"Appoint" and "Establish" Confusion in RONR

[jstackpo]

Here's my rant:

 

p. 472 and (many) later (and some earlier) pages, Possible Confusion of Meanings of Appoint & Establish as Applied to Committees:

 

The strict dictionary meaning of “appoint” is “to name a person or people to” a position or a committee or the like.  It does not denote the actual formation of a committee with instructions of what to do, when to report, &c.  A proper word for that would be to “establish” a committee.  For the most part, the discussion of the motion to commit (p. 168 ff.) is a description of how to properly establish a committee, with the specifics of how to appoint people to the committee treated as a portion of the “necessary details of the motion”, p. 171.

 

Unfortunately, later on in RONR (and, to be sure, in common usage in the real world), “appoint” frequently takes on the double meaning of “Establish and Appoint (i.e., name people to)” a committee.  This can lead to confusion if the proper meanings of the words are not strictly adhered to.  The first of those “double meaning” appoints shows up in the sample minutes on p. 472, line 21. It isn’t particularly serious, but a special committee has to be established (presumably by a motion), before anybody can be appointed to serve on the committee.  Or at least the establishment of and appointment(s) to the committee have to be in the same motion, as separate portions.

 

There are any number of (not particularly confusing) uses of “appoint” elsewhere in the book where it might be clearer to say “established and appointed”  or even just “established”.  A clear example of the latter is on p. 490, line 23: “a committee is appointed ‘with power’ ”.  Clearly the “with power” attribute of a committee is part of the establishment of the committee, and has nothing to do with who or how people are named to serve on the committee.  Later, on the same page, line 34, “establish” is used quite correctly.

 

Another glaring example is back on p. 26, line 9.  As written there, it says that the people serving on the committee will cease to exist when their work is done. A purge?

 

A more substantial confusion point, that the book recognizes and attempts to clear up, is on p. 495, lines 30-36 (plus one line on the next page).  But even here, confusion is apparent: line 31 speaks, correctly, of the president “appoint[ing] all committees”, but then lines 34-35 speak of  the assembly directing a committee to be “appointed”.  Clearly that last “appointed” has to be “established” or the sentence is self-contradictory.

 

Another example is on p. 496, lines 25-26, where "appoint" takes on the two different meanings (first "establish", and then "name people to") in the very same sentence! Taken literally as written, the sentence is meaningless. 

 

I realize that this is a lot of complaining about just one or two words, but a careful editing of "appoint" wherever it occurs in the book (many more places than I have mentioned here) to make it clear whether "establish", or "establish and appoint (name people to)", or just plain "appoint" is the exact intended meaning would help to clear things up substantially.  Reading RONR is hard enough; no need to throw additional barriers of understanding at the struggling reader.

 

[Josh Martin]

Here's my rant:

 

p. 472 and (many) later (and some earlier) pages, Possible Confusion of Meanings of Appoint & Establish as Applied to Committees:

 

The strict dictionary meaning of “appoint” is “to name a person or people to” a position or a committee or the like.  It does not denote the actual formation of a committee with instructions of what to do, when to report, &c.  A proper word for that would be to “establish” a committee.  For the most part, the discussion of the motion to commit (p. 168 ff.) is a description of how to properly establish a committee, with the specifics of how to appoint people to the committee treated as a portion of the “necessary details of the motion”, p. 171.

 

Unfortunately, later on in RONR (and, to be sure, in common usage in the real world), “appoint” frequently takes on the double meaning of “Establish and Appoint (i.e., name people to)” a committee.  This can lead to confusion if the proper meanings of the words are not strictly adhered to.  The first of those “double meaning” appoints shows up in the sample minutes on p. 472, line 21. It isn’t particularly serious, but a special committee has to be established (presumably by a motion), before anybody can be appointed to serve on the committee.  Or at least the establishment of and appointment(s) to the committee have to be in the same motion, as separate portions.

 

There are any number of (not particularly confusing) uses of “appoint” elsewhere in the book where it might be clearer to say “established and appointed”  or even just “established”.  A clear example of the latter is on p. 490, line 23: “a committee is appointed ‘with power’ ”.  Clearly the “with power” attribute of a committee is part of the establishment of the committee, and has nothing to do with who or how people are named to serve on the committee.  Later, on the same page, line 34, “establish” is used quite correctly.

 

Another glaring example is back on p. 26, line 9.  As written there, it says that the people serving on the committee will cease to exist when their work is done. A purge?

 

A more substantial confusion point, that the book recognizes and attempts to clear up, is on p. 495, lines 30-36 (plus one line on the next page).  But even here, confusion is apparent: line 31 speaks, correctly, of the president “appoint[ing] all committees”, but then lines 34-35 speak of  the assembly directing a committee to be “appointed”.  Clearly that last “appointed” has to be “established” or the sentence is self-contradictory.

 

Another example is on p. 496, lines 25-26, where "appoint" takes on the two different meanings (first "establish", and then "name people to") in the very same sentence! Taken literally as written, the sentence is meaningless. 

 

I realize that this is a lot of complaining about just one or two words, but a careful editing of "appoint" wherever it occurs in the book (many more places than I have mentioned here) to make it clear whether "establish", or "establish and appoint (name people to)", or just plain "appoint" is the exact intended meaning would help to clear things up substantially.  Reading RONR is hard enough; no need to throw additional barriers of understanding at the struggling reader.

 

In many cases, "appointing" and "establishing" a special committee are synonymous. If, for instance, a member moves to refer the pending motion to a special committee of Mr. X, Mr. Y, and Mr, Z, with Mr. X serving as the chair, the "appointing" and "establishing" are completed in the same action. This does, unfortunately, lead to confusion in cases where the terms are not synonymous. In particular, it is problematic when the President is authorized to appoint all committees. It does seem that greater clarity in this regard may be desirable.

 

I suspect the point I noted above explains the use of "appoint" in most of your examples. As for pg. 495, I think the sentence is worded entirely correctly. The assembly does not direct a committee to be established - it actually establishes it. By doing so, it directs the President to appoint its members.

[jstackpo]

p. 496, lines 25-26, as written is complete nonsense.

 

Unless you are willing to actually change the meaning of "appoint" in mid-reading.  Not the way English is normally taught.

[Guest Edgar]

I read somewhere that the 13th edition will no longer use the word "expunge" to describe the retention of legible text.

 

Note: This comment has been expunged because of its off-topic content.

 

[Dan Honemann]

All of JDStackpole's concerns, as expressed here, were taken into consideration during the preparation of the Eleventh Edition.

[Shmuel Gerber]

All of JDStackpole's concerns, as expressed here, were taken into consideration during the preparation of the Eleventh Edition.

 

But maybe we'll still appoint a committee to take them into consideration again for the Twelfth?