Guest DptyClerk Posted March 21, 2012 at 03:00 PM Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 at 03:00 PM Basic questions about making a motion to censure:The chair wishes to make a motion to censure the actions of 3 out of 7 members who acted together as a minority, without the knowledge or approval of the body as a whole. (The assembly I refer to has bylaws that state its members only act as a body) The bylaws have no prescribed means for discipline except that of removal of office, which in this case, is not the intended outcome.Can the chair make ONE motion which censures the actions of all 3? (they acted as a group outside of the whole and would be censured for the same action)When is the appropriate time for the chair to make such a motion?The situation has just come to light and the assembly meets this afternoon, any information in a prompt response will be greatly appreciated! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted March 21, 2012 at 03:42 PM Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 at 03:42 PM 1) Yes2) When no other motion is pending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DptyClerk Posted March 21, 2012 at 03:48 PM Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 at 03:48 PM Thank you! Sincerely appreciate your help on this matter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elected Official Posted May 25, 2012 at 07:28 PM Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 at 07:28 PM I would like to add on to this and ask if the motion is made without prior notice to the members being censured and also to the board would there be a required number of votes for the motion to be adopted. In short the motion was presented without prior notice. In the case I am asking about two members were censured for actions without prior notice. The vote was taken and 4 members voted to censure, 3 members abstained and the two censured members votes were not allowed. The total membership of 9 were present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted May 25, 2012 at 07:38 PM Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 at 07:38 PM I would like to add on to this and ask if the motion is made without prior notice to the members being censured and also to the board would there be a required number of votes for the motion to be adopted. In short the motion was presented without prior notice. In the case I am asking about two members were censured for actions without prior notice. The vote was taken and 4 members voted to censure, 3 members abstained and the two censured members votes were not allowed. The total membership of 9 were present.The members (plural) being censured may vote (see p. 407, ll. 21-31). No notice is necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted May 27, 2012 at 11:11 AM Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 at 11:11 AM I would like to add on to this and ask if the motion is made without prior notice to the members being censured and also to the board would there be a required number of votes for the motion to be adopted. In short the motion was presented without prior notice. In the case I am asking about two members were censured for actions without prior notice. The vote was taken and 4 members voted to censure, 3 members abstained and the two censured members votes were not allowed. The total membership of 9 were present.The abstentions don't count, so the vote was 4-0, and the motion was adopted. It was improper to deny the two named members their right to vote on the motion, and a point of order to that effect can be raised at any time (RONR 11th ed. p. 252 ll. 20-24). However, this would not change the outcome of the vote, since even if one assume that the two members would have voted against the motion, the vote count would then have been 4-2 (still a majority in favor) so the motion stands (RONR p. 252 ll. 24-30).Again, the abstentions don't count -- majority vote means the majority (more than half) of those present and voting. In other words, there is no way to construe this as a potential 4-5 vote (adding the abstentions to the assumed 'no' votes of the people who were the targets of the motion to censure). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted May 27, 2012 at 02:01 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 at 02:01 PM 2) When no other motion is pending.The motion to censure would be a question of privilege and would be in order when another motion is pending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted May 27, 2012 at 02:07 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 at 02:07 PM Basic questions about making a motion to censure:The chair wishes to make a motion to censure the actions of 3 out of 7 members who acted together as a minority, without the knowledge or approval of the body as a whole. (The assembly I refer to has bylaws that state its members only act as a body) The bylaws have no prescribed means for discipline except that of removal of office, which in this case, is not the intended outcome.Can the chair make ONE motion which censures the actions of all 3? (they acted as a group outside of the whole and would be censured for the same action)When is the appropriate time for the chair to make such a motion?The situation has just come to light and the assembly meets this afternoon, any information in a prompt response will be greatly appreciated!In small boards and committees, the chair is allowed to make motions, but under the formal rules he would have to relinquish the chair to do so. A better alternative in such a case would be for another member to make the motion or for the chair to include the text of the motion as a recommendation in his report (such as the President's Report, if he is the president), and the adoption of the recommended motion should be moved by another member. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted May 27, 2012 at 02:12 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 at 02:12 PM A detail that may have been overlooked... (except that Tim W. just caught it too)The chair should NOT be making the motion himself, unless he steps down from presiding (and the vice president then does the presiding for that one issue). This is to keep up at least the facade of impartiality while the chair is presiding.He should (ahead of time) find one of the other members to actually make the censure motion.But if this is all water over the dam and the vote has taken place, it still stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted May 27, 2012 at 02:14 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 at 02:14 PM The motion to censure would be a question of privilege and would be in order when another motion is pending.Not necessarily (see p. 137, ll. 20-31, foe example). Depending on the situation, it may not be of such urgency to interrupt a pending question (p. 266, #3). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted May 27, 2012 at 02:15 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 at 02:15 PM A detail that may have been overlooked... (except that Tim W. just caught it too)The chair should NOT be making the motion himself, unless he steps down from presiding (and the vice president then does the presiding for that one issue). This is to keep up at least the facade of impartiality while the chair is presiding.He should (ahead of time) find one of the other members to actually make the censure motion.But if this is all water over the dam and the vote has taken place, it still stands.It is a seven member assembly, so why would the chair be precluded? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted May 27, 2012 at 03:32 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 at 03:32 PM If the chair has any sense he will do his best to stay out of an internal cat-fight, and "preclude" himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted May 27, 2012 at 03:57 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 at 03:57 PM The motion to censure would be a question of privilege and would be in order when another motion is pending.Is there an RONR reference for this? On p. 125, l.15-16 it says that "a motion to ratify can be amended by substituting a motion of censure...", which appears to refer back to p. 124, ll. 24-25, stating that " the motion to ratify (...) is an incidental main motion...". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted May 27, 2012 at 04:26 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 at 04:26 PM Reference in RONR? I think the answer to this is that almost anything can be a "question of privilege", as defined on p. 224.But whether the "q of p" actually comes to a discussion and vote depends on the ruling of the chair, subject to appeal, pp. 225 & 227 (#7). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted May 27, 2012 at 05:18 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 at 05:18 PM Is there an RONR reference for this? P. 227, first four words of line 21. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted May 27, 2012 at 05:21 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 at 05:21 PM P. 227, first four words of line 21.... and also p. 643, ll. 12-13, if the fact that censure is a form of punishment remains in question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted May 27, 2012 at 05:26 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 at 05:26 PM ... and also p. 643, ll. 12-13, if the fact that censure is a form of punishment remains in question.This, however, is not form of punishment. See p. 643, fn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Learning Posted May 27, 2012 at 05:28 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 at 05:28 PM The motion to censure would be a question of privilege and would be in order when another motion is pending.What if it's not given the right of way you feel it deserves? The chair is not obliged to give it priority, and if he doesn't, it's going to need to wait until nothing else is pending (assuming something else was pending in the first place). It's a not so interesting nit you decided to pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted May 27, 2012 at 05:29 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 at 05:29 PM If the chair has any sense he will do his best to stay out of an internal cat-fight, and "preclude" himself.RONR does not mandate "sense." The chair may make this motion, without violating the rules. Whether he should is a political question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted May 27, 2012 at 05:29 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 at 05:29 PM Thanks, John and Tim. I'm guessing that, even with its status as a question of privilege, the motion to censure in the situation described by the original poster, and probably in most other situations as well, would not be considered to be of sufficient urgency to have to interrupt pending business, as J.J. noted in post # 10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted May 27, 2012 at 05:52 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 at 05:52 PM This, however, is not form of punishment. See p. 643, fn.The footnote does not change the fact that it's a form of punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted May 27, 2012 at 06:01 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 at 06:01 PM The footnote does not change the fact that it's a form of punishment.Yes it does, see pp. 125, ll. 15-19, and p. 137, ll. 20-29. The first citation is more applicable to this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted May 27, 2012 at 06:07 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 at 06:07 PM Thanks, John and Tim. I'm guessing that, even with its status as a question of privilege, the motion to censure in the situation described by the original poster, and probably in most other situations as well, would not be considered to be of sufficient urgency to have to interrupt pending business, as J.J. noted in post # 10.It's the duty of the chair to rule on such a question, subject to the appeal of the assembly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted May 27, 2012 at 06:30 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 at 06:30 PM What if it's not given the right of way you feel it deserves? The chair is not obliged to give it priority, and if he doesn't, it's going to need to wait until nothing else is pending (assuming something else was pending in the first place). It's a not so interesting nit you decided to pick.I'm sorry my post failed to entertain you, but that was not its purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted May 27, 2012 at 06:33 PM Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 at 06:33 PM Yes it does, see pp. 125, ll. 15-19, and p. 137, ll. 20-29. The first citation is more applicable to this case.The fact that the subsidiary motion to amend is in order when it proposes to change a ratification or commendation to a censure does not change the status of censure from a form of punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts