The Session has approved the attached corporate bylaws for presentation to the congregation to be voted on for adoption. The church has no working bylaws to compare with this proposed set. The following table highlights important procedures and practices in the bylaws and compares these with our current practices.
On July 10, 2011 the Presbyterian Church replaced the long used “Book of Order: Form of Government” (BoO) with a new “Form of Government” as the constitution for the church and its congregations. These new bylaws make all references to this new, much shorter, “Form of Government” (FOG). Some of the changes in the bylaws from our current practices are the result of more flexible or changed constitutional requirements.
The “Preliminary Principles” of the old Book of Order have largely been retained and are referred to as “Foundations of Presbyterian Polity” (FPP).
Our church is incorporated in the state of Texas and abides by the proper rules for such corporations. The bylaws are written so that issues for both the church (ecclesiastical) and state (corporate) are addressed. Hence, the language equates the church and corporation; elders as trustees, and the session as the board of directors. When we act, we act as both church and corporation as the rules apply.
Read more:http://www.msqpc.org/ourmission.html
First, I think its wonderful that the proposal bylaws were distributed a couple weeks in advance of the Congregational meeting. I hope that information being considered in future congregational meetings (budgets, nominations, etc) will also be published in advance so members will have more than a few short minutes to review information before a vote is taken.
ReplyDeleteAnd thank you, Doerte, for setting up this blog.
Now on to the actual topic:
1) Would it be possible to post a link to the new Form of Government (FOG) document? I spent a little time looking for it on-line without success. There are many references to this brand new FOG in the bylaws, and I don't have copy.
2) One thing I question in the bylaws is the fact that Section 5 (Deacons) explicitly states that "no deacon shall serve more than six consecutive years until having been off the board for a year" while Section 4 (Session) just says "Qualifications and procedures for the election and establishment of the session/board of trustees shall conform to the Form of Government (G-2.0402)" If FOG limits both deacons and session members to six consecutive years, then it seems to me that either BOTH Section 4 and 5 should mention this, or NEITHER needs to mention this.
Ned, yes the FOG is online but not in a good format or easy to find. I will see how to make it more user-friendly.
ReplyDeleteYour point well taken on the terms of service for elders/deacons. The FOG says it in one reference:
"G-2.0404 Terms of Service
Ruling elders and deacons shall be elected to serve terms of no more than three years
on the session or board of deacons, and may be eligible for reelection according to congregational rule. However, no ruling elder or deacon shall be eligible to serve more than
six consecutive years, and a ruling elder or deacon who has served six consecutive years
shall be ineligible for election to the same board for at least one year."
I think we included the deacons since it is a rather new board to MsqPC, but no big reason to have it there but not elders. We can write it however the congregation chooses.
Kent -
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply. I hope we're not the only two people to contribute to the blog!
Just a comment: I would prefer to have the bylaws limit a session to one elder per household (with an exception to allow a youth member to serve along with a parent or guardian). We could have grandfathered in existing two-elder households for the terms they are now serving.
I have several reasons for this:
1) I certainly don't want to suggest that people from the same household always see things in the same way, or would necessarily vote the same way, but I think a shared household lessens the diversity of the group. This is more important for a 15 member session than a 27 member session.
2) Diversity is most important when dealing with divisive issues. (I seem to recall a few instances in the past 20 years in which MSqPC has encountered these!) One household representing 2/15ths of the votes could play a decisive role if the church (and the session) are fairly evenly split. (Look at what's been going on in Washington the past few years.)
3) If there is one session member per household, a crisis (or vacation) in that household may deprive the session of a single member. But if the household has two session members, one household issue can deprive the session of both of them. I guess this might qualify as cost of 'lessened diversity', too.
This is just my opinion. I hope that other people read this blog and weigh in with their own ideas. (I hope to see some diversity in the postings!)
Okay ........ this is my fourth attempt at posting. This time, I'll try a different profile.
ReplyDeleteI support both sets of Ned's comments. Relative to calling out terms, either do it for both or don't do it at all.
Relative to two (or more?) members of the same household being on session at the same time - this situation should not happen. Ned's rational is sound. A provision on this really needs to get into the by-laws.
I make these comments as an active deacon currently serving on the Board of Deacons, while I am still moderator of the BopD, and as a member of the congregation.