Guest Jessie Jamieson Posted February 8, 2011 at 02:00 AM Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 at 02:00 AM At an regular called church business meeting a member made a motion to call to vote to keep the pastor. The motion was seconded and accepted by the assembly of the stated qourm. The Pastor stated the motion was out of not and basically rejected the motion. Since the church seconded and accepted the motion the officers then stated the motion would be carried and set a vote in vote as stated in the bylaws. ThePastor later stated the scheduled meeting would not happen for teh purpose of calling the accepted motion to vote. My question is where does it state specifically that the accpeted motion must be carried out? Additionally is there anything that state a motion was out of order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted February 8, 2011 at 02:05 AM Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 at 02:05 AM My question is where does it state specifically that the accpeted motion must be carried out? Additionally is there anything that state a motion was out of order?I'm not sure what your first question is but, as for your second question, a motion to do something that would be done anyway is usually out of order because you can achieve the same effect by adopting no motion at all.In other words, if you want to keep your pastor, there's no need to make a motion to keep him. Just keep him.I suppose you could always adopt a "vote of confidence".But that doesn't mean your pastor can cancel meetings just because he doesn't like what's happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest uRr3Fm Posted February 8, 2011 at 02:09 AM Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 at 02:09 AM I'm not sure what your first question is but, as for your second question, a motion to do something that would be done anyway is usually out of order because you can achieve the same effect by adopting no motion at all.In other words, if you want to keep your pastor, there's no need to make a motion to keep him. Just keep him.I suppose you could always adopt a "vote of confidence".But that doesn't mean your pastor can cancel meetings just because he doesn't like what's happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jessie Jamison Posted February 8, 2011 at 02:14 AM Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 at 02:14 AM I meant to state once the motin was made, second and accepted must action be taken on the motion? The Pastor is saying the motion is void because he states it was out of order. The meeting was still ongoing and had not closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted February 8, 2011 at 02:36 AM Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 at 02:36 AM Is your pastor the chair? The chair could rule a motion out of order, but it appears that didn't happen as you mention it was seconded and "accepted". (not sure if that is the same as adopted) But the pastor cannot rule it out of order. Maybe the pastor was of the opinion that it was out of order, in which case the pastor (if a member) could raise a point of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 8, 2011 at 03:02 AM Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 at 03:02 AM At an regular called church business meeting a member made a motion to call to vote to keep the pastor. The motion was seconded and accepted by the assembly of the stated qourm. The Pastor stated the motion was out of not and basically rejected the motion. Since the church seconded and accepted the motion the officers then stated the motion would be carried and set a vote in vote as stated in the bylaws. ThePastor later stated the scheduled meeting would not happen for teh purpose of calling the accepted motion to vote. My question is where does it state specifically that the accpeted motion must be carried out? Additionally is there anything that state a motion was out of order?A meeting can be a regular meeting or a called meeting, but it can't be both. I'm assuming this was a regular meeting.Once moved and seconded, and stated by the chair, the motion is before the assembly, and must be disposed of somehow. The Pastor can't reject motions, unless he's also presiding officer, which would be a singularly bad idea. If he's a voting member of the assembly, he could raise a point of order against it, presumably because it violated some rule, which from your description doesn't appear to be the case. I'm not sure what the motion accomplishes, because you've apparently already got a Pastor, and it wouldn't seem to require a motion to keep him, but you know more than I do about that. Is his contract up or something like that? A person who claims that a motion is out of order needs to be able to say what rule it violates. If it complies with all the rules then by definition it is in order.And no one person can say that a scheduled meeting will "not happen", so that's just silly.What is this guy's problem? Does he not want to be kept? Is he afraid the motion will be defeated? What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 8, 2011 at 07:42 AM Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 at 07:42 AM Additionally is there anything that state a motion was out of order?The motion may be out of order. I'm not entirely clear on the relevant facts. Why was a motion "to keep the pastor" made? Is his contract up? Is this some attempt as a back-door way to remove him? If the latter, it is probably out of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.