Guest AAUPer Posted December 17, 2011 at 11:09 AM Report Share Posted December 17, 2011 at 11:09 AM A member of an executive committee of a union at a USA college was asked to recuse himself from a case involving his department in which he had voiced strong opinions. He did recuse himself from the union executive committee of the union after being asked to do so, but not from the Department business taken up by the department on which he served. This seemed to be appropriate. Do you agree?However, this Executive Committee member then began to contradict (on the matter taken up by the department) the legal advice of the attorney who is the executive committee's counsel-- as transmitted by the president of the union. He disagreed with counsel's legal interpretation that the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was to be interpreted in a particular way. He insisted on contradicting this legal advice in public though he had been informed of the attorney's advice.Should this executive committee member be censured by the executive committee for publicly undermining confidence in the executive committee's legal interpretation of the CBA? The conduct caused harm to the organization (union) in undermining the authority of the president and legal counsel in the minds of its members. Basically, he went rogue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted December 17, 2011 at 12:22 PM Report Share Posted December 17, 2011 at 12:22 PM Nothing in RONR prohibits a member from voicing his/her opinion.If the membership, by a majority vote, thinks he should be censured, that is all that that is required (by RONR). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted December 17, 2011 at 12:51 PM Report Share Posted December 17, 2011 at 12:51 PM Refreshing and reassuring to see independent thought and questioning of authority censured. Do we dare to sit back and fecklessly watch our colleges and unions and legal authorities undermined in the minds of members?Have we not read the first, third, and fourth bullet points on p. 1 - 2 in RONR 10th Ed (and probably nearby in the wet-inked 11th)?Oh, and because it was asked, I think the answer to original poster Guest_AAUPer's first, gimme question, the fourth sentence of his post, will, universally, easily be yes, for what it's worth. Agreement, after all, is what deliberation is for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted December 17, 2011 at 01:09 PM Report Share Posted December 17, 2011 at 01:09 PM Should this executive committee member be censured by the executive committee for publicly undermining confidence in the executive committee's legal interpretation of the CBA? The conduct caused harm to the organization (union) in undermining the authority of the president and legal counsel in the minds of its members. Basically, he went rogue To adopt a motion of censure is to send the message of (extreme) disapproval of one's actions, an official reprimand if you will. In and of itself, no other disciplinary actions result from it. If the membership feels it appropriate, they could adopt such a motion. It's a slap on the wrist, perhaps with a yard stick instead of a ruler. Were you thinking there might be more to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted December 17, 2011 at 02:48 PM Report Share Posted December 17, 2011 at 02:48 PM A motion that someone be censured may be adopted by the assembly; it merely expresses an opinion. Censure is also a punishment that might be inflicted after a trial (p. 643, NB the footnote).If the executive committee wishes to express its opinion that the member improperly undermined the committee by his action, it may. If the committee wish to inflict a punishment, it probably cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 19, 2011 at 08:30 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 at 08:30 PM A member of an executive committee of a union at a USA college was asked to recuse himself from a case involving his department in which he had voiced strong opinions. He did recuse himself from the union executive committee of the union after being asked to do so, but not from the Department business taken up by the department on which he served. This seemed to be appropriate. Do you agree?Well, he probably shouldn't have recused himself from the case in the first place. Having strong opinions is no reason to be quiet. In fact, it's a reason to be heard from. Unless he stood to benefit personally (and not as one of a group of members) in one of the possible outcomes, he should have said No when asked to recuse himself.But having agreed to do so, and then reneging on that agreement may well be grounds for censure if the assembly deems it justified. It will be properly up to the members, and I'm frankly glad it's not up to me. I believe in questioning authority but I also believe in encouraging union members to behave in a disciplined manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 20, 2011 at 12:19 AM Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 at 12:19 AM This seemed to be appropriate. Do you agree?Well, it doesn't seem inappropriate. Based purely on the rules of RONR and the facts presented, it also would have been appropriate not to recuse himself, but the union's rules may provide otherwise. The reasons why he had strong opinions on the issue could also have bearing on the case.Should this executive committee member be censured by the executive committee for publicly undermining confidence in the executive committee's legal interpretation of the CBA?So far as RONR is concerned, he certainly can be censured. Whether he should be censured is at the discretion of the Executive Committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.