define "recuse"

[gregory]

Follow up question:

When a motion to censure your President (who happens to be the Chair in the meeting)is being stated, if the President interrupts to defend himself, what is the best course of action?

According to RONR, he is to recuse himself, right? How does RONR define recuse? Do I advise him that before he can speak he must turnover the Chair to someone else and at that point is it OK for him to speak or should he be advised, recuse means to be completely quiet and he is not allowed to be involved in the motion or it's discussion. Can you cite a page in RONR if possible? Thanks.

[Larry Cisar]

Follow up question:

When a motion to censure your President (who happens to be the Chair in the meeting)is being stated, if the President interrupts to defend himself, what is the best course of action?

According to RONR, he is to recuse himself, right? How does RONR define recuse? Do I advise him that before he can speak he must turnover the Chair to someone else and at that point is it OK for him to speak or should he be advised, recuse means to be completely quiet and he is not allowed to be involved in the motion or it's discussion. Can you cite a page in RONR if possible? Thanks.

Recuse is not listed in the index. RONR does state that the regular chair should step down from the chair on a motion to censure the chair, but I can find nothing about a need to not defend himself. Also note that RONR says "should" and not "must."

[Kim Goldsworthy]

When a motion to censure your President (who happens to be the Chair in the meeting)

is being stated,

if the President interrupts to defend himself,

what is the best course of action?

"The best course of action"?

I say:

Have someone OTHER THAN THE TARGETED PERSON act as the presiding officer.

In fact, a motion to do exactly this (see SUSPEND THE RULES in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR 10th ed.) ought to be executed BEFORE you make your other motion, since, as you now know, the targeted member will likely interrupt proceedings with vehement protest.

I am likewise implying that you line your ducks up in a row:

Pre-arrange with your like-minded buddies to know the proper motion, and to support the Suspension of the Rules for this purpose.

Make sure you have a two-thirds vote supporting you, to adopt the motion "To Suspend".

Once you have another person (e.g., the vice president, most likely, but if the VP is biased in favor of the P, then perhaps another senior member ought to be the chairman pro tem for this purpose) holding the gavel, then you should be able to process the motion "That the President be censured," with less interruption, or at least with maximum opportunity for adoption.

[Tim Wynn]

Follow up question:

When a motion to censure your President (who happens to be the Chair in the meeting)is being stated, if the President interrupts to defend himself, what is the best course of action?

According to RONR, he is to recuse himself, right?

He should to turn the chair over to another during the consideration of the motion. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 436, l. 4-11.

As for refraining from voting, see RONR(10th ed.), p. 394, l. 15-25. Pay close attention to the last sentence.

How does RONR define recuse?

It doesn't.

Do I advise him that before he can speak he must turnover the Chair to someone else and at that point is it OK for him to speak

The motion to censure is a main motion, so it is debatable. The person being censured is not given special recognition for the purpose of "defending," but any member can enter into debate on the question.

or should he be advised, recuse means to be completely quiet and he is not allowed to be involved in the motion or it's discussion.

If the chair is a member (which I assume), he has a right to participate.

[Tim Wynn]

"The best course of action"?

I say:

Have someone OTHER THAN THE TARGETED PERSON act as the presiding officer.

RONR says the same thing. It even includes a rule about it.

In fact, a motion to do exactly this (see SUSPEND THE RULES in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR 10th ed.) ought to be executed BEFORE you make your other motion, since, as you now know, the targeted member will likely interrupt proceedings with vehement protest.

Are you suggesting he will not protest this move? I'm inclined to not worry about protests, especially if they are inevitable.

I am likewise implying that you line your ducks up in a row:

Pre-arrange with your like-minded buddies to know the proper motion, and to support the Suspension of the Rules for this purpose.

Make sure you have a two-thirds vote supporting you, to adopt the motion "To Suspend".

It's much easier to just make the motion to censure and follow it with a point of order that the chair should step down for its consideration.

Once you have another person (e.g., the vice president, most likely, but if the VP is biased in favor of the P, then perhaps another senior member ought to be the chairman pro tem for this purpose) holding the gavel, then you should be able to process the motion "That the President be censured," with less interruption, or at least with maximum opportunity for adoption.

With a knowledgeable assembly ready to take action to uphold the rules, there's little a biased presiding officer can do to affect the vote.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

It's much easier to just make the motion to censure and follow it with a point of order that the chair should step down for its consideration.

What!?

• Make the motion to censure, first?

• Follow up this motion with a Point of Order, that the chair should step down?

Ha!

(The original poster had asked for "the best course of action." The above won't work, given the constraints imposed by the original poster regarding the behavior of his president.)

No chair, in this universe, who will interrupt the proceedings on a motion to censure the chair, is going to cave in and lay down flat on his back, and RULE AFFIRMATIVELY on such a Point of Order.

Human beings aren't wired up that way from the factory.

Remember? - "... the President interrupts to defend himself ..."

Any president who interrupts a motion in order to defend himself against a motion to censure, isn't going to STOP defending himself when a follow-up motion (here, "Point of Order") is moved.

Oh!

And if the Point of Order is followed up by an Appeal From the Decision of the Chair, then DITTO again. - No chairman is going to respect an Appeal if the chairman didn't respect the Point of Order, when the motion which generated all this was a motion to censure that same chairman.

It isn't psychologically possible.

Once you start defending yourself on the main motion 'To Censure', then you won't suddenly and inexplicably shut up when supporting motions, aimed at processing that main motion, are suddenly moved and seconded.

(The chair responded inappropriately to the plain main motion. Therefore, there is 0% chance that the chair will right himself and process the Point of Order, plus the Appeal, with 100% accuracy, now that adrenaline has kicked in.)

***

Reminds me of the difference between 'theory' and 'practice'.

Q. How many physicists does it take to change a light bulb?

A. One. But he can only do it under ideal conditions, in a vacuum.

***

[Tim Wynn]

What!?

• Make the motion to censure, first?

• Follow up this motion with a Point of Order, that the chair should step down?

Ha!

(The original poster had asked for "the best course of action." The above won't work, given the constraints imposed by the original poster regarding the behavior of his president.)

No chair, in this universe, who will interrupt the proceedings on a motion to censure the chair, is going to cave in and lay down flat on his back, and RULE AFFIRMATIVELY on such a Point of Order.

Human beings aren't wired up that way from the factory.

Remember? - "... the President interrupts to defend himself ..."

Any president who interrupts a motion in order to defend himself against a motion to censure, isn't going to STOP defending himself when a follow-up motion (here, "Point of Order") is moved.

Oh!

And if the Point of Order is followed up by an Appeal From the Decision of the Chair, then DITTO again. - No chairman is going to respect an Appeal if the chairman didn't respect the Point of Order, when the motion which generated all this was a motion to censure that same chairman.

It isn't psychologically possible.

Once you start defending yourself on the main motion 'To Censure', then you won't suddenly and inexplicably shut up when supporting motions, aimed at processing that main motion, are suddenly moved and seconded.

(The chair responded inappropriately to the plain main motion. Therefore, there is 0% chance that the chair will right himself and process the Point of Order, plus the Appeal, with 100% accuracy, now that adrenaline has kicked in.)

***

Reminds me of the difference between 'theory' and 'practice'.

Q. How many physicists does it take to change a light bulb?

A. One. But he can only do it under ideal conditions, in a vacuum.

***

You have a hot-headed presiding officer who can't handle a simple main motion without turning into a ranting and raving lunatic who is more concerned with defending himself than doing his job, and you're going to diffuse him by... making a motion to have him removed from the chair?

Expect the same tantrum from the chair -- no more, no less.

[Weldon Merritt]

You have a hot-headed presiding officer who can't handle a simple main motion without turning into a ranting and raving lunatic who is more concerned with defending himself than doing his job, and you're going to diffuse him by... making a motion to have him removed from the chair?

Expect the same tantrum from the chair -- no more, no less.

My thoughts, exactly! With this sort of expected behavior, it will make absolutely no difference which way the mover procceeds. Either way, the mover will need to be prepared to put the motion himself, from the floor.

[Guest Nancy N.]

[Tim:

["and you're going to diffuse him by... making a motion to have him removed from the chair?"]

If they can diffuse him, problem solved.

[Gary Novosielski]

Q. How many physicists does it take to change a light bulb?

A. One. But he can only do it under ideal conditions, in a vacuum.

Remind me to get a "PHYSICISTS DO IT IN A VACUUM" bumper sticker.

[Tim Wynn]

[Tim:

["and you're going to diffuse him by... making a motion to have him removed from the chair?"]

If they can diffuse him, problem solved.

I concur, Nancy. However, the implication was that any plan to diffuse would be futile.

[Trina]

I concur, Nancy. However, the implication was that any plan to diffuse would be futile.

A plan to defuse the hot-headed chair might have greater chances of success (less difficult to implement anyway, as members scratch their heads, trying to remember the rarely practiced 'diffusing' spell).

That's my guess as to the meaning of Nancy's message

[Tim Wynn]

A plan to defuse the hot-headed chair might have greater chances of success (less difficult to implement anyway, as members scratch their heads, trying to remember the rarely practiced 'diffusing' spell).

That's my guess as to the meaning of Nancy's message

Oh, I see. The joke's on me, because I'm illiterate. Great.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Oh, I see. The joke's on me, because I'm illiterate. Great.

Oh!

Sounds alike.

• "Diffuse" - to spread, as a liquid.

• "Defuse" - to deactivate, as a bomb.

***

Like a couple of claudes I know.

• "Debussy" (Claude Achillee) - composer

• "W.C." (Fields, nee Willliam Claude Dunkenfield) - comedian

[Gary Novosielski]

Oh!

Sounds alike.

• "Diffuse" - to spread, as a liquid.

• "Defuse" - to deactivate, as a bomb.

Q: Would you like some super sex?

A: Yes, I'll take the soup.

[Trina]

Oh, I see. The joke's on me, because I'm illiterate. Great.

Nope.

An entirely unwarranted accusation IMHO. The evidence is against it.

[Tim Wynn]

Nope.

An entirely unwarranted accusation IMHO. The evidence is against it.

As always, I put much stock in YHO.

[Guest Nancy N.]

As always, I put much stock in YHO.

This is at least the second time that Trina has had to interpret Nancy N.’s humor for the RONR MB; and I concur with Trina about Tim’s dubious claim to illiteracy; and y’know I want to buy some of that stock he mentioned, ‘cause it’s sure to go up unless there’s no justice, and unless the American public, than whom there is no other, might be about to exhibit outstanding idiocy, in, um, maybe the next week or so.

(Nigglingly, brought to my attention by Tim’s reply, I wonder about the way to reply to an “IMHO” generally, and especially when, as here, one allows the legitimacy of the “H,” as a, let’s say, pro forma thing, but one wishes to politely disavow its applicability. Maybe I should put question this on the Miss Manners Parliamentary Forum, since that forum, unlike here, has not allowed that the regulars get away with murder yet sometimes circumscribe their self-expression. At least I hope it hasn’t, ‘cause I can’t really say that I’ve checked, since I haven’t. )

[hmtcastle]

Maybe I should put question this on the Miss Manners Parliamentary Forum, since that forum, unlike here, has not allowed that the regulars get away with murder yet sometimes circumscribe their self-expression.

Maybe you should stop being a regular Guest and start being a regular Member.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Maybe you should stop being a regular Guest and start being a regular Member.

That's an excellent idea.

[hmtcastle]

That's an excellent idea.

Welcome aboard!