Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Censure


Guest Gary

Recommended Posts

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.

That still doesn't make it "punishment". You seem to be unduly hung up on that word.

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.

Opinions don't need to be justified. They're just opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Edgar A is a member of the cabinet makers society and at meeting of of the assembly or society a motion is made to censure Edgar A, second, discussion includes that customers have said that Edgar' A's cabinets are terrible and below the societies standards for quality, vote and Edgar is censured as recorder in the meeting minutes. Edgar wasn't at the meeting but learns about it later and is very upset because his work is alwasy of the highest standards, feels his reputation has been harmed he has been punished (deff- "to cause someone to suffer for an offense")and realizes it is Edwin B that has inferior cabinets.

You may say that Edgar A can go before the society and ask that the censure be reversed (or what evey word you want) but that places an unecessary burden on him that should have been avoided by the assembly or society having substianted their opinions (the facts) at the start

Censure is censure, facts are facts and unsubstianted opinions can harm peoples lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

It does, however, show that a the assembly may censure someone without that rising to the level of discipline. It is rather obviously an example of the "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.

The penalty of censure is that expression of that "strong disapproval or harsh criticism" after a trial and involves a finding of guilt. The motion that someone be censured is the opinion of of the assembly, without a finding of guilt.

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.

Like any decision, they may base it on any criteria they wish.

I would note that hearsay is perfectly admissible in a trial under RONR (p. 655, ll. 25-26).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Censure is censure, facts are facts and unsubstianted opinions can harm peoples lives.

Censure is not a penalty in the case you describe. An opinion that Edwin's cabinets are the best in world may hard Edgar's life, even without censure. People may flock to Edwin, based on that motion.

The parliamentary question is not "does the action harm someone." It is, "Can the assembly take this action." Any action could potentially harm someone, but that does make improper from a parliamentary standpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just skimmed over this thread, and apologize if I've missed some of the nuances of the discussion...

In an organization where the board is a subordinate body, and assuming that the board does not have authority to take disciplinary actions against general members of the society, can that board adopt a motion censuring (the non-discipline version of censure) a general member of the organization who is not a board member?

Going back to Mr. Mervosh's statement in post #3 -- that 'when censure is not used as "punishment" it reverts back to essentially being an opinion of the assembly' -- nothing precludes the board from expressing its opinion about anyone under the sun, right? On the other hand, if a motion to censure must be an opinion directed at a member, does that mean that a subordinate board can only adopt a motion to censure someone who is a member of that body (i.e. the board) or someone who is answerable to the board (e.g. a member of a committee of the board)?

edited to add underlined text

edited again to quote Mr. Mervosh more precisely

Edited by Trina
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just skimmed over this thread, and apologize if I've missed some of the nuances of the discussion...

In an organization where the board is a subordinate body, and assuming that the board does not have authority to take disciplinary actions against general members of the society, can that board adopt a motion censuring (the non-discipline version of censure) a general member of the organization who is not a board member?

Going back to Mr. Mervosh's statement in post #3, if a motion to censure is not used as "punishment" it reverts back to essentially being just an expression of opinion, nothing precludes the board from expressing its opinion about anyone under the sun, right? On the other hand, if a motion to censure must be an opinion directed at a member, does that mean that a subordinate board can only adopt a motion to censure someone who is a member of that body (i.e. the board) or someone who is answerable to the board (e.g. a member of a committee of the board)?

edited to add underlined text

Fixed to add in what I really said before what you said I said :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Trina for finding the words that may bring this to a rational understanding. To save people from having to read all of this thread, the core question involves the Page 643 footnote that states "It is also possible to adapt a motion of censure without a formal disiplanary procedure".Does RRON intend this to mean that an assembly (the Board for example) may censure a member of that assembly (the Board for example)? Not members of some other assembly or body. Perhaps the RRON authors could define the intentions and proper application of the footnote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does RRON intend this to mean that an assembly (the Board for example) may censure a member of that assembly (the Board for example)? Not members of some other assembly or body.

Why would you think the object of a (non-disciplinary) motion to censure would be restricted? Why can't the board express "strong disapproval" of, say, the President of the United States?

(And, by the way, the preferred abbreviation is RONR, not RRON.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be like the assembly of the Senate moving to censure a member of the House of Representatives, or the other way around. "It (refering to censure) derives from the formal condemnation of either congressional body of their own members".

If the Bylaws (or Constitution) do not provide an assembly the authority for motion to censure a member of a different assembly then how can RONR be used to as the authority to do that? It would be like using the RONR description of ex-officio to conclude that the Board has ex-officio members but the Bylaws have no refrence to ex-officio Board members (that was a true situation)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be like the assembly of the Senate moving to censure a member of the House of Representatives, or the other way around. "It (refering to censure) derives from the formal condemnation of either congressional body of their own members".

Actually, there is precedent in the Senate for adopting a resolution for censure against a President of the United States, Andrew Jackson. Also, several houses of state legislatures censured a president, Harry S Truman. There is no prohibition on an assembly adopting a motion to censure someone not a member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The President is not a member of Congress which both the Senate and House of Representatives are. McCarthy was from Wisconsin was centured by the Senate. Representative Wilson from California was centured by the House of Representatives which seems to set the precedent of only a motion to censure a member of the respective assembly.

Another question. If a Board makes a main motion to censure a Board member then sends a letter to the Board member listing the complaints that he or she was judged guity to is that still censure, or disipline?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

There is no prohibition on an assembly adopting a motion to censure someone not a member.

I think this answers my question.

RONR p. 125 ll. 15-18 deals with a motion to censure applied to 'an officer or other representative of the assembly'... it doesn't suggest that such a motion can be applied to anyone the assembly is displeased with, although I suppose it doesn't forbid such application either.

The example on p. 137 (re the City Council and Officer George) has never been crystal clear to me -- although I've assumed that Officer George is a public employee under the jurisdiction of the City Council (but not himself a member of the City Council).

The other examples of censure in RONR deal with application of the motion to a member. This is why I was uncertain whether it is appropriate to use this motion to express displeasure toward a member of a superior body, or even to censure someone who is outside of the organization entirely. As J.J. points out, there seems to be no explicit prohibition.

edited to shorten post

Edited by Trina
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The President is not a member of Congress which both the Senate and House of Representatives are. McCarthy was from Wisconsin was centured by the Senate. Representative Wilson from California was centured by the House of Representatives which seems to set the precedent of only a motion to censure a member of the respective assembly.

Such censure, IIRC, were pyunishments. As noted, a motion censuring someone need not be punshment.

Another question. If a Board makes a main motion to censure a Board member then sends a letter to the Board member listing the complaints that he or she was judged guity to is that still censure, or disipline?

The member cannot be "judged guilty," by a motion to censure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that the Senate and House of Reps have authoirty to censure or punish members of their respective bodies. The same is true (asTrina pointed out) that the Bylaws or Charter of the City Council must include jurisdiction over Officer George.

The page 643 footnote does not say that an assemble can censure people not in that assembly so an assemble cannot claim that RORN does gives them that authority. In my mind this discussion has led to the rational and responsible conclusion (which I hope the authors of the RORN footnote will agree) that an assemble (a Board for example) can only make a motion to censure its own members unless the society provides additional censure authoriy in the Bylaws, Charter, or Constituion which I heve never seen because its probably a bad idea.

Trina in my Club the Bylaws provide the Board disiplanary authority over complaints submited to them by Club members, to make an full investigation and follow RRON Chapter XX. The Bylaws do not give the Board authority for motion to censure Club members. Would you agree that any Board censure of a Club member based on complaints from Club members is a form of punishment under Chapter XX?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would point out that the House and Senate do not use Robert's Rules.

And motions to censure the Adams, Jackson and Clinton among other Presidents have been introduced.

I still see nothing that would prevent censure, especially of a superior board to a sub group.

But, since there is nothing specific, the ultimate answer will lie with the membership.

If someone believes the motion is not proper they can ask for a vote.

And then if they are correct, they could ask for a censure vote on those who voted to censure setting up an endless loop.

Why I prefer the much more effective motion of "big fat meanie." Much simpler and produces same effect.

As a side note and out of RONR scope, if you want some background on censure in the house -

The Democrates produced a report with lots of footnotes on censure history and application on house members (and former members).

http://democrats.rules.house.gov/archives/rl31382.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that the Senate and House of Reps have authoirty to censure or punish members of their respective bodies. The same is true (asTrina pointed out) that the Bylaws or Charter of the City Council must include jurisdiction over Officer George.

I do not that to be the case.

The page 643 footnote does not say that an assemble can censure people not in that assembly so an assemble cannot claim that RORN does gives them that authority. In my mind this discussion has led to the rational and responsible conclusion (which I hope the authors of the RORN footnote will agree) that an assemble (a Board for example) can only make a motion to censure its own members unless the society provides additional censure authoriy in the Bylaws, Charter, or Constituion which I heve never seen because its probably a bad idea.

The examples of a main motions includes those that express an opinion (p. 100). A motion that someone be censured expresses an opinion, as can be shown in the case of Officer George.

Trina in my Club the Bylaws provide the Board disiplanary authority over complaints submited to them by Club members, to make an full investigation and follow RRON Chapter XX. The Bylaws do not give the Board authority for motion to censure Club members. Would you agree that any Board censure of a Club member based on complaints from Club members is a form of punishment under Chapter XX?

I would not agree. I would agree that such action is not punishment as a result of disciplinary action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Trina in my Club the Bylaws provide the Board disiplanary authority over complaints submited to them by Club members, to make an full investigation and follow RRON Chapter XX. The Bylaws do not give the Board authority for motion to censure Club members. Would you agree that any Board censure of a Club member based on complaints from Club members is a form of punishment under Chapter XX?

It seems to me that if the bylaws require the Board to respond in a certain way to a complaint submitted by a Club member (that way being to make an investigation and to follow RONR Ch. XX in exercising its disciplinary authority), then the Board is not fulfilling its duties under the bylaws if it doesn't take the prescribed steps. If the Board didn't follow the bylaws, then the motion of censure can't be a punishment, since it didn't come out of the formal disciplinary procedure the Board was supposed to follow. In practice, however, I can imagine that the targeted member, as well as other members of the organization, perceive the censure as a punishment.

It really should be pointed out to the Board that it hasn't yet carried out its duties as prescribed in the bylaws. Perhaps the members of the Board should be censured for their attempt to do an end run around the tiresome disciplinary procedure required by the bylaws ;) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert accurately points out that Congress follows Demeter's Manual which I have just ordered. JJ I don't see the use of the word "opinion" on page 100 and the examples there are actions taken. A motion for Censure is also an action taken.

I do not find the association of "opinion" and "censure" in RONR. I do see the association of "punishment" and "cesure" on page 643 by disiplanary action or possibly by motion (the footnote), In either form an assembly has taken the action to censure a member that has done somthing to violate the societies bylaws, purpose, standards, rules or wellbeing.

Trina's earier example is RONR p. 125 ll. states " An assemble can ratify [which can be amended to censure] only such actions of its officers, subcommittees, deligates, or subortinate bodies as it would have had the right to authorize in advance". 1) A Board cannot censure a member of its superior body, the society, unless authorized in advance which must mean within the bylaws. In our Club the Board does have that authority by way of speciific disiplanary procedings defined in the bylaws. 2) Motion for censure is an action taken (when authorized) based on the actions of a member of that assembly there for there must be proof of those actions, not just opinion, and the assembly member should have the opportunity during the motion to censure discussion for him or her to present his or her facts about those actions. 3)Federal and State law uphold the right to due process which RORN agrees takes precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Trina for finding the words that may bring this to a rational understanding. To save people from having to read all of this thread, the core question involves the Page 643 footnote that states "It is also possible to adapt a motion of censure without a formal disiplanary procedure".Does RRON intend this to mean that an assembly (the Board for example) may censure a member of that assembly (the Board for example)? Not members of some other assembly or body. Perhaps the RRON authors could define the intentions and proper application of the footnote.

The purpose of the footnote on page 643 is to dispel the idea, which is untrue (at least since the publication of the 11th edition of RONR), that an assembly cannot adopt a motion of censure against a member or officer unless there has been a disciplinary process and the "accused" has been found guilty. However, since you are so fervently enamored of this idea, I can understand your reluctance to be dissuaded from it by a mere footnote. :)

Edited to put "accused" in quotation marks.

Edited by Shmuel Gerber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an organization where the board is a subordinate body, and assuming that the board does not have authority to take disciplinary actions against general members of the society, can that board adopt a motion censuring (the non-discipline version of censure) a general member of the organization who is not a board member?

No, I don't think so. There is even some question whether the board may censure a board member. I believe Dan Honemann may have already opined (here in the Forum in the not too distant past) that it could not, although unfortunately I can't recall the specifics of that thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not find the association of "opinion" and "censure" in RONR. I do see the association of "punishment" and "cesure" on page 643 by disiplanary action or possibly by motion (the footnote), In either form an assembly has taken the action to censure a member that has done somthing to violate the societies bylaws, purpose, standards, rules or wellbeing.

Censure, like "commend" obviously can be an opinion. It is rather obvious from the line, "An amendment to strike out 'commend' and insert "censure," ... is germane and in order because both deal with the council's opinion of the officer's action. (p. 137, ll. 22-25, emphasis added)."

To address each point:

1) A Board cannot censure a member of its superior body, the society, unless authorized in advance which must mean within the bylaws. In our Club the Board does have that authority by way of speciific disiplanary procedings defined in the bylaws.

The board may express an opinion, it may commend or condemn a member.

2) Motion for censure is an action taken (when authorized) based on the actions of a member of that assembly there for there must be proof of those actions, not just opinion, and the assembly member should have the opportunity during the motion to censure discussion for him or her to present his or her facts about those actions.

There is no need for "proof" to form an opinion, no to hear the "other side" of the story. An assembly may express the opinion that Hitler was not a nice person without reading Mein Kampf.

3)Federal and State law uphold the right to due process which RORN agrees takes precedent.

Are not applicable unless the assembly one of a federal or state government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shmuel I searched for past discussion on censure and found more concerns about this but I did not find Mr Hunemann's comments on authority to censure. JJ, I stand corrected that "opinion" is used in relation to censure but the RONR example you use supports the conclusions by Shmuel, me and others that there must be authority or juristiction over the censured person.

Federal and State laws and Constitutions are directly applicable because they provide the rights and protection to express an opinion about Hitler who a Board (for example) can centure if it feels that serves some benefit to the purpose of the assemble or society.

Shmuel I am not arguing against RONR providing an assembly the right to censure one of its own without a disiplanary proceeding. I am trying to argue that personal agenda's can abuse censure to harm the reputation and standing of assembly members who must have the right to present their response to the "opinions" or "acusations" leading to a motion to censure (also defined as reprimand). That is the concern expressd in prior discussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shmuel I searched for past discussion on censure and found more concerns about this but I did not find Mr Hunemann's comments on authority to censure. JJ, I stand corrected that "opinion" is used in relation to censure but the RONR example you use supports the conclusions by Shmuel, me and others that there must be authority or juristiction over the censured person.

In the same example, there is no suggestion that Officer George is under the "jurisdiction" of the council. An organization can, rather obviously, expess an opinion about someone/something that is not under the jurisdiction of the society.

Federal and State laws and Constitutions are directly applicable because they provide the rights and protection to express an opinion about Hitler who a Board (for example) can centure if it feels that serves some benefit to the purpose of the assemble or society.

Neither is applicable internal to private organization, which is why some exclude people from membership. As noted, if the society wishes to express a negative opinion of Hitler, they may do so without hearing his side of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JJ that is like arguing if the light goes off when the refirgerator door is closed. I asked 8 responsilble and experienced adults tody if they believe that Officer George is under the jurisdiction of City Council and they all do (along with others in this discussion). And they believe the light goes off. This is a rational, intelegent conclusion about this example in RORN.

If the City Bylaws place Officer George under the jurisdiction of the City Mayor then no, City Council has no right or authority to censure Officer George. They may have a right to censure the Mayor for how he manages Officer Georger or his department, but not George.

On your second opinion, this discussion is not about Billy and Mary's tree house club. This concerns every for profit and non profit corporation that all must file Articles of Organization ( or related phrasing) with their espective Secretaries of State which makes that corporation (Society) a legal entity that must comply with State and Federal laws including due process. If the City Councils censure of Officer George unjustly impacts his record, raises, promotions or reputation then he can sue the City Council and the City.

Employers and societies can and should ask if an applicant has ever been censured. So imagine JJ that you honestly answered yes, because of a censure based on the "opinions" of members of an assemble that had no authority to do that and never allowed you an opportunity to present the facts in you own defense. That is not how it works in America and RONR sholg make clear t oprevent this very real potential for abuse an harm.

d by an assemply within a socirt yoy belinged to that and were declined based on so would JJ isf you anse probaly y often (perhaps should) If Officer George applies for a new job or a censured member of a society applies to another society and they are declined because thet nes employer or society askes "have you everbeen sernciured ey direct answer to the question they were censured would you clasify that as "punishment": because of of the "opinions" of people in an assembly they were not members of. "Opinions" that they were not allowed to address or influence.

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...