Guest Peggy Posted January 20, 2013 at 11:26 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2013 at 11:26 PM We are having trouble getting enough people to fill all the officers positions in our congregational church. Our By-Laws do not say anything about this situation. Is it illegal for the Church Treasurer to also be the Church Clerk? Also, is it wrong for the Pastor's wife to be the Church Clerk? Some members feel the minutes would be a bit slanted if the pastor's wife were the one recording them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 20, 2013 at 11:31 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2013 at 11:31 PM We are having trouble getting enough people to fill all the officers positions in our congregational church. Our By-Laws do not say anything about this situation. Is it illegal for the Church Treasurer to also be the Church Clerk? Also, is it wrong for the Pastor's wife to be the Church Clerk? Some members feel the minutes would be a bit slanted if the pastor's wife were the one recording them.There is nothing in RONR that prevents a person from holding two positions, such as Treasurer and Clerk. Nothing that prevents the Pastor's wife from being the Clerk. In fact, RONR even allows for non-members (like me) to hold office or Board position.This is where you need to check your bylaws (and/or other governing documents) to see what restrictions are there that might preclude holding two offices, or wives (or husbands) holding offices, and so forth. As for "illegal", ask a lawyer. As for "wrong", that is typically left up to the voting membership to determine at election time if your rules don't say otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted January 21, 2013 at 12:06 AM Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 at 12:06 AM Some members feel the minutes would be a bit slanted if the pastor's wife were the one recording them.The minutes can be straightened out before they're approved so the secretary doesn't have the last word. And, if the minutes are properly prepared, there shouldn't really be anything that can be "slanted" in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 21, 2013 at 02:31 AM Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 at 02:31 AM Some members feel the minutes would be a bit slanted if the pastor's wife were the one recording them.Then those will probably be the same members who will offer corrections to remove that bit of slant when the minutes are up for approval. Or, they might be pleasantly surprised.And, as Edgar points out, minutes that are done properly contain almost nothing that could be considered slant-able. How do you slant "The motion was adopted"?Yeah, I know: Move to strike the word "unfortunately". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted January 21, 2013 at 02:33 AM Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 at 02:33 AM Also, is it wrong for the Pastor's wife to be the Church Clerk? Some members feel the minutes would be a bit slanted if the pastor's wife were the one recording them.It's not against the rules, according to RONR. As for what some members feel, it will only matter what a majority of the voters thinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted January 21, 2013 at 11:25 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 at 11:25 PM ... Yeah, I know: Move to strike the word "unfortunately".I looked, and looked; and word-searched; whatever is this about??!? Is it a reference to another thread, without giving a link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louise Posted January 22, 2013 at 03:24 AM Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 at 03:24 AM Then those will probably be the same members who will offer corrections to remove that bit of slant when the minutes are up for approval. Or, they might be pleasantly surprised.And, as Edgar points out, minutes that are done properly contain almost nothing that could be considered slant-able. How do you slant "The motion was adopted"?Yeah, I know: Move to strike the word "unfortunately".I looked, and looked; and word-searched; whatever is this about??!? Is it a reference to another thread, without giving a link?Perhaps he means that should the motion be recorded, "Unfortunately, the motion was adopted...", the word "unfortunately" may possibly - perhaps - be considered by some members as biased/slanted/unfair/etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 22, 2013 at 05:43 AM Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 at 05:43 AM Perhaps he means that should the motion be recorded, "Unfortunately, the motion was adopted...", the word "unfortunately" may possibly - perhaps - be considered by some members as biased/slanted/unfair/etc?You got it. On rereading, I can see that I didn't make that as clear as I might have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted January 22, 2013 at 01:24 PM Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 at 01:24 PM Ah, I see it now. Thanks to Louise and GPN for clearing this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.