Wrong Committee Used

[Guest sgtester]

We have an issue at my church. It was discovered that last years budget committee recommended and passed some monetary issues, instead of using this years standing committee. The whole church has already voted and approved these motions, so the bills have already been paid. What should we do to correct the use of the wrong committee? Should the entire process have to be repeated or what should we do? It was an honest mistake.

[hmtcastle]

The whole church has already voted and approved these motions, so the bills have already been paid.

Case closed. Move on.

[sgtester]

I may should have added that one of our members is adimate about "correcting" the mistake. They are wanting to send it back and let the "new" committee redo and have the church revote on all of the mistakingly passed issues.

[hmtcastle]

I may should have added that one of our members is adimate about "correcting" the mistake.

So that's one vote in favor of doing over what's already done.

[David A Foulkes]

I may should have added that one of our members is adimate about "correcting" the mistake. They are wanting to send it back and let the "new" committee redo and have the church revote on all of the mistakingly passed issues.

Short of putting a stop payment on a check that hasn't cleared yet, you can't really "unpay" a bill. If the membership feels that the decisions made or actions taken were not appropriate, there may be steps to take to revisit those decisions. But if they're happy with the bills being paid, even though the wrong committee approved them, you're just making busy work.

I might suggest the way to "correct" any mistakes (such as the wrong committee handling an issue) is to make sure all the committees properly understand where their responsibilities and authority lie, in hopes of avoiding this situation in the future.

[Rev Ed]

I do not even understand the problem. There is no "old" Budget Committee and a "new" Budget Committee, especially if it is a standing committee. There can only be one Budget Committee. If the Budget Committee can pass this motion and they did, then there is no problem. It's that plain and simple.

[sgtester]

Basically the 09-10 committee voted on and passed a recommendation in 10-11. It gets complicated sometimes with church physical years starting in September.

[hmtcastle]

Basically the 09-10 committee voted on and passed a recommendation in 10-11.

The congregation is free to amend the budget (things change, after all) but the mere fact that a recommendation came from the wrong source is irrelevant.

[sgtester]

Ok thank you, that was what I was looking for. I really appreciate the help.

[Rev Ed]

Basically the 09-10 committee voted on and passed a recommendation in 10-11. It gets complicated sometimes with church physical years starting in September.

You are missing my point. It is still technically the same Committee. It does not change simply because the fiscal period has changed. The Budget Commitee IS the Budget Committee. Just like the Board IS the Board, even if new directors and/or officers are elected.

[Tim Wynn]

You are missing my point. It is still technically the same Committee. It does not change simply because the fiscal period has changed. The Budget Commitee IS the Budget Committee. Just like the Board IS the Board, even if new directors and/or officers are elected.

Review p. 471, l. 14-19, just for clarity of terminology.

It appears the original poster may be referring to a situation where former members of a committee acted as the committee. In any event, Mr. Mountcastle has sufficiently closed this case in the first post. I don't think we can add anything to improve on it.

[Rev Ed]

Review p. 471, l. 14-19, just for clarity of terminology.

I seem to take a more narrow view of this then you do. While it might become a "new" version of the Committee, the Budget Committee is still the Budget Committee, and the effect would only apply to unfinished business, not finished business. As Mr Mountcastle has stated, the issue is done as the motion was passed. The matter was not unfinished, so it could not trigger the "dropping requirement" indicated on page 471.

My point was, and is, that if the Budget Committee held a meeting and passed a motion for which the Committee normally has the power to pass, then the motion is valid.

[Josh Martin]

My point was, and is, that if the Budget Committee held a meeting and passed a motion for which the Committee normally has the power to pass, then the motion is valid.

Well, it doesn't seem that's what happened. It appears that some people who used to be on the Budget Committee got together and decided on the recommendation. Of course, since that recommendation has now been acted on by the superior assembly, the motion is valid.