Proper order?

[Guest Lori W.]

I would like to preface this by stating that I am a neophyte concerning RR, so please understand if my terminology or questions seem out of line or off base.

In our church, there was business conducted regarding the allowance of the youth pastor to live in the available parsonage. After some deliberation, it was apparent that all agreed for him to live there, but there was some variation of opinions concerning whether he would live there free, pay rent, or as long as he did odd jobs around church grounds he would be permitted to stay free of charge.

One of the finance committee members moved to table the discussion until the finance committee meet to prepare a list of possible options for the church to vote. It was seconded and unanimously agreed upon. It was recorded in minutes.

The next business meeting, the recommendation of the committee was read. It consisted of only one option. One of the (finance) committee members immediately motioned that it be accepted as read and another committee member seconded.

A non committee member then raised the question concerning the fact that the motion carried from last session was not what was performed. Two other non committee members raised the same concern. The chairman then informed them that the church could show their feelings by "voting down" the motion that was currently being discussed (the one-option motion). Then the chairman stated that the finance committee were dependable, trustworthy people who only had the church's best in mind.

The church voted and the motion was carried. After the meeting, many did not understand what had just happened, and some felt as though the finance committee had "bulldozed" this motion through- knowing that many people wouldn't "catch" what was happening.

Somehow, this just doesn't seem right. I am fairly new to the congregation and was informed about some of these committee members (who are businessmen and deacons) taking it upon themselves to override what the church had decided upon (when their services were chosen in good faith) and pocket the difference (they chose absolute lowest grade available when the church had specifically chosen otherwise).

I know it's not ethical, but is there something out of order with the way this meeting was performed?

Again, I sincerely apologize for my lack of knowledge concerning this topic.

Thank you for your time.

[George Mervosh]

When the final motion to be adopted was before the assembly for consideration, an amendment could have been proposed to it, or the assembly could have sent it back to the committee again.

[David A Foulkes]

I think in general it all sounds proper. There's a few minor issues, such as the idea of "tabling", which would not have been proper, but what in fact happened was the motion was Referred to a committee, which was proper, so no big whoop.

So, there was a question before the assembly (youth pastor living arrangements) which the assembly couldn't decide on, so they gave it over to a committee. The committee came back with it's recommendation, which only included one option, although it seems the membership was expecting a whole list to choose from. Given the one option to vote on, the chair even advised the membership that they could vote it down, which is correct, or (as George pointed out) they could have amended the committee's motion to something more palatable. The members may not have been aware of that option, but that's not a deal breaker here. In the end, the vote was taken and the majority approved. The time to express your concern/confusion about "what happened" is before the vote, not after.

Now, there still remains the possibility that the membership can Rescind the motion and start over, or amend it (Amend Something Previously Adopted) to change it to a different arrangement. Take a look at Section 35 (RONR 11th Ed.) for some details on those two motions.

[Guest Lori W.]

Thank you very much for the clarification. This helps a lot.