BabbsJohnson Posted June 20, 2019 at 10:40 AM Report Share Posted June 20, 2019 at 10:40 AM (edited) It's not the same as saying "Do not trust this person" or "They are not trustworthy"... ? Added: The people in question have been lying to the board at large, as well as individual board members, and led the entire board into breaking state law. Edited June 20, 2019 at 11:43 AM by .oOllXllOo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 20, 2019 at 11:42 AM Report Share Posted June 20, 2019 at 11:42 AM There is no rule in RONR addressing this sort of question, and if it legitimately arises during a meeting of a deliberative assembly, that assembly will have to decide it. At least that assembly will have the benefit of knowing the context in which these words were uttered. The rule in RONR is as follows: "Debate must be confined to the merits of the pending question. Speakers must address their remarks to the chair, maintain a courteous tone, and—especially in reference to any divergence of opinion—should avoid injecting a personal note into debate. To this end, they must never attack or make any allusion to the motives of members." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted June 20, 2019 at 03:16 PM Report Share Posted June 20, 2019 at 03:16 PM I'm not sure how saying "I don't trust you" could be construed as anything but a personal attack. While saying this is a personal opinion the (quite clear in my opinion) insinuation is the person can't be trusted (even if only in this one person's opinion). Of course the assembly is free to take this statement with a grain (or ten trillion oceans worth) of salt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted June 20, 2019 at 04:33 PM Report Share Posted June 20, 2019 at 04:33 PM 5 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said: It's not the same as saying "Do not trust this person" or "They are not trustworthy"... ? Added: The people in question have been lying to the board at large, as well as individual board members, and led the entire board into breaking state law. It seems to me that, setting aside whether the statement constitutes a personal attack, the comment is out of order in any event in that it personally addresses another member (the use of the word “you”) and is very possibly out of order on the grounds that it is not germane to the pending question, depending on what the pending question is. I would note that saying in debate that “the people in question have been lying to the board at large, as well as individual board members, and led the entire board into breaking state law” would certainly not be in order. I am personally inclined to agree with Mr. Harrison on it being a personal attack. It seems to me to be no better than saying someone is untrustworthy. I also agree with Mr. Honemann, however, that it is ultimately a question for the assembly to decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted June 20, 2019 at 04:43 PM Report Share Posted June 20, 2019 at 04:43 PM I strongly agree with Messrs. Honemann and Martin. As Mr. Honemann is getting at, the words insert a personal note into the debate. As Mr. Martin points out, the words are, in effect, a characterization of the person as untrustworthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabbsJohnson Posted June 20, 2019 at 08:23 PM Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2019 at 08:23 PM (edited) 3 hours ago, reelsman said: I strongly agree with Messrs. Honemann and Martin. As Mr. Honemann is getting at, the words insert a personal note into the debate. As Mr. Martin points out, the words are, in effect, a characterization of the person as untrustworthy. So would the answer be to just present the evidence and let the discussion naturally explore/expose the territory of the lies and lawbreaking? Perhaps a motion to censure, or for the board to commit to not allow further law-breaking to take place? Edited June 20, 2019 at 08:24 PM by .oOllXllOo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted June 20, 2019 at 08:52 PM Report Share Posted June 20, 2019 at 08:52 PM Debate must be confined to the merits of the pending question. Only what has a direct bearing on whether or not it is advisable to do what the pending motion proposes to be done is allowed. Any kind of dealing in personalities is out of order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted June 20, 2019 at 09:45 PM Report Share Posted June 20, 2019 at 09:45 PM 1 hour ago, .oOllXllOo. said: So would the answer be to just present the evidence and let the discussion naturally explore/expose the territory of the lies and lawbreaking? Perhaps a motion to censure, or for the board to commit to not allow further law-breaking to take place? Some sort of motion where these comments would be germane would be made first, and the evidence would then be presented in debate (although depending on the nature of the accusations, formal disciplinary procedures may be required to fully explore them). A motion to censure would be one possible motion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts