J. J. Posted January 18, 2012 at 04:11 AM Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 at 04:11 AM Okay, I'll go with this one, since I'm interested in censure. The officers of the society serve a term "of two years and until their successors are elected." The vice president (an officer), is approached by another group about sharing the society's parking lot. He meets with the other groups representative and they work out an agreement. The vice president notes that he does not have the authority to negociate this and he's have to take it back to the monthly meeting to ratify this.He does, and at the next monthly meeting, a member makes the motion, "That the Vice President's action be ratified in regard to the parking lot agreement."The members hate it. They hate it so much that they either:A. They strike the word "ratified" and insert the word "censured."B. The substitute the motion "That the Vice President be censured for his action in regard to the parking lot agreement."Are either of these in order? A member will raise a Point of Order in either case "that the motion to censure violates the vice president's due process rights." Should the Point of Order be well taken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted January 18, 2012 at 04:40 AM Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 at 04:40 AM I would say that both motions would be in order and any Point of Order should be ruled Not Well Taken. While censure is a potential avenue of discipline when the member is being subjected to discipline it also can be used in nondiscliplinary situations. In this case I don't see any punative action being taken by the strike and insert or substitution besides swapping the assembly's action from "Let's do what he agreed to" to "Bad boy! You shouldn't have agreed to do something you didn't have the authority to do in the first place." I would also point out that p. 125 ll. 15-18 don't seem to state that any due process rights are involved when ratify and censure are involved. My 11:37 PM eyes are weary and I might be missing something but I am not sure where the term of office fits in the equation here when there doesn't seem to be any sort of move to remove him from office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted January 18, 2012 at 11:01 AM Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 at 11:01 AM Okay, I'll go with this one, since I'm interested in censure. The officers of the society serve a term "of two years and until their successors are elected." The vice president (an officer), is approached by another group about sharing the society's parking lot. He meets with the other groups representative and they work out an agreement. The vice president notes that he does not have the authority to negociate this and he's have to take it back to the monthly meeting to ratify this.He does, and at the next monthly meeting, a member makes the motion, "That the Vice President's action be ratified in regard to the parking lot agreement."The members hate it. They hate it so much that they either:A. They strike the word "ratified" and insert the word "censured."B. The substitute the motion "That the Vice President be censured for his action in regard to the parking lot agreement."Are either of these in order? A member will raise a Point of Order in either case "that the motion to censure violates the vice president's due process rights." Should the Point of Order be well taken?Despite the use of the term 'ratify' in the described scenario, I'm not sure that ratification is appropriate. The VP hasn't actually taken an action that allows or requires ratification, has he? He hasn't (beyond his authority) committed the society to anything; as I understand it, he talked to someone, and worked out a proposal.Now, he brings the details of the proposal to the society. It seems that the motion that would be before the assembly would be, "that we share our parking lot with members of the Orchid Fanciers' Society, with details as follows: blah, blah, blah, blah." How does mention of another member (the VP) properly get dragged into the motion before the assembly? And, if mention of the VP isn't properly part of the main motion, then it isn't germane to amend that motion so as to censure the VP. If someone wants to make a motion to censure the VP for even talking to those weirdos at the OFS, I suppose that could be done, but that would be a motion separate from the one about the parking lot.I'm imagining another scenario -- an officer, on his own initiative, goes out to check the costs of a venue that the society might like to use for a social function. He does some preliminary negotiating, but makes no commitments on behalf of the society. At the next meeting, he reports on his findings. Would it make any sense for a member to move that, "we ratify Bob's action in regard to the cost of the XYZ Hall for our club function on February 5." ? There is no 'action' subject to ratification, is there?edited to add:If someone made a motion to commend the VP for his initiative in negotiating a potential agreement re use of the society's parking lot, then the two forms of amendment described in the original post would appear germane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 18, 2012 at 12:46 PM Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 at 12:46 PM Despite the use of the term 'ratify' in the described scenario, I'm not sure that ratification is appropriate. The VP hasn't actually taken an action that allows or requires ratification, has he? He hasn't (beyond his authority) committed the society to anything; as I understand it, he talked to someone, and worked out a proposal.He was never authorized to negociate this agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted January 18, 2012 at 05:23 PM Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 at 05:23 PM He was never authorized to negociate this agreement.But, since the agreement isn't binding, and since he made that clear to the other party in the negotiation/conversation, why was any authorization necessary?Does your hypothetical member who makes the motion simply want to ratify the VP's action of negotiating? Ratifying the action of negotiating wouldn't do anything to actually approve the negotiated agreement, as far as I can tell. I suppose the member could make such a motion to ratify negotiation, confusing and pointless though it may appear to do so... It just seems to me the society has no business ratifying a member's personal actions in the outside world. It would be almost as odd as a board I belong to deciding whether to 'ratify' my decision to gas up my car at the local BP station on my way to the board meeting.edited:I don't think the last sentence quite makes sense, but it's been sitting there long enough at this point that I won't make it disappear entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted January 18, 2012 at 07:35 PM Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 at 07:35 PM I'm with Trina on this one. Attempting to ratify a discussion makes about as much sense as the assembly considering a motion up through the discussion phase, never voting on it, and then claiming that the action proposed by the motion has been agreed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 18, 2012 at 07:35 PM Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 at 07:35 PM But, since the agreement isn't binding, and since he made that clear to the other party in the negotiation/conversation, why was any authorization necessary?The agree would not be binding in any event, unless ratified.Does your hypothetical member who makes the motion simply want to ratify the VP's action of negotiating? Ratifying the action of negotiating wouldn't do anything to actually approve the negotiated agreement, as far as I can tell. I suppose the member could make such a motion to ratify negotiation, confusing and pointless though it may appear to do so... It just seems to me the society has no business ratifying a member's personal actions in the outside world.He is doing this on behalf of the society. A number of members don't thing he should have been negocating nor like the agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 18, 2012 at 08:43 PM Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 at 08:43 PM The vice president notes that he does not have the authority to negociate this and he's have to take it back to the monthly meeting to ratify this.To whom does the VP "note" this? To the other parties in the discussion, or silently to himself? If the former, I'd say a reasonable person would understand that the negotiated agreement was pending approval of the board/membership, and was not in force. If the latter, shame on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 18, 2012 at 10:57 PM Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 at 10:57 PM To whom does the VP "note" this? To the other parties in the discussion, or silently to himself? If the former, I'd say a reasonable person would understand that the negotiated agreement was pending approval of the board/membership, and was not in force. If the latter, shame on him.He says it to the person of the other group. He might add, "I'm pretty sure they'll go along with it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 18, 2012 at 11:09 PM Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 at 11:09 PM I'm going to ignore the discussion on the example you provided, since I think it's distracting us from the central issue. Are either of these in order?Yes, either motion is in order, as both deal with the assembly's response to the VP's action.A member will raise a Point of Order in either case "that the motion to censure violates the vice president's due process rights." Should the Point of Order be well taken?No. While censure may be imposed as a disciplinary penalty, it may also be imposed without formal disciplinary procedures (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 643, footnote; pg. 125, lines 15-20). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.