"Your Nose Gets Longer"

[Rob Elsman]

I just watched a video of an Iowa state legislator saying, "Every time 'freedom' is said from the your side of the aisle, your noses get longer."

This dealing in personalities by, in effect, calling members of the other party liars (a la Pinocchio) is inflammatory and provocative. The chair should never let this sort of thing slip by, but should intervene immediately and demand the offender to apologize or withdraw the remark.

Edited July 11, 2023 at 09:41 PM by Rob Elsman

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

Actually, according to RONR 61:11, what the chair should do is "call the member to order." And according to RONR 61:13, "the chair has no authority to impose a penalty . . ."

[Rob Elsman]

Asking the offender to apologize or withdraw the offending remark is not the imposition of a punishment. Instead, it is a way to deal with the matter below the level of initiating a disciplinary procedure by "naming" the offender. If the offender will show genuine contrition by apologizing or withdrawing the remark, it will often be the case that a disciplinary procedure can be avoided (however, any member can raise a formal Point of Order). Of course, if the offender will not do so, the chair would have no choice but to "name" him.

In most assemblies, the handling of transgressions in debate can be, and often should be, informal if the result is the successful correction of the fault.

Edited July 11, 2023 at 08:25 PM by Rob Elsman

[Joshua Katz]

Okay. I'll agree that one side must be kept from calling the other liars, when the other side is kept from violently storming legislative proceedings.

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

On 7/11/2023 at 3:25 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Asking the offender to apologize or withdraw the offending remark is not the imposition of a punishment. Instead, it is a way to deal with the matter below the level of initiating a disciplinary procedure by "naming" the offender. If the offender will show genuine contrition by apologizing or withdrawing the remark, it will often be the case that a disciplinary procedure can be avoided (however, any member can raise a formal Point of Order). Of course, if the offender will not do so, the chair would have no choice but to "name" him.

In most assemblies, the handling of transgressions in debate can be, and often should be, informal if the result is the successful correction of the fault.

there's a big difference between "asking" the offender to apologize or withdraw," as in this post, and "demanding" it, as in your original post.

[Rob Elsman]

He does demand it under pain of the offender being "named". It's do it or else. That's hardly "asking".