Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Can the rules of decorum be suspended?


BabbsJohnson
 Share

Recommended Posts

I saw a parliamentarian comment in a blog post that the rules of decorum cannot be suspended, but I’m not finding the entry in RONR that explicitly says they cannot be suspended.

 It does say on page 264 line 6 & 7 that rules protecting a basic right of the individual member cannot be suspended, so I don’t know if decorum is included in the individual rights of a member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BabbsJohnson said:

I saw a parliamentarian comment in a blog post that the rules of decorum cannot be suspended, but I’m not finding the entry in RONR that explicitly says they cannot be suspended.

 It does say on page 264 line 6 & 7 that rules protecting a basic right of the individual member cannot be suspended, so I don’t know if decorum is included in the individual rights of a member.

In theory, the rules relating to decorum can be suspended. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

If they are suspended, is a person behaving well, with decorum, in violation of the rules?

Does suspending the rules of decorum create a replacement rule that supposes those in the assembly are to act in opposition to those rules, in order to be in compliance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BabbsJohnson said:

Can they be permanently suspended, as a special rule of order, or ?

An assembly could adopt a special rule of order that would remove some or all of the rules relating to decorum.  The rules relating to decorum could be suspended. 

I would question the wisdom of doing so, but the assembly could do it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, J. J. said:

An assembly could adopt a special rule of order that would remove some or all of the rules relating to decorum.  The rules relating to decorum could be suspended. 

I would question the wisdom of doing so, but the assembly could do it. 

That is unfortunate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, J. J. said:

In theory, the rules relating to decorum can be suspended. 

How exactly? It's not in order, so far as I know, to simply suspend a specific rule or set of rules. Rather, we suspend the rules for the purpose of doing something. So would the motion here be to suspend the rules for the purpose of allowing me to insult people in debate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

So would the motion here be to suspend the rules for the purpose of allowing me to insult people in debate?

I thought about the exact same thing.

However, my take was not that it suspended one of the nine issues mentioned on pages 392-394, but that the motion for the suspension could be ruled out of order given the fact that its adoption would not contribute in any way to the disposing of the pending question. The only decorum issue that can go either way is the reading of papers, but there is a motion for requesting that permission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddly enough (and foolishly), a motion to suspend the rules that interfere with making a particular indecorous remark in debate is theoretically possible, but, for the life of me, I cannot think of any instance why a rational person would want to do such a thing. I have never seen nor heard of this. It just does not seem real to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

How exactly? It's not in order, so far as I know, to simply suspend a specific rule or set of rules. Rather, we suspend the rules for the purpose of doing something. So would the motion here be to suspend the rules for the purpose of allowing me to insult people in debate?

To suspend the rules and permit the members to talk directly to each other.  To suspend the rules and permit the members to use unparliamentary language. 

You could attach the various rules together in one motion.

You could also move to suspend the rules and prohibit any points of order on the violation of decorum from being entertained. 

I would not recommend it, but it could be done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, J. J. said:

To suspend the rules and permit the members to use unparliamentary language. 

But...  the example of suspend the rules is "I  move to suspend the rules and [do something]", not "... suspend the rule prohibiting bad language" because there is no rule, in RONR, explicitly prohibiting bad language. You can't suspend a rule that doesn't exist.

So the only "proper" way to suspend decorum would be, for example: "I move to suspend the rules and call you a complete [bleeping] idiot", which rather defeats the purpose.

Edited by jstackpo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jstackpo said:

So the only "proper" way to suspend decorum would be, for example: "I move to suspend the rules and call you a complete [bleeping] idiot", which rather defeats the purpose.

Oh, I don't know. . . It seems to me the purpose would have been achieved rather well regardless of whether the rules get suspended. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, jstackpo said:

But...  the example of suspend the rules is "I  move to suspend the rules and [do something]", not "... suspend the rule prohibiting bad language" because there is no rule, in RONR, explicitly prohibiting bad language. You can't suspend a rule that doesn't exist.

So the only "proper" way to suspend decorum would be, for example: "I move to suspend the rules and call you a complete [bleeping] idiot", which rather defeats the purpose.

You can suspend the rules for an entire session, so I don't see your point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

A further point:  even if the motion to suspend (and call you an idiot) is defeated, I have still called you an idiot.  And this (defeated) motion goes in the minutes, too.

All of which is to say that suspending decorum rules, in order to behave badly, doesn't make much sense.  

I would that out of order, based on p. 344; when you make the motion and use the word "idiot," that would violate an in force rule. 

A motion "to suspend the rules and permit Dr. Stackpole to use unparliamentary language," would be in order.  If adopted, you then could call someone an idiot, because the rule on p. 344 is not in effect.  Timing is everything.  :)

I would also question on why an incidental motion to suspend the rules would need to be in the minutes.

Edited by J. J.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...