Without getting into partisan politics, voters need to think twice about actions in one of our municipalities, Taneytown, that would enable removal of a duly elected official by censure.

If the majority can remove a minority by censure, it threatens the ability of any elected official to challenge the majority in any legislative debate.

I believe I can make my point most obvious with a series of questions that quickly highlight the ridiculousness of the situation:

Was the elected official charged or convicted of a felony? No.

Was he charged or convicted of an imprisonable misdemeanor? No.

Was he charged or convicted for filing to pay any town fines or taxes? No.

Was the official tried or convicted of a substantial ethical breach such as self-dealing or accepting gifts from lobbyists? No.

Was the official afforded due process in front of a neutral tribunal to defend himself against his accusers? No.

Was the official administratively charged with violating Roberts Rules of Order? No.

Article 1 Section 6 of the Constitution states, "[Legislators] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

According to the Annenberg Classroom, Article 1 Section 6 was "to prevent prosecutors and others from using the courts to intimidate a legislator because they do not like his or her view ."

So, what's left (pun intended) in the charges against the councilman?

I understand a town clerk broke into tears during session while being questioned by the councilman. However, that is not particularly unusual, and it certainly is not a crime. I have seen employees cry under duress.

Second, there are allegations the councilman violated attorney-client privilege because he individually asked a question of the town attorney and individually released the response to his constituents. Here's the nuance: Because the individual councilman asked the question, he reasonably assumed the answer belonged to him as an individual councilman, and it was his to keep or divulge. There is no law that makes it a crime for a client to divulge information given to him by his own attorney. Besides, was the official afforded the opportunity to defend himself in front of a neutral jury of his peers? No.

The point? Once the majority of legislators learns they can expunge anyone that says things they do not like, our system of government deteriorates into raw majoritarian rule.

Another official whom I respect suggested the councilman's questions about the size of the town's surplus funds may have been inappropriate.

My response?

If awkward questioning or fiscal irresponsibility were grounds for impeachment, the majority of politicians in Washington should be in jail.

The alleged grounds to remove the councilman from office lack substance. There is no crime or misdemeanor. The real reasons appear to be more related to political retribution. He made the majority angry, and they have the votes to hit back.

If angering the majority is grounds for removal, hundreds of officials (from both parties) across America would have already been censured and removed.

It will be interesting to see the outcome if the councilman retaliates against his accusers for depriving him of his Article 1 Section 6 protections; and/or his First and Fifth Amendment protections.

Knowledgeable people believe the hastily crafted censure ordinance is the epitome of what our founding fathers feared raw majoritarian processes by the majority against the minority.

What is the proper solution? Simple voters can replace any official they do not like during the next regular scheduled election by voting for someone else.

In the meantime, going-along-to-get-along only serves to protect the majority and the status quo.

Within our Republic form of government, true freedom also means the freedom to be wrong even for annoying politicians that say abrasive things.

Ordinances that enable the removal of elected officials by "censure" pose dangerous risks to our Republic form of Government. They basically amount to nothing less than "censorship" (spelled with an "o").

Richard Rothschild is a Republican county commissioner representing District 4.

The rest is here:

Rothschild: Censure is nothing but Censorship - Carroll County Times