where in roberts can I find rules of decorum that a chairman can enforce, such as when a member is impugning motives or attacking character, etc

[Guest Guest]

Can a member rise to object to the Chair and expect the Chair to stop another Member from impugning motives, attacking character, or alleging facts (conversations, emails) that are not available to all?    

[George Mervosh]

Can a member rise to object to the Chair and expect the Chair to stop another Member from impugning motives, attacking character, or alleging facts (conversations, emails) that are not available to all?    

 

"When a question is pending, a member can condemn the nature or likely consequences of the proposed measure in strong terms, but he must avoid personalities, and under no circumstances can he attack or question the motives of another member. The measure, not the member, is the subject of debate. If a member disagrees with a statement by another in regard to an event that both witnessed, he cannot state in debate that the other's statement "is false." But he might say, "I believe there is strong evidence that the member is mistaken." The moment the chair hears such words as "fraud," "liar," or "lie" used about a member in debate, he must act immediately and decisively to correct the matter and prevent its repetition (see 61)."  RONR (11th ed.),  p. 392 and elsewhere.

[Transpower]

When I'm the (paid) parliamentarian at a meeting I ask the Chair to read the following at the beginning:  

 

 

R U L E S   O F   D E C O R U M

 

 

1.  Speakers (except for officers/committee chairs reporting) must address their remarks to the Chair, maintain a courteous tone, and avoid injecting a personal note into debate or attacking others’ motives.

 

2.  Officers and committee chairs should come to the front left or front right to present their reports and address the body.

 

3.  Speakers should refer to officers by title only and should avoid the mention of other members’ names as much as possible.

 

4.  Remarks must be germane to the question before the assembly and should not be about a prior action not pending.

 

5.  Stand when wishing to speak and when speaking, otherwise sit.

 

6.  Refrain from disturbing the assembly by whispering to one another, walking out, etc.

[Timothy]

When I'm the (paid) parliamentarian at a meeting I ask the Chair to read the following at the beginning:  

 

 

 

Not that there's anything wrong with your Rules of Decorum, but unless the organization votes to adopt them, it doesn't seem like a set of rules that an outsider has asked the president to read is enforcable.

[jstackpo]

And keep in mind that we seem to be running parallel threads on this question.

[Josh Martin]

Can a member rise to object to the Chair and expect the Chair to stop another Member from impugning motives, attacking character, or alleging facts (conversations, emails) that are not available to all?    

 

I don't think "alleging facts (conversations, emails) that are not available to all," in and of itself, violates the rules of decorum (or any rule in RONR), although it certainly may be indecorous depending on the nature of the alleged facts. Impugning the motives or attacking the character of another member is highly inappropriate and should not be permitted.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with your Rules of Decorum, but unless the organization votes to adopt them, it doesn't seem like a set of rules that an outsider has asked the president to read is enforcable.

 

I agree, but this set of rules appears to largely be restating the rules in RONR. The only parts which seem new are Rule #2 and the part in Rule #1 about excepting reporting officers and committee chairmen from the rule requiring members to address their remarks through the chairman.

[Timothy]

...this set of rules appears to largely be restating the rules in RONR. The only parts which seem new are Rule #2 and the part in Rule #1 about excepting reporting officers and committee chairmen....

 

It was #2 that stood out to me as being something that might not apply to every organization that hires a parliamentarian.

[Josh Martin]

The only time an "objection" as such would be appropriate is if the call to dispense with the reading was not in the form of a motion but (as is quite common) in the form of a unanimous consent request:  "I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the minutes be dispensed with."

 

The chair would then say "If there is no objection...<pause>." and some member says "I object" or "Objection"

 

The chair would then assume the motion (which is not debatable) and say "Objection is heard. Those in favor of dispensing with the reading of the minutes say Aye..." and so on..

 

I think this post was intended for a different thread.

[Gary Novosielski]

I think this post was intended for a different thread.

Sure was. I have no clue how that happened, since I somehow managed to quote the right two posts. I wouldn't know how to do that if I tried.

[Timothy]

Sure was. I have no clue how that happened, since I somehow managed to quote the right two posts. I wouldn't know how to do that if I tried.

 

Copy paste?

[Gary Novosielski]

Copy paste?

Well, that's how I managed to get it where it belonged, but that's not how it went wrong.