elsewhere then in a Meeting"? Thank you. Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Good question. "Censure" wasn't included as one of the "punishments" in the previous 10th Edition (even as a "heading" whatever that may mean), and under those (old) rules there was no distinction between in-meeting and extra-meeting activities that might be censured (which was no more than a slap on the wrist, previously).

It looks as though there are (now) two different types of "censure".

I await, as do we all, an authoritative clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My unauthoritative opinion is, when censure is not used as "punishment" it reverts back to essentially being an opinion of the assembly, and can made for any "offense", in or out of a meeting.....it's still a main motion and it remains amendable to strike censure and insert commend, etc., is debatable and requires a majority vote to adopt. RONR (11th ed.), p. 124-125

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Page 643 does list censure as a specific punishment that a society can impose. So wouldn't that require a motion at a meeting of the society that in effect is a complaint against a member who must have an opportunity to defend themselfs against the complaint? And doesn't that mean that censure "without formal disiplanary procedures" could not be used by a Board of Directors, only the society as a whole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In practice, I have seen a censure have the same impact as some making a motion that "Person 'X' is a big fat meany".

It might make people feel like they have done something but in the end people usually spend more time figuring out if they can or can not do it and a big long discussion about if it even proper. In the end the whole exercise is usually pointless.

If someone has done something wrong, discipline them.

If the body does not want an action repeated, then change rules to make sure that action can not be done.

But censure is usually a waste of everyone's time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can appreciate your experiences with censure, but it can also be a powerfull condemnation and expression of disapproval that insults and defames a member of a society which is a disiplinary action. That is what happened in this case. The Board of Directors determined that complaints and accusations against a member were valid and sent a sever letter of censure to the member without giving that member an opportunity to defened himself against those false complaints and accusations.The members reputation and standing the the Club have been severly damaged.

This brings me back to the original request to affirm that RRON defines censure as a punishment. And to ask for clarification on when the footnote *It is also possible to adapt a motion of censure without formal disiplinary procedures" can be applied?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This brings me back to the original request to affirm that RRON defines censure as a punishment. And to ask for clarification on when the footnote *It is also possible to adopt a motion of censure without formal disciplinary procedures" can be applied?

Well, I don't think anyone would view censure as a "pat on the back". But punishment? The dictionary says censure is "an expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism".

As for your second question, I think an assembly can adopt a motion to censure whenever it wants. See FAQ #7 for what I think is the comparable "vote of no confidence".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently Guest_Gary's organization didn't follow RONR's disciplinary procedure in arriving at a "guilty" decision. If it had then the "defendant" would have had an opportunity to defend himself.

I guess the distinction implied by the p. 643 footnote is that once a "guilty" decision has been reached via formal disciplinary procedures, it is then a separate question as to the penalty - p. 667. Anything from Expulsion down to Censure is possible.

But if the association in effect agrees at the start of considering the question of the validity of complaints &c. that a "Censure" is going to be the severest penalty it will impose, then it is fair game to go directly to a motion to censure without going through the "formal disciplinary procedures" to determine guilt.

Whether Guest_Gary's board made the initial assumption that "censure" is the only penalty to be imposed is up to Gary to tell us. If it did, the Board's action may be proper.

But maybe not: If we take the position that ONLY the general membership can impose penalties (p. 643 seems to say that, as does the material on p. 668-669) then the Board's action was not proper.

(As ever, if Gary's association bylaws give the Board "full" disciplinary authority, then those bylaws supersede what RONR says and my conclusions should be defenestrated.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But maybe not: If we take the position that ONLY the general membership can impose penalties (p. 643 seems to say that, as does the material on p. 668-669) then the Board's action was not proper.

That raises the question of whether the adoption of a motion to censure imposes a penalty. I'm not sure it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our Bylaws specifically state that "The Board of Directors shall be guided by Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised Chapter XX Disiplanary Peocedures to ensure a fair and equitable conclusion with appropriate dsiplanary action or acquital." However, no disiplanary procedures took place.

This discussion sems to confirm that the footnote on page 643 concerning censure would apply only to a meeting of the assembly where a complaint(s) can be made by a main motion which would allow discussion in favor and opposed, including the accussed members opportunity to defend themselves. That process amounts to a hearing where the society could find the member inocent, or gulty of the complaint and make a motion for punishment which could be censure, propation, expulsion, etc.

But I hope you all agree that RRON does not condone a punishment of censure during a closed door meeting of only Board members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I hope you all agree that RRON does not condone a punishment of censure during a closed door meeting of only Board members.

I'm afraid I don't agree. Censure is not necessarily a punishment, though it can be used that way at the end of a disciplinary process. It is also an expression of opinion. The board is free to censure anyone on its own initiative and in executive session. The act carries no more or less weight than any other expression of opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Board can adopt a motion of censure. In this case, it is the board that is making the statement about the person actions.

It could also recommend to the main body that it make the same motion.

I see nothing in RONR that would not allow any group that has the ability to make motions to make a motion of censure, which is why I put it in the category of "Person X is a big fat meany". The threshold for doing it is low and so is its impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boad members are the elected representatives of the Society so any Board action must be on behalf of the Society if that is spending money, approving new members, hiring services, upholding the Bylaws or disiplinary actions. So when a Board determines that a Club member has violated Club Bylaws and standards it does so as the authority that upholds the Bylaws and standards established by the Society.

The society would have to approve a Bylaw amendment which states that the Board may censure a member without complying with the disiplinary procedures approved by the society in the Bylaws, but that would conflict with law, RRON, logic and justice.

RRON defines censure ( formerly reprimand) as a punishment. That is whay it is in Chapter XX "Disiplinary Procedures". Websters dictionary and law define censure as punishment, reprimand, admonition and act of disipline. Therefore censure rerquires finding a member quilty of somthing like violation the Bylaws or standards of the society. In response to Robert, the Board and the Society are the only "groups" that can make motions concerning censure and disipline and both "groups" have the Bylaw, RRON. ethical and legal obligation to allow membes to defend themselves and get at the truth.

If it concerns being "a big fat meany" or any other action there has to be a complaint against the member to the Board or Society which has to be substantiated or disproven in a democratic and just way. Or we have no society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Board meeting -

I move that we censure Robert. Second.

Debate - "He has been a big fat meany in the past month" pg 344 allows me to say this.

No Other Debate.

Vote.

See nothing in RONR says that is not correct and pg 643 would seem to indicate that it is.

The bylaws only point back to Chapter XX.

Since Censure does not require a formal discipline procedure, I see not breech.

The Bylaws say ""The Board of Directors shall be guided..." I would argue that they are being guided by the footnote.

I would also note the language on pg 344.

"... a motion of censure or a motion related to disciplinary procedures..."

If a motion of censure was always part of disciplinary procedures, then this statement would be redundant.

By this along with the footnote would seem to indicate that censure does not always have to have a formal disciplinary procedure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your motion and the following debate is a complaint against Robert. Was Robert there to defend himself during the debate? If so then your example could be considered a hearing where all of the facts were presented and an informed vote could take place. For example if the motion and complaint was against Roberts actions during a Board or society meeting then it appers the RRON footnote could apply.

But if the complaint was against Roberts actions outside of a Board or society meeting then RRON requires a disiplanary process (pg 649). If Robert was not present for a motion, debate and vote on censure against him (unless he was properly notified but did not appear) that would be improper (pg 343) becaue it conflicts with the Bylaws requiring an investigation of all complaints (ours do) which is not complete without getting Roberts information.

Do you believe RRON would condone Robert receiving a letter of censure, reprimand and punishment for actions that never took place and he was never allowed to defend himself ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Robert was not present for a motion, debate and vote on censure against him (unless he was properly notified but did not appear) that would be improper (pg 343) becaue it conflicts with the Bylaws requiring an investigation of all complaints (ours do) which is not complete without getting Roberts information.

Only your organization can interpret its bylaws, and you appear to have answered your own question to your complete satisfaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary,

I would argue that censure can both be a disciplinary procedure or a Main Motion. And the language of 344 and footnote would seem to agree.

I would state that both interpretations could be valid and ultimately the body can decide.

Assume that board did not out of order in their the decision, there is still nothing preventing the body from rescinding that decision.

Allowed and The Right Thing to do are not always the same - thus the reason RONR ultimately gives power to the body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert we agree IF it is recognized that the censured person has the right to be present to defend themselves for either a disiplinary procedure or a motion. To your point about the body (society) recinding, fortunately our Bylaws state that members may appeal a Board disiplinary action ( which I believe punishment by censure and letter of reprimand is under RRON) to the membership as the higher authority.

Also we agree about the difference between allowed and right thing to do which is the core subject of this discussion. In my substantial experience, RRON can be used to promote democacry, order and justice or manipulated to banish them. It is not for the RRON authors to take responsibility for this but every RRON clarification verses discretionary interpretation better serves the millions of organizatrions that are guided by RRON.

Great debat and thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can appreciate your experiences with censure, but it can also be a powerfull condemnation and expression of disapproval that insults and defames a member of a society which is a disiplinary action. That is what happened in this case. The Board of Directors determined that complaints and accusations against a member were valid and sent a sever letter of censure to the member without giving that member an opportunity to defened himself against those false complaints and accusations.The members reputation and standing the the Club have been severly damaged.

First, I would note that even a motion that commends someone may insult and/or defame a member. If a main motion is adopted, "That Gary be commended on the professional way he manages his prostitution ring," you might regard that defamatory, even though the assembly represents this as a favorable opinion of you.

This brings me back to the original request to affirm that RRON defines censure as a punishment. And to ask for clarification on when the footnote *It is also possible to adapt a motion of censure without formal disiplinary procedures" can be applied?

If inflicted as a result of disciplinary action, it is a form of punishment. If adopted as merely the opinion of the assembly, it is not a punishment and does not require due process. See p. 137, l. 20 ff., for an example of a motion to censure that is not disciplinary action.

I would also refer you to:

Censure: Penalty verses Motion, Parliamentary Journal, April 2012

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hypothetical example on page 137 is to clarify “germaneness”, not the definition or use of censure.

To your point “If adopted as merely the opinion of the assembly, it is not a punishment” The definition of censure was provided earlier in this discussion as "an expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism". The definition of censure does not change if adopted by disciplinary proceeding or main motion. Either way the assembly has censured a member of the society for doing something bad.

What information would be required for an assembly to arrive at the opinion for censure? If for example it was rude and obnoxious behavior before the assembly then a motion for censure is justified because the opinion if based on facts. But if the opinion of the assemble is based on hear/ say about events outside of a meeting, and the accused member is not present to defend themselves then the opinion is not based on facts therefore censure cannot be justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...