Creating a new procedure

[zanacakes]

What does RROO state about creating a procedure if it is not included in the organization's constitution or by-laws.  The late Pastor created a criteria for the procedure.  Should we follow that procedure for our current situation or make revisions.  Our current situation is the same as it was when the late Pastor created the criteria yrs. ago. 

[Timothy]

It isn't clear from your statement, but I can see three possibilities. One is that the Pastor created a procedure on his own, in which case it is no more binding than something created by any other member. Two is that the Pastor was authorized by the organization to specify the criteria for the procedure, so it would still be binding. Three is that the Pastor recommended the criteria and the criteria was adopted by the organization, so it is still binding.

 

In the first possibility, you can certainly use what the Pastor did as a guide, but the organization can adopt whatever it wants as the criteria.

 

But it may be that this falls under two or three. In which case, you could still modify the criteria, if you like, but you would need to do so with a motion to amend something previously adopted.

 

Perhaps you can give us more details so we can give you a better answer.

[zanacakes]

Thank you.  The late Pastor created a financial criteria of good standing for members to be eligible to participate on a selection committee to search for a new Pastor.  At the time no one questioned the late Pastor's criteria because he included factors for members who were on a fixed income or experiencing financial hardship.  His objective was to have a cross section of members on the selection committee.  The existing Pastor who is resigning at the end of next month, is requiring a larger financial criteria to establish a member in good standing.  Since the criteria is not listed in the By-Laws or Constitution, the Pastor believes he can set the financial criteria that should be followed since the late Pastor's criteria was not questioned.  Hope this helps.     

[Edgar Guest]

Since the criteria is not listed in the By-Laws or Constitution, the Pastor believes he can set the financial criteria that should be followed since the late Pastor's criteria was not questioned.    

 

Well, it may have been the custom to allow the pastor to determine who's a member in good standing but I suspect he has no such authority. Such criteria should be in the bylaws.

[Josh Martin]

Thank you.  The late Pastor created a financial criteria of good standing for members to be eligible to participate on a selection committee to search for a new Pastor.  At the time no one questioned the late Pastor's criteria because he included factors for members who were on a fixed income or experiencing financial hardship.  His objective was to have a cross section of members on the selection committee.  The existing Pastor who is resigning at the end of next month, is requiring a larger financial criteria to establish a member in good standing.  Since the criteria is not listed in the By-Laws or Constitution, the Pastor believes he can set the financial criteria that should be followed since the late Pastor's criteria was not questioned.  Hope this helps.     

 

Based on the facts provided, it seems that these criteria are not binding. The pastor has no authority to create such rules unless the bylaws so provide.

 

Well, it may have been the custom to allow the pastor to determine who's a member in good standing but I suspect he has no such authority. Such criteria should be in the bylaws.

 

It seems the "good standing" is only with respect to whether a member may serve on the selection committee to search for a new pastor, so such criteria only needs to be in the bylaws if the committee is in the bylaws.

[Gary Novosielski]

It seems the "good standing" is only with respect to whether a member may serve on the selection committee to search for a new pastor, so such criteria only needs to be in the bylaws if the committee is in the bylaws.

 

I think I know what you're trying to say, but it almost sounds as though the committee, if not in the bylaws, would be unprotected from the whims of the pastor with respect to its membership.  And I'm sure that's not what you meant to say.

 

It's a pretty fair bet that, unless the pastor is granted specific authority, he hasn't got it.   I'd agree, though, that the granting of that authority would not have to be in the bylaws unless the committee was established there.  

 

Still, it would have to be, through some act of the assembly, granted to, and not merely assumed by, the pastor.

[zanacakes]

Thank you for your responses. The challenge is, one of the Trustees, claims that according to Robert's Rules of Order, if creating a new procedure or criteria is not listed in the by laws or constitution, the Pastor can follow precedent, i.e. use what was done previously by the late Pastor for the same process.  I haven't found that information in Robert's Rules of Order about following precedent in any circumstance.  Does someone know where I can find this information or reference?  Thank you

[Timothy]

The closest thing is what it says on page 19 about Custom, but this doesn't appear to be a matter of custom and even if it were, the written rules take precedence. There are a lot of things that churches do, "because that's what we did last time," but that isn't a valid reason for doing it.

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Timothy Fish, but will give you the citation  from RONR re custom that he referred to so that you can quote it to your trustee.

 

"In some organizations, a particular practice may sometimes come to be followed as a matter of established  custom so that it is treated practically as if it were prescribed by a rule.  If there is no contrary provision in the parliamentary authority or written rules of the organization, the established custom should be adhered to unless the assembly, by a majority vote, agrees in a particular instance to do otherwise.  However, if a customary practice is or becomes in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule, and a Point of Order citing he conflict is raised at any time, the custom falls to the ground, and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with.  It if is then desired to follow the former practice, a special rule of order (or, in appropriate circumstances, a standing rule or a bylaw provision) can be added or amended to incorporate it."   RONR 11th edition, page 19, lines 3 - 18.

 

I will add that I doubt that the fact that something was done a certain way only one time before amounts to an established custom. 

[Edgar Guest]

I will add that I doubt that the fact that something was done a certain way only one time before amounts to an established custom. 

 

Would two times be sufficient?

[Richard Brown]

Would two times be sufficient?

 

I don't know, but it's getting closer, is it not?      How many times, in your opinion, must it happen before it is considered custom? 

 

But, no matter how many times it has been done in the past, if it conflicts with a rule of the assembly, whether in the bylaws, special rules of order or parliamentary authority, it is supposed to fall to the ground if a point of order is raised. 

[Edgar Guest]

How many times, in your opinion, must it happen before it is considered custom? 

 

Fortunately, I'm not the one who tried to quantify the answer by suggesting that once is not enough. Doesn't the longest journey begin with a single step?

[Timothy]

I don't know, but it's getting closer, is it not?      How many times, in your opinion, must it happen before it is considered custom? 

 

But, no matter how many times it has been done in the past, if it conflicts with a rule of the assembly, whether in the bylaws, special rules of order or parliamentary authority, it is supposed to fall to the ground if a point of order is raised. 

 

I think the more often you do something the more likely it is to become a custom, but I tend to think of custom as those things that people generally assume should be done or is alright to do a certain way, no matter how many times it has actually been done that way.

[zanacakes]

Thank you.