Reuel Sample

Mr. Martin and Mr. Brown - I appreciate your insights. That actually would make the discussion a bit more ordered, as instead of taking multiple nominations from the floor, each name would be submitted as an amendment to strike and insert. Thus, if the amendment fails - we would be back to the original motion out of the committee. The frustration is that the members of this body have had over a month to submit names to the nominating committee to be vetted and interviewed - as there are certain requirements needed for the position - bondable being one of them. While I can use Ms. Percell's insights to rule any non-eligible persons as out of order, we still do risk the assembly approving someone who has not been vetted. If they do, they do. I will add that tightening up our bylaws is on my to do list.

Mr. Martin - thank you for your insight. So, if I am reading things right, the first and only proper amendment would be to strike the name and create a blank. So, if the committee moves "Mr. Smith be recommended to the City Council to fill the spot of Dog Catcher" - a proper amendment would be "__________ be recommended to the City Council..." If that amendment to create a blank passes, then we can move to the procedure to fill a blank. But the blank must first be put in place before another name is considered - as any other name would not be germane to the motion of Mr. Smith being recommended. Am I correct in my thought process?

Thank you Ms. Percell for the citations. The "eligible" part will be useful if it comes to that. However, I am convinced that since we are filling an office that is outside of the organization - we do not need to take nominations from the floor. The nominating committee is simply fulfilling one of the functions of the organization - no different than any other motion coming from a committee. So - this called meeting is not an election, but just to act on the recommendation of a committee. Because of that - there will be no nominations from the floor - because this is not an election. Thank you again!

I appreciate Mr. Martin's reply!

Good morning all: Our local political organization has the responsibility of filling a vacant position. Under the laws of the state, the party of the person who is vacating the position may nominate another person from the party to fill the spot. In order to find the best candidate, the organization has put together a nominating committee. One of the jobs of that committee is to make sure the person who is nominated is actually legally able to fill that position - must be bondable, no prior felonies, is actually competent, etc. We have schedule a Called Meeting for the express purpose of putting someone into this position. Here is my question: Is the Report of the Nominating Committee - which will include a recommendation of one person to fill the vacant position - considered an "election" which we must then entertain nominations from the floor? There is considerable worry that there will be nominations that will not be bondable, etc - but might actually get enough votes from the body. Am I right to call this meeting to act on the recommendation of the nominating committee - so the only thing that can happen is either a yes or no vote to the person that they put forward? Or - do I have to go to an "election" - even though this position is not within the organization itself. Hope that makes sense.

Could an answer to the question of a "session" be answered by each meeting's agenda and minutes? If the chair "adjourns" the meeting, that is considered a separate "session" and treated as such with any decisions made during that time frame. If the minutes clearly record a proper adjournment, there is no continuing session. If - on the other hand - the chair calls the organization into recess - he is then continuing the session. I see no reason why any organization outside of government entities would want to consider a "session" in terms of years.

I appreciate the replies.

Our organization is required to have only two business meetings per year - which has been fulfilled. We see ourselves in need of having a called meeting to nominate a person for a vacant spot in a government position. The procedure is that the party of the retiring person nominates the replacement. That nomination is brought to the county council who confirms the nomination. The notice for the special meeting was sent out in timely manner - along with the agenda. However, the words "Special" or "Called" were not used in the notice. While the purpose of the meeting was clearly stated, neither was it stated that no other new business may be brought up. I am already receiving advanced notices on motions that will be brought to the floor - motions that have nothing to do with the stated purpose of the meeting. Questions: 1. Am I right in ruling all other motions - except those necessary to the running of the meeting and the purpose of the meeting itself - as out of order? ROR 9:15 states that clearly. My concern is that we did not use "Special" or "Called" in the meeting announcement. 2. The motion that was sent to me is time sensitive. Would it be appropriate to direct him to seek for a special called meeting? Our next regular business meeting is not until March of 2023. 3. Would it be appropriate to send a revised announcement - clearly stating the purpose of the meeting? Thanks!

Richard - I have seen that as well - which is partly why I raised the question. If the objective of the body is to express disapproval, then perhaps we should steer them in that direction. I think we are seeing "censure" used a lot because it sounds official and ominous. Again, I thank everyone for your guidance in this matter. You have served to save me from what would have been a bad course of direction.

Thank you for that reference. I will review it.

Again, I think we will have to disagree - on a friendly note. One final wrinkle in this discussion. In emailing the motion out, the maker of the motions to censure has said the people being censured "have all been invited to defend themselves." Does not that statement - repeated numerous times in numerous emails - all demonstrate the intent of a trial - thus the intent of punishment/discipline? If therefore the intent is punishment/discipline and not expression of the "disapproval of the body" - the motion to censure a non-member would therefore be out of order?

Richard - Please see my last post. So while will alter how I will operate on such motions, I still believe that the issue of censure needs to be more thoroughly clarified. The common thread through all responses is that censure is used primarily in terms of discipline - but it doesn't always have to. What we in fact are doing is saying that while the majority of uses points toward discipline we have to allow for the minority of cases that use it to express disapproval. I think that needs to be changed. Just as there are certain words or phrases that are reserved exclusively for certain procedures, perhaps we should think the same about "censure". Again, I appreciate the discussion. I was wrong in my original interpretation and will proceed accordingly.

I am going to concede the point that I cannot rule a motion to censure a non-member as out of order. While I am still convinced the majority of references to it in RONR refer to discipline of a member - common usage has brought about the practice that a body can indeed "censure" a person - even though that person is not a member of that body. However, I still think it is prudent to do two things before the meeting even starts: 1. Work with the maker of the motion to see if he can reword and rechannel his objections down a better path 2. Establish a Committee on Discipline to handle future issues like this. Again - thank you for all the discussion.

Josh brought up the idea of a debate on the floor of whether censure or another word should be used. I don't think that such a discussion would be useful - or productive actually.

Josh - the reverse could also be true. Since I find no other use of censure outside of the ones mentioned - could not RONR indicate that term to be only used for discipline? Again, I go back to the note in section 61 that says a body may censure without going through the discipline proceedings (emphasis mine) - but does not dismiss the notion that it is anything other than punishment. Officer George in 12:20 is not a good example. As I stated, Officer George - though not a member of council - is still clearly subject to authority of that body and can be censured if needed. If Officer George was from another county, I would suggest that while it is proper to commend him, he cannot be censured because he does not fall under their jurisdiction. I am not a fan of the committee of the whole debating such an issue. One of the things I am also working on is the creation of a standing disciplinary committee - as recommended by RONR - so issues like this are handled before it gets to the deliberating body. I also hope to work with the originator of the motion (he actually has multiple motions of censure) to see if we can come up with a better solution that better addresses his intentions. Again - thanks for yours and everyone's input!