Suspend the rules

[L. Thorson]

Our Board totals 11 directors. The membership of our society approximates 11,000. Our bylaws permit attendance of these members at regular and special meetings of the Board. It has been a practice that, on certain agenda items. the members of the organization, with Board approval, be permitted to speak. This is done under the "unanimous consent" rule as requested by the presiding officer. If a board member objects, a motion is made to suspend the rules (2/3rd vote) to permit the non-board member to speak. Question: 1) Is the director who "objects" required to give a reason? 2) If not required to give a reason for objecting, can the Director still retain the floor and give a reason for his "objection"? 3) If the motion is made to suspend the rules so that non-board member John Smith be permitted to speak, is such motion debatable?

[George Mervosh]

All, no.

[Trina]

Our Board totals 11 directors. The membership of our society approximates 11,000. Our bylaws permit attendance of these members at regular and special meetings of the Board. It has been a practice that, on certain agenda items. the members of the organization, with Board approval, be permitted to speak. This is done under the "unanimous consent" rule as requested by the presiding officer. If a board member objects, a motion is made to suspend the rules (2/3rd vote) to permit the non-board member to speak. Question: 1) Is the director who "objects" required to give a reason? 2) If not required to give a reason for objecting, can the Director still retain the floor and give a reason for his "objection"? 3) If the motion is made to suspend the rules so that non-board member John Smith be permitted to speak, is such motion debatable?

A motion to suspend the rules is not debatable. I'm assuming the 'unanimous consent' is being, in effect, applied to a tacit agreement to suspend the rules, and that the words 'suspend the rules' are only explicitly uttered when a board member objects. However, if you're essentially suspending the rules either way, I think the non-debatability should apply in all cases. (see RONR p. 52)

ETA:

Or, for much greater economy of language, see Mr. Mervosh's reply

[George Mervosh]

A motion to suspend the rules is not debatable. I'm assuming the 'unanimous consent' is being, in effect, applied to a tacit agreement to suspend the rules, and that the words 'suspend the rules' are only explicitly uttered when a board member objects. However, if you're essentially suspending the rules either way, I think the non-debatability should apply in all cases. (see RONR p. 52)

ETA:

Or, for much greater economy of language, see Mr. Mervosh's reply

I've learned from the best, Trina.