scawthon Posted January 14, 2015 at 03:32 PM Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 at 03:32 PM Although the Constitution and Bylaws state meetings are to be run in accordance with Robert's Rules, I am the first Moderator to do so in more than two years. Consequently, it is difficult to keep order in meetings due to resistance, but they are learning. There three situations I would like to know if there are Robert's Rules to use to deem them out of order. We have a pastor whos role is as overseer not a final authority. We are a congregationally lead body. 1.) This is really a bizare. This past weekend we had a final counsil meeting on recommended changes to the Constitution and Bylaws to present for voting. Members get a month to review it before voting on it. Our pastor what's to add voting people into offices on the agenda this week to get a head start on filling positions. I maintain that we cannot do so until the new organization and offices are ratified. But, he is insistant. This is beyond common sense to me, but I'd like to have rule I can site. 2.) We have been working on our Constituion and Bylaws for 6 months. Our pastor is great at thowing in renches during the meetings. However, as I have been applying Robert's Rules more and more this situation is becoming much less. We, the counsil, were working on an organizational chart. This has been going on for months. At this last meeting our pastor made a motion to seek professoinal consulting services. This was another stall tatic in my mind, but I was not certain I could rule it that way. So, I allowed the motion to be presented. It did not get a second, so it failed. Could I have ruled this out of order for stallaing decisions? 3.) The pastor just sent out an email with his interpretation of the meeting. It is nowhere what it should be. I was working on it and figued that was my responsibility since I am the Clerk as well as the Moderator. But he already published it so to speak. What is your advise to handle this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 14, 2015 at 04:04 PM Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 at 04:04 PM 1.) This is really a bizare. This past weekend we had a final counsil meeting on recommended changes to the Constitution and Bylaws to present for voting. Members get a month to review it before voting on it. Our pastor what's to add voting people into offices on the agenda this week to get a head start on filling positions. I maintain that we cannot do so until the new organization and offices are ratified. But, he is insistant. This is beyond common sense to me, but I'd like to have rule I can site. It wouldn't be out of order to vote on positions the way they are currently structured simply because of proposed amendments to the bylaws or constitution, but yes, it might not be wise to do so. 2.) We have been working on our Constituion and Bylaws for 6 months. Our pastor is great at thowing in renches during the meetings. However, as I have been applying Robert's Rules more and more this situation is becoming much less. We, the counsil, were working on an organizational chart. This has been going on for months. At this last meeting our pastor made a motion to seek professoinal consulting services. This was another stall tatic in my mind, but I was not certain I could rule it that way. So, I allowed the motion to be presented. It did not get a second, so it failed. Could I have ruled this out of order for stallaing decisions? No. It seems very much akin to a motion to commit. 3.) The pastor just sent out an email with his interpretation of the meeting. It is nowhere what it should be. I was working on it and figued that was my responsibility since I am the Clerk as well as the Moderator. But he already published it so to speak. What is your advise to handle this situation. Private correspondence outside of a meeting isn't dealt with. If the actions were damaging to the organization itself you could bring charges, but do you really want to go that far? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scawthon Posted January 14, 2015 at 04:34 PM Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 at 04:34 PM I should give more detail information to question 1. The new organizational structure has new committees that the pastor wants to fill this week. They officially do not exist. The ones that are now in existance can be a motion, but not ones that are not approved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 14, 2015 at 04:46 PM Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 at 04:46 PM I should give more detail information to question 1. The new organizational structure has new committees that the pastor wants to fill this week. They officially do not exist. The ones that are now in existance can be a motion, but not ones that are not approved. The motion to fill positions that do not exist would be out of order. I'm not sure why that's not self-evident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scawthon Posted January 14, 2015 at 04:55 PM Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 at 04:55 PM Welcome to my world. We seem to be lacking good reasoning by some key individuals. Reguarding question 3. While the distributed organization chart is so far in private communications, he would like to present it to the members, but it does not reflect what we agreed to. This too is another self evident. I believe he would be able to make the motion, but it must be made known it is not cousil recommend - what we have been working on the past 6 months. He just keeps hammering to do what it wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 14, 2015 at 06:56 PM Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 at 06:56 PM Ask him if he thinks it would be legal to elect a I should give more detail information to question 1. The new organizational structure has new committees that the pastor wants to fill this week. They officially do not exist. The ones that are now in existance can be a motion, but not ones that are not approved. Then it's pretty clear that you should rule any attempt to fill those offices out of order, since filling an office that does not exist would violate the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.