J. J.

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. 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. 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).

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. 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

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.

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.

Yes it does, see pp. 125, ll. 15-19, and p. 137, ll. 20-29. The first citation is more applicable to this case.

RONR does not mandate "sense." The chair may make this motion, without violating the rules. Whether he should is a political question.

This, however, is not form of punishment. See p. 643, fn.

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

Not necessarily (see p. 137, ll. 20-31, foe example). Depending on the situation, it may not be of such urgency to interrupt a pending question (p. 266, #3).

The members (plural) being censured may vote (see p. 407, ll. 21-31). No notice is necessary.

Try it when you have have to be translated into iza-Zulu. (Who says my life isn't interesting?)

“At a general meeting, two thirds (2/3) of voting members present at any general meeting shall constitute a quorum.” If one voting member is present at a general meeting, 2/3 of that member shall constitute a quorum. That seems to be the unambiguous wording of the bylaws. I would suggest you remove the words, "present at any general meeting" or buy a chain saw. You might to make it a fixed number or a lower percentage.

Yes. We, the assembly, will show that we won't even entertain a motion that Mr. D. H. would make!!!

Yes, the motion was not before the assembly (p. 34).

I would say yes, for a several reasons, but I would also note that it is subject to interpretation. The ability to make a motion implies "voice," since motions are normally spoken by the maker. A main motion made by a nonmember would only be subject to a timely point of order, while a nonmember voting would be a continuing breach (though not necessarily invalidating the motion). RONR, does permit some situations where a a nonmember presiding office can make motions (i.e. setting aside the orders of the day, Objection To the Consideration of the Question). I think p. 572 #6 would apply, but it would still be a question of interpretation.

There is one other choice, ratify the action. If the action is not ratified, the president is responsible, personally, for the expenditure.

If that were true, then the motion to limit debate would null and void and the Previous Question would be out of order. There is no right basic right of an individual member to speak.

Dan, you are using my favorite icon.

That would be considered a "small board."

No place does RONR come even close to claiming that. The action taken would not be invalid because of the improper "calling for the question."