J. J.

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.

Historically, it is. Until the 1990's the UK House of Commons required a member making a point of order to wear a hat. Jefferson's Manual includes the rules (with emphasis added in all cases): " If any difficulty arises in point of order during the division, the Speaker is to decide peremptorily, subject to the future censure of the House if irregular. He sometimes permits old experienced members to assist him with their advice, which they do, sitting in their seats, covered, to avoid the appearance of debate; but this can only be with the Speaker's leave, else the division might last several hours. (Rule LI, Order in Debate)." " No member is to come into the House with his head covered, nor to remove from one place to another with his hat on, nor is to put on his hat in coming in, or removing, until he be set down in his place. " and " When any member means to speak, he is to stand up in his place, uncovered, and to address himself, not to the House, or any particular member, but to the Speaker, who calls him by his name, that the House may take notice who it is that speaks. (Rule XVII, Order in Debate)" I believe that, until the current session, the US House maintained a rule against headgear. All that said, there is no specific rule in RONR prohibiting or permitting headgear. There is no rule in RONR prohibiting or permitting a member to be naked during the meeting. I would presume that a member appearing naked (and I can think of two cases within the last 20 years) could be removed as a breach of decorum (or even a breech of decorum). That decision would be up to the membership attending the meeting, via point of order and/or appeal.

How the committee would wish to handle this, is really up to the committee, unless your rules say otherwise. They may ignore the timely self-nomination, ignore the non-timely one, talk to the people about taking a different office or even ignore both self nominations.

A dress code would probably be considered decorum. A society could remove a person that showed up wearing an offensive tee shirt, if the majority found it offensive. It would probably be better to draft a dress code.

They could make the motion. The parliamentarian could read the report and state, "The committee recommends ________ ." Another member of the body could make the motion.

Intent plays no part in interpreting a bylaw when the text is clear and unambiguous (pp. 588-89). RONR is clear that the bylaws must specify eligibility for office (p. 447, ll. 8-13, p. 441 fn.) and that only the bylaws may prohibit write-in votes (pp. 441-2, p. 573, ll. 21-25). I see neither a clause making persons ineligible nor one prohibiting write-in votes at any phase of this election. There is also this line from the bylaws. There can exist a situation where two candidates remain and do not get a majority because of write-ins for a third eligible person. A and B are on the ballot; D was dropped after a previous round of voting. A gets 19 votes, B 17 vote and D, being written in, gets 20 votes. Note as well that, even if D was ineligible, his votes would be illegal votes, but still used in calculating a majority. It would be necessary for the bylaws to provide that write-in votes would not be credited if more than one round of voting is needed.

In theory, a non-member chair of a committee may make a report. In that regard, the parliamentarian could, since it is not a right of membership, nor dependent upon membership (p. 496, ll. 26-30). Moving a recommendation in the report, however, would have to made by a member. The member parliamentarian is suppose to maintain impartiality (p. 467, ll. 8-19). That includes not making motions. So, in that case, he could not move a recommendation in a report.

It is customary for in organizations that meet less often than quarterly. It is the rule that groups that at least quarterly to use the standard order of business (p. 353, ll. 17-22). The rule supersedes the custom (p. 19), if you have adopted RONR.

The short answer is, yes the vote is valid. The errors were basically that the member interrupted another speaker, used the term "break" instead of "Recess," and that chair did not put the the question of the Previous Question. These errors would have been subject to a Point of Order, but the Point of Order would have had to have been made at the time of the breach (p. 251, ll. 3-7).

What is the rule the society adopted were those in RONR?

I have to agree. Though he should not vote, he cannot be denied that right until he is under a preliminary disciplinary suspension.

A group that meets frequently may not need a board, especially a small group (p. 481, ll. 16-20).

Perhaps more so. The motion might be an incidental main motion, which would make Objection to the Consideration of the Question out of order.

For legality, talk to an attorney. It violates no rule in RONR to discuss things in executive session.

For their national conventions, possibly. The state and local groups that I have seen use RONR. Those have a role in choosing the national convention delegates and the the national committee members.