catalina Posted July 6, 2012 at 03:52 PM Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 at 03:52 PM I know that "point of information" is supposed to be for requesting information, not providing it. Is there a proper thing to say to provide information? Usually this seems to happen by people speaking out of turn or incorrectly saying "point of information," but no one seems to mind as long as the information is truly relevant (which it often is). For example, someone is saying, "We should find out X" and someone in the room already knows X and therefore prevents the waste of time of the body discussing how to find out X by saying X. How should this properly be handled?-Cat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted July 6, 2012 at 04:00 PM Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 at 04:00 PM The person providing information should properly seek recognition from the chair in order to take his turn in debate and provide the information.Imagine if every Tom Dick & Harry blurted out info when they thought it relevant, only to find the assembly found it useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 6, 2012 at 04:08 PM Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 at 04:08 PM The thing to enforce, if you can, is to require a "point of information" to always be a question.The new (11th) edition has realized the problem and no longer calls the "thing" a "point of information" but is now dubbed "Request for Information", p. 294.And who says that change is never for the good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted July 6, 2012 at 05:36 PM Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 at 05:36 PM The thing to enforce, if you can, is to require a "point of information" to always be a question.The new (11th) edition has realized the problem and no longer calls the "thing" a "point of information" but is now dubbed "Request for Information", p. 294....Dr Stackpole has nailed it. Once the Request for Information (which I see he somewhy calls a ""Request for Information"" -- I don't see why he thinks """ adds to clarity, maybe it's a MIT in-joke) is asked, the chair can pick out, in a sort of informal way, whoever would best supply the requested information. That, means relying on the circumspection and alertness of the chair -- but, remember that that's what you elected him for. (What else, his good looks, like John Kennedy vs. Richard Nixon in 1960? Elizabeth Holtzman vs. Emanuel Celler? Obama vs. Clinton?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catalina Posted July 7, 2012 at 03:24 PM Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2012 at 03:24 PM The person providing information should properly seek recognition from the chair in order to take his turn in debate and provide the information.Imagine if every Tom Dick & Harry blurted out info when they thought it relevant, only to find the assembly found it useless.Right. Well, as I said, people don't seem to mind if the information truly warrants interruption. As you say, no one likes if it doesn't. So it's not allowed in RONR under any other name, I take it (which would explain why I couldn't find it). What about "point of privilege"? I heard someone say that once. Could that be a proper way to relay information?Although I agree with you that it could be chaotic for people to be able to interrupt whenever they like, I also think there could be very negative consequences of the body not receiving information it truly needs in a timely manner. Imagine if a crucial fact is being left out, but the person who knows it already used up their time before the issue was raised. Interruptions can be annoying and disorderly, but lack of needed information can be disastrous for decision-making.-Cat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted July 7, 2012 at 03:56 PM Report Share Posted July 7, 2012 at 03:56 PM [snip] What about "point of privilege"? I heard someone say that once. Could that be a proper way to relay information?The odds are high that you observed an abuse, or a misuse (I'm not sure which -- probably both). So not likely.Although I agree with you that it could be chaotic for people to be able to interrupt whenever they like, I also think there could be very negative consequences of the body not receiving information it truly needs in a timely manner. Imagine if a crucial fact is being left out, but the person who knows it already used up their time before the issue was raised. Interruptions can be annoying and disorderly, but lack of needed information can be disastrous for decision-making.-Cat.I had one thought. It's a cross between a Request for Information and a Request For Anything (p. 299). Along the lines of this. INterrupting, and getting the chair's barely tolerant, "For what purpose does the member rise?"Catalina (or other member): Yes I have used up my speeches. But I know a critical fact here. MIght I have the assembly's permission to briefly state it, before the question is put to vote?"There's flaws, among them that my name is not Catalina, but if might fly.(7 tries) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted July 8, 2012 at 02:55 AM Report Share Posted July 8, 2012 at 02:55 AM If someone's got crucial info that must be relayed and not another turn to speak, he could relay the info to another member, or someone could move to suspend the rules to give the info guy another crack at the mike. But point of privilege is not the tool you want. That's useful when you want someone to speak up, or open the windows for air, lots of other stuff. But not for shouting out info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 9, 2012 at 12:09 AM Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 at 12:09 AM Point of privilege doesn't exist, so avoid using it. If some info will truly help the assembly, it will always be welcome. If members are abusing the motion Request for Information, the chair should put it to a stop, by reminding members of its proper use, which, by the way, includes reminding the speaker of a point or rebutting his position. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 295, ll. 20-23. If the chair hears a member seeking factual information in debate, he can tactfully parlay this into a Request for Information to be directed to another member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted July 10, 2012 at 05:27 AM Report Share Posted July 10, 2012 at 05:27 AM I suppose the Request for Information could be something along the lines of: "Mr. Chairman, is the mover aware of the fact that the person he's recommending has just been indicted for aggravated mopery?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.