Can a censured board member vote?

[Guest David S]

If a board member has been censured at the beginning of a board meeting, can the censured member vote on anything and how long does the censure last?

[George Mervosh]

17 minutes ago, Guest David S said:

If a board member has been censured at the beginning of a board meeting, can the censured member vote on anything and how long does the censure last?

If the rules in RONR apply, an adopted motion to censure a member does not remove any of their membership rights, including the right to vote.  The adopted motion remains in effect until it is rescinded or amended at a later time.

[Richard Brown]

Yes, he can vote unless his voting rights have specifically been restricted.  A censure is nothing but an expression of displeasure.  It carries no other consequences.

[Chris Harrison]

2 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

The adopted motion remains in effect until it is rescinded or amended at a later time.

Would an adopted motion to censure be continuing in nature?  I had thought the effect of censure is the assembly formally saying "we don't like what you did" and then everyone moves on. If it were continuing wouldn't that mean the member would be "in the doghouse" until the assembly tells them otherwise?

[George Mervosh]

Just now, Chris Harrison said:

Would an adopted motion to censure be continuing in nature?  I had thought the effect of censure is the assembly formally saying "we don't like what you did" and then everyone moves on. If it were continuing wouldn't that mean the member would be "in the doghouse" until the assembly tells them otherwise?

I think the assembly, going on record as expressing their displeasure over something by adopting a motion of censure, remains in effect, as their position, until the motion is rescinded or amended by a friendlier assembly, yes.

[George Mervosh]

12 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Yes, he can vote unless his voting rights have specifically been restricted.  A censure is nothing but an expression of displeasure.  It carries no other consequences.

Which is done through a proper disciplinary process, not a motion to censure.  I know Mr. Brown knows this but David S might want to be clear on this.

[Gary Novosielski]

1 hour ago, George Mervosh said:

I think the assembly, going on record as expressing their displeasure over something by adopting a motion of censure, remains in effect, as their position, until the motion is rescinded or amended by a friendlier assembly, yes.

I disagree.  Once the assembly has expressed its displeasure over some event, the motion should be considered fully carried out.  I believe the only time it would be appropriate to rescind the motion is if the assembly upon reflection no longer believed that the action was worthy of censure.  

Edited November 15, 2018 at 06:43 PM by Gary Novosielski

[J. J.]

There should be a distinction made between a motion to censure and the penalty of censure imposed in disciplinary action.

A motion to censure, i.e. "That ______ be censured for _______,"  is a main motion that does nothing more than express opinion of the assembly. 

"Censure" may also be a penalty as a result of disciplinary action.  A person charged in a disciplinary action may have his rights to vote suspended untila trial.   Further, a penalty could be "That ____ be censured and that his rights of membership be suspended for ______ ."

The assumption is that this was a motion to censure the board member; that is what it sound like from the initial description.  If it was not a motion, but a penalty, the answer may be different. 

 

 

 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes, it's possible for a person to receive a censure and an additional penalty including loss of rights.  But I don't think that changes the fact that the censure is essentially a one-time event, even if the other penalties are continuing in nature.  

[J. J.]

37 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I disagree.  Once the assembly has expressed its displeasure over some event, the motion should be considered fully carried out.  I believe the only time it would be appropriate to rescind the motion is if the assembly upon reflection no longer believed that the action was worthy of censure.  

I think that the effect could, at least, be continuing.  For example, if the assembly were adopt a motion "that Jim is a great guy," does the effect of that motion still remain?   At the next session, doesn't the assembly still consider Jim a great guy?  If the assembly adopted the motion "that Sam be censured," does the effect of than motion remain?  At the next session, doesn't the assembly still consider Sam censured?

[Gary Novosielski]

1 minute ago, J. J. said:

I think that the effect could, at least, be continuing.  For example, if the assembly were adopt a motion "that Jim is a great guy," does the effect of that motion still remain?   At the next session, doesn't the assembly still consider Jim a great guy?  If the assembly adopted the motion "that Sam be censured," does the effect of than motion remain?  At the next session, doesn't the assembly still consider Sam censured?

No, I don't think it does.  If the assembly decided that Sam should be censured for a particular action, the disapproval of that action remains, even though Sam has been fully rehabilitated.  The assembly might now believe Sam to be a great guy, even though it continues to believe that Sam's past action was improper.  If they rescind the motion of censure, that would indicate that they have changed their collective mind and now believe that Sam acted properly back then, independent of whether they currently believe Sam to be a great guy or a bum.

 

[J. J.]

1 minute ago, Gary Novosielski said:

No, I don't think it does.  If the assembly decided that Sam should be censured for a particular action, the disapproval of that action remains, even though Sam has been fully rehabilitated.  The assembly might now believe Sam to be a great guy, even though it continues to believe that Sam's past action was improper.  If they rescind the motion of censure, that would indicate that they have changed their collective mind and now believe that Sam acted properly back then, independent of whether they currently believe Sam to be a great guy or a bum.

 

It is Sam that is being censured, not the action itself.    Sam was also not declared a great guy; Jim was. 

What if the assembly decides that Sam's is not longer worthy of censure? 

Just rescinding it would not indicate that they think Sam acted properly; the assembly is saying that they no longer take a position on Sam's action.

[Dan Honemann]

The initial response to the questions asked in this thread was correct in all respects.

[Gary Novosielski]

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The initial response to the questions asked in this thread was correct in all respects.

There's no argument about that.  No rights, including the right to vote, are remove by censure, and a motion remains in effect unless and until rescinded.

The quibble that remains is just what the rescision of a motion of censure implies.  I contend that if not rescinded, this does not mean that the member remains under a cloud of censure forever.  It means merely that the opinion that he did something wrong in the past was expressed.

We say "Sam was censured for a breach of decorum", not "Sam is under continuing censure for a breach of decorum in the late fifites."  

 

2 hours ago, J. J. said:

It is Sam that is being censured, not the action itself....

What if the assembly decides that Sam's is not longer worthy of censure? 

It is Sam that is being censured because of some inappropriate action or failure to act.  If Sam did nothing wrong, there is nothing to censure him for.  We don't censure people just because we're feeling nasty.  There has to be some event precipitating the censure.

If the assembly decides that the event was not worthy of censure, they can rescind the motion.  If they believe it is "no longer" worthy of censure, they need not worry, since Sam, having endured a motion of censure, has already paid his debt to (the) society.

[J. J.]

1 hour ago, Gary Novosielski said:

 

The quibble that remains is just what the rescision of a motion of censure implies.  I contend that if not rescinded, this does not mean that the member remains under a cloud of censure forever.  It means merely that the opinion that he did something wrong in the past was expressed.

We say "Sam was censured for a breach of decorum", not "Sam is under continuing censure for a breach of decorum in the late fifites."  

It is Sam that is being censured because of some inappropriate action or failure to act.  If Sam did nothing wrong, there is nothing to censure him for.  We don't censure people just because we're feeling nasty.  There has to be some event precipitating the censure.

If the assembly decides that the event was not worthy of censure, they can rescind the motion.  If they believe it is "no longer" worthy of censure, they need not worry, since Sam, having endured a motion of censure, has already paid his debt to (the) society.

Maybe they do feel nasty.  I don't want to get into motives.

The question is if the censure continues.  Does Sam now have a different "status," i.e. is he now someone under censure?  At least in terms of the Senate, the answer is yes:  https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Reverses_A_Presidential_Censure.htm

Doing a Google search, the practice looks like a motion to censure can be rescinded.  

 

[J. J.]

There is a House precedent for expunging censure, in the cases of former Secretary of War, Simon Cameron, and Rep. John Young Brown (Hinds' Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States,1908, p. 909).

 

Cameron, whose famous quote was, "An honest politician is one who, when he bought, will stay bought, "might have actually deserved it.   

 

Edited November 16, 2018 at 12:32 AM by J. J.

[Gary Novosielski]

13 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Maybe they do feel nasty.  I don't want to get into motives.

The question is if the censure continues.  Does Sam now have a different "status," i.e. is he now someone under censure?  At least in terms of the Senate, the answer is yes:  https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Reverses_A_Presidential_Censure.htm

Doing a Google search, the practice looks like a motion to censure can be rescinded.  

 

I agree that it can be rescinded, but we disagree about what rescission means.  In the Senate case the body apparently agreed to Rescind and Expunge from the Minutes.  This is a strong statement that the motion of censure should never have been brought in the first place, which is what I contend rescission amounts to. Expunging expresses particularly vehement disapproval of the original action, and requires approval by a majority of the entire membership.  This is not a case of a censure that is considered to have been appropriate at the time but has somehow "gone on long enough."   (I continue to hold that no action is required in such cases.  Once such a reprimand has been issued, the matter is done, and all parties move on.)

I believe at this point we both have a good idea of the outlines of the other's position.  Unless you feel something can be achieved by further discussion, I'm done.

[J. J.]

25 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

 

I believe at this point we both have a good idea of the outlines of the other's position.  Unless you feel something can be achieved by further discussion, I'm done.

I'm not clear on your position.  I'm not even certain if there is a point of disagreement.  

 

2 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

It is Sam that is being censured because of some inappropriate action or failure to act.  If Sam did nothing wrong, there is nothing to censure him for.  We don't censure people just because we're feeling nasty.  There has to be some event precipitating the censure.

If the assembly decides that the event was not worthy of censure, they can rescind the motion.  If they believe it is "no longer" worthy of censure, they need not worry, since Sam, having endured a motion of censure, has already paid his debt to (the) society.

I'm not seeing a distinction between "was not worthy of censure" and " 'no longer' worthy of censure," at least from a procedural standpoint.  

My position is that an adopted motion "that ____ be censured," remains in effect and could be subject to Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted.  I hold that the adopted motion "that ____ be censured," could be rescinded in the future.   I  would also hold that the adopted motion "that ____ be censured,"  could be amended by a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted; in that case the assembly could amend the motion by striking out "censure" and inserting "commend."