Bylaw interpretation that election was invalid

[Tim Kennedy]

In the absence of a Pastor our Interim Pastor asked me to moderate our church's monthly business meetings. Little did I know what I was getting into. Although, my understanding of Robert's Rules is much deeper now than it was. I'd like some guidance on whether things were handled appropriately. And how to proceed from here.

The church has the following bylaw for the selection of a new Pastor:

A Pastor Selection Committee shall be appointed by the church to seek out a suitable pastor, and their recommendations will constitute a nomination, though any active full member has the privilege of making other nominations according to the policy established by the church. The committee shall bring to the consideration of the church only one man at a time. Election shall be by secret ballot, an affirmative vote of three-fourths of those active, full members present being necessary for selection. The pastor, thus elected, shall serve until the relationship is terminated by his request or the church’s request. He shall preside at meetings of the church. The pastor or the church will give a minimum two weeks’ notice at the time of resignation or termination.

At our January business meeting a member moved to nominate the Interim Pastor for the office of Pastor. (Coincidentally, the Interim Pastor is also a member.) The motion passed by secret ballot with a 2/3 majority. My interpretation as the moderator was that this nomination was separate from the work of the Selection Committee. And I clearly stated that the vote to elect our current Interim Pastor as Pastor would take place at next month's meeting. This was to provide notification to all the members of this important vote.

Sometime after the meeting was adjourned the question was raised that the bylaw means the Committee is to consider the nominee along with the other candidates who have applied for the position. Or that the Committee must recommend the nominee. My take on the situation was that a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted would be needed to change whether the vote would proceed.

There was a motion to amend the previously adopted motion. It was to specifically add the Interim Pastor into the pool of candidates the Committee was considering. Since the amendment did not have prior notice, and the affirmative vote did not result in a 2/3 majority, it failed. The election for Pastor was conducted and the required 3/4 majority was obtained.

Now one of the members who raised the original question is claiming that since the Committee did not present the nominee the bylaws were violated and the vote was invalid.

Thank you in advance for your advice!

Tim

[Joshua Katz]

My only answer is that, a) only your organization can interpret its own bylaws, and b) I am glad not to be a member and left to interpret that bylaw. I have no idea whether nominations must be together or separate, or what the vote is when a candidate does not come from the committee (although 3/4 seems right). I don't really know where you got the idea that the full body must nominate the candidate, and in effect vote twice. In any case, is there any precedent within the organization? Any institutional memory as to how this has been handled? 

[Josh Martin]

On 3/4/2023 at 10:34 PM, Tim Kennedy said:

Now one of the members who raised the original question is claiming that since the Committee did not present the nominee the bylaws were violated and the vote was invalid.

I am not entirely certain from the facts presented whether it is correct that "the bylaws were violated." I think I would need to see the exact text of the rules in question to even attempt to make a determination on that matter. But I certainly do not see any violation which would be severe enough to invalidate the vote.

[Tim Kennedy]

On 3/5/2023 at 3:54 AM, Joshua Katz said:

My only answer is that, a) only your organization can interpret its own bylaws, and b) I am glad not to be a member and left to interpret that bylaw. I have no idea whether nominations must be together or separate, or what the vote is when a candidate does not come from the committee (although 3/4 seems right). I don't really know where you got the idea that the full body must nominate the candidate, and in effect vote twice. In any case, is there any precedent within the organization? Any institutional memory as to how this has been handled? 

I agree, it would take concerted effort to make that bylaw more ambiguous than it already is.

There have been incidents when there was no committee and the nomination was made by a member. And other times when the committee brought the nomination. No one can recall a time where the committee was active and a member made a nomination.

 

On 3/5/2023 at 9:22 AM, Josh Martin said:

I am not entirely certain from the facts presented whether it is correct that "the bylaws were violated." I think I would need to see the exact text of the rules in question to even attempt to make a determination on that matter. But I certainly do not see any violation which would be severe enough to invalidate the vote.

The original post contains the exact text of the rules in question. I'll add them below for your convenience:

A Pastor Selection Committee shall be appointed by the church to seek out a suitable pastor, and their recommendations will constitute a nomination, though any active full member has the privilege of making other nominations according to the policy established by the church. The committee shall bring to the consideration of the church only one man at a time. Election shall be by secret ballot, an affirmative vote of three-fourths of those active, full members present being necessary for selection. The pastor, thus elected, shall serve until the relationship is terminated by his request or the church’s request. He shall preside at meetings of the church. The pastor or the church will give a minimum two weeks’ notice at the time of resignation or termination.

Thanks again for your time.

[Josh Martin]

On 3/5/2023 at 5:11 PM, Tim Kennedy said:

The original post contains the exact text of the rules in question. I'll add them below for your convenience:

My apologies. I overlooked that this was an exact quote.

On 3/5/2023 at 5:11 PM, Tim Kennedy said:

A Pastor Selection Committee shall be appointed by the church to seek out a suitable pastor, and their recommendations will constitute a nomination, though any active full member has the privilege of making other nominations according to the policy established by the church. The committee shall bring to the consideration of the church only one man at a time. Election shall be by secret ballot, an affirmative vote of three-fourths of those active, full members present being necessary for selection. The pastor, thus elected, shall serve until the relationship is terminated by his request or the church’s request. He shall preside at meetings of the church. The pastor or the church will give a minimum two weeks’ notice at the time of resignation or termination.

I think the key phrase is "any active full member has the privilege of making other nominations according to the policy established by the church." So it would seem to me that the intent of the bylaw is that any active full member may make other nominations, and that any nominations presented by members are to be considered by the church. The rule provides, however, that this is to be done in accordance with a "policy established by the church." I would imagine such a policy would contain additional rules concerning this matter, such as the timeline for when nominations must be submitted by, the manner in which nominations are submitted, and so forth. I take it such a policy has not yet been adopted. So the church might want to get on that.

Therefore, my own view of it is that the church did violate the bylaws by failing to provide a method by which "any active full member" may exercise "the privilege of making other nominations," as required by the bylaws. I do not believe, however, that this violation has the effect of invalidating the election. Just do it right next time.

[Tim Kennedy]

Mr. Katz and Mr. Martin

Thank you for your responses and advice. We will have some work to do to clean things up after the dust settles.