Approving a Budget

[Pastor Tim]

One of the tasks of the annual meeting of our association of churches is to approve the annual budget.  Included in the budget are the salary and benefits of our Executive Minister.

This year, someone wanted to amend the budget to raise the Executive's salary, as there is general agreement that his salary should be higher.  But there are legitimate constraints on how much we can pay him; there is a finite amount of money to work with, and other ministry areas are also important.  So our Executive Board brought a budget that takes all these priorities into consideration (as they do each year), with the explanation that they continue to look for ways to increase the salary and benefits package.

In the discussion on the floor, some objected to the motion to raise the Executive's salary on the grounds that because the benefit package was negotiated with the Executive Board, it should be considered an unamendable portion of the budget.  This line of thinking is consistent with our custom in local congregations of when we hire pastors: the salary package is negotiated with the pastoral candidate and then voted either up or down by the congregation.  We recognize that hammering out the fine details of a salary and benefits package (or a large, complicated budget) is a tough task for open session of a meeting, where many people may be uninformed over the fine details, or may have some kind of ax to grind with staff and may seek to punish a staff member by voting to cut their salary out of the budget.

All this begs both a specific and a general question:

• First (specifically): is there any way to make the salary and benefits portion of the budget unamendable?  Could we pass a conference rule, or add something to our bylaws, to do this?
• Second (generally): because budgets have to consider some very real bottom line considerations, what would we do with a motion that, for example, said "I move to raise the Executive's salary by $500 by taking $500 from the Utilities portion of the budget."  Or, "I vote to raise the Executive's salary by $5,000" with no consideration of where the money would come from?

 

[Atul Kapur]

You would need a Special Rule of Order or Bylaw that says this portion of the budget is not amendable. I have seen this placed in the job description of the position or in the articles about the executive board, giving them the exclusive authority to negotiate the package with the person.

[jstackpo]

The key to Atul's reply is the words "exclusive authority"    The RONR gold standard is that the Assembly has all the decision powers for an organization but can delegate (via bylaws) some powers (or all for that matter) to an Executive Board or similar named subgroup.   But delegation just says what the ExecBoard can do; the Assembly still retains the ability to do it too.  But if the Assembly gives exclusive powers (for specific items) to the ExecBoard, then the latter can do what it pleases, and the Assembly (general membership) has no further say in the matter (until the bylaws get amended taking away the "exclusive" part).

However, many corporate laws (I'm not a lawyer so go find a real one) flip this hierarchy over such that the ExecBoard has all the power originally and can delegate some to the general membership, or elsewhere.

Presumably your church organization is incorporated, so I will leave it you you to find out what camp you are in (or perhaps some other variant).

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Atul Kapur said:

You would need a Special Rule of Order or Bylaw that says this portion of the budget is not amendable

I agree that such a provision can be adopted as a special rule of order, but, as such, wouldn't it be a rule that can be suspended by a two thirds vote just as with other special rules of order?

Question:  What if such a provision is included in the bylaws.  Being in the nature of a rule of order, could that provision, if in the bylaws, be suspended even though included in the bylaws?

[Atul Kapur]

There are other threads about setting an even higher threshold for suspending such a rule in the by-laws, or even making such a provision unsuspendable (which I would not recommend).

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Atul Kapur said:

There are other threads about setting an even higher threshold for suspending such a rule in the by-laws, or even making such a provision unsuspendable (which I would not recommend).

Any links? I question whether the rule can be made non-suspendable as a special rule of order. Perhaps as a bylaw provision, , but I would like some authority on that as  well. 

[Rob Elsman]

A motion to suspend a rule of order that protects, say, one-fourth of the members voting would require a three-fourths vote for adoption.

[Atul Kapur]

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Any links?

You will need someone who is more knowledgeable about the search function on this forum to help with that.

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I question whether the rule can be made non-suspendable as a special rule of order. Perhaps as a bylaw provision,

I was careful to say "a rule in the bylaws" for this very reason.

[Josh Martin]

6 hours ago, Pastor Tim said:

First (specifically): is there any way to make the salary and benefits portion of the budget unamendable?  Could we pass a conference rule, or add something to our bylaws, to do this?

A rule could be adopted in the bylaws providing that the executive board has exclusive authority in this matter. In the alternative, a special rule of order, or a rule in the bylaws, could be adopted providing that this portion of the budget may not be amended, or setting a higher threshold for such amendments.

6 hours ago, Pastor Tim said:

Second (generally): because budgets have to consider some very real bottom line considerations, what would we do with a motion that, for example, said "I move to raise the Executive's salary by $500 by taking $500 from the Utilities portion of the budget."  Or, "I vote to raise the Executive's salary by $5,000" with no consideration of where the money would come from?

Either motion is in order. The more sensible members will have to persuade their fellow members to keep in mind these “very real bottom line considerations” in debate.

4 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I agree that such a provision can be adopted as a special rule of order, but, as such, wouldn't it be a rule that can be suspended by a two thirds vote just as with other special rules of order?

Question:  What if such a provision is included in the bylaws.  Being in the nature of a rule of order, could that provision, if in the bylaws, be suspended even though included in the bylaws?

At the very least, the assembly could make it more difficult (even much more difficult) to suspend the rule. The rule could provide that it could be suspended only by a 3/4 vote, or even by a unanimous vote. The rule could also provide that such amendments are in order but require a higher vote threshold for adoption, which would have much the same effect.

I personally see no reason why the rule could not provide that the rule cannot be suspended, period. The assembly’s rules take precedence over RONR. If an assembly wishes to adopt rules which prevent the suspension of certain rules of order, it is free to do so. The rule could still be amended through the usual process (unless the assembly adopts rules about that too).