Otto and Fritz got into it at the Voters meeting today.
It all started early on when Otto pointed out that, "on page 15 of our constitution it calls for Voters' meeting agendas to be published one week in advance of the meeting in order to give the Voters a chance to prepare."
Before going much farther, I should add that I believe Otto made up that last part. I think this business about "in order to give the Voters a chance to prepare..." was an editorial comment on Otto's part because in thirty-five years of church work, I've only met a few people, Otto among them, that I felt actually 'prepared' for a Voters' meeting.
Be that as it may, and I readily admit that I didn't reference my copy of the constitution (mainly because I haven't been able to locate mine for the past 12 years), the real problem began when Otto made a motion, "that we should follow our constitution and begin publishing the agenda one week in advance of the meeting" even though it was apparent to everyone present that we haven't published an agenda in advance of a Voters' meeting for over 30 years, including during Otto's tenure as the congregation's chairman.
Fritz, who also was carrying his personal copy of the constitution today, immediately raised a concern over voting to do something that our constitution already said we should do. Fritz felt voting to do something that the constitution said we should do set a bad "precedent." (Fritz really loves the word precedent and uses it whenever he can at Voters' meetings.)
"After all," he warned, "what if the assembly voted down Otto's motion? Then where would we be?" "We could conceivably end up voting to NOT follow our own constitution," cautioned Fritz, "a very dangerous precedent indeed!"
This led to a rather lengthy discussion regarding the meaning of the word precedent and whether or not a Voters assembly could actually change things in their own church constitution which, Otto was quick to point out was covered on page 73 of the 2004 constitutional revision, "Amending The Constitution, Unalterable Articles, And The Like."
Turns out the Voters can indeed vote to change their constitution...but it requires a quorum consisting of 90% of the registered voters to be in attendance, a 17/18 majority vote, and two weeks written notice to the congregation of the vote that is about to be taken. By Otto's reckoning, therefore, there was no 'dangerous precedent' about to be set at all since only an affirmative vote to his motion would be legal...constitutionally speaking that is.
Todd, our chairman, had a panicked look on his face and asked if anyone had a motion or could cite a rubric regarding how to proceed on Otto's motion and/or Fritz's concern over precedent. Fritz quickly 'suggested a ballot vote on the matter before us,' but by this time nobody really understood what 'the matter before us' actually was anymore.
Even though we had already consumed 45 minutes of our one hour meeting time, I couldn't be absolutely sure that we might not get to my spot on the agenda and, not having come prepared with a written report for today's meeting (as is called for in our constitution)...I called for a 'point of order.' Diane says that I am "bad," but to me it all depends on how you define, "bad."
"Mr. Chairman, point of order, point of order. Is Fritz's 'suggestion' for a ballot vote the same as a motion?" I could tell by Todd's expression that he agreed with Diane...
|