Censure without Formal Disciplinary Procedures

[laser158689]

A footnote on page 608 of RONR(12th ed.; §61) says "1. It is also possible to adopt a motion of censure without formal disciplinary procedures."

What does that look like?  A simple motion "I move that Bob Smith be censured"?  Does it need a reason "I move that Bob Smith be censured for making false statements"?

Are there guidelines around it's usage versus a formal disciplinary procedure?

 

[Josh Martin]

On 1/25/2023 at 2:34 PM, laser158689 said:

What does that look like?  A simple motion "I move that Bob Smith be censured"?  Does it need a reason "I move that Bob Smith be censured for making false statements"?

It is at the assembly's discretion whether or not the motion should include reasons. I would think such a motion would generally include reasons, but conceivably the motion could leave out any reasons and the reasons would be given in debate.

On 1/25/2023 at 2:34 PM, laser158689 said:

Are there guidelines around it's usage versus a formal disciplinary procedure?

First, it should be noted that a nondisciplinary motion to censure is handled the same as any other main motion. Beyond that, two important items concerning this matter come to mind.

Members have a right that "allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground. If thus accused, he has the right to due process—that is, to be informed of the charge and given time to prepare his defense, to appear and defend himself, and to be fairly treated." RONR (12th ed.) 63:5

In my view, this right somewhat limits what may be placed in a nondisciplinary motion to censure. Generally, I would think that language which could not properly be included in a motion to create an investigate committee (the first step in a formal disciplinary process) also could not be included in a nondisciplinary motion to censure.

"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 (12th ed.) 63:11

The other item which comes to mind is that since a nondisciplinary motion to censure is simply an expression of the society's opinion, such a motion can conceivably be applied to any person or organization, while a disciplinary motion to censure could only be applied to a person the society has the authority to discipline.

Edited January 25, 2023 at 09:15 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

On 1/25/2023 at 4:14 PM, Josh Martin said:

In my view, this right somewhat limits what may be placed in a nondisciplinary motion to censure. Generally, I would think that language which could not properly be included in a motion to create an investigate committee (the first step in a formal disciplinary process) also could not be included in a nondisciplinary motion to censure.

 

I disagree, based on 39:7.  

[Phil D]

I tend to agree with JJ. Formal disciplinary proceedings can recommend a range of punishments from expulsion to removal from office to apparently assessing fines. Censure is comparatively a slap on the wrist. Hence why I think the rules allow for censure to occur by motion as well. 

[Richard Brown]

I also tend to disagree with Mr. Martin and to agree with JJ and Phil D. §39:7 of RONR (12th ed.) seems to say pretty clearly that an allegation of misconduct can be included in a motion of censure. Here is the relevant portion of 39:7:

“Except as may be necessary in the case of a motion of censure or a motion related to disciplinary procedures (61, 63), a motion must not use language that reflects on a member’s conduct or character, or is discourteous, unnecessarily harsh, or not allowed in debate (see 43).”

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/25/2023 at 6:55 PM, J. J. said:

I disagree, based on 39:7.  

But that exception refers us to §63, which contains the limitations Josh referred to.

[J. J.]

On 1/25/2023 at 11:54 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

But that exception refers us to §63, which contains the limitations Josh referred to.

The footnote to 63:2, in that section, notes that censure may be adopted without formal disciplinary action. 

[Josh Martin]

On 1/25/2023 at 6:35 PM, Phil D said:

I tend to agree with JJ. Formal disciplinary proceedings can recommend a range of punishments from expulsion to removal from office to apparently assessing fines. Censure is comparatively a slap on the wrist. Hence why I think the rules allow for censure to occur by motion as well. 

But RONR is not concerned simply with the punishments, but also with the allegations themselves. RONR recognizes that even the making of a serious allegation can have detrimental effects on a member's reputation, and for this reason the text provides that "A member or officer has the right that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground." RONR (12th ed.) 63:5

In my view, this rule cannot be entirely evaded simply by putting the allegations into a nondisciplinary motion to censure. It seems to me there are limits on the allegations which may be contained in a nondisciplinary motion to censure, at least if such a motion is applied to a member or officer of the society. (If it is applied to a person not under the authority under the society, I suppose it violates no parliamentary rule to make wild allegations such persons, but there may be other matters to consider, such as applicable law.)

On 1/25/2023 at 10:50 PM, Richard Brown said:

I also tend to disagree with Mr. Martin and to agree with JJ and Phil D. §39:7 of RONR (12th ed.) seems to say pretty clearly that an allegation of misconduct can be included in a motion of censure. Here is the relevant portion of 39:7:

“Except as may be necessary in the case of a motion of censure or a motion related to disciplinary procedures (61, 63), a motion must not use language that reflects on a member’s conduct or character, or is discourteous, unnecessarily harsh, or not allowed in debate (see 43).”

Certainly the rule of 39:7 provides that, to an extent, a motion of censure may include language that "reflects on a member’s conduct or character, or is discourteous, unnecessarily harsh, or not allowed in debate," but I think there are limits to this.

[laser158689]

Trying to picture a non-disciplinary motion to censure.  Any examples?

[J. J.]

On 1/26/2023 at 10:28 AM, Josh Martin said:

But RONR is not concerned simply with the punishments, but also with the allegations themselves. RONR recognizes that even the making of a serious allegation can have detrimental effects on a member's reputation, and for this reason the text provides that "A member or officer has the right that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground." RONR (12th ed.) 63:5

 

Here is where I disagree.  A motion to censure is an expression of the opinion of the assembly; it is neither an allegation, a penalty, nor a finding of guilt.  As you correctly noted, it may not even be directed against a member. 

[J. J.]

On 1/26/2023 at 10:51 AM, laser158689 said:

Trying to picture a non-disciplinary motion to censure.  Any examples?

From "Censure:  Penalty versus Motion," Parliamentary Journal, April 2012, footnote 4:  "For example, the society may have a member named Nancy Schaller and members read in the newspaper the morning of the meeting that Nancy Schaller was convicted of armed robbery.  They then adopt a motion, “That our member, Nancy Schaller, be censured for committing armed robbery,” only to find out the Nancy Schaller arrested was not the same person as the member.  Neither Ms. Schaller, the member, nor her attorney, may be happy with the motion that accused her of being an armed robber."

[laser158689]

Thanks @J. J.!  Is that full article available online and would you pls reply with a link?

[J. J.]

On 1/26/2023 at 2:19 PM, laser158689 said:

Thanks @J. J.!  Is that full article available online and would you pls reply with a link?

 

No, it is not online. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/26/2023 at 12:05 AM, J. J. said:

The footnote to 63:2, in that section, notes that censure may be adopted without formal disciplinary action. 

There's no footnote in 63:2

[Phil D]

On 1/26/2023 at 7:53 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

There's no footnote in 63:2

He meant 61:2 which includes the infamous line "It is also possible to adopt a motion of censure without formal disciplinary procedures."