Censure Voting Rules

[Guest GloriaRomero]

When voting on whether or not to pass a censure on the Chair of a board, is the chair allowed to vote on their own censure? Additionally, if the censure is resulting from the neutral chair secretly paying certain board members (i.e. possible bribing) are the involved (paid) board members allowed to vote on it as well? 

The board I observe voted on this censure last week, and the censure failed but only as a result of the chair and involved members voting. Those who weren't involved voted for the censure by majority. I was wondering how it's allowed for those who were bribed to vote on it because it seemed to skew the outcomes dramatically. 

[Atul Kapur]

Short answer: Yes ad Yes under RONR.

Under RONR, the chair should turn the chair over to someone else.
"Whenever a motion is made that refers only to the presiding officer in a capacity not shared in common with other members, or that commends or censures him with others, he should turn the chair over to the vice-president or appropriate temporary occupant (see below) during the assembly’s consideration of that motion, just as he would in a case where he wishes to take part in debate (see also pp. 394-95)."

In small boards or committees, the chair can speak in debate and vote on all questions (p. 488, lines 18-20)

Otherwise, the chair only exercises their right to vote when their vote would affect the outcome (p. 53, 20-23).

Regarding conflict of interest, RONR says, that a person with a personal interest should not vote but does not prohibit them from voting.
"No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization . . . . However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances." (p. 407, lines 22-31)

[Josh Martin]

11 hours ago, Guest GloriaRomero said:

When voting on whether or not to pass a censure on the Chair of a board, is the chair allowed to vote on their own censure? Additionally, if the censure is resulting from the neutral chair secretly paying certain board members (i.e. possible bribing) are the involved (paid) board members allowed to vote on it as well? 

The board I observe voted on this censure last week, and the censure failed but only as a result of the chair and involved members voting. Those who weren't involved voted for the censure by majority. I was wondering how it's allowed for those who were bribed to vote on it because it seemed to skew the outcomes dramatically. 

I concur with Mr. Kapur so far as the rules of RONR are concerned. I would add a couple of things.

• It is possible that there are rules in applicable law governing this matter as well, especially if the society is incorporated. Some laws governing various types of incorporated societies do have rules prohibiting members with a "conflict of interest" from voting. Of course, it is often still up to the assembly to enforce these rules by determining whether a member has a conflict of interest and to prevent that member from voting. If the affected members constitute a substantial portion of the board (as appears to be the case), that may be difficult. There might be legal recourse if the board fails to enforce the rules. Ultimately, questions regarding such laws should be directed to an attorney.
• There may well also be applicable laws concerning bribery, so that could also be something to talk to an attorney about.
• If it is desired to solve this problem within the society and RONR, perhaps the behavior of the chair and the board members could be raised with the general membership (if there is one). Alternately, the society could attempt to elect different members in the next election. See FAQ #20 for more information on removal.

Finally, I would be more careful in throwing around accusations like bribery. Accusing members of such conduct before conducting a proper investigation is certainly a violation of the rules of RONR, and there are also legal issues regarding slander and libel (which may also be worth consulting an attorney about).

"For the protection of parties who may be innocent, the first resolution should avoid details as much as possible. An individual member may not prefer charges, even if that member has proof of an officer's or member's wrongdoing. If a member introduces a resolution preferring charges unsupported by an investigating committee's recommendation, the chair must rule the resolution out of order, informing the member that it would instead be in order to move the appointment of such a committee (by a resolution, as in the example above). A resolution is improper if it implies the truth of specific rumors or contains insinuations unfavorable to an officer or member, even one who is to be accused. It is out of order, for example, for a resolution to begin, "Whereas, It seems probable that the treasurer has engaged in graft, . . ." At the first mention of the word "graft" in such a case, the chair must instantly call to order the member attempting to move the resolution." (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 657-658)

Edited May 17, 2020 at 01:53 PM by Josh Martin