attention to details

[Mel Harris]

According to the ELCA News Service, a synod bishop is now arguing with a congregation about whether they got the required 2/3rds majority vote to leave the ELCA.  The bishop seems to be claiming that someone from the congregation let him know how many voting members of that congregation were registered for the meeting, and that number exceeds the number that the congregation reported were present at that meeting.  Using the larger of the disputed numbers of how many voting members were present, the bishop is claiming that the congregation failed to get the required 2/3rds majority.  Apparently it is very important to pay attention to and document all the details of a meeting to vote on leaving the ELCA.

The ELCA News Service story is at

http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Communication-Services/News/Releases.aspx?a=4384

The synod has posted the letters sent to this congregation at

http://www.neiasynod.org/synod_news/pdf/Zion%20%20Clear%20Lake.pdf

Mel Harris

[MSchimmel]

According to the ELCA News Service, a synod bishop is now arguing with a congregation about whether they got the required 2/3rds majority vote to leave the ELCA.  The bishop seems to be claiming that someone from the congregation let him know how many voting members of that congregation were registered for the meeting, and that number exceeds the number that the congregation reported were present at that meeting.  Using the larger of the disputed numbers of how many voting members were present, the bishop is claiming that the congregation failed to get the required 2/3rds majority.  Apparently it is very important to pay attention to and document all the details of a meeting to vote on leaving the ELCA.

The ELCA News Service story is at

http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Communication-Services/News/Releases.aspx?a=4384

The synod has posted the letters sent to this congregation at

http://www.neiasynod.org/synod_news/pdf/Zion%20%20Clear%20Lake.pdf

Mel Harris

That's interesting - if the bishop's numbers of registered voters is accurate - not a given if they were provided by an anonymous "member" (Charles should be defending this congregation right now    ) - then they did indeed fall short.

[Brian Stoffregen]

According to the ELCA News Service, a synod bishop is now arguing with a congregation about whether they got the required 2/3rds majority vote to leave the ELCA.  The bishop seems to be claiming that someone from the congregation let him know how many voting members of that congregation were registered for the meeting, and that number exceeds the number that the congregation reported were present at that meeting.  Using the larger of the disputed numbers of how many voting members were present, the bishop is claiming that the congregation failed to get the required 2/3rds majority.  Apparently it is very important to pay attention to and document all the details of a meeting to vote on leaving the ELCA.

The ELCA News Service story is at

http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Communication-Services/News/Releases.aspx?a=4384

The synod has posted the letters sent to this congregation at

http://www.neiasynod.org/synod_news/pdf/Zion%20%20Clear%20Lake.pdf

Mel Harris

That's interesting - if the bishop's numbers of registered voters is accurate - not a given if they were provided by an anonymous "member" (Charles should be defending this congregation right now    ) - then they did indeed fall short.

It was the practice at some congregations I served to have all the voting members present at a congregational meeting sign in. This way there would be accurate count of the number of voting members present -- and also a way to check if all of those people were actually voting members.

[MSchimmel]

According to the ELCA News Service, a synod bishop is now arguing with a congregation about whether they got the required 2/3rds majority vote to leave the ELCA.  The bishop seems to be claiming that someone from the congregation let him know how many voting members of that congregation were registered for the meeting, and that number exceeds the number that the congregation reported were present at that meeting.  Using the larger of the disputed numbers of how many voting members were present, the bishop is claiming that the congregation failed to get the required 2/3rds majority.  Apparently it is very important to pay attention to and document all the details of a meeting to vote on leaving the ELCA.

The ELCA News Service story is at

http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Communication-Services/News/Releases.aspx?a=4384

The synod has posted the letters sent to this congregation at

http://www.neiasynod.org/synod_news/pdf/Zion%20%20Clear%20Lake.pdf

Mel Harris

That's interesting - if the bishop's numbers of registered voters is accurate - not a given if they were provided by an anonymous "member" (Charles should be defending this congregation right now    ) - then they did indeed fall short.

It was the practice at some congregations I served to have all the voting members present at a congregational meeting sign in. This way there would be accurate count of the number of voting members present -- and also a way to check if all of those people were actually voting members.

Understood - but as you said, that is not always the practice - and if not I would think the official recording secretary's total in the record would rule ... not the anonymous numbers the bishop chooses to use.

[Timotheus Verinus]

According to the ELCA News Service, a synod bishop is now arguing with a congregation about whether they got the required 2/3rds majority vote to leave the ELCA.  The bishop seems to be claiming that someone from the congregation let him know how many voting members of that congregation were registered for the meeting, and that number exceeds the number that the congregation reported were present at that meeting.  Using the larger of the disputed numbers of how many voting members were present, the bishop is claiming that the congregation failed to get the required 2/3rds majority.  Apparently it is very important to pay attention to and document all the details of a meeting to vote on leaving the ELCA.

The ELCA News Service story is at

http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Communication-Services/News/Releases.aspx?a=4384

The synod has posted the letters sent to this congregation at

http://www.neiasynod.org/synod_news/pdf/Zion%20%20Clear%20Lake.pdf

Mel Harris

That's interesting - if the bishop's numbers of registered voters is accurate - not a given if they were provided by an anonymous "member" (Charles should be defending this congregation right now    ) - then they did indeed fall short.

It was the practice at some congregations I served to have all the voting members present at a congregational meeting sign in. This way there would be accurate count of the number of voting members present -- and also a way to check if all of those people were actually voting members.

Understood - but as you said, that is not always the practice - and if not I would think the official recording secretary's total in the record would rule ... not the anonymous numbers the bishop chooses to use.

Wait, wait wait ... I thought you guys in convention determined that a roll call validiation of an exactly 2/3's vote was out of order? Don't we have a precedence for not paying attention to the man behind the curtain? 

Seriously, I ache, hurt and pray for this and other congregations like this, even where it is 68 to 32 percent. I have watched what happens when it is 100%. And even that was not pretty,

TV

[revklak]

Well, giving the bishop the benefit of the doubt for the moment -- maybe there were more technically in attendance, but if they were out of the room, in the bathroom, say, or off for some coffee, wouldn't the 2/3 of the actual votes cast be the deciding number, meaning it did pass?  I mean, I seem to remember something like this happening somewhere over the rainbow (after a tornado...)

[Brian Stoffregen]

Well, giving the bishop the benefit of the doubt for the moment -- maybe there were more technically in attendance, but if they were out of the room, in the bathroom, say, or off for some coffee, wouldn't the 2/3 of the actual votes cast be the deciding number, meaning it did pass?  I mean, I seem to remember something like this happening somewhere over the rainbow (after a tornado...)

The following is the article in the model constitution with boldface added:

*C6.05.   This congregation may terminate its relationship with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America by the following procedure:
   a.   A resolution indicating the desire of this congregation to terminate its relationship must be adopted at a legally called and conducted special meeting of this congregation by a two-thirds majority of the voting members present.

Note that the requirement is not a 2/3 majority of the voting members present and voting; but 2/3 of those present. So if there were 99 voting members registered as being present, it would require 66 positive votes to meet the 2/3 majority even if only 96 people voted and 3 didn't vote for whatever reason.

[J. Thomas Shelley]

The following is the article in the model constitution with boldface added:

*C6.05.   This congregation may terminate its relationship with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America by the following procedure:
   a.   A resolution indicating the desire of this congregation to terminate its relationship must be adopted at a legally called and conducted special meeting of this congregation by a two-thirds majority of the voting members present.

Note that the requirement is not a 2/3 majority of the voting members present and voting; but 2/3 of those present. So if there were 99 voting members registered as being present, it would require 66 positive votes to meet the 2/3 majority even if only 96 people voted and 3 didn't vote for whatever reason.

As an undergrad Mathematics minor and member of my Synod's Constitution Committee, I must say that  you are correct  both mathematically and Constitutionally.

[Brian Stoffregen]

As an undergrad Mathematics minor and member of my Synod's Constitution Committee,  you are correct.

Sometimes people agree with me!!

What is unclear is where the bishop (and also his assistant) got the number of voting members present at the meeting.

I also note that on the synod's site, they report other congregations where the votes did pass with at least a 2/3 majority of the voting members registered at the congregational meeting. The synod is not denying a congregation's right to take such a vote, but that the votes have to be legal in regards to the constitutional provision.

[MSchimmel]

Well, giving the bishop the benefit of the doubt for the moment -- maybe there were more technically in attendance, but if they were out of the room, in the bathroom, say, or off for some coffee, wouldn't the 2/3 of the actual votes cast be the deciding number, meaning it did pass?  I mean, I seem to remember something like this happening somewhere over the rainbow (after a tornado...)

The following is the article in the model constitution with boldface added:

*C6.05.   This congregation may terminate its relationship with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America by the following procedure:
   a.   A resolution indicating the desire of this congregation to terminate its relationship must be adopted at a legally called and conducted special meeting of this congregation by a two-thirds majority of the voting members present.

Note that the requirement is not a 2/3 majority of the voting members present and voting; but 2/3 of those present. So if there were 99 voting members registered as being present, it would require 66 positive votes to meet the 2/3 majority even if only 96 people voted and 3 didn't vote for whatever reason.

I agree as well (not that that means anything). 

So the dispute in this case is over who has the official total of voting members present.  The recording secretary and her official minutes of the meeting - or the bishop who was informed of a different number by an anonymous "member".

Seems to me that if the congregation meets and ratifies the minutes with their vote total from the previous meeting 90 days later and takes a 2nd vote >2/3 again the bishop misses his window to consult.

[racin_jason]

Zion is a vital church that gave $138k to the ELCA in benevolence in 2008.

[Charles_Austin]

It is clear what the model constitution says; but we don't even know for sure if the exact provisions of the "model" constitution were the ones in effect in that congregation. From the correspondence, it seems as if they were, but...
I think anyone here who is not in northeast Iowa or who was not present at that meeing should just shut up and let the congregation and the synod resolve the issue.

[Mel Harris]

It is clear what the model constitution says; but we don't even know for sure if the exact provisions of the "model" constitution were the ones in effect in that congregation. From the correspondence, it seems as if they were, but...
I think anyone here who is not in northeast Iowa or who was not present at that meeing should just shut up and let the congregation and the synod resolve the issue.

I do not think that anyone who has posted here has been trying to stop this congregation and synod from resolving this conflict.

My hope in starting this thread was that some of us might learn some things from what has happened and will happen in this particular case, and from our discussions about this, that could be useful for other congregations and synods.  I think the fact that the ELCA News Service and the synod have posted information about this conflict indicates that they are open to letting others know about what has happened in this case.

I thank those who have made thoughtful contributions to this thread.

I do think there is another thread where telling others here that they "should just shut up" would be more appropriate.

Mel Harris

[jramnes]

It is clear what the model constitution says; but we don't even know for sure if the exact provisions of the "model" constitution were the ones in effect in that congregation. From the correspondence, it seems as if they were, but...
I think anyone here who is not in northeast Iowa or who was not present at that meeing should just shut up and let the congregation and the synod resolve the issue.

Including the "journalists" at the ELCA news service? Or do they get a free pass from you to discuss the issue?

[Brian Stoffregen]

So the dispute in this case is over who has the official total of voting members present.  The recording secretary and her official minutes of the meeting - or the bishop who was informed of a different number by an anonymous "member".

Seems to me that if the congregation meets and ratifies the minutes with their vote total from the previous meeting 90 days later and takes a 2nd vote >2/3 again the bishop misses his window to consult.

Not necessarily. The recording secretary may have just recorded the results of the vote without recording the number of registered voting members at the meeting. From the reports, it seems as thought the synod spells out the rules congregations need to follow for a valid vote to leave; but that doesn't mean that congregations -- especially those with acrimony towards the ELCA/Synod -- will listen and follow the rules. If the official minutes failed to state the number of voting members present, then the synod would need to rely on "unofficial" reports.

Properly, there should also be assurances that all of the registered voting members were, in fact, voting members of the congregation according to the bylaws. (In the model, voting members are not exactly the same as confirmed members.) In votes like these, some inactive members -- those who have no record of communion or contributions for a few years -- could show up to vote. That happened in a congregation I served when three non-voting members showed up to help elect their friends to oust the incumbent president and secretary. However, that vote didn't have the legal ramifications as a vote to the leave the ELCA -- nor did it come under the scrutiny of the synod and secretary of the ELCA.