censure not allowed in constitution

[gregory]

I recently censured our Chairperson at a membership meeting for violating a working rule of our

bylaws. Our bylaws also state RONR will govern our membership meetings and as we all know, RONR allows for

a censure.

But our Constitution (Charter) doesn't address either way if a censure is allowed or not allowed. It doesn't

even recognize the word.

So knowing that, our Chairperson has since ruled that the "motion to censure is out of order because there is no provision in the Constitution to allow for a censure".

But can it be argued that if our Constitution has no provision that allows for censure isn't is also correct

that there is no provision that prohibits a censure as well?

Please advise.

[Larry Cisar]

I recently censured our Chairperson at a membership meeting for violating a working rule of our

bylaws. Our bylaws also state RONR will govern our membership meetings and as we all know, RONR allows for

a censure.

But our Constitution (Charter) doesn't address either way if a censure is allowed or not allowed. It doesn't

even recognize the word.

So knowing that, our Chairperson has since ruled that the "motion to censure is out of order because there is no provision in the Constitution to allow for a censure".

But can it be argued that if our Constitution has no provision that allows for censure isn't is also correct

that there is no provision that prohibits a censure as well?

Please advise.

Try page 642. Censure is just that opposite of commend and is allowable. Also check the index for other pages that refer to censure and show that it is proper.

[J. J.]

Try page 642. Censure is just that opposite of commend and is allowable. Also check the index for other pages that refer to censure and show that it is proper.

See also p. 131.

[hmtcastle]

But can it be argued that if our Constitution has no provision that allows for censure isn't is also correct that there is no provision that prohibits a censure as well?

Yes.

Though it's not surprising that the chair would (improperly) rule a motion to censure the chair out of order. But his ruling can, and should, be appealed. And now you can add his self-serving improper ruling to the list of reasons for censuring him.

Others may weigh in on whether the chair should have stepped down while a motion to censure him was pending.

[Trina]

I recently censured our Chairperson at a membership meeting for violating a working rule of our

bylaws....

... our Chairperson has since ruled that the "motion to censure is out of order because there is no provision in the Constitution to allow for a censure".

The choice of words concerns me a bit. When you say "I recently censured," does that mean you made a motion to do so? Was the motion adopted by the membership at the time?

When you say that the chair "has since ruled," that sounds like the ruling was done at some later time -- was this ruling made at a later membership meeting? No one can make rulings in between meetings (in case that's what happened).

I agree with the other posters that, based on the facts you present, the chair has no grounds for making such a ruling at all; I'm just unclear on some of the details of what happened, and when it happened.

[David A Foulkes]

Is this a follow up to your previous post and this one? Just thinking some questions that will arise here may have already been asked and answered there, so responders could review it, rather than rehashing "old business", as it were.

[Josh Martin]

Others may weigh in on whether the chair should have stepped down while a motion to censure him was pending.

He should have. The poster may want to add Official Interpretation 2006-2 to his reading material before making the motion to censure again, as I imagine someone who won't even permit a motion to censure won't leave the chair without a fight.

Although since Mr. Foulkes has kindly provided us with the appropriate history for this occasion, it seems a motion to censure may be letting this chair off easy. See FAQ #20.

[Gary Novosielski]

But can it be argued that if our Constitution has no provision that allows for censure isn't is also correct

that there is no provision that prohibits a censure as well?

Better than being argued, I think it can be flatly stated.

That's a primary reason why RONR exists, to cover all the thousands of topics on which your bylaws or constitution remain silent. If your bylaws have no rules regarding censure, then the rules in RONR apply.

I'd be willing to bet that your bylaws don't have a provision explicitly authorizing meetings to be adjourned. Does that mean you can never go home? Of course not. You follow the rules in RONR.