censorship

[Gerry szakacs]

I am a memeber, past President of a social, non profit organization.

I was not a founding memeber, but pretty close to the inception of the organization.

The organizers tell me and others that the organization was set up under the Roberts Rule.

Acted as VP for 4 yrs., 1 yr. leave of absence, and 2 yr. President.

I recieved a letter calling for my "censure" and a statement saying censure is a forum of "corrective action".

The reasons stated are -- missing 6 of 9 board meetings. I have missed those meeting for a number of reasons, when attending the meetings any and all my suugestions/comments where neglected or not even considered. general comment being new board will do our way, so with that felt that my services, knowledge or imput from the past 8 yr. is not needed. Also my business, dictates alot of time and am on call. Also 2 meetings were cvalled on evening where the organizer new that I had previous commitments and could not make the meeting.

--- at a board meeting, there was discussion about some funds owed to our organization, and have not been able to collect for 9 months, so my suggestion to talk to a lawyer, so their reasoning - "action independabnt of board", but this was a statement at a board meeting to only the board for discussion,.

--- adversarial attitude on change and new direction of the organization.I just verbalized my thoughts and feelings, which is in contrast to their direction, but they voted to proceed as they determined best, I was voted down, so matter is at rest. My thoughts were also from feed back I recieved from many other members so I presented as a personal opinion, rather thanm a memebership situation.

-- the last item saying inflammatory remarks directed at the board, i made no such momment, was said by another individual, but based on above situation they point the finger my way.

Can someone give some insight as to any bases for their letter subsequent 'removal of board memeber".

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR INPUT..

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I am a member, past President of a social, non profit organization.

I was not a founding member, but pretty close to the inception of the organization.

The organizers tell me and others that the organization was set up under the Roberts Rule.

How can you not know this? JUST READ YOUR BYLAWS. If you don't find a reference to "Robert's Rules of Order," then you were NOT "set up under the Roberts Rule." [sic]

Acted as VP for 4 yrs., 1 yr. leave of absence, and 2 yr. President.

I received a letter calling for my "censure" and a statement saying censure is a forum of "corrective action".

The reasons stated are --- missing 6 of 9 board meetings.

I have missed those meeting for a number of reasons, when attending the meetings any and all my suggestions/comments where neglected or not even considered.

general comment being new board will do our way, so with that felt that my services, knowledge or input from the past 8 yr. is not needed.

Also my business, dictates a lot of time and am on call.

Also 2 meetings were called on evening where the organizer new that I had previous commitments and could not make the meeting.

--- at a board meeting, there was discussion about some funds owed to our organization, and have not been able to collect for 9 months, so my suggestion to talk to a lawyer, so their reasoning - "action independent of board", but this was a statement at a board meeting to only the board for discussion.

--- adversarial attitude on change and new direction of the organization.

I just verbalized my thoughts and feelings, which is in contrast to their direction, but they voted to proceed as they determined best, I was voted down, so matter is at rest.

My thoughts were also from feed back I recieved from many other members so I presented as a personal opinion, rather thanm a memebership situation.

--- the last item saying inflammatory remarks directed at the board, i made no such comment, was said by another individual, but based on above situation they point the finger my way.

Can someone give some insight as to any bases for their letter subsequent 'removal of board member"?

Yes. - See the process for removal in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR 10th ed.). Chapter XX Section 61.

That should clear up any question about "What does Robert's Rules say on the subject."

[Josh Martin]

I recieved a letter calling for my "censure" and a statement saying censure is a forum of "corrective action".

Censure is a motion expressing the assembly's disapproval.

Can someone give some insight as to any bases for their letter subsequent 'removal of board memeber".

See FAQ #20. Check your Bylaws to see if the board has the authority to remove a board member. Generally, this power is reserved for the general membership.

All RONR has to say about "basis" is: "Except as the bylaws may provide otherwise, any regularly elected officer of a permanent society can be deposed from office for cause - that is, misconduct or neglect of duty in office" (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 642, lines 29-32) That is intentionally vague. It is up to the society, through the disciplinary procedure, to determine whether an officer's actions constitute "basis" for removal. The important thing as far as RONR is concerned is that the process is followed correctly.

[hmtcastle]

Censure is a motion expressing the assembly's disapproval.

This just in:

After deliberating most of the afternoon, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct recommended censure for Mr. Rangel.

The house will have to vote on the censure resolution disapproving Rangel's conduct, and the speaker would need to rebuke the 20-term Democrat in front of his colleagues.

The ethics committee, made up of five Democrats and five Republicans, could have opted for lighter punishments, such as a reprimand.

- NY Times

[Josh Martin]

This just in:

After deliberating most of the afternoon, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct recommended censure for Mr. Rangel.

The house will have to vote on the censure resolution disapproving Rangel's conduct, and the speaker would need to rebuke the 20-term Democrat in front of his colleagues.

The ethics committee, made up of five Democrats and five Republicans, could have opted for lighter punishments, such as a reprimand.

- NY Times

Although it should be noted that much of this is governed by the rules of the House of Representatives, and there is really no distinction between "censure" and "reprimand" in RONR, this still seems an appropriate reference for this topic.

[hmtcastle]

Although it should be noted that much of this is governed by the rules of the House of Representatives, and there is really no distinction between "censure" and "reprimand" in RONR, this still seems an appropriate reference for this topic.

Yes, I thought the distinction between censure and reprimand was an interesting one. It reminds me of the line from the old Kingston Trio song, "

", where the protagonist is given a 99-year sentence and he observes, "It could have been 'life'".