J. J.

Dan, I agree with you that nominations can be reopened by majority vote, and would open all nominations up for debate. I also agree that there is no motion to reopen debate. The question that have been raised is if the motion nay be made even though no member wishes to offer a nomination. Your answer is apparently, yes.

I think the scenario being given is that no member wishes to make an additional nomination. The majority may wish to continue debating the merits of the existing nominees. I would agree that the only way to do this is to supend the rules. [i could construct a scenario where everyone eligible for the position has been nominated and it would be dilatory to reopen nominations.]

I think I agree with this. After the results of the first round of voting is announced, without an election, the chair should open the polls, or the assembly should otherwise dispose of that motion to fill the blank in the motion "that ___ be elected." In the case of suggestion to fill a blank in a main motion, wouldn't it work the same way, in regard to debate?

It may be proper, if the member's time had expired or if what he was doing violated decorum.

Well, in strict terms of debate, extending debate would be "dilatory" as well. Postpone Indefinitely serves an additional purpose.

No. A flaw in the nomination process seldom invalidates an election or disqualifies anyone for being elected.

They are interesting, and ever shifting, arguments, though not successful.

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. It is not subjective, but plainly stated.

No, I say that is no suggestion that the are. 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.). Well, you are quite wrong. RONR deals with how the decision is made, not the advisability or wisdom of the decision itself.

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

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. 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.

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: The board may express an opinion, it may commend or condemn a member. 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. Are not applicable unless the assembly one of a federal or state government.

I do not that to be the case. 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. I would not agree. I would agree that such action is not punishment as a result of disciplinary action.

Such censure, IIRC, were pyunishments. As noted, a motion censuring someone need not be punshment. The member cannot be "judged guilty," by a motion to censure.

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.

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.

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).