rthib

Always remember that the members can override the chair and if necessary, remove the chair. As I stated on another thread. Chair's give opinions - Members make the final decision.

Only the members can decide what their bylaws mean. Other can give opinions on how they would interpret, but it is up to the body to decide what they mean. Slate is offered for nomination. Someone raise a point that they were not submitted in time and violate bylaws. Chair rules. Members can then decide if they agree with what they chair rules. My opinion: Members rarely like to have the options limited by someone playing procedural games on elections. This usually leads to each subsequent meeting opening with a motion to remove leadership and/or members simply leaving an organization.

I would point out that the House and Senate do not use Robert's Rules. And motions to censure the Adams, Jackson and Clinton among other Presidents have been introduced. I still see nothing that would prevent censure, especially of a superior board to a sub group. But, since there is nothing specific, the ultimate answer will lie with the membership. If someone believes the motion is not proper they can ask for a vote. And then if they are correct, they could ask for a censure vote on those who voted to censure setting up an endless loop. Why I prefer the much more effective motion of "big fat meanie." Much simpler and produces same effect. As a side note and out of RONR scope, if you want some background on censure in the house - The Democrates produced a report with lots of footnotes on censure history and application on house members (and former members). http://democrats.rules.house.gov/archives/rl31382.pdf

Gary, I would argue that censure can both be a disciplinary procedure or a Main Motion. And the language of 344 and footnote would seem to agree. I would state that both interpretations could be valid and ultimately the body can decide. Assume that board did not out of order in their the decision, there is still nothing preventing the body from rescinding that decision. Allowed and The Right Thing to do are not always the same - thus the reason RONR ultimately gives power to the body.

Board meeting - I move that we censure Robert. Second. Debate - "He has been a big fat meany in the past month" pg 344 allows me to say this. No Other Debate. Vote. See nothing in RONR says that is not correct and pg 643 would seem to indicate that it is. The bylaws only point back to Chapter XX. Since Censure does not require a formal discipline procedure, I see not breech. The Bylaws say ""The Board of Directors shall be guided..." I would argue that they are being guided by the footnote. I would also note the language on pg 344. "... a motion of censure or a motion related to disciplinary procedures..." If a motion of censure was always part of disciplinary procedures, then this statement would be redundant. By this along with the footnote would seem to indicate that censure does not always have to have a formal disciplinary procedure.

The Board can adopt a motion of censure. In this case, it is the board that is making the statement about the person actions. It could also recommend to the main body that it make the same motion. I see nothing in RONR that would not allow any group that has the ability to make motions to make a motion of censure, which is why I put it in the category of "Person X is a big fat meany". The threshold for doing it is low and so is its impact.

In practice, I have seen a censure have the same impact as some making a motion that "Person 'X' is a big fat meany". It might make people feel like they have done something but in the end people usually spend more time figuring out if they can or can not do it and a big long discussion about if it even proper. In the end the whole exercise is usually pointless. If someone has done something wrong, discipline them. If the body does not want an action repeated, then change rules to make sure that action can not be done. But censure is usually a waste of everyone's time.