brie88 Posted March 25, 2011 at 05:24 PM Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 at 05:24 PM I have a strong question. On our Church Board we have a situation where the Senior Minister and the Business Administrator are members of the board as Ex-Offcio members. We are currently having issues between the two and are trying to work out the problem as a board. The biggest issue is that because they are both on the board and the executive committee we can not get the Senior Minister to leave the room so the board can have an executive session as part of a legally binding meeting to discuss the matter. Is there a motion that can be made, short of changing our by-laws, that will allow use to go into executive session without the ex-officio members present? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted March 25, 2011 at 05:34 PM Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 at 05:34 PM No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted March 25, 2011 at 05:37 PM Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 at 05:37 PM I have a strong question. On our Church Board we have a situation where the Senior Minister and the Business Administrator are members of the board as Ex-Offcio members. We are currently having issues between the two and are trying to work out the problem as a board. The biggest issue is that because they are both on the board and the executive committee we can not get the Senior Minister to leave the room so the board can have an executive session as part of a legally binding meeting to discuss the matter. Is there a motion that can be made, short of changing our by-laws, that will allow use to go into executive session without the ex-officio members present?You will probably receive quicker and more meaningful responses if you post this question in the GENERAL DISCUSSION Forum. Except for George... He's always quick and meaningful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted March 25, 2011 at 05:40 PM Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 at 05:40 PM NoThough I don't see why the members of the Board (minus the ex officio members) could not get together informally (it would NOT be a meeting of the Board or any other body of the Church) and discuss the problem. However, they would need to understand that they in no way shape or form are acting as the Board during this get together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted March 25, 2011 at 05:40 PM Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 at 05:40 PM You will probably receive quicker and more meaningful responses if you post this question in the GENERAL DISCUSSION Forum. Except for George... He's always quick and meaningful.The Staff is kind enough to move posts like this over to the General Discussion board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted March 25, 2011 at 06:26 PM Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 at 06:26 PM Though I don't see why the members of the Board (minus the ex officio members) could not get together informally (it would NOT be a meeting of the Board or any other body of the Church) and discuss the problem. However, they would need to understand that they in no way shape or form are acting as the Board during this get together.Oh sure they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brie88 Posted March 25, 2011 at 06:33 PM Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 at 06:33 PM NoSo basicly, I would have to change the bylaws or have informal discussions outside the board meeting to do anything on this?Additionally, I will be reposting to the general section of the message board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted March 25, 2011 at 06:34 PM Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 at 06:34 PM Oh sure they are.They are? Well, if they are they shouldn't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brie88 Posted March 25, 2011 at 06:38 PM Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 at 06:38 PM Oh sure they are.The reason for this need is that the executive committee was instructed to work on some of these matters in legal session. It would violate the spirit of the motion to hold informal meetings oon the topic at had when the full board just voted to have legally binding meetings on the topic. We are also an all volunteer board so we don't have time to hold informal meetings and legal ones constantly.Brianna Spencer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted March 25, 2011 at 06:40 PM Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 at 06:40 PM The reason for this need is that the executive committee was instructed to work on some of these matters in legal session. It would violate the spirit of the motion to hold informal meetings oon the topic at had when the full board just voted to have legally binding meetings on the topic. We are also an all volunteer board so we don't have time to hold informal meetings and legal ones constantly.Brianna SpencerI agree completely. The answer to your original question is still, no and your follow-up question, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted March 25, 2011 at 07:01 PM Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 at 07:01 PM The reason for this need is that the executive committee was instructed to work on some of these matters in legal session. It would violate the spirit of the motion to hold informal meetings oon the topic at had when the full board just voted to have legally binding meetings on the topic. We are also an all volunteer board so we don't have time to hold informal meetings and legal ones constantly.That's fine. It was a possible option but if you all don't think it is a viable option then you all will have to have your discussion with them in the room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brie88 Posted March 25, 2011 at 07:06 PM Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 at 07:06 PM Thank you everyone I love to think that there is a parliamentary answer for everything in these meetings. I was wrong. Just completely screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert B Fish Posted March 25, 2011 at 07:09 PM Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 at 07:09 PM It would violate no rule if you suggested that the senior minister and business administrator excuse themselves from the room during this part of the discussion. Similarly, it would violate no rule if you decided to refer the issue to an ad hoc conflict resolution committee composed of all the members EXCEPT those two. After the ad hoc commmittee met - including possbly meeting with two staff individually - you could reconvene the chruch board with all present and announce the findings and recommendations of the ad hoc committee. -Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brie88 Posted March 25, 2011 at 07:12 PM Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 at 07:12 PM Bob I love you. Thank you so much. That actually makes sense to a point of why did I not think of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted March 26, 2011 at 12:13 PM Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 at 12:13 PM Because, Brianna, you're not Bob Fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted March 27, 2011 at 12:46 AM Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 at 12:46 AM Because, Brianna, you're not Bob Fish.Something's wrong with a number of your recent replies in various topics. There's a quote of someone, but no text in the quotation box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted March 27, 2011 at 02:13 AM Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 at 02:13 AM Something's wrong with a number of your recent replies in various topics. There's a quote of someone, but no text in the quotation box.I suspect Nancy removed the text. She prefers that her words not have to compete with those of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted March 27, 2011 at 12:24 PM Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 at 12:24 PM I suspect Nancy removed the text. She prefers that her words not have to compete with those of others.Which is not to say that Mr. Novosielski's observation ("Something's wrong with a number of your recent replies in various topics.") is incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted March 27, 2011 at 10:03 PM Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 at 10:03 PM I suspect Nancy removed the text. She prefers that her words not have to compete with those of others.Without risking a breach of decorum by attributing motivation, it raises the question of why she would not remove the [quote] and [/quote] tags as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted March 27, 2011 at 10:35 PM Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 at 10:35 PM Without risking a breach of decorum by attributing motivation, it raises the question of why she would not remove the tags as well.There are, by far, more haunting mysteries about Nancy, which cause one to not even ponder the little questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted March 27, 2011 at 10:43 PM Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 at 10:43 PM It would violate no rule if you suggested that the senior minister and business administrator excuse themselves from the room during this part of the discussion. Similarly, it would violate no rule if you decided to refer the issue to an ad hoc conflict resolution committee composed of all the members EXCEPT those two. After the ad hoc commmittee met - including possbly meeting with two staff individually - you could reconvene the chruch board with all present and announce the findings and recommendations of the ad hoc committee. -BobI would recommend asking them to excuse themselves first. If not, go with the Committee route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.