Guest John Posted August 9, 2012 at 11:26 PM Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 at 11:26 PM Can a citizen call a Point of Order during a Council Meeting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted August 9, 2012 at 11:47 PM Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 at 11:47 PM Can a citizen call a Point of Order during a Council Meeting?If the citizen is a member of the Council, sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Posted August 9, 2012 at 11:54 PM Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 at 11:54 PM So, only a member of the Council can call a Point of Order even if a citizen in the council chambers who is attending the meeting knows that what is being said is false? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted August 10, 2012 at 12:55 AM Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 at 12:55 AM So, only a member of the Council can call a Point of Order even if a citizen in the council chambers who is attending the meeting knows that what is being said is false?That is correct. Also, the purpose of a Point of Order is to call for enforcement of the rules, not to point out falsehoods. The latter should be done during regular debate, and to comply with the rules of decorum, the other member would say that he believes the member is mistaken rather than outright claiming his statement is false (even if he knows it is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted August 10, 2012 at 06:02 AM Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 at 06:02 AM Josh (by which I mean I'm responding to Mr Martin's post, #4, and of course as usual all are invited, seasoned veterans like Foulkes and sMargaret, grumpy old guys like me and Honemann and Stackpole, and newbies like Cathie and RobertJ -- I think that's the one who agreed to read RonR-IB before breakfast yesterday, or maybe I hope every day), I've had some trouble with this. What do you make of the bottom of p. 31 in RONR - IB, with its effulgent yellow cover and fairly sturdy binding this time so far: "Mr President, the last speaker's final point doesn't really make sense"? Why do you (you means anybody, if you please, Mr Martin is not the only typist around here; that might be better as "y'all" to everybody in the American South and a woman in Massachusetts, or "youse guys" to a notable in Noo Joisey) figure that "it doesn't make sense" -- pointing at the statement, not at the speaker -- is neutral towards the speaker; while "it's not true" -- still pointing at the statement, not the speaker -- is unacceptable? To my mind, I'd think that "not true" could merely imply possession and transmission of erroneous facts, not mendacity; the other, though, starts to move the pointing finger from the obviously senseless statement, which is explicitly acceptable, to the clearly deranged member, which, as you (Josh this time, not everybody) point out, is unacceptable.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted August 10, 2012 at 06:02 AM Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 at 06:02 AM (Huzzah, I didn't digress this time!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted August 10, 2012 at 03:58 PM Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 at 03:58 PM I agree that characterizing a presumably factual statement as being other-than-factual is not necessarily the same as calling the statement a lie, or its maker a liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted August 12, 2012 at 05:09 PM Report Share Posted August 12, 2012 at 05:09 PM So, only a member of the Council can call a Point of Order even if a citizen in the council chambers who is attending the meeting knows that what is being said is false?That is correct. Also, the purpose of a Point of Order is to call for enforcement of the rules, not to point out falsehoods. The latter should be done during regular debate, and to comply with the rules of decorum, the other member would say that he believes the member is mistaken rather than outright claiming his statement is false (even if he knows it is).Josh (by which I mean I'm responding to Mr Martin's post, #4, and of course as usual all are invited, . . . I've had some trouble with this. What do you make of the bottom of p. 31 in RONR - IB, . . . : "Mr President, the last speaker's final point doesn't really make sense"? Why do you . . . figure that "it doesn't make sense" -- pointing at the statement, not at the speaker -- is neutral towards the speaker; while "it's not true" -- still pointing at the statement, not the speaker -- is unacceptable? To my mind, I'd think that "not true" could merely imply possession and transmission of erroneous facts, not mendacity; the other, though, starts to move the pointing finger from the obviously senseless statement, which is explicitly acceptable, to the clearly deranged member, which, as you (Josh this time, not everybody) point out, is unacceptable. [non-digressions omitted]Notice how the last poster's argument, whose final point doesn't really make sense, cleverly responds to an exhortation regarding "outright claiming [the member's] statement is false" with pointed musings about why there should be anything unacceptable about statements of "it's not true." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted August 12, 2012 at 05:46 PM Report Share Posted August 12, 2012 at 05:46 PM So, only a member of the Council can call a Point of Order even if a citizen in the council chambers who is attending the meeting knows that what is being said is false?Even if the parliamentarian notices a violation of the rules that would have a sizable effect on the assembly, only a member can raise a point of order. The exception would be a nonmember presiding officer, who can raise a question of order on his own accord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.