Guest Guest Posted January 20, 2011 at 07:59 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 at 07:59 PM A motion was made in a regular business meeting for "a special called business meeting for the purpose of terminating the pastor". Our constitution states in order for a ministry staff member to be terminated, the Personnel Committee must bring a proposal to the church in a special called business meeting. The Personnel Committee had just made a statement that they "do not feel there is justification to bring this proposal to the church". I objected to consideration of the question, but failed to get a 2/3 majority. I then moved the motion be tabled until constitutionality be determined. Motion passed. Can you make a motion that directly violates your constitution? If not, does the moderator simply kill it at the next meeting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert B Fish Posted January 20, 2011 at 08:13 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 at 08:13 PM A motion was made in a regular business meeting for "a special called business meeting for the purpose of terminating the pastor". Our constitution states in order for a ministry staff member to be terminated, the Personnel Committee must bring a proposal to the church in a special called business meeting. The Personnel Committee had just made a statement that they "do not feel there is justification to bring this proposal to the church". I objected to consideration of the question, but failed to get a 2/3 majority. I then moved the motion be tabled until constitutionality be determined. Motion passed. Can you make a motion that directly violates your constitution? If not, does the moderator simply kill it at the next meeting?We can't interpret your bylaws by just considering snippets but, if a main motion is adopted that conflicts with the bylaws (or constitution) of the organization or assembly, the motion is null and void. [Page 244] However, see the footnote that says that if the rule is in the nature of a rule of order--which depending on the wording likely applies in this case--a timely point of roder must be raised. However, the Moderator should rule in your favor and you can appeal the ruling.It's not all roses. Note that the membership could instruct the personnel committee to act, thereby accomplishing the same thing.-Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 20, 2011 at 08:26 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 at 08:26 PM However, the Moderator should rule in your favor and you can appeal the ruling.Well, if the moderator ruled in my favor, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't appeal.Note that the membership could instruct the personnel committee to act, thereby accomplishing the same thing.They might be able to order it to act but they can't order it to act a certain way. In other words, the committee can be ordered to come up with a proposal but the proposal could be to not terminate the pastor. Which is what they seem to have already done.I think the next step is to raise a point of order at the (allegedly improper) special meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 21, 2011 at 01:14 AM Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 at 01:14 AM They might be able to order it to act but they can't order it to act a certain way.So far as RONR is concerned, an assembly can order a subordinate committee to do whatever it wants. In this case, that would seem to defeat the purpose of the rule, so there may be some issues of constitutional interpretation there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted January 21, 2011 at 01:22 AM Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 at 01:22 AM what if they ordered the committe to "draft a 'call for termination' of the minister" as opposed to study the issue and form its own recommendation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 21, 2011 at 01:29 AM Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 at 01:29 AM what if they ordered the committe to "draft a 'call for termination' of the minister" as opposed to study the issue and form its own recommendation?I don't see any problem under RONR, but the potential constitutional issues are up to the society to interpret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 21, 2011 at 01:35 AM Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 at 01:35 AM So far as RONR is concerned, an assembly can order a subordinate committee to do whatever it wants.Perhaps. But if I were on a committee that was charged with making a recommendation and I was "ordered" to make a certain recommendation, I'd no longer be on that committee. And I would hope no one else would be. It's essentially being told how to vote.Though, frankly, I think such an order would be out of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 21, 2011 at 01:39 AM Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 at 01:39 AM Perhaps. But if I were on a committee that was charged with making a recommendation and I was "ordered" to make a certain recommendation, I'd no longer be on that committee. And I would hope no one else would be.Fair enough.It's essentially being told how to vote. Though, frankly, I think such an order would be out of order.I think your analogy is excellent and actually proves why such a motion would be in order, although rarely advisable. See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 587, lines 19-36.It would probably be cleaner from a rules perspective, however, if the organization just did it the old-fashioned way and replaced the committee members with people who would support the recommendation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 21, 2011 at 11:46 AM Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 at 11:46 AM See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 587, lines 19-36.I'm not sure that instructions to a representative delegation ("go and tell them that this is what we think") are analogous to ordering a committee to reach a certain conclusion ("decide what color the clubhouse should be painted and then report back to us that it should be painted white"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 21, 2011 at 07:18 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 at 07:18 PM I think the parent body can instruct a committee to do anything that does not violate the bylaws. If you instruct a committee to arrange for a Groundhog Day Breakfast, and instruct them to hold it on February 2, you don't want them coming back and saying that in their considered opinion, it might be nicer to wait for the weather to warm up, or that they think a dinner/dance would be nicer. If you instruct them to research, deliberate, and report, that's what they should do.If you instruct them to draft a resolution praising the Great Kahuna on his retirement, that's what they should do.And yes resignation is always an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 21, 2011 at 07:30 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 at 07:30 PM I think the parent body can instruct a committee to do anything that does not violate the bylaws.This is apparently a standing committee that is charged with making a proposal. The parent body is certainly free to reject (or merely modify) that proposal but to argue that it can dictate what that proposal must be flies in the face of common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted January 22, 2011 at 12:24 AM Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 at 12:24 AM I'm not sure that instructions to a representative delegation ("go and tell them that this is what we think") are analogous to ordering a committee to reach a certain conclusion ("decide what color the clubhouse should be painted and then report back to us that it should be painted white").Fair enough point, H. But I'm not suggesting the body tell the committee to Think anything. If the body directs the committee to draft a termination call, the committee doesn't have to agree with it, as a committee. And as individual members, they are free to vote against it. Shoot, I suppose they could even present the drafted language and say the committee thinks it ill-advised. They can think what they want. But when you get down to it, the committee exists to serve the body, no? And if the sense of the body is that the minister should be fired, or firing should at least be discussed and considered, I think the will of the committee should be subservient to the will of the body.I do understand your heartburn with the suggestion. I really do. Not sure what's right. But if I had to choose between the integrity of a committee and the will of the body, I'm inclined to lean towards the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 22, 2011 at 12:37 AM Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 at 12:37 AM If the body directs the committee to draft a termination call, the committee doesn't have to agree with it, as a committee. . . . And if the sense of the body is that the minister should be fired, or firing should at least be discussed and considered, I think the will of the committee should be subservient to the will of the body.I went back and read the original post (always a good idea). It says, in part, "Our constitution states in order for a ministry staff member to be terminated, the Personnel Committee must bring a proposal to the church in a special called business meeting." I see where that could be interpreted to mean that, if the committee doesn't propose termination, the pastor can't be terminated. If that's the case, I think I'd agree with those who say that the committee could be instructed to make that proposal.But I think (or at least hope) that I interpreted it (or misinterpreted it) to mean that the committee can either propose termination or retention, and then the congregation can either accept or reject that proposal.But at this point we're interpreting bylaws we haven't read so I think I'll leave this particular topic where it lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert B Fish Posted January 22, 2011 at 01:30 AM Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 at 01:30 AM I went back and read the original post (always a good idea). It says, in part, "Our constitution states in order for a ministry staff member to be terminated, the Personnel Committee must bring a proposal to the church in a special called business meeting." I see where that could be interpreted to mean that, if the committee doesn't propose termination, the pastor can't be terminated. If that's the case, I think I'd agree with those who say that the committee could be instructed to make that proposal.But I think (or at least hope) that I interpreted it (or misinterpreted it) to mean that the committee can either propose termination or retention, and then the congregation can either accept or reject that proposal.But at this point we're interpreting bylaws we haven't read so I think I'll leave this particular topic where it lies.Let's try a different instruction to the committee. "The Congregation instructs the Personnel Committee to consider whether the pastor should be terminated and to bring its proposal to a meeting of the Congregation to be held on ____."Let's assume the committee's proposal/recommendation is "That no action be taken."The Congregation would then be free to act since the requirements of the bylaws (albeit a snippet of the bylaws) have been met. The Personnel Committee did bring its proposal and the congregation is free to accept/reject/modify it just as if their recommendaiton had been "That the minister be terminated."-Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted January 22, 2011 at 07:44 PM Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 at 07:44 PM No way it could be that simple!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 22, 2011 at 07:47 PM Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 at 07:47 PM No way it could be that simple!!! Depending on how the supplied paraphrase of the bylaws compares to the actual language of the bylaws, it could range from anywhere between twice as simple:) to completely impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.