J. J.

Once the motion to extend debate has failed, it may not be renewed in regard to the same question in this circumstance (pp. 340, ll.1-8). The motion was out of order, should be ruled out of order and would be dilatory if repeated. It may advisable for the chair to note that the motion to extend the limits of debate would be out of order. It might be advisable for the chair to note that motion to extend the limits of debate is amendable, while it is pending.

Try p. 234, ll. 9-13, and then pp. 220-21.

Parliamentary Practice: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.49015002540178;view=1up;seq=9

It would probably take a 2/3 vote to stop the assembly from adjourning at 4:30, it they are still in session. A motion to set an adjournment to a future time is an incidental main motion (p. 234, ll. 9-13). It would require a 2/3 vote or a majority of the entire membership (or previous notice) to rescind that motion. At the time set for adjournment, this would be a motion to set aside the orders of the day (p. 241, ll. 1-4). That requires a 2/3 vote (pp. 222-3).

Who the officers are should be determined by the bylaws. I agree with Mr. Martin that the procedure in the bylaws for removing board members is controlling. Also, many organizations provide that the board shall elect officers. There is often a distinction between officers and directors.

It would be treated as would a special order set for the time. The members could vote not to adjourn. The act of the chair not announcing that the meeting time has arrived, and no member calls for adjournment, the meeting continues.

Unless your bylaws expressly say otherwise, you are now the president for the remainder of resigned president's term (p. 458, ll.7-13). Congratulations.

First, I would note that the chair may require any main motion to be in writing. Second, an incidental main motion to suspend the rules and prohibit amendments to main motions could be adopted for the entire session. Such a motion would require a 2/3 vote, but not previous notice. RONR, p. 74, ll. 20-23, does envision an incidental main motion to suspend the rules. The motion would be phrased thusly: "I move that the rules be suspended for the duration of this session to prohibit amendments to any main motion." An example of such a motion is found in Parliamentary Practice, General Robert's 1921 book, pp. 19-20, though parts of the description are at odds with his other works. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.49015002540178;view=1up;seq=42

I will agree that there could be confusion; this thread is probably an example. However, we don't know what, if any, additional effect a "rebuke," the penalty, would have. It might be noted in the person's record that he was found guilty and punished, by rebuke, for an offense; it might require some type of formal notification*. That would not be the case if the motion was "That ___ be censured," or "condemned" or "criticized." Again, the fact that there is a formal process for disciplinary action, does not the assembly from adopting a motion that expresses an opinion, even a negative one, of a member. Expressing a negative opinion of a member is not disciplinary action. That should be clear based on p. 125, ll. 15-20. There would have to a rule, which would be in the nature of a rule of order, that prohibits a motion expressing a negative opinion of a member. *In a different denomination, I am aware that there is formal notification of an "admonition," a disciplinary act.

Both the American Institute of Parliamentarians and the National Association of Parliamentarians have websites. If you really want to find out, start with those.

Censure was not listed as a penalty in the 10th edition. The term "reprimand" was used. There was some question on if reprimand was punishment and censure was not. "Censure" the this constitution seems to refer to punishment; it is not a penalty in and of itself. I would think that a motion "That ___ be censured," could be adopted, provided that it didn't slip in into discipline. Similar wording could be used, i.e. "That ___ be condemned," "That ____ be repudiated," or "That _____ be criticized."

Oh my goodness. I am so sorry to hear of that.

A motion "that ____ be censured" isn't an accusation or allegation. It is an opinion. A motion "that ____'s penalty is censure," is the inflicting of a penalty. That isn't an opinion or allegation. That is a judgment.

No. There are other places that deal with that.

It does not make a difference what the person subject to a motion to censure thinks about a motion. If he is a member, he cannot be prohibited from voting on it, or speaking to it. A motion "that ___ be censured" is an expression of the opinion of the assembly. It does not allege; it is not a penalty. As that, it is amendable and may express a different opinion, e.g. the word "censured" could be struck and "praised" be inserted. None of could be done in relation to the penalty of censure. What if the motion was "that Mr. X be condemned," or that "the assembly abhors Mr. X ?" It does not matter if Mr. X is a member of the assembly or not; the assembly can express these views. The are, however, not a penalty. If Mr. X is a member, he is no more impacted by this expression than any other member. He may not like the motion but so would anyone in the minority. The assembly can express its opinion, positively or negatively, of a member, or of anyone else.

There is a difference between the assembly making an allegation or judgment and of the assembly expressing an opinion. In your example, the assembly is saying "Treasurer, we are accusing you of engaging in graft. We intend to prove it as a moral certainty and punish you for it." In the second one, the is "Treasurer, we think you engaged in graft, but we are not going to try to prove it or penalize you." I would liken it, to an extent, to a person being arrested in a criminal case and a person being named a "person of interest" in a criminal case. I was actually a "person of interest" in a criminal case for a few days. Then the investigators decided that I wasn't that interesting.

Censure can be two different things. It can be a penalty in a disciplinary action. It can be an expression of a negative opinion of the assembly of someone or something. Provided it is not dilatory, it would be in order for this group to adopt a motion, "That Greg Goodwiller be censured for posting on the RONR board." The assembly would be expressing a negative opinion of your actions. They are not, and could not, inflicting a punishment on you. Even if you were a member, this would not be a punishment. The society is expressing an opinion, not determining guilt. If you were a member, they could find you guilty of something and inflict a punishment. They could find that you engaged in conduct that damaged the good name of the organization, and that the specification is that you did this by "posting on the RONR board." They would have to determine that you did damage the name of the organization, and that you did so by posting on the RONR board; they would do that by the trial. If they did find you guilty, one possible penalty is to censure you. If that was the penalty, they would not that you are guilty of an offense and that you are punished by being censured. I don't like to do this, but I am attaching a copy of an article that might explain it in more detail. I would call your attention to footnote 4. PJ 30.doc

"Public censure" may involve giving the censure in open session, posting the resolution publicly, or disseminating the motion to the media. It again a question of advisability, not the ability of the assembly to do it. Censure, as a penalty, would have to be imposed as a result of disciplinary action. Censure, however, need not be a penalty. I would assume that an investigating committee could recommend that no disciplinary action take place, but could also recommend that the assembly take some other action. That "other action" could be a motion to censure.

That is by the vote to Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted. I don't have a problem saying that a motion to "reconfirm" would be stated as a motion to Rescind (or even treated as one). My problem is trying to square the effect of a defeated motion to "reconfirm" with p. 251 b.

Guest Plantfoam may have meant "repeal." A bylaw may be repealed, by the method prescribed in the bylaw for amending the bylaws.

A motion to censure could be made in regard to anyone. The target of a censure need not have done anything improper in a meeting, and may not even be a member of the organization. A notable example was the censure of then President Andrew Jackson by the US Senate. This type of a "motion to censure," expresses an opinion, and is not a punishment of any type (p. 643, fn). It is, a permissible act, i.e. it violates no rule to do so, by majority vote, with no previous notice, without a trial and without the person being censured even knowing it. That said, it may be inadvisable to adopt a "motion to censure" and/or inadvisable to publicize it.

Some clarification in the text would be welcome.

Why, it there is a claim that the first motion has been modified by the second defeated motion?

In the case of Thornton, how would saying that the first motion is not in force square with p. 251 b? I will readily recognize that there may be cases where the first motion may not be in force. It the election had taken place between the meetings, the motion may not still be in force.

Yes, and there was another one where it was clearly not a violation of decorum. It was the meeting of a society of nudists.