censure

[Guest SAA]

Is a motion to censure  a member always a main  motion .  Or may it also be an incidental motion ? 

Thanks 

 

SAA 

 

[George Mervosh]

3 minutes ago, Guest SAA said:

Is a motion to censure  a member always a main  motion .  Or may it also be an incidental motion ? 

Thanks 

 

SAA 

 

It is always a main motion, yes.  

"Since the motion to ratify (or to censure) is a main motion, it is debatable and opens the entire question to debate."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 125.  

 

[Guest SAA]

  Thanks a lot for this reference  p. 125 -  very helpful .  However , does it clearly exclude/preclude  ( "only a main motion ")using the motion as an incidental one . If during the process of dealing with a main and pending secondary motions ,it would seem very practical and helpful were a motion of censure  possible  as that would potentially allow the assembly to impose a  stiff  penalty  when naming, and so on ,will not work ? 

Thanks for any additional  feedback Mr .Mervosh or any other  expert .

SAA

[George Mervosh]

I'm not sure I understand all of what you wrote or your desired outcome but see RONR (11th ed.), p. 103, Standard Descriptive Characteristic #2  -  "Can be applied to no other motion"   So, no, tacking it on as some sort of secondary motion is not going to work.

Edited November 21, 2019 at 07:48 PM by George Mervosh

[Guest SAA]

thanks -that seems QUITE  definite! 

 

SAA

[George Mervosh]

1 minute ago, Guest SAA said:

thanks -that seems QUITE  definite! 

 

SAA

You might be able to get it in there via the amendment process if a stand alone motion is going to be out of order, but I'm really bad at examples and you haven't provided any facts about what is pending.

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Guest SAA said:

Thanks a lot for this reference  p. 125 -  very helpful .  However , does it clearly exclude/preclude  ( "only a main motion ")using the motion as an incidental one . If during the process of dealing with a main and pending secondary motions ,it would seem very practical and helpful were a motion of censure  possible  as that would potentially allow the assembly to impose a  stiff  penalty  when naming, and so on ,will not work ? 

Thanks for any additional  feedback Mr .Mervosh or any other  expert .

 

2 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

I'm not sure I understand all of what you wrote or your desired outcome

I don't understand it, either.  Hoperully, the text citations you gave Guest SAA will be helpful.

 

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Guest SAA said:

Thanks a lot for this reference  p. 125 -  very helpful .  However , does it clearly exclude/preclude  ( "only a main motion ")using the motion as an incidental one . If during the process of dealing with a main and pending secondary motions ,it would seem very practical and helpful were a motion of censure  possible  as that would potentially allow the assembly to impose a  stiff  penalty  when naming, and so on ,will not work ? 

A motion of censure could be raised, in certain instances, through the means of Raising a Question of Privilege, which is a privileged motion. The motion to censure itself, however, remains a main motion.

I concur with my colleagues that additional details would be helpful.

Edited November 21, 2019 at 10:39 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest SAA]

This is all very helpful  and as for further facts . A  member was out of control - and opposed in debate respecting  a  pending main motion -tried to keep hold of the microphone after all her debate time was up ( one floor  microphone then shut  off ) but  would not stop causing  an uproar  and disturbing  - yelling and screaming  top of her lungs - foul  language , name calling - THE WORKS !. Simply not allowing the Chair to go forward - a continuous interruption of the meeting . After the Chair warned / scolded and cautioned  5 times and named her -  she refused to apologize  or heed any  interventions  and was  cautioned  that the Chair  would seek the will of the assembly to address this  disturbance ,should she not desist  . Two Board members went down to speak with her at the back of the room but to no avail . The Chair then invited a motion that the member be censured  for her conduct if she did not immediately  desist ,and that she was furthermore    ordered  evicted  from the meeting  upon nay continuance of disturbance . She would not stop at this point .The motion was made , debate  was invited  ( no debate from anyone ) . Motion carried  by near unanimous hand vote of 157 members - a few against . At this point two security guards proceeded to her location to escort her out . This did have an effect - she calmed  down  some and  with but a few final  expletives, and shouted " fine you  F *&%)9 ers   - I'll shut up for now but this is not over" ( very dramatic  ) .

 

Now she claims ,  post meeting ,that she was abused  by the  motion for censure , which remains  in the minutes .  And  that it should be expunged as a taint to her character as a member  . That the assembly  had no right to  pass a motion of censure in the circumstances and during the debate of a pending  motion   . Who knows what will be next - threatened   litigation  ?

But I am much heartened to see from the above note of Mr. Martin - that seemingly there is room here for this motion of censure to be considered valid - regardless that it was not made as a main motion . Mr Martin ( a first rate expert  in RONR- I see from all his posts -  ) states :

 

" A motion of censure  could be raised  in certain circumstances  " ,  through the means of Question of Privilege  . "Ureaka"   I say , and hope !  Because this will allow that it can be asserted that in the circumstances  what was offered was a motion of censure within the constructive context of a non -stated  Question of Privilege - or something  crafted  like that . A complete answer .

 

Thank you very much Mr Martin . I regret  that I did not offer facts earlier on as Mr. Mervosh and others would have been better informed .It seems a main motion  of censure can be fitted into an ongoing pending process -  if illuminated /expert  consideration  is applied . 

SAA 

[Dan Honemann]

It appears as if this situation was handled very well, and in the manner prescribed by RONR (11th ed.) on pages 645-48. Stop worrying about it.

[Richard Brown]

Guest SSA:  You might keep in mind that it doesn't really matter whether the motion of censure was proper or properly handled at the time it was introduced.  Any objection or point of order would have to have been timely....  it would have to be made at the time the motion of censure was made. Since no timely point of order was raised, or if it was raised the chair obviously either didn't hear it or ruled against it, the motion of censure was validly adopted.  It is too late now to complain about it. 

It's what we lawyers (and parliamentarians) often refer to as a "you snooze, you lose" rule.  Any objection that a rule is being violated must usually be made at the time of the violation.  That is so that the chair can make whatever correction might be necessary.  It is too late to raise it after the fact.  What's  done is done.  There are only a few exceptions to that rule and this is not one of them. 

It appears to me that the motion of censure was validly adopted and should remain in the minutes. The member was indeed censured.

 

 

[Atul Kapur]

Nothing needs to be "crafted." It's clearly laid out in RONR.

Not that it's the important point (see last two paragraphs below) but to get it out of the way: The motion to censure was a main motion. It was allowed to interrupt the proceedings because of its urgency.

"To Raise a Question of Privilege is a device that permits a ... main motion relating to the rights and privileges of the assembly ... to be brought up for possible immediate consideration because of its urgency, while business is pending and the request or motion would otherwise be out of order." (RONR 11th ed., p. 224, ll. 25-30) and keep reading p. 225 as well.

However, the section you really should be referring to is Section 61 "Discipline of members and guests" with particular focus on pp. 645-648 regarding "Breaches of order by members in a meeting".

As this section makes clear, not only should the motion be recorded in the minutes, but so should the "objectionable or disorderly words used by the member" and "the declaration made by the chair in naming a member".

 

 

[Guest SAA]

That D. Honemann ( Yoda of Rules ) has passed on this as " handled very well"  and in the  " manner prescribed  by RONR " is of huge help . Thanks a lot- that  will be quoted for sure  . And that alone  very much  decreases some concern and some of the work of "worrying " for the Executive Committee . 

But like  wise the other responses are very helpful for developing a go forward strategy   (  Mr's. Brown ,Martin, and Kapur ) - and that is part of the crafting work that needs to be completed ,as it is definitely  going to be several months of continuous trouble . This was  merely  the  first  shot across the bows . 

 Great Forum - thanks to ALL .

 

SAA

[Gary Novosielski]

The only problem I see is that she was apparently allowed to remain after calming down.  If my understanding is correct that the assembly at that point had already voted that she was to be removed, she should have been removed for the remainder of the meeting.

[J. J.]

I would note that a motion to censure could, in some cases, be an original main motion and in some cases be an incidental main motion.  In both cases, it remains a main motion.