Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Censure


Guest Gary

Recommended Posts

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.

Gary, there is no suggestion that Officer George or the Mayor are under the authority of city council.

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.

Constitutional due process does not apply. Officer George would be perfectly free to sue if "commended" for running a drug importation ring. The question if someone can sue is not a procedural question.

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.

Well, this is not America but the decision of a society. They, in America, get to make their own decisions. They obviously could be sued for any decision they make, but that decision is not necessarily a violation of any rule of the assembly.

You seem to think that RONR says that assembly must make wise decisions; it does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You say that “there is no suggestion that Officer George or the Mayor are under the authority of city council.” So you conclude that they are not. I say there is no suggestion that Officer George is not under authority of City Council. So I conclude that they are.

I have gone back through many past censure discussions on this RONR forum and find the same questions on censure asked and subjective opinions offered based on interpretation.

Some conclude that under RONR a motion for censure is just an opinion or slap on the wrist that requires no proof. Others conclude that under RONR a motion for censure is a reprimand for doing things not acceptable in the assembly or society and must just be based on facts.

Some conclude that under RONR a motion for censure is not punishment. Others conclude RONR page 643 defines censure as a punishment if applied by motion or disciplinary action.

JJ on your comment “You seem to think that RONR says that assembly must make wise decisions; it does not.” I say that an assembly adapts RONR in its bylaws as the procedural authority on how to make wise decisions (wise: ability to determine what is good, having sound judgment) and that is jeopardized by so much subjective interpretation .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say that “there is no suggestion that Officer George or the Mayor are under the authority of city council.” So you conclude that they are not. I say there is no suggestion that Officer George is not under authority of City Council. So I conclude that they are.

No, I say that is no suggestion that the are.

I have gone back through many past censure discussions on this RONR forum and find the same questions on censure asked and subjective opinions offered based on interpretation.

I think as Mr. Gerber posted, that is the reason RONR said that you can adopt a motion of censure without disciplinary action, quite clearly. (p. 643, fn.).

JJ on your comment “You seem to think that RONR says that assembly must make wise decisions; it does not.” I say that an assembly adapts RONR in its bylaws as the procedural authority on how to make wise decisions (wise: ability to determine what is good, having sound judgment) and that is jeopardized by so much subjective interpretation .

Well, you are quite wrong. RONR deals with how the decision is made, not the advisability or wisdom of the decision itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JJ in my mind you have proven the point about subjective interpretation.

It is very clear that under RONR a motion to censure does not necessarily require “formal disciplinary proceedings” and I see the value of that. But using your argument that “there is no suggestion that Officer George or the Mayor are under the authority of city council.” then “there is no suggestion that” an assembly’s motion for censure can apply to someone outside of that assembly. “There is no suggestion that” defining censure as punishment on page 643 doesn’t apply to that same definition of censure motion.

I agree with you that “V RONR deals with how the decision is made”, but that can’t be accomplished if “how” is left to subjective interpretation. In my opinion RONR should either make the "how" on censure very clear or put the "how" on censure back to the societies Bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JJ in my mind you have proven the point about subjective interpretation.

It is very clear that under RONR a motion to censure does not necessarily require “formal disciplinary proceedings” and I see the value of that. But using your argument that “there is no suggestion that Officer George or the Mayor are under the authority of city council.” then “there is no suggestion that” an assembly’s motion for censure can apply to someone outside of that assembly. “There is no suggestion that” defining censure as punishment on page 643 doesn’t apply to that same definition of censure motion.

Do you doubt that an assembly can express an opinion about anything? Even about someone outside of the assembly? It is plainly stated that censure is an expression of an opinion. It is plainly stated that such a motion may be adopted, without disciplinary action.

I agree with you that “V RONR deals with how the decision is made”, but that can’t be accomplished if “how” is left to subjective interpretation. In my opinion RONR should either make the "how" on censure very clear or put the "how" on censure back to the societies Bylaws.

It is not subjective, but plainly stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bruce I am grate full that JJ has kept the debate going because in my opinion this is a debate on the RONR “PRINCIPALS UNDERLING PARLIAMENTARY LAW “on pages ii-!ii

The RONR prefaces includes “to provide rules as comprehensive and unambiguous a possible” yet this debate includes opposing interpretations of Officer George being under the jurisdiction of the City Council which leads to opposing interpretations on authorized and constructive use of censure. This RONR website debate on censure includes opposing interpretations of Presidential censure which I believe supports my opinion because when the Senate or House censures a President it is based on illegal activities and within Congress purpose as elected representatives in the society know as the US of A. JJ argues the opposite.

The opinion to censure a member of an assembly or society must be fair and justified (which is the process that my arguments promote) or it could be and unfair and vindictive harassment without justification (which JJ’s process promotes). Bruce to you support or oppose my opinions that parliamentarian principal’s on censure include:

1)A deliberative assembly may censure its own members or members of a sub serving committee or body but not members of the superior society unless that authority is provided in Bylaws by that society "Parliamentary procedure enables the overall membership of an organization –expressing its general will through the assemble of its members”( go head and slam Hitler but leave members of the superior society to take care of its own unless that say otherwise.)

2)A motion to censure a member of an assembly includes “the opportunity for a deliberative process of full and free discussion “ ( A member has the right to be present to present their opinion and related facts to defend themselves)

3)Censuring the member of an assembly or society involves actions that violate the purpose, bylaws or standards of the society. (Is it a principal of parliamentarian law to censure, reprimand and criticize a white member of an assembly or society for marrying a black person? It’s none of their business).

4)If a motion to censure is approved by vote following an investigation under disciplinary proceedings, or following a deliberative process during a meeting of an assembly it remains “censure”. However derived, censure is a reprimand or harsh criticism that can harm people’s reputations, stature, re-election, or in the Officer George example his career and I believe that is why RONR defines censure a punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Officer George and I have established a society named the Assembly of Responsible Censure (ARC) with the sole purpose to study parliamentarian guides, manuals, practices and references and submit a collective definition, purpose and authorized use of censure on the RONR web site discussion forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Officer George and I have established a society named the Assembly of Responsible Censure (ARC) with the sole purpose to study parliamentarian guides, manuals, practices and references and submit a collective definition, purpose and authorized use of censure on the RONR web site discussion forum.

Not a good idea -- it will almost certainly be deleted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...
Guest jrmcmullen.stamford18
On 11/5/2012 at 8:35 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

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.

Is the footnote on page 643 limited to the circumstances outlined on page 646 line 28 ? In other words limited to behavior occurring in a meeting where voting members are witness. Or can the footnote on page 643 by applied to the Offenses Elsewhere Than in a Meeting found on page 649. It would seem to me the footnote on page 643 warns of the possibility found on page 646.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Guest jrmcmullen.stamford18 said:

Is the footnote on page 643 limited to the circumstances outlined on page 646 line 28 ? In other words limited to behavior occurring in a meeting where voting members are witness. Or can the footnote on page 643 by applied to the Offenses Elsewhere Than in a Meeting found on page 649. It would seem to me the footnote on page 643 warns of the possibility found on page 646.

Please start a new topic.  This thread is more than six  years old. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jrmcmullen.stamford18
34 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Please start a new topic.  This thread is more than six  years old. 

J.J. I don't know how to start a new topic.

 

On 11/5/2012 at 8:35 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

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.

Is the footnote on page 643 limited to the circumstances outlined on page 646 line 28 ? In other words limited to behavior occurring in a meeting where voting members are witness. Or can the footnote on page 643 by applied to the Offenses Elsewhere Than in a Meeting found on page 649. It would seem to me the footnote on page 643 warns of the possibility found on page 646.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Guest jrmcmullen.stamford18 said:

J.J. I don't know how to start a new topic.

Like this post says (It's the first post in the forum, which is pinned, and says "Important: Read this first":

https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/25416-important-read-this-first-faq-and-information-for-new-members-and-guests/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2019 at 10:33 PM, Guest jrmcmullen.stamford18 said:

J.J. I don't know how to start a new topic.

 

Is the footnote on page 643 limited to the circumstances outlined on page 646 line 28 ? In other words limited to behavior occurring in a meeting where voting members are witness. Or can the footnote on page 643 by applied to the Offenses Elsewhere Than in a Meeting found on page 649. It would seem to me the footnote on page 643 warns of the possibility found on page 646.

Please start a new topic after finding out how.

Edited by Gary Novosielski
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...