Suspension of the rules

[Guest Jim]

When business is about to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with the rules, may an aware chair

• choose to say nothing, and construe the failure of a point of order to be raised as the equivalent of general consent or, if not,
  
• indicate that while the business is inconsistent with "the rules", if there is no objection, s/he will allow it or, if not,
  

provided the chair does identify, to the assembly, the rule that interferes with the proposed handling (or consideration, at all) of the business, may the chair then propose that if there is no objection, s/he will allow it?

or, even without asking for or hearing objection, is the chair required to actually establish to call for the votes in favor of and against the suspension?

[Gary c Tesser]

... may an aware chair ... * choose to say nothing, and construe the failure of a point of order to be raised as the equivalent of general consent ?

Not properly. May an aware chair rob a bank, if he will get away with it?

... may an aware chair ... * indicate that while the business is inconsistent with "the rules", if there is no objection, s/he will allow it?

A slightly trickier approach to fancy-dancing around what is required to legitimately achieve general consent, but still no soap.

provided the chair does identify, to the assembly, the rule that interferes with the proposed handling (or consideration, at all) of the business, may the chair then propose that if there is no objection, s/he will allow it?

If this is not real general consent, slightly rephrased, letting the members know that they have a right to object, then I'm not seeing the distinction. Why bother?

What's with this aversion to just plain asking for general consent?

[Gary c Tesser]

On second thought, maybe the middle example is soapy enough. But pfui.

[David A Foulkes]

With regard to the duties of the Chair, while "strict enforcement of the rules" might "hinder business" in some cases, "the only safe course is to require a strict observance of the rules." (RONR 11, p. 456 ll. 14-21, excerpted) A Chair who knowingly and willingly allows the rules to be subverted, or actively seeks to accommodate such a practice, is failing in his duty.

[Guest Guest]

Perhaps an example of what kind of rules violation the original poster has in mind would help. Chairs need not be more strict than is necessary but often it is necessary to strictly adhere to the rules as cited by Mr. Foulkes

[Gary c Tesser]

Thanks, men (and perhaps androgynous Guest_Guest); that's what I was groping at regarding the middle example.

[Guest Jim]

With regard to the duties of the Chair, while "strict enforcement of the rules" might "hinder business" in some cases, "the only safe course is to require a strict observance of the rules." (RONR 11, p. 456 ll. 14-21, excerpted) A Chair who knowingly and willingly allows the rules to be subverted, or actively seeks to accommodate such a practice, is failing in his duty.

As a member of a Board of 37 directors plus staff, I sometime feel alone in desiring consistency in the practices followed: a chair and/or paid staff have regularly placed new business on the agenda, to be presented by guests who had requested or been requested to come at a certain times, despite that the Board had not previously discussed, let alone agreed to such times inconsistent with the order of business, let alone for the business in question to come before the Board at all, there taking priority over reports and general orders. Or, any issue likely to be polarizing, despite its import, has appeared almost invariably on the draft agenda at the end of the day, and seems always accepted, in silence, to remain there.

The trick I have been finding is to mind that such calls for enforcement not "hinder business" or even be construed as such.

My question was therefore directed at achieving a sense of how hard I might both legitimately, and perhaps reasonably, push for others in the assembly to be mindful of and, on occasion, to assert (or support a right to) active rather than active decision-making. Even if that will entail some dissent.

[Josh Martin]

may an aware chair...

choose to say nothing, and construe the failure of a point of order to be raised as the equivalent of general consent or, if not,

Absolutely not.

indicate that while the business is inconsistent with "the rules", if there is no objection, s/he will allow it or, if not,

I think you have the right idea now, but specifically, the chair should say "If there is no objection, we will suspend the rules and consider the motion to (whatever). (Pause to wait for objection.) Seeing none, the rules are suspended and..."

In this case, the chair is assuming the motion to Suspend the Rules and requesting unanimous consent. See Official Interpretation 2007-1 for more information on when the device of assuming a motion is appropriate. Additionally, it is worth noting that in some cases, rules cannot be suspended, even by unanimous consent.

provided the chair does identify, to the assembly, the rule that interferes with the proposed handling (or consideration, at all) of the business, may the chair then propose that if there is no objection, s/he will allow it?

It's not necessary to identify the specific rule.

or, even without asking for or hearing objection, is the chair required to actually establish to call for the votes in favor of and against the suspension?

No. If it's appropriate to assume the motion, it's probably also appropriate to request unanimous consent.

As a member of a Board of 37 directors plus staff, I sometime feel alone in desiring consistency in the practices followed: a chair and/or paid staff have regularly placed new business on the agenda, to be presented by guests who had requested or been requested to come at a certain times, despite that the Board had not previously discussed, let alone agreed to such times inconsistent with the order of business, let alone for the business in question to come before the Board at all, there taking priority over reports and general orders. Or, any issue likely to be polarizing, despite its import, has appeared almost invariably on the draft agenda at the end of the day, and seems always accepted, in silence, to remain there.

There appear to be a few misconceptions here:

• Establishing a special order, or adopting an agenda which contains special orders, doesn't require a suspension of the rules (although it does require a 2/3 vote). A special order essentially is a suspension of the rules, but much like the rules for motions to limit debate, it comes up often enough that there are rules in place for handling special orders. It's also not strictly necessary for the chair to point out that the agenda contains special orders... although it might not be a bad idea if the assembly is unfamiliar with the term (which is likely the case). Clarifying that a 2/3 vote is required for adoption would also be a good idea.
  

• Permitting guests to speak doesn't require a suspension of the rules... unless you're permitting them to speak in debate on a pending motion. Otherwise, a majority vote or unanimous consent is sufficient.
  

• There's no need for the board's permission for business to come before the board. Even if the board refused to put an item on the agenda, two board members (a mover and a seconder) can still bring it before the board during New Business.
  

I do think these are all very appropriate instances for the chair to use the device of assuming a motion and requesting unanimous consent.

The trick I have been finding is to mind that such calls for enforcement not "hinder business" or even be construed as such.

My question was therefore directed at achieving a sense of how hard I might both legitimately, and perhaps reasonably, push for others in the assembly to be mindful of and, on occasion, to assert (or support a right to) active rather than active decision-making. Even if that will entail some dissent.

Well, as far as "legitimately" is concerned, you are always free to raise an objection to unanimous consent (even if the chair has failed to ask for objections), which will force a formal vote. If the chair brushes past this you could use a Point of Order, and even an Appeal if necessary. You might also want to keep that Point of Order handy if he declares the agenda adopted when there were fewer than 2/3 in the affirmative. The motion to adopt the agenda is both debatable and amendable, so you can debate it and make amendments to try to change it more to your liking. I also believe permitting a guest to speak while no motion is pending is debatable, but a motion to Suspend the Rules is not debatable.

As far as "reasonably" goes, that depends largely on the members of the board. So my advice would be to talk to them and see if any others feel the same way you do. To accomplish your goals, you'll need a third of the board in some cases and a majority in others. Even if you can get a small majority on your side, other members might see more likely your actions as legitimate dissent rather than just being a pain.