Guest Jim Posted February 10, 2013 at 07:20 AM Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 at 07:20 AM I appreciate that RONR contends such an amendment to be in order because it meets criteria of germaneness (p. 137 ll 20-29), however,if a motion to censure is intended to be raised not for violations of decorum, but as a main motion for actions of the individual, wouldn't there be a requirement for prior notice, in order thatthe member can know to be present to defend their actions, andso that any who have an interest in the consideration of the censure can choose whether or not to attendandwhere prior notice is a requirement for a motion to be able to be passed, would it not exceed the scope of notice for the assembly to move amendment to 'commend' in place of to 'censure'?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted February 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM As this is not discipline, but the assembly expressing an opinion, there is no "defense." Any member may speak against the motion and the assembly may, as noted amend it to express a positive opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 10, 2013 at 06:22 PM Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 at 06:22 PM I appreciate that RONR contends such an amendment to be in order because it meets criteria of germaneness (p. 137 ll 20-29), however,if a motion to censure is intended to be raised not for violations of decorum, but as a main motion for actions of the individual, wouldn't there be a requirement for prior notice, in order thatthe member can know to be present to defend their actions, andso that any who have an interest in the consideration of the censure can choose whether or not to attendandwhere prior notice is a requirement for a motion to be able to be passed, would it not exceed the scope of notice for the assembly to move amendment to 'commend' in place of to 'censure'When you don't use the formal disciplinary procedures and instead use a main motion to censure, there is no right to defense and no requirement for notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim Posted February 10, 2013 at 06:34 PM Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 at 06:34 PM When you don't use the formal disciplinary procedures and instead use a main motion to censure, there is no right to defense and no requirement for notice.So if I understand correctly, the member who originated comments intended, under such a main motion, to come "under censure" is not to construe this business as "pursuit of discipline" (despite that human nature may be apt to take it that way) but rather an opportunity for the assembly to come to, and to express, an opinion. Such opinion, even if it would approve the motion of censure, would carry no direct consequence to the member i.e. there would be no requirement of them to do anything like make an apology. (?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 10, 2013 at 08:42 PM Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 at 08:42 PM So if I understand correctly, the member who originated comments intended, under such a main motion, to come "under censure" is not to construe this business as "pursuit of discipline" (despite that human nature may be apt to take it that way) but rather an opportunity for the assembly to come to, and to express, an opinion.Yes.Such opinion, even if it would approve the motion of censure, would carry no direct consequence to the member i.e. there would be no requirement of them to do anything like make an apology. (?)Correct. A motion to censure is simply an expression of the assembly's disapproval, and carries no other consequences.If you want further consequences, then you need to follow the procedures in Ch. XX of RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.