Adopted Motions Deemed Afterwards Unimplementable

[Guest David D]

I belong to a church that is organized internationally into various jurisdictions of several congregations called mission centers.  Each mission center has leadership that provides governance to the mission center, including holding an annual legislative conference.

This past October, the mission center I belong to considered a motion to amend our mission center’s bylaws.  After some debate, it was decided to instead form a committee consisting of one member from each of the congregations that make up the mission center to review the bylaws and consider the possible impact of the proposed changes.  After a mere month since this motion was adopted, the mission center leadership sent out a message saying that not all congregations responded to the request to provide a representative for this committee. As the wording of the adopted resolution states that the committee was to have members from all congregations, the presidency has declared, because of the fact that some congregations did not respond, that the resolution is unimplementable.

Setting aside the fact that I don’t think they gave the congregations enough time to respond, what are the rules, if any, governing a resolution that was adopted, but which, down the road, proves to be, for whatever reason, unimplementable or impossible to fulfill / execute for some reason?

[Gary Novosielski]

You can use the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted to change the resolution to something that can be achieved.  If it has been found to be completely unworkable it can be Rescinded.

These motions are covered in §35 of RONR 12th edition.

[Alicia Percell, PRP]

It will also depend on the exact wording of the motion which defined the committee.  Was it worded in a way that each congregation MUST name a representative, and the committee can't function unless each congregation has done so?  Or was there a deadline by which each congregation must name their representative, else the committee will proceed without them?  Or was it just that each congregation is ELIGIBLE to name a representative, but the committee can proceed once a certain number have been named?  Or something else?  Does everyone (or even a majority of you) agree with the presidency's interpretation that the way the motion was written means it's impossible to do?  Or is this a dispute about interpreting the language of the motion?

If enough of you agree that the previously adopted motion is now unworkable, then use the advice above about amending it to make it workable or even rescinding it.  But look carefully at the adopted wording to see if that's really the case.

[Guest David D]

Thank you all for your replies, I really appreciate it!