Cenorship Rules and how to get a President to back out of an unfair ruling made in the heat of a bad moment

[Guest haviva]

Please HELP!

A President of a divided council of a public body is using the following argument "Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised 11^th edition on page 643 in a footnote states “It is also possible to adopt a motion of censure without formal disciplinary procedures.”" to maintain a ruling which censors a board member who is not "on his side" (who is then publicly 'disgraced') for a situation which is actually a misunderstanding (in fact was inflamed by a staff members emotional outburst which was then further inflamed by a council members threat of a lawsuit (neither of them were censored).

1) Can you advise as to what the rules require for this rule to be used? EG how many people needed to approve the censorship in the first place - 2/3 of the table did not agree with the censorship in the first place

2) what can a council member do if they don't agree with the ruling - what appeal exists within the rules

3) what would be a more appropriate way of handling something if the President made an error especially if Robert's Rules are not accepted rules by this council and appear to be only used if it suits the authority not to ensure the rights of everyone?

Any other suggestions how to handle what appears to be mob rule as opposed to rules for order on a divided board where the newcomers are upsetting the status quo?

[David A Foulkes]

A President of a divided council of a public body is using the following argument "Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised 11^th edition on page 643 in a footnote states “It is also possible to adopt a motion of censure without formal disciplinary procedures.”" to maintain a ruling which censors a board member who is not "on his side"

First, just to clear it up, censure and censor are different things. Censure means to express disapproval (i.e. "Bad member. Bad!"). Censor means to suppress speach, writing, etc. (i.e. "Shut up, board member, and don't say another word!!")

I'll go forward with censure.

Now, you refer to a "ruling which [censures] a board member", but also refer to the p. 643 footnote which mentions the adoption of a motion. So has there been a ruling (by the President?) about this other board member, or has there been a motion adopted?

What the footnote says is that adoption of a motion to censure a person does not require a full disciplinary process. However, the adoption of such a motion also does not come along with any punishment (suspension, expulsion, etc) such as can result from disciplinary procedures. It is merely the expression of disapproval of that person by the assembly. It doesn't sound like your assembly adopted such a motion, yet.

So, tell us about this "ruling which censors a board member."

[Chris Harrison]

Do you mean censor (controlling or suppressing someone's behavior) or censure (the assembly or a specific officer reprimanding someone but under RONR carrying no other disciplinary action beyond that)? To censure takes a majority vote. RONR doesn't specify what sort of vote it would take to censor someone.

[Rev Ed]

To censure is one thing. It may or may not be an important issue to an organization. Some organizations view an act censure as being very important, others as trivial.

As for censoring a member, it would require a formal disciplinary process (at least in my opinion) as you are stopping a person from expressing an opinion, and it might be more appropriate if the member is suspended, removed from office, expelled, etc. as the may still try to express that opinion.

[Guest haviva]

thank you both for responding so quickly -

I need to be clearer -

The issue is censure not censor - I apologize for the confusion.

The council had claimed it makes it own rules and does not need to comply with Robert's Rules - which is confusing but the President applies Robert's Rules if it suits him and ignores them when it doesn't. To make it more confusing legal counsel is claiming the bylaws (which are laws because they are reviewed by government) are superceded by a statute and some on council are derisive of Robert's Rules claiming they are unnecessary and wouldn't be necessary if 'some were not on council'.

The ruling was made after there were two motions: one whether to censure the person (majority but not 2/3) and the second to censure the person publicly. The fact of the person being censured is now being broadcast on the web and will be in the minutes though none of the discussion nor the reason for this 'evidence of disgrace' is provided. The apology was made because it was truly frightening the response which erupted.

Council member ...................... was officially reprimanded by ..........Council for a statement that was made during the meeting. ......... issued an apology

The event was triggered by something which was misunderstood. I was in the public gallery and observed the event. It was too hot too fast and felt like a mob reaction.

[Guest haviva]

thank you both for responding so quickly -

I need to be clearer -

The issue is censure not censor - I apologize for the confusion.

The council had claimed it makes it own rules and does not need to comply with Robert's Rules - which is confusing but the President applies Robert's Rules if it suits him and ignores them when it doesn't. To make it more confusing legal counsel is claiming the bylaws (which are laws because they are reviewed by government) are superceded by a statute and some on council are derisive of Robert's Rules claiming they are unnecessary and wouldn't be necessary if 'some were not on council'.

The ruling was made after there were two motions: one whether to censure the person (majority but not 2/3) and the second to censure the person publicly. The fact of the person being censured is now being broadcast on the web and will be in the minutes though none of the discussion nor the reason for this 'evidence of disgrace' is provided. The apology was made because it was truly frightening the response which erupted.

Council member ...................... was officially reprimanded by ..........Council for a statement that was made during the meeting. ......... issued an apology

The event was triggered by something which was misunderstood. I was in the public gallery and observed the event. It was too hot too fast and felt like a mob reaction.

[J. J.]

The assembly is free to adopt a motion, "That Council member ..... be officially censured by ........... Council for a statement than was made during the meeting." If there was no ruling by the chair that the member acted improperly, the motion is a main motion, and could be rescinded.

In theory a penalty of censure or reprimand can also be rescined.

Rescind requires a majority with notice, or a 2/3 vote, or a majority of the entire membership. The latter might be easier in your circumstances.