Josh Martin

No. If remote meetings are not authorized by your constitution, you cannot have them. No. If you proceed with this vote and with the actions ordered by it notwithstanding that it is not in order to do so, you will indeed need to move ratify the vote (or perhaps more precisely, any actions taken pursuant to the vote) at an in-person meeting with a quorum present. Note that the consequences of the actions not being ratified can be pretty severe. So I would probably advise any of those responsible for carrying out those actions to consider, for their own safety, whether there is strong support for this motion and whether it absolutely must be done now. Maybe something like this: "I move to ratify the following emergency actions taken by the society's officers, taken pursuant to an informal poll of the membership conducted by mail: (description of actions)."

Since I have a soft spot for student governments, I would note if you were to become a member of this forum and send me a private message on this subject, I would be willing to exchange email addresses in order to further advise you on this matter. I concur with Mr. Katz, however, that a full review of an organization's bylaws in the forum itself is not appropriate.

Yes, provided the other motion takes precedence over the motion for the Previous Question. "The subsidiary motion for the Previous Question: ...yields to the subsidiary motion to Lay on the Table, to all privileged motions, and to all applicable incidental motions." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 198) Ultimately, yes. The situation is complicated a bit because an undebatable motion is immediately pending, and therefore, recognition is in order only for limited purposes. Depending on the chair's confidence in the member's understanding of the parliamentary situation the chair may, at his option, immediately recognize the member (and then call him to order if it turns out what he is trying to do is not presently in order), or in the alternative, ask the member for what purpose he seeks recognition, and then determine whether to recognize the member based upon his answer. "Whenever a member rises and addresses the chair at a time when the floor can be granted only for limited purposes and the chair is not certain that the member understands this fact—for example, when an undebatable question is immediately pending as explained on page 380—the chair, before recognizing the member, should ask, "For what purpose does the member [or "the gentleman," or "the lady," or, as in Congress, "the gentlewoman"] rise?" If members remain seated around a conference table and do not rise, the chair may ask, "For what purpose does the member address the chair?"" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 377) Well, in that event, the chair should have called both delegates to order and not stated the question on either of their motions, as both of them require recognition. So that's something to get right for next time. I would not categorically answer "yes" or "no" to this question. It depends on the incidental motion to be made, and on what the immediately pending question is. In this specific instance, I believe it is in order to make a motion of this nature (although I believe this particular motion is out of order for other reasons, as discussed below). The rules for the motion to Suspend the Rules do not specifically say that it must "adhere" to the immediately pending question in order to take precedence. Instead, it says "When business is pending, Suspend the Rules takes precedence over any motion if it is for a purpose connected with that motion." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 260) In my view, a motion related to voting is sufficiently connected to a motion for the Previous Question, provided that it relates to one or more of the motion(s) the Previous Question applies to. Additionally, I would note that the text specifically notes that Motions Related to Methods of Voting and the Polls "can be moved while an order for the Previous Question is in effect on the votes to which they apply. They yield to the privileged motions, and to a motion to Lay on the Table moved while the question to which they are applied is pending." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 283) Although it is not entirely clear, my reading of these sentences is that such a motion would also take precedence over a pending motion for the Previous Question, even although the motion is related to the method of voting on the main motion and not the Previous Question. While the motion Delegate B proposes is, strictly speaking, a motion to Suspend the Rules and not a Motion Related to Methods of Voting and the Polls, it seems sufficiently similar in kind that the same logic would apply. No, it is absolutely not in order, and I agree with your reasoning as to why. So to sum up, the member may seek recognition to make a motion such as the one he proposed, but the particular motion he proposed should be ruled out of order by the chairman. Therefore, it appears that (other than the fact that the chair needs to remind members that they need to seek recognition before making these motions), everything happened as it should have.

Yes, it is okay, and they can do that. It is called unanimous consent. It is a very common way of conducting most business in committees and small boards. If and when a member objects (which apparently has yet to occur), a vote would need to be taken. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 54-56 for a discussion of unanimous consent. I concur with Mr. Kapur that it should be made clear to members that they have the right to object if they wish to do so. I would say "approval" rather than "ratification." The latter has a particular meaning in parliamentary law which I doubt is what was intended here. In any event, this is how things usually work. In the event such a situation arises, the committee should select a different member of the committee to act as reporting member in this instance, since it is not really ideal for anyone for a person who is not in favor of the recommendation to report on it. It is awkward for the reporting member, and the committee is best served by having a supporter of the recommendation act as its spokesman. It appears in this situation that only the committee chairmen are members of the parent assembly, and therefore the permission of the parent assembly will be necessary, but one hopes that the parent assembly will see the wisdom of this and grant such permission. Additionally, since the reporting member is not a member of the Executive Committee, someone who is a member of the Executive Committee will need to make the motion. If this advice is followed, the committee chairman is not obligated to go with what his committee voted on, and he is free to use his voice at the Executive Committee to persuade them to override a decision made in the committee he chairs. Committee members are not bound by any sort of "gag order." They remain free to express their own opinions at the parent assembly. If the committee and/or its parent assembly unwisely choose to not follow the above advice, then I suppose the next best thing would be for the committee chairman to present the committee's recommendation but not move its adoption. Another member of the executive committee would move its adoption. The committee chairman is obligated in such a case to faithfully present the committee's report as agreed to by the committee, but he is not obligated to speak in favor of it, and is still free to speak against it. If for some reason the committee chairman both presents the committee's recommendation and moves its adoption (which would be rather unusual for a motion he opposes), he would be obligated to faithfully present the committee's report as agreed to by the committee, and would be prohibited from speaking against it, but he would still not be obligated to speak in favor of it.

If your executive committee has been granted the power to take the action in question by your rules or by the membership, there is no need for the action to be ratified by the membership (unless your rules so provide). If your executive committee has not been granted the power to take the action in question, and it nevertheless does so anyway, yes, the membership could ratify this action (assuming the membership has the power to take this action). It would not be correct, however, to say that such an action is "in place until the next meeting of the entire membership." If action is taken in this manner, it is not an authorized action of the society unless and until it is ratified, and members take the action at their own risk. It is important to understand this distinction, as it means that if the action is not ratified, the consequences can be quite severe, such as disciplining the members of the executive committee, or requiring them to pay the society back for any unauthorized expenditures.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. It's so much whether an organization "has to" use parliamentary procedure. If an organization is in the nature of a deliberative assembly, it is using parliamentary procedure, whether the organization realizes it or not. A particular organization may well use parliamentary procedure in a manner which is very different than the common parliamentary law, but the group is still using parliamentary procedure. Saying that a deliberative assembly isn't using parliamentary procedure is like saying someone who is speaking a different language isn't speaking language at all. "Parliamentary law originally was the name given to the rules and customs for carrying on business in the English Parliament that were developed through a continuing process of decisions and precedents somewhat like the growth of the common law. These rules and customs, as brought to America with the settling of the New World, became the basic substance from which the practice of legislative bodies in the United States evolved. Out of early American legislative procedure and paralleling it in further development has come the general parliamentary law, or common parliamentary law, of today, which is adapted to the needs of organizations and assemblies of widely differing purposes and conditions. In legislative bodies, there is often recourse to the general parliamentary law in situations not covered by the rules or precedents of the particular body—although some of the necessary procedure in such a case must be proper to that type of assembly alone. The kind of gathering in which parliamentary law is applicable is known as a deliberative assembly. This expression was used by Edmund Burke to describe the English Parliament, in a speech to the electorate at Bristol in 1774; and it became the basic term for a body of persons meeting (under conditions detailed on pp. 1–2) to discuss and determine upon common action. Acting under the general parliamentary law, any deliberative assembly can formally adopt written rules of procedure which, as fully explained on pages 15 ff., can confirm, add to, or deviate from parliamentary law itself. As indicated above, the term rules of order, in its proper sense, refers to any written parliamentary rules so adopted, whether they are contained in a manual or have been specially composed by the adopting body. The term parliamentary procedure, although frequently used synonymously with parliamentary law, refers in this book to parliamentary law as it is followed in any given assembly or organization, together with whatever rules of order the body may have adopted." (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. xxix-xxx) "A deliberative assembly—the kind of gathering to which parliamentary law is generally understood to apply—has the following distinguishing characteristics: • It is a group of people, having or assuming freedom to act in concert, meeting to determine, in full and free discussion, courses of action to be taken in the name of the entire group. • The group meets in a single room or area or under equivalent conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants. • Persons having the right to participate—that is, the members—are ordinarily free to act within the assembly according to their own judgment. • In any decision made, the opinion of each member present has equal weight as expressed by vote—through which the voting member joins in assuming direct personal responsibility for the decision, should his or her vote be on the prevailing side. • Failure to concur in a decision of the body does not constitute withdrawal from the body. • If any members are absent—as is usually the case in any formally organized assembly such as a legislative body or the assembly of an ordinary society—the members present at a regular or properly called meeting act for the entire membership, subject only to such limitations as may be established by the body's governing rules (see "quorum of members," however, p. 21; also 40). The rules in this book are principally applicable to meeting bodies possessing all of the foregoing characteristics. Certain of these parliamentary rules or customs may sometimes also find application in other gatherings which, although resembling the deliberative assembly in varying degrees, do not have all of its attributes as listed above." (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 1-2) If these characteristics reasonably describe a group (even if they may not be precisely correct in every respect), then that group is in the nature of a deliberative assembly. As a result, it is using parliamentary procedure. Since your group has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority, I assume that your group is in the nature of a deliberative assembly, as it would make no sense for a group which is not in the nature of a deliberative assembly to adopt RONR. Groups are not "legally required" to use parliamentary procedure. Groups which are not in the nature of a deliberative assembly do not use parliamentary procedure. If I'm at a meeting at work, that isn't a deliberative assembly. We might all express our opinions, but ultimately there is one person (the boss) who makes the final decision. If a group is a deliberative assembly, however, it is using parliamentary procedure, because parliamentary procedure is the rules and practices used by deliberative assemblies. So your organization is already using parliamentary procedure. As a result, there is no need for anything in your rules saying you have to use it. Since you are already using parliamentary procedure, the only remaining question is what parliamentary procedure to use. Your organization has answered that question by adopting RONR as its parliamentary authority (as well as whatever other rules you have adopted). "When a society or an assembly has adopted a particular parliamentary manual—such as this book—as its authority, the rules contained in that manual are binding upon it in all cases where they are not inconsistent with the bylaws (or constitution) of the body, any of its special rules of order, or any provisions of local, state, or national law applying to the particular type of organization. What another manual may have to say in conflict with the adopted parliamentary authority then has no bearing on the case. In matters on which an organization's adopted parliamentary authority is silent, provisions found in other works on parliamentary law may be persuasive—that is, they may carry weight in the absence of overriding reasons for following a different course—but they are not binding on the body." (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 16-17)

There is nothing in RONR governing this situation. The organizations are free to adopt their own rules on this matter in their bylaws. There may also be relevant provisions in applicable law which provide guidance. In any event, it certainly does not constitute “a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization.” RONR has no rules regarding conflicts of interest generally.

If by "information items" you mean the reports of officers, boards, committees, and the like, such reports may only formally be given at a meeting. So these would need to be given at the next meeting. That does not necessarily mean they must be on the agenda. The minutes are a record of what happened at the meeting, so the minutes should not reflect that these reports were made if this did not, in fact, occur. If by "information items" you mean something else, then RONR has no rules concerning such matters, and it is up to the assembly what to do with them. Such items certainly do not belong in the minutes of the meeting, since they did not occur during the meeting, and since such items are not business in the parliamentary sense, it's quite possible they would not belong in the minutes even if they had occurred during the meeting.

It is correct that the nominating committee is not limited to nominating more than one person per position, but RONR does not advise requiring the committee to do so. Instead, if members are dissatisfied with the nominations from the committee, they can simply make nominations from the floor. RONR does not, however, forbid the society from adopting such a rule (and cannot do so, since the society's rules take precedence over RONR). "Although it is not common for the nominating committee to nominate more than one candidate for any office, the committee can do so unless the bylaws prohibit it. It is usually not sound to require the committee to nominate more than one candidate for each office, since the committee can easily circumvent such a provision by nominating only one person who has any chance of being elected (see also p. 573)." (RONR 11th ed., pg. 433) It should be noted that even if this rule was adopted, nominations from the floor (and write-in votes) are still in order, so members are not limited to voting for one of the two persons nominated by the committee. Additionally, it is true that there is no definition of the word "slate" in RONR. In the book, the list of nominees made by the nominating committee is referred to simply as the committee's report. I advise avoiding the use of the word "slate." Finally, I would note that there is no "Section 66" in the current edition of RONR. I expect you are reading the 4th edition, since that edition (published in 1915) is in the public domain and is readily available online. You might want to update to the 21st century - especially since some of your questions involve online meetings. The 4th edition has very little to say on that subject. RONR recommends that the President should not be a member of the nomination committee, but beyond that, it leaves it to the judgment of the organization who should sit on the nominating committee. The organization is free to appoint whoever it sees fit to the committee, unless the organization's rules provide otherwise. Well, I would first note that the organization may only meet online if so authorized by its bylaws. Assuming that hurdle is cleared, the organization should then adopt rules governing such meetings, as there will need to be some modifications. Due to the current situation, the Robert's Rules Association has recently made some recommended rules for electronic meetings publicly available. Beyond that, whether it is "easy" will depend on the specifics of the organization. Due to various practical and technical limitations, electronic meetings tend to work reasonably well (although still not quite as well as in-person meetings) for relatively small groups, but they become increasingly more difficult for larger and larger groups. Factors such as the members' familiarity with (and access to) suitable technology may also make a difference.

Yes, when the minutes are pending for approval, the member would make the motion to add this correction to the minutes. I would not advise adding this as the minutes are intended to be a record of what happened, and not include commentary on what happened. So the minutes would reflect the motion, the chair's ruling that the motion was out of order, and the chair's reasoning for his ruling, but that's it. To the extent that the assembly does agree to the member's request, I would advise including it as a footnote rather than in the body of the minutes. A wording to the effect of "It was later determined that this ruling was mistaken, and that a motion to amend the agenda after adoption is in order." seems appropriate to me. I agree that it is unnecessary, but I don't know that it is out of order. While it is unusual to include subsidiary motions in an agenda, I don't know that it is actually prohibited to do so. I can conceive of theoretical cases where this might even be desirable, such as if numerous amendments to a motion are anticipated.

Yes, that seems reasonable. RONR has no prohibition on rescinding a motion in the nature of a contract, but it does have rules which prohibit rescinding a motion which has already been carried out. If a motion is adopted to "hire an auditor" and the auditor has, in fact, been hired, I don't see how it is possible to rescind this motion. The auditor can be fired, but he can't be "unhired." As I said, however, this depends on the particular wording of the motion that the assembly adopted, and as Mr. Katz correctly notes, also depends on what exactly has been done (if anything) to carry out the motion. RONR does note that the unexecuted part of the motion may be rescinded. So if the wording is more involved, it may well be possible to rescind the unexecuted part of the motion. For instance, perhaps the motion was "to hire an auditor to conduct an audit of the society's finances for the previous fiscal year," and while the auditor has been hired, the audit has not yet been conducted. I have no disagreement that the unexecuted part of the motion could be rescinded, as a parliamentary matter.

There is no action to take at this point, other than to avoid making the same mistake in the future. Generally, a Point of Order regarding an issue must be raised at the time of the breach. It is too late to correct the error now. This means nothing so far as RONR is concerned. RONR does not require the use of an agenda at all and notes that most assemblies would do just fine with the standard order of business. Even if an assembly is to use an agenda, there is no requirement that the draft agenda must be published or that notice be given of the draft agenda, and doing these things does not interfere with the assembly's ability to amend the agenda (either before or after its adoption). If your organization has its own rules on this subject, that could affect matters. I would note that the member still could have made these motions even without them being listed on the agenda, for multiple reasons. There is no rule in RONR that a motion must be listed on the agenda in order to be considered. Even if the organization has its own rules requiring motions to be listed on the agenda in order to be considered, such rules generally do not apply to subsidiary or incidental motions such as a motion to postpone (not table) a pending election or a motion to reopen nominations for the election, either of which is in order. Indeed, it would be rather unusual to list such motions on the agenda.

It depends. Please quote the exact wording your bylaws use to define the term of office.

I think we would need to know precisely what the wording of the motion was to say for sure, but I am not certain a motion to Rescind would be in order. A motion to Rescind cannot be applied to a motion which has already been carried out, and you can't "unhire" someone. The appropriate course of action might be a new main motion to fire the auditor. Of course, parliamentary technicalities aside, there may also be practical and legal complications involved.

Reading RONR, or occasionally seeking the advice of someone who has done so (such as a professional parliamentarian) is an extremely good idea for an organization which has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority whether or not RONR is incorporated by reference into the bylaws.

An affirmative vote to adopt an agenda may not be reconsidered. RONR explicitly states this. I imagine this is a particular application of the general rule that a motion to Reconsider may not be applied to a motion when it has been partly carried out. RONR does not specifically state that a motion to amend an adopted agenda is a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, but the description seems quite similar. In any event, RONR is clear that such a motion is in order and describes the vote required. "CHANGING AN AGENDA. When the adoption of a proposed agenda is pending, it is subject to amendment by majority vote. After an agenda has been adopted by the assembly, no change can be made in it except by a two-thirds vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or unanimous consent. (See also Taking Up Business Out of Its Proper Order, pp. 363–64; cf. p. 630, ll. 12–17.) An affirmative vote to adopt an agenda may not be reconsidered." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 373) I also concur with my colleagues that no rule in RONR prevents making a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted in connection with a motion adopted at the same meeting. Reconsider is certainly preferable if it is an option, but there are situations in which Reconsider will not be in order even although it is the same meeting, but Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted will be in order. This is one of those situations.

Yes, as a matter of parliamentary law, RONR's provisions are incorporated in to the bylaws, and it is intended that if a provision states (for instance) that proxy voting, or electronic meetings, or so forth, are permitted unless the bylaws provide otherwise, then if the organization has adopted RONR in its bylaws, it has provided otherwise. I think you mean a rule of order. A standing rule is not sufficient to adopt a parliamentary authority. But yes, my answer would be different in such a case. "If the law under which an organization is incorporated allows proxy voting to be prohibited by a provision of the bylaws, the adoption of this book as parliamentary authority by prescription in the bylaws should be treated as sufficient provision to accomplish that result (cf. footnote, p. 580)." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 429, emphasis added) As a matter of parliamentary law, yes, unless the organization specifically authorizes mail ballots in its bylaws. I have no idea whether this is correct as a matter of statutory interpretation.

Yes, the motion must be recorded in the minutes. A motion to amend the agenda (after it is adopted) is a form of the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, which is an incidental main motion. All main motions (except those which were withdrawn) are included in the minutes. This includes motions which are ruled out of order. The chair’s ruling (and his reasoning) should also be included in the minutes. I am also unclear on what basis the motion was ruled out of order. I see nothing from the facts presented which would suggest the motion was not in order. (This doesn’t change my answer regarding the minutes, but if the chair’s ruling was incorrect, this would be good to know for the future.)

The pastor (or the board) have no authority to make these decisions. The assembly could adopt such rules if it wishes. These would be special rules of order, and would therefore require a 2/3 vote with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. Only the assembly has the authority to adopt an agenda (or to make changes to the agenda). This is easier, and requires only a majority vote, but unless this is coupled with special rules of order, this alone won't accomplish a whole lot. There's a lot going on in this question. As noted above, the procedure followed was not proper. Only the assembly may make any of these decisions, and some of them require higher votes than others. As for the second part of the question, it is not "mandatory that if Robert's Rules of Order are to be followed, "NEW BUSINESS" must be part of the business meeting agenda," but this answer requires a bit of explanation. First, it must be understood that RONR does not require an assembly to adopt an agenda at all, and (contrary to popular belief) does not even recommend doing so for all assemblies. For an assembly which meets at least quarterly and which generally completes its full order of business each meeting, RONR suggests that the assembly simply follow the standard order of business (or a special order of business adopted by the assembly, which would require a special rule of order). The standard order of business does include a heading for New Business. If an assembly were to choose to adopt an agenda, the assembly is free to include (or not include) such headings as it sees fit. So the assembly could adopt an agenda which does not include a heading for New Business. Contrary to popular belief, however, there is no requirement in RONR that an item must be listed on the agenda in order to be considered. So unless the organization has such a rule, even if an agenda is adopted which does not include "New Business," members still remain free to introduce items of New Business after all business on the agenda has been completed. The purpose of an agenda in RONR is not to limit what business may be considered, but to ensure that the most important items are considered first. (An assembly potentially could limit business by voting to adjourn immediately after completing all business on the agenda, but again, this is up to the assembly itself, not the pastor or the board. Adopting an agenda, in and of itself, does not "control the items that will be raised at the meeting." It will have this effect only if (1) the assembly has special rules of order on this matter (such as prohibiting the introduction of items not listed on the agenda, or requiring previous notice of motions, or the like) or (2) the assembly immediately adjourns the meeting after completing the agenda. If neither of these steps are taken, members may introduce items of New Business after all items on the agenda have been completed.

I would first note that, since your resignation was withdrawn prior to any action by the board, there is presently no resignation for the board to act on. A resignation may only be offered voluntarily. So the President is free to call for your resignation, but you are free to refuse to offer your resignation. Only if you offer a new resignation would the board even have the opportunity to act on your resignation. There is no need for the board to vote you back on to the board, because you never left. What the President does in regards to offering his own resignation is his own business. In short, no, RONR does not address these issues. There are rules for handling resignations. The rest is political issues the board will have to resolve for itself.

If the board member withdrew his resignation before it was placed before the board for consideration (for instance, if he withdrew it before the board met), then he may withdraw it unilaterally. There is no longer any resignation for the board to accept. As a result, he is still a board member, notwithstanding any erroneous statement by the board to the contrary. If the board member tried to withdraw his resignation after it was placed before the board for consideration, but before it was actually accepted, then it would be at the board's discretion whether to permit the member to withdraw the resignation, and whether to accept the resignation. If the board member tried to withdraw the resignation after it was accepted, then it's too late - the member's resignation has already been acted on at that point and he couldn't withdraw it even if the board wanted to allow it. (Although the board could appoint him to the position again.) So there isn't really anything to fight about. The rules for all three situations are quite clear-cut. Either the board member is right and the board is wrong, or the board is right and the former board member is wrong. So the only remaining question is - when did the member withdraw the resignation? I would also note that all of the above assumes that the board has the power to fill vacancies (and as a result, the power to accept resignations). Is that correct? If the board doesn't have the power to fill vacancies, it probably doesn't have the power to accept the resignation either. They tend to go hand in hand. Theoretically, an organization could empower the board to accept resignations but leave filling vacancies to someone else, but I don't see that often in practice.

There is not necessarily a requirement for a vote. As has been previously noted, election by acclamation is the proper course of action if there are no other nominees, a ballot vote is not required, and the assembly has not ordered a ballot vote. Your bylaws do not appear to require a ballot vote, they explicitly prohibit nominations from the floor, and they have no other method for persons other than the nominating committee to make nominations. As a result, there will not be any other nominations. So it looks to me that the only way there would be a vote is if the assembly orders that the vote be taken by ballot. If this occurs, members could vote for candidates of their choice, since your bylaws do not prohibit write-in votes. It would take a majority vote to order a ballot vote. If the assembly does not order that a vote be taken, the chair could declare the unopposed nominees elected. As has been explained several times, that is not how it works. There is no vote to elect or defeat the slate. If members order that a vote be taken, how a vote works in an election is that members vote for a candidate of their choice for each available position. The candidates that receive a majority are elected. So it could be that some, all, or none of the candidates nominated by the committee are elected. What happens is that other people (write-in candidates) will be elected in their place. Your organization has apparently made it extremely difficult to elect anyone other than the candidates put forth by the nominating committee, but it has not quite made it impossible. Your organization could adopt rules in the bylaws prohibiting write-in votes, in which case the "election" will become meaningless and more of a ceremony. As Dr. Kapur notes, the organization could also dispense with the ceremony and just amend the bylaws to call the nominating committee the "Electing Committee" and provide that it elects the officers. (I suppose the organization could also adopt rules in the bylaws for an up or down vote on the "slate," although the organization would then also need to adopt rules specifying what happens if the slate is defeated. As has been noted repeatedly, this is not how elections work in RONR, so RONR has no answer to this question.) I would strongly encourage moving in the opposite direction and making it easier for the membership to elect candidates of its choice. I suggest amending the bylaws to permit nominations from the floor or, in the alternative, provide some other method for members to make nominations. I see a problem either way.

Based on this, it is the board which accepts resignations. The resignation is withdrawn. There is nothing left for the board to act on.

Based on all of the facts presented, it appears that the officers of the board are also members of the board. As a result, they are all free to speak in debate at any time that other members can speak in debate. Since this is a small board, even the President is free to speak in debate. If it were a larger assembly, the President would be expected to refrain from speaking in debate, but the other officers could speak in debate.

Do your bylaws specify this? Unless your bylaws provide otherwise, nominations from the floor are in order. Write-in votes are also in order unless your bylaws provide otherwise. Under RONR, elections are not a vote on whether to elect or defeat particular candidates. Rather, members vote for a candidate of their choice for each available office. So the only way to defeat the nominating committee's candidates would be to elect other candidates. If that happens, then those other candidates are elected. It is not clear to me that it is correct that there are no nominations from the floor. Even assuming that this is correct, no, a special meeting with a new list of nominees would not be necessary. Write-in votes are in order. In the event there are no other nominees (and if your bylaws do not require a ballot vote and the assembly has not ordered a ballot vote), electing the sole candidates by acclamation is already the proper procedure.