Church Special Business Meeting - New Pastor

[Guest Luke]

I will be moderating a special business meeting for our church this weekend with the agenda of voting on a candidate to assume a pastoral position, brought by a pastoral search committee.  In anticipation of someone trying to amend that motion in some way, I wanted to make sure that would be out of order, and get some advice on the best way (language to use) to handle that.

[Tom Coronite]

It’s likely much would depend on the specifics of the amendment.

For example, if the motion were “to call/hire Rev Smith as Pastor” and someone proposed an amendment to add “for a term of 3 years” would you rule that out of order?

If the proposed amendment were “at a church other than this one” then I might be with you on that one.

Edited March 29, 2019 at 03:09 PM by Tom Coronite

[Richard Brown]

27 minutes ago, Guest Luke said:

I will be moderating a special business meeting for our church this weekend with the agenda of voting on a candidate to assume a pastoral position, brought by a pastoral search committee.  In anticipation of someone trying to amend that motion in some way, I wanted to make sure that would be out of order, and get some advice on the best way (language to use) to handle that.

 

24 minutes ago, Tom Coronite said:

It’s likely much would depend on the specifics of the amendment

I agree with Tom Coronite.  Much depends on the nature and specifics of the proposed amendment.  Main motions are, by definition, amendable.  RONR, page 80.  So, the question becomes whether a particular amendment is in order.

[jstackpo]

And a tricky one (just to give the OP, Luke, something to fret about...) would be an amendment to Strike Out "Smith" and insert "Jones".

(I am assuming that the Rev Jones was considered by the search committee, but Rev. Smith was the committee's final choice.)

Might make for a lively meeting!

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest Luke said:

I will be moderating a special business meeting for our church this weekend with the agenda of voting on a candidate to assume a pastoral position, brought by a pastoral search committee.  In anticipation of someone trying to amend that motion in some way, I wanted to make sure that would be out of order, and get some advice on the best way (language to use) to handle that.

Why would it be out of order? Is there a particular amendment you suspect is forthcoming which you believe would be out of order, or are you suggesting that any amendments would be out of order? If the former, we would need more information. If the latter, I would suggest that this is not correct, at least so far as RONR is concerned.

In the event that an amendment is out of order, the chair would say “The chair rules that the amendment is out of order, because (REASONS).”

49 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

And a tricky one (just to give the OP, Luke, something to fret about...) would be an amendment to Strike Out "Smith" and insert "Jones".

(I am assuming that the Rev Jones was considered by the search committee, but Rev. Smith was the committee's final choice.)

Might make for a lively meeting!

At least so far as the rules of RONR are concerned, this doesn’t seem tricky at all. It seems to me that such an amendment would be entirely in order.

It is conceivable, however, that the amendment would not be in order due to some rule of the organization on this matter.

Edited March 29, 2019 at 04:59 PM by Josh Martin

[jstackpo]

Not parliamentarily "tricky" to be sure, but organizationally so.   As long as Rev Jones was otherwise qualified per whatever church rules might apply.

[Guest Zev]

4 hours ago, Guest Luke said:

In anticipation of someone trying to amend that motion in some way,...

In other words, the pastoral search committee is the boss and the church assembly is a bunch of potted plants sitting there for display purposes. Why even have a meeting to discuss this subject?

[Joshua Katz]

Well, since no one else seems to have asked: what exactly did the notice say would be considered? The question is whether an amendment would cause the motion to extend beyond the scope of notice. It seems to me that if the notice said you'd be considering hiring X, it would go outside the notice to substitute Y, but of course perfectly within the rights of the assembly to vote no. It would be within scope of notice to reduce the pay, put time limits (as suggested above), etc. 

[Josh Martin]

43 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Well, since no one else seems to have asked: what exactly did the notice say would be considered? The question is whether an amendment would cause the motion to extend beyond the scope of notice. It seems to me that if the notice said you'd be considering hiring X, it would go outside the notice to substitute Y, but of course perfectly within the rights of the assembly to vote no. It would be within scope of notice to reduce the pay, put time limits (as suggested above), etc. 

The concept of “scope of notice” is not applicable to the notice for a special meeting. This concept applies only to motions which, in and of themselves, require previous notice.

It is of course correct that if an amendment is made which would change the motion into something completely different, this would not be in order, but this would not be in order at any meeting, since amendments must be germane.

[Richard Brown]

5 hours ago, Guest Luke said:

I will be moderating a special business meeting for our church this weekend with the agenda of voting on a candidate to assume a pastoral position, brought by a pastoral search committee.  In anticipation of someone trying to amend that motion in some way, I wanted to make sure that would be out of order, and get some advice on the best way (language to use) to handle that.

 

59 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

In other words, the pastoral search committee is the boss and the church assembly is a bunch of potted plants sitting there for display purposes. Why even have a meeting to discuss this subject?

Since our purpose here is to help people, I really don't think it serves a purpose to get snarky or sarcastic.  Guest Luke's question is actually a rather common one on this forum and it isn't unusual for guests to ask whether amendments can be prohibited and if so, how.  There are numerous threads on the subject. 

In fact, there are methods to prohibit amendments or at least make them more difficult to adopt.  For example, a motion or special rule of order can be adopted which prohibits amendments in certain circumstances, but it would require a two thirds vote for the adoption of such a rule.  And such a special rule could itself be suspended by a two thirds vote.

[Joshua Katz]

8 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

It is of course correct that if an amendment is made which would change the motion into something completely different, this would not be in order, but this would not be in order at any meeting, since amendments must be germane.

If the notice of the meeting said they would be considering a motion "to hire X at a rate of 50k annually," would it be in order to amend it to 100k annually?

[jstackpo]

Certainly.  Page 94, line 13ff.    (That was new text, at that location, anyway, in the 11th ed., which is why it might have slipped by you.)

[Gary Novosielski]

3 hours ago, jstackpo said:

Not parliamentarily "tricky" to be sure, but organizationally so.   As long as Rev Jones was otherwise qualified per whatever church rules might apply.

But perhaps no tricker than instead of amending the motion, simply voting it down.

[Josh Martin]

14 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

If the notice of the meeting said they would be considering a motion "to hire X at a rate of 50k annually," would it be in order to amend it to 100k annually?

Yes. The concept of scope of notice is found in the rules governing motions which require previous notice, or where such notice reduces the vote required for adoption. Notice of such motions must include either the actual wording of the motion or sufficient information to determine its “scope and purport” in order that this rule may be properly applied. The notice required for a special meeting is not the same thing. The rules on that subject require only that the notice include the subject matter of the motions to be discussed, and has no scope of notice rule for amendments.

So the notice of the special meeting does not even need to mention the rate of pay, but even if it does, this does not change what amendments are in order.

Edited March 29, 2019 at 08:48 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

5 hours ago, Guest Luke said:

I will be moderating a special business meeting for our church this weekend with the agenda of voting on a candidate to assume a pastoral position, brought by a pastoral search committee.  In anticipation of someone trying to amend that motion in some way, I wanted to make sure that would be out of order, and get some advice on the best way (language to use) to handle that.

If the rules in RONR apply, amendments would be in order, as they are on main motions in general.

Are you sure you're worried that someone will try to amend the motion, or are you worried that such an effort would succeed?  If an effort to amend the motion cannot be turned away by a vote, what confidence do you have that the main motion would pass at all?  Is this expected to be a nail-bitingly close vote?  I hope before calling a new pastor you have an expectation of strong majority support.  And if you have that, why would you worry about hostile amendments?  Just debate against them and vote them down, if they occur at all.

In general, you are much better off getting what you want through debate, discussion, and persuasion than by finding a parliamentary trick to thwart the will of those who disagree with you.  People who are denied the opportunity to offer and debate an amendment, even one with no hope of passing, are much more likely simply to vote No on the main motion, if that's their only opportunity to express their concerns.

This is not parliamentary procedure, this is politics.

Edited March 29, 2019 at 09:03 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Joshua Katz]

14 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

Certainly.  Page 94, line 13ff.    (That was new text, at that location, anyway, in the 11th ed., which is why it might have slipped by you.)

Very well. Let's go with that explanation.

[Richard Brown]

38 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

Certainly.  Page 94, line 13ff.    (That was new text, at that location, anyway, in the 11th ed., which is why it might have slipped by you.)

John, are y0u sure about that citation?  If so, how is it relevant?   In my 11th edition, that citation has to do with adjourned meetings.  The next session is regarding annual meetings.  We have not been advised that this meeting is either of those. In fact, the original poster said it is a special meeting.

[jstackpo]

Oops, fumble fingers:   shud b page 93.  (line correct)

[Guest Zev]

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Since our purpose here is to help people, I really don't think it serves a purpose to get snarky or sarcastic.

You are absolute correct. My apology.

[Guest Guest Gary]

Given that the church appointed a search committee for the purpose of identifying a qualified candidate, is this process analogous to nominations by the chair (though this is the calling of a single person, not appointment of a committee). It has been explained to me on this forum in the past that this method is used when the assembly wishes to take advantage of the chair’s (or in this case the search committee's) knowledge and judgment as to qualified candidates, yet wishes to have veto power. Would this limit the membership's ability to substitute a candidate in place of another? 

[Bruce Lages]

I'm not sure that this situation is in any way analogous to nominations by the chair as described in RONR. It seems to me that what you are doing is, in essence, hiring an employee. Since you have decided to appoint a search committee, which certainly is desirable for such an important decision, I think your approach should be to listen to their report and then decide whether to accept their recommendation or not. I don't see any basis in RONR that would prevent your congregation from nominating someone else when the committee offers its recommendation, but it seems very unlikely that you would have the benefit of your search committee's due diligence for any such nomination. Since you gave this committee the responsibility of researching the qualifications of candidates (rightly so in my opinion), it might be better, if there is not strong support for their choice, to vote that choice down and refer the search back to the same committee, or even change some or all of the committee members, and ask them to report back with recommendations for one or more different candidates.

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Bruce Lages. I do not see the situation as being analogous to the assembly merely ratifying an appointment or nomination by the chair. I see this as more of an ordinary committee recommendation which, once it is before the assembly, is subject to amendment as well as being voted up or down as presented.

If there are Provisions in your bylaws which provide otherwise, then your bylaws would control. I suppose that if this is the way it has been done for years and through the selection of many pastors, the procedure you want to follow could perhaps be looked upon as a custom. Ultimately, it may require a ruling on a point of order by the chair as to whether amendments are permissible and then an appeal of the ruling to the assembly. The decision of the assembly on the appeal is final.

Although none of us on this forum are members of your congregation and we do not get to vote on this, I think you will find little support among our regular contributors for your position. I think the vast majority of us are of the opinion, based on RONR , that this is an ordinary main motion resulting from a committee recommendation and that it is subject to amendment as are all original main motions. We don't get to decide it, however. Your presiding officer and your assembly are the ones who will ultimately decide whether it is amendable.

[Guest Zev]

42 minutes ago, Guest Guest Gary said:

Would this limit the membership's ability to substitute a candidate in place of another? 

In my opinion this would depend heavily on what the bylaws say the role of the search committee is. If the bylaws state that the search committee recommends a candidate, then when the motion becomes pending the assembly may change it by way of amendment just like any other motion. However, if the bylaws, are emphatic that the recommendation of the search committee must be either accepted or rejected, then the assembly may not amend the motion, they must adopt it or vote it down. In the case of rejection they will probably instruct the search committee to recommend another candidate and the process starts anew.

I am familiar with a similar situation that occurred at a very large convention. The convention was organized with a variety of committees including a "Committee On Committees" whose function was to recommend candidates to the various committees which the convention would then consider. At one particular convention when the list of committee prospective candidates was presented to the convention a motion was made to strike a few names and insert others for a particular committee. The chairman disallowed the amendment. When a Point Of Order was raised the chairman declared that the bylaws said that candidates for the various committees "must be recommended by the Committee On Committees" and therefore the motion could not be amended since the Committee On Committees did not recommend the names inserted and the convention could not reject the names they suggested. A Point Of Order was raised which the chairman rejected out of hand and the convention erupted, the chairman rejecting all attempts to amend the motion, even though such amendments had been the custom for over one hundred and fifty years. Eventually the chairman was sued by one of the assembly members in Federal Court, and when the case was heard the judge laughed the case out of court stating that the defendant had First Amendment rights to free speech and therefore his actions did not violate any Federal statute. As a result the convention split with many of the member organizations and their delegates leaving and forming another convention.

The upshot of all this is that care must be exercised in how the bylaws characterize the role of the committee and whether their reports are just recommendations or whether their reports are a take-it-or-leave-it situation, preferably with language that leaves no doubt as to which one and not leaving it to custom.

[Gary Novosielski]

1 hour ago, Guest Guest Gary said:

Given that the church appointed a search committee for the purpose of identifying a qualified candidate, is this process analogous to nominations by the chair (though this is the calling of a single person, not appointment of a committee). It has been explained to me on this forum in the past that this method is used when the assembly wishes to take advantage of the chair’s (or in this case the search committee's) knowledge and judgment as to qualified candidates, yet wishes to have veto power. Would this limit the membership's ability to substitute a candidate in place of another? 

This is not a nomination and amounts to an unsupportable stretch of an inapplicable rule.

It also is an attempt to limit the membership's ability to make its own decisions which goes against the basic principles of RONR.