Is There ANY Way?

[tctheatc]

I'll be specific and to the point: there are some in our church who would like to be able, in a members meeting, to have the clergy excluded in order to discuss their job performance, expectations, salaries, etc without them present. Personally I am not in favor of this. But it has got me thinking if there is ANY way at all to accomplish this, if for no other reason than to rule it out in my mind.

The clergy are members, so they have the right to attend. I know we can ask.

But is there any use(s) of Committee of the Whole, or Recess, or Breakout groups or anything of that nature that could be used to accomplish having a member or two excluded from discussion?

(In my reading the answer I'm getting is "no", but I know there are more experienced minds than mine)

[David A Foulkes]

I'll be specific and to the point: there are some in our church who would like to be able, in a members meeting, to have the clergy excluded in order to discuss their job performance, expectations, salaries, etc without them present. Personally I am not in favor of this. But it has got me thinking if there is ANY way at all to accomplish this, if for no other reason than to rule it out in my mind.

The clergy are members, so they have the right to attend. I know we can ask.

But is there any use(s) of Committee of the Whole, or Recess, or Breakout groups or anything of that nature that could be used to accomplish having a member or two excluded from discussion?

(In my reading the answer I'm getting is "no", but I know there are more experienced minds than mine)

As unethical as it may sound, I suppose you could adopt a motion to appoint a special committee, to be appointed by you (you are the president/moderator I think, right?) of a number equal to the membership count less the clergy, and then appoint everyone but the clergy to the committee.

[tctheatc]

RONR p 524 talks of aids to the crystallization of opinion. I was envisioning breakout groups being used, excluding the clergy, or even including them in one small group, and the result would be that the vast majority (i.e. all the other groups) would satisfy their desire to speak about the clergy without them present. Seems equally unethical as your suggestion, but a bit more subtle?

I find the whole notion distasteful myself, but that's me. But in addition to saying "it can't be done" I want to believe that with certainty. Right now, not so sure.

[David A Foulkes]

RONR p 524 talks of aids to the crystallization of opinion. I was envisioning breakout groups being used, excluding the clergy, or even including them in one small group, and the result would be that the vast majority (i.e. all the other groups) would satisfy their desire to speak about the clergy without them present. Seems equally unethical as your suggestion, but a bit more subtle?

I find the whole notion distasteful myself, but that's me. But in addition to saying "it can't be done" I want to believe that with certainty. Right now, not so sure.

A bit. But you then lack the ability for all (other) members to share in a communal debate, which may or may not be bad. Do you have a sense of how the non-clergy membership feels about this (clergy performance, etc)? Is it sharply and evenly divided, or is there a substantial majority that feels one particular way? Are there some specific concerns that may in fact need to be addressed in some manner?

Is there nothing in your rules (bylaws, standing, etc) about evaluations of the clergy? I'd suspect not, else you wouldn't post this topic, but figured I'd ask.

As this has more of a socio-political nature and is less about parliamentary procedure, I don't think RONR will yield too much assistance, IMO.

[jstackpo]

Contrary viewpoint:

Just bite the bullet and have the discussion, clergy and all. But make sure the "discussion" is cast in terms of formal motions, specifying the issues and what to do about them.

A suggestion: hire a professional non-church-member parliamentarian to actually preside during the meeting to assure that there will be no perceptions of bias on the part of the chair.

This worked for me some time ago (as the hired parliamentarian, not as one of the church members): Both factions got together and agreed to hire me to preside at the (special) meeting where the one motion was "Shall be renew the Pastor's contract?" The pastor had his chance to speak as well as all the other members.

Openness is FAR better than skulking around in little (or large) groups. "My" meeting ended with a decision that roughly half the group didn't like, but at least the members were all still speaking to one another at the end. Secretive mini-groups will only engender suspicion and ill feeling. And you are still going to have to have the full open meeting to implement whatever the mini-groups decide they want to do. So be open from the start.

[David A Foulkes]

Contrary viewpoint:

.......

Wise words.

I find the whole notion distasteful myself, but that's me. But in addition to saying "it can't be done" I want to believe that with certainty. Right now, not so sure.

Well, there's always a way to do something, but the better first question is should you? Nothing would prevent the non-clergy members from gathering in an informal non-meeting to discuss the issues, in preparation for a meeting where the business will be officially conducted.

However, how will that approach sit with the clergy when they inevitably find out? How will it affect those who feel this whole thing is wrong anyway? It fosters an air of suspicion and distrust that may never be cleared. And then everyone will be looking across the room wondering if some group has gathered to talk about them.

Mr. Stackpole's suggestion is the better one, and hopefully most of the congregation will agree.

[Tim Wynn]

As unethical as it may sound, I suppose you could adopt a motion to appoint a special committee, to be appointed by you (you are the president/moderator I think, right?) of a number equal to the membership count less the clergy, and then appoint everyone but the clergy to the committee.

David has the right answer... or, at least, the right answer's red-headed step child (nicknamed "Red"). A committee can be created, with a reasonably small number of members, to investigate and report on the clergy's performance. This committee could invite and exclude others from its meetings as it sees fit, and it wouldn't have the pitfalls that come along with a clumsily large committee. Plus at the end, the general membership gets a report that just might be thorough, thoughtful, and meaningful.

Still, I prefer Dr. Stackpole's approach of facing the issue without flinching or hiding. It's the mature and honorable way and should be applied to any action taken.

Keep in mind that the rules don't allow you to disparage a member in a meeting, just because that member is absent.

[tctheatc]

A bit. But you then lack the ability for all (other) members to share in a communal debate, which may or may not be bad. Do you have a sense of how the non-clergy membership feels about this (clergy performance, etc)? Is it sharply and evenly divided, or is there a substantial majority that feels one particular way? Are there some specific concerns that may in fact need to be addressed in some manner?

Is there nothing in your rules (bylaws, standing, etc) about evaluations of the clergy? I'd suspect not, else you wouldn't post this topic, but figured I'd ask.

As this has more of a socio-political nature and is less about parliamentary procedure, I don't think RONR will yield too much assistance, IMO.

Nothing in the bylaws about it. And yes, RONR is not a "help", but I'm not really looking for that. My question is purely procedural - Is there any way to exclude members from a discussion in a meeting? The background is secondary. In my position of "one-eyed-man-in kingdom-of-blind" I want to be able to tell people there's no way to do it (exclude clergy). I just want to be sure, so I'm playing some what if's to see if I'm missing anything.

The breakout technique still provides for the matter to come before the assembly as a whole, so there would be a chance to consider it that way.

[tctheatc]

Contrary viewpoint:

Just bite the bullet and have the discussion, clergy and all. But make sure the "discussion" is cast in terms of formal motions, specifying the issues and what to do about them.

A suggestion: hire a professional non-church-member parliamentarian to actually preside during the meeting to assure that there will be no perceptions of bias on the part of the chair.

This worked for me some time ago (as the hired parliamentarian, not as one of the church members): Both factions got together and agreed to hire me to preside at the (special) meeting where the one motion was "Shall be renew the Pastor's contract?" The pastor had his chance to speak as well as all the other members.

Openness is FAR better than skulking around in little (or large) groups. "My" meeting ended with a decision that roughly half the group didn't like, but at least the members were all still speaking to one another at the end. Secretive mini-groups will only engender suspicion and ill feeling. And you are still going to have to have the full open meeting to implement whatever the mini-groups decide they want to do. So be open from the start.

JD, I agree about openness. As an air traffic controller, everything I say is recorded. It's hard to think of a profession that can be more second guessed. We are evaluated constantly. I'm used to it. As clergy myself, I would rather hear it face to face, too. And the 2 pastors here are of the same mind. There is a faction, however, who want to criticize but don't have the stones to do it to the pastors' faces. They want a time in the general meeting where the 2 are forced to leave the room. I want to (correctly) be able to say it cannot be done. So I'm trying hard as I can to see if I can find a way it would be possible, both in case these people push the issue, but also as an educational exercise for me as I continue learning, albeit here in the "shallow end of the pool", as opposed to the "deep end" which is for experienced parliamentarians' discussions. But your overall point is well taken. Thank you.

[jstackpo]

Is there any way to exclude members from an official meeting of those members?

No.

(Well, disciplinary procedures could do so, but I don't think that approach fits your situation.)

[hmtcastle]

They want a time in the general meeting where the 2 are forced to leave the room.

That's clearly not possible though nothing prevents the two clergy from voluntarily leaving.

Alternatively, nothing prevents some or all of the members (except the clergy) from getting together to discuss whatever they want. They don't need a meeting if, as you indicated, all they want is "to discuss their job performance, expectations, salaries, etc without them present".

[tctheatc]

correct, discipline would not be applicable. using breakout groups might accomplish putting them in a group way in the corner away from their nay-sayers, who would then feel more 'courage" in their small group, but no exclusion of anyone.

(Well, disciplinary procedures could do so, but I don't think that approach fits your situation.)

[Gary Novosielski]

My question is purely procedural - Is there any way to exclude members from a discussion in a meeting?

No, not in a meeting.

And even using committees, breakout groups, informal sessions, etc., if any actual result is going to come from this, a main motion during a meeting will ultimately be required, and will be open to amendment and debate.

Of course, by a two-thirds vote you could Suspend the Rules and Pass the motion, but even that would not remove individual members from the room during the discussion, it would remove the discussion itself..

[David A Foulkes]

I want to (correctly) be able to say it cannot be done. So I'm trying hard as I can to see if I can find a way it would be possible... in case these people push the issue....

If they ask "Is it possible to call a meeting without including the clergy in the notice?" the answer is no. If they ask "Is it possible to remove them from a meeting?" the answer is only if the agree to leave upon request. Honest answers. If they push it beyond that, perhaps inquiring about break out groups or special committees, then you know they've been reading this forum. And if this "faction" is less than 2/3 of the membership (required to Suspend the Rules at the very least should there be any actual way to apply that method here), then I don't think you have anything to worry about. Let the majority decide what's the right and proper path to take.

And always remember, in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is...... never seen.

[Josh Martin]

Is there any way to exclude members from a discussion in a meeting?

There is no method by which members may be deprived of the basic right to attend a meeting of the assembly, except through disciplinary procedures, which does not apply here. Committee of the Whole and its variants won't do the trick (although breakout groups could sort of work, especially if you put all the clergy in the same breakout group). The only way to "get around it" is to change the equation - such as having a different assembly of which the clergy are not members, or by having the discussion outside of a meeting. Such solutions are only temporary, as when all is said and done the issue will need to be resolved in a meeting of the assembly, at which the clergy have a right to be present.

I think Mr. Wynn's suggestion of appointing a small committee to address the issue is an excellent idea for what is apparently a somewhat controversial issue. Be sure to appoint members with various opinions on the issue, and suggest that the committee meet with members who wish to express their viewpoints on the issue. This should allow the opponents to blow off some steam and should permit a more reasoned discussion when the issue is brought before the whole assembly. The issue does seem to be of sufficient importance that it might not be a bad idea to have a committee review the issue first anyway.

[tctheatc]

thank you all for the discussion! I appreciate it. There IS a finance committee wherein such matters could be discussed. some want a bigger forum of the annual meeting, I believe, to blow off their steam, but anonymously/sans clergy.

[Josh Martin]

some want a bigger forum of the annual meeting, I believe, to blow off their steam, but anonymously/sans clergy.

Well, tell them tough luck, and show them RONR, 10th ed., pg. 255, lines 22-28 if anyone challenges you on the point.

Of course, it might be wise considering in the future whether it is wise to have paid employees as members of the assembly, but that's a Bylaws issue so that's a conversation for another time.

[Gary Novosielski]

thank you all for the discussion! I appreciate it. There IS a finance committee wherein such matters could be discussed. some want a bigger forum of the annual meeting, I believe, to blow off their steam, but anonymously/sans clergy.

It sounds like they're seeking a license to slander, and a big forum in which to do it.

If there is something they're unwilling to say to the clergy's face, the society is probably better off not having heard it.