Rule 43 - Decorum in Debate - application to proxies

[Guest T. Clark]

The Chair ruled under Rule 43, Decorum in Debate, that a member's proper name could not be used in a resolution before the body, only that individual's title.  A point of order raised the issue that the referenced member was, in fact and at the moment, only represented before the body through a proxy.  Do proxies negate the Rule 43 protections for individuals who are not present at the time of debate?

[George Mervosh]

1 hour ago, Guest T. Clark said:

The Chair ruled under Rule 43, Decorum in Debate, that a member's proper name could not be used in a resolution before the body, only that individual's title. 

This is not correct.  Including a member's name in a resolution is necessary in resolutions related to the disciplinary procedures in RONR, and very common in courtesy resolutions and has nothing to do with the actual debate of the resolution.

1 hour ago, Guest T. Clark said:

A point of order raised the issue that the referenced member was, in fact and at the moment, only represented before the body through a proxy.  

I have no clue what this means.

1 hour ago, Guest T. Clark said:

 Do proxies negate the Rule 43 protections for individuals who are not present at the time of debate?

The rules for decorum in debate are always applicable when any motion or resolution is being debated regardless of whether a member is present or not.

Edited May 12, 2021 at 06:23 PM by George Mervosh

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest T. Clark said:

The Chair ruled under Rule 43, Decorum in Debate, that a member's proper name could not be used in a resolution before the body, only that individual's title.

The chair's ruling was mistaken. There is no rule which provides that a member's name cannot be used in a resolution. There are rules pertaining to using a member's name in debate, but even then, to say that a member's name cannot be used at all somewhat overstates the rule on this matter.

"As much as possible, the use of names of members should be avoided in debate. It is better to describe a member in some other way, as by saying "the member who spoke last," or, "the delegate from Mason County." The officers of the society should always be referred to by their official titles." RONR (12th ed.) 43:23

1 hour ago, Guest T. Clark said:

A point of order raised the issue that the referenced member was, in fact and at the moment, only represented before the body through a proxy. 

Do proxies negate the Rule 43 protections for individuals who are not present at the time of debate?

The rules of decorum are applicable to all members, whether or not they are present and whether or not they are represented by a proxy.

In this particular case, however, there is no rule in Section 43 which says what the chair claims.

[Guest T. Clark]

Actually, RONR makes it clear that Rule 43 applies to the language of resolutions that are the topics of debate just as much as to the debate itself (See Art. IV, Section 23 - [objection] may be applied to petitions and to communications that are not from a superior body, as well as to resolutions.)  That point was never contested and is not in doubt now.  (No one would have questioned the chair's ruling had the person been present, as the resolution was not directed to the person, but merely referenced the person's actions and motives advocating on behalf of the policy addressed by the resolution.) The only question was whether the RONR Rule prohibiting calling out members of the body by name, assigning motives, etc., ceases to function if the member is not present in person, and is only represented via a proxy.  I take it from the responses above that the answer is "no."

[Richard Brown]

33 minutes ago, Guest T. Clark said:

Actually, RONR makes it clear that Rule 43 applies to the language of resolutions that are the topics of debate just as much as to the debate itself (See Art. IV, Section 23 - [objection] may be applied to petitions and to communications that are not from a superior body, as well as to resolutions.)

What particular section and subsection of the 12th edition of RONR are you referring to and relying on when you say that the full names of members should not be used in resolutions?  The 12th edition does not use articles and Section 23 is about points of order.  Also, I don't see what a member's presence or absence has to do with whether his full name may be used in a resolution about him.   Perhaps some more details will be helpful.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Guest T. Clark said:

Actually, RONR makes it clear that Rule 43 applies to the language of resolutions that are the topics of debate just as much as to the debate itself (See Art. IV, Section 23 - [objection] may be applied to petitions and to communications that are not from a superior body, as well as to resolutions.)

I would first note that you appear to be looking at the 4th edition of RONR, which was published in 1915. This is the version which is generally available on sites such as rulesonline.com, since that text is now in the public domain. We're on the 12th edition now, so you might want to update to the current version of The Right Book.

Even when looking at Section 43 of the 4th edition, however, I have no idea what language in that section you believe "makes it clear that Rule 43 applies to the language of resolutions that are the topics of debate just as much as to the debate itself."

The fact that an Objection to Consideration of the Question may be applied to petitions and to communications that are not from a superior body, as well as to resolutions, has absolutely nothing to do with the question you have asked.

I would clarify that I am not by any means suggesting that the rules of decorum are wholly inapplicable to the text of resolutions. The rule which provides that the names of members should not be used, however, is not applicable to resolutions.

RONR, in fact, contains numerous examples of resolutions which contain the names of members. See RONR (12th ed.) 4:46, 13:25, 15:19, 50:13, 59:82, 63:10, 63:19, 63:20, 63:22, 63:28.

2 hours ago, Guest T. Clark said:

That point was never contested and is not in doubt now.

I think it should be in doubt, at least in regard to the claim that a resolution cannot contain the name of a member. As noted above, this simply does not seem to be the case, given the numerous examples of resolutions with the names of members in the text.

I have no objection to the idea that, generally speaking, the rules of decorum are equally applicable to the text of resolutions, although some modifications must be made for resolutions to censure or discipline a member.

2 hours ago, Guest T. Clark said:

(No one would have questioned the chair's ruling had the person been present, as the resolution was not directed to the person, but merely referenced the person's actions and motives advocating on behalf of the policy addressed by the resolution.)

I would have led with that instead of the bit about name vs. title, since I think these are much larger concerns.

I am in agreement that a resolution which "merely referenced the person's actions and motives advocating on behalf of the policy" is generally not in order, whether or not the resolution uses the member's name or his title, and whether or not the member is present. It may be in order if the resolution is a motion to censure or discipline the person in question, although even in such cases, there are some limits on what language can be used.

2 hours ago, Guest T. Clark said:

The only question was whether the RONR Rule prohibiting calling out members of the body by name, assigning motives, etc., ceases to function if the member is not present in person, and is only represented via a proxy.  I take it from the responses above that the answer is "no."

I continue to note that describing RONR's rules regarding the use of names as a "prohibition" is not an accurate description of the rule on that subject, even as applied to debate, and certainly not as applied to the text of resolutions.

It is correct, however, that the rules of decorum which, for instance, provide that members must avoid personalities and must not attack the motives of another member remain applicable even if the member who is the subject of the attack is not present.

Edited May 12, 2021 at 09:55 PM by Josh Martin