The Lost Art of Consensus

Ever been in a meeting where not everyone was in agreement?

We all have. It can be an uncomfortable experience, but it's a part of living and working together in a church or other community.

What makes the difference, in such a situation, is not how we go into the meeting.

It's how we come out of it.

If we come out of the meeting with a consensus, we feel like we've accomplished something, and rightfully so.

Consensus and unanimity are not the same thing, as church consultant Susan Beaumont affirms in a noteworthy online article, "The Truth about Consensus," that's well worth clicking through to read. (More on that in a moment.)

Sometimes groups decide to set aside Robert's Rules of Order for a time, in order to make a decision "by consensus." What people mean by that vague phrase is baffling - especially because the whole purpose of Robert's Rules is to achieve consensus.

It's important to be clear, up-front, on what we mean by the word. My Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines consensus as "Agreement or unity of or of opinion, testimony, etc.; the majority view, a collective opinion; (an agreement by different parties to) a shared body of views."

Consensus is closely related to "consent." Now, we all know that to give consent to something is not the same as giving wholehearted affirmation. If a father hands over the car keys to his teenage daughter, it's true he's giving consent to her using the car that evening, but he may not be wholeheartedly in favor of the idea. He may sit up late with the porch light on, anxiously awaiting her return. But Dad's given his consent, so he's not going to stand at the foot of the driveway and prevent her from backing out.

Beaumont insightfully points out that, when many people talk about achieving consensus, they're not really talking about consensus at all. They're talking about unanimity, which is different:

"True consensus is achieved when every person involved in the decision can say: 'I believe this is the best decision we can arrive at for the organization at this time, and I will support its implementation.' In contrast, unanimity is undivided opinion. Everyone is in agreement on the best course of action to take. The difference is subtle but important. When we strive for unanimity, we end up taking an inordinate amount of time to make decisions. At best, innovation grinds to a halt. At worst, we create unhealthy patterns of interaction where people are pressured to acquiesce on important issues."

It's those unhealthy patterns of interaction that concern me. They can be subtle.

Setting aside Robert's Rules for alternative models of decision-making is in vogue in many parts of the church today. "Open space technology," "the World Cafe," and other modes of decision-making are popular options in presbytery meetings.

Such processes certainly have their advantages. They allow members who aren't so skilled in parliamentary procedure to voice their opinions. They allow introverts to shine. They provide highly visual polling methods that allow for reality-checks at key stages of the process. They also leave room for creative, even artistic, means of exploring very complex issues. Yet, applied unsparingly and without careful monitoring, they can also open the way to subtle manipulation of the group.

Here's how such manipulation can happen. Let's say a group suspends the rules and decides to spend some time sitting around tables talking about an issue. The moderator speaks rhapsodically about the virtues of unity, and how wonderful it would be if everyone could achieve a common mind during this interlude The instructions are that each table is to come up with a "consensus" recommendation and report it to the larger group. Let's also say that, at each table of four, there are three people who tend to favor Option A and one who favors Option B.

They get to talking, and at each table, the person who favors Option B feels very much alone. Mindful of the moderator's encouragement to strive for a common mind, the "B" person falls silent. Each table reports a decision to support Option A, and everyone marvels that the decision was made so easily.

That is, until some of the pro-B people get to talking afterwards, out in the parking lot, and realize they were not in such a small minority as they'd imagined. Had the rules not been suspended, more of them would have spoken up about it in debate, found strength in numbers, and could possibly have swayed enough pro-A people to change their minds that there would have been a different outcome. At the very least, they might have proposed an amendment or two that would have altered Option A to make it more to their liking.

The problem, Beaumont writes, is that many people confuse the meanings of "consensus" and "unanimity." When many use the word "consensus," what they're really hoping to achieve is unanimity, 100% agreement.

True unanimity is rare. It does not consist in the naysayers falling silent, because they've already heard the many voices in favor and have figured out in advance how the vote's going to come out.

Beaumont makes this helpful distinction:

"According to Larry Dressler, 'Consensus is a cooperative process in which all group members develop and agree to support a decision that is in the best interest of the whole. In consensus, the input of every member is carefully considered and there is a good faith effort to address all legitimate concerns.'

Consensus is not the same thing as a unanimous decision, in which all group members’ personal preferences are satisfied. Consensus is also not a majority vote, in which some larger segment of the group gets to make the decision. Consensus is not a coercive or manipulative tactic to get members to conform to some preordained decision.

In testing for consensus you are not asking: Is this your first choice of options? Do you like this option? Does this option satisfy your personal needs? In testing for consensus you are asking: Is this an option that I can live with and ultimately support? Does this option satisfy the criteria that we have claimed as a group? Will this option adequately serve the best interest of our congregation and its stakeholders?

Simply agreeing with a decision is not true consensus. Consensus implies commitment to the decision, which means that you oblige yourself to do your part in putting the decision into action."

There's one place where I disagree with Beaumont, as excellent as her article is in every other respect. She has a singularly low opinion of majority voting as a decision-making method. Having articulated the difference between consensus and unanimity, she still views majority voting as, ultimately, a failure of consensus-building.

When consensus-building fails, she recommends four possible options:

"(1) Defer the decision...,(2) Dissolve the group...., (3) Give decision making authority to a sub-group...., or (4), Default to a majority vote."

She describes this fourth option as follows:

"The group can decide, in advance, on a point in time where consensus seeking will end. If you have not reached consensus by that point in time, the group will vote and the decision will be determined by the majority."

This, in fact, happens under Robert's Rules by either passing a motion to fix a time at which to vote (in other words, docketing a vote to take place at a particular time) or by voting to "move the previous question," thus ending debate.

But - and here's my quarrel with her reasoning - why is this sort of outcome a mere "default"?  Isn't a majority vote, following spirited debate, in fact an excellent means of achieving consensus - as that word is truly and accurately defined?

I believe it is. Consensus means trusting the group enough to be on the losing side of a vote and still support the decision.

The trend in our larger society is against consensus of any kind, to see it as a failure of one's own argument and therefore to be be resisted at all costs. It's precisely the loss of the art of consensus that is bedeviling the Congress of the United States in these days of partisan polarization.

Let's not be that way in the church of Jesus Christ. Let us remember how blessed it can be to agree to disagree. Let us honor true consensus as a mark of Christian unity.

A Quick Guide to Parliamentary Procedure

In case you're wondering, this distinguished personage is Henry Martyn Robert. Besides being a guy with three first names, why do you suppose he deserves a place on this blog?

Why, because he's the Robert of Robert's Rules of Order, of course!

Most people don't know that Robert was a Colonel in the U.S. Army and a member of the Corps of Engineers who served in the Civil War (later he was promoted to General). The experience that led him to set down in exhaustive detail a set of rules for parliamentary meetings had nothing to do with the military. It took place in a church setting.

Specifically, it was a raucous congregational meeting that got out of hand. An engineer like Robert, who surely had a passion for keeping things in good order, would have been especially troubled by the chaos.

In case you're wondering, it wasn't a Presbyterian church. Robert was a Baptist.

So, Robert's Rules were actually birthed in the church --- although the good Colonel based them, loosely, on the rules of the U.S. Congress, which in turn were inspired by the British Parliament.

If you've ever picked up a copy of the full Robert's Rules - the complete version, not one of the many abridged versions out there - you've surely been impressed by how dense and incomprehensible it seems. It's a real brick of a book. Here's the cover of the first edition, from 1878.

The book is periodically revised by Robert's descendants, who own the rights to it. The most recent edition contains rules for some situations the venerable parliamentarian could never have imagined - like electronic meetings.

Fortunately, most elders - ruling as well as teaching - don't need to master all those procedural intricacies. A number of simplified versions are out there, that should be more than adequate for most situations that come up in a session or congregational meeting.

If you want a really abbreviated version, Therese Howells, a fellow stated clerk, has just put up a helpful article on the PC(USA) website. She hits most of the high points.

Read, mark and inwardly digest her simplified list of motions, and you'll be well on your way to engaging in church government for fun and profit (the profit being of the non-pecuniary variety).

Executive Session

Every once in a while, a council must go into executive session.

So, what is an executive session? It's got two basic characteristics. First, no observers are present. Generally, only the members of the body, along with their officers (such as the moderator and the clerk of Session) remain in the room. Sessions can allow certain invited guests to be present, but this is uncommon. Second, the proceedings are confidential. No one's supposed to talk to anyone else later about what went on (although members of the body can discuss those things with one another, provided no one else is listening in).

There can be minutes of an executive session, but if there are minutes, they must be kept elsewhere than the regular minutes, because no one is allowed to see them but the members of the body. When it comes time to approve those minutes, the body must go into executive session a second time to do so.

Most Sessions find it easier simply not to pass any motions while in executive session. They talk about what they need to do, then go out of executive session and immediately pass whatever motions are needed. The action they have taken, then, is public, but the reasons behind the action are not.

It's hard to imagine a situation in which a body would need to pass a motion while in executive session, because it's hard to imagine implementing anything that's secret. Generally, the discuss-in-executive-session, then vote-in-regular-session procedure does the trick. Robert's Rules does allow for motions in executive session, though, just in case.

So, when should there be an executive session?

The short answer is, "as seldom as possible." Especially in the church, where transparency is generally the ideal.

Yet, there are situations in which it's a valuable option. Such as discussing delicate personnel matters. Or pondering how to respond to a member who may need ecclesiastical discipline. Or setting a range for bidding on a piece of real estate, when it's not to the church's advantage for a seller to know how high the church is willing to go.

If there are no observers in the meeting-room to begin with, a formal executive session may not be needed. The clerk simply needs to take care to limit what goes into the minutes (although motions must always be recorded). Yet, even if there are no observers to ask to leave the room, an executive session may still be useful, if only to impress upon the Session members the need for confidentiality.

Just one more useful item in the parliamentary toolbox.

Quorum – How Low Can You Go?

One of the decisions Sessions and Congregations need to make under the new Form of Government is what quorum to set for meetings.  Both Sessions and Congregations need to have a quorum for their meetings, and they now have the freedom to determine that number on their own, rather than having to follow a fixed formula specified in the Form of Government.

A quorum, of course, is the minimum number of members who must be in attendance in order for business to be conducted.  It can be expressed either as an actual number or as a percentage of eligible participants. The old Form of Government set the quorum of most Session meetings at one-third of its elders plus the pastor (but not fewer than two), and of congregational meetings at 10% of active members.

A fraction or percentage is preferable to an actual number, because it allows for changes in membership, especially situations in which there are temporary unfilled vacancies.  For example, if a Session of 12 members has set its quorum at 50% of current Session members, but has had 3 members recently resign, its maximum possible attendance would be 9.  That means its quorum is no longer 6 attendees, but 5.  (In calculating a quorum based on a percentage, you always round up to the next whole number.)

Quorum rules can be a real inconvenience.  If, for whatever reason, it’s a bad day for attendance and there’s urgent business to be conducted, a quorum problem prevents the Session or congregation from making any decisions at all.  The meeting can still be convened, and the smaller group can hear reports and discuss whatever they wish, but they can't pass any motions.

It’s usually the clerk’s responsibility to insure that there is a quorum, and to notify the moderator if there is not.  If, at any time, a member of the body thinks a sufficient number of people have departed the room that there is no longer a quorum, that person can make a motion known as a “quorum call,” asking the clerk to count heads and certify again that there is a quorum. If the number in attendance has dipped too low, no motions are in order from that time onward until enough members return.

If, however, no one makes a quorum call, and the clerk does not notice the deficiency and bring it to the moderator’s attention, business continues to be conducted.  If, for example, someone at a Session meeting realizes that when Joe slipped out a half-hour or so before to go pick his wife up from work, the Session no longer had a quorum, and four motions have been passed in the meantime, those motions are not voided as a result. Only motions proposed from the time of the quorum call onward are affected.

So, in deciding on a quorum rule, how low can you go?  The initial impulse may be to set the quorum as low as possible, so as to reduce the likelihood of parliamentary gridlock.  But, not so fast.  Before rushing ahead and setting an extremely low quorum, Sessions and congregations do well to consider the purpose behind quorum rules.

Quorum rules are more than parliamentary red tape.  They are an important constitutional protection that prevents a council from being taken over by a small faction.  Let’s say, for example, snow falls on the day of a congregation’s annual general meeting – not enough to cause the meeting to be postponed, but enough to severely impact attendance.  The congregation has 200 active members, but has previously adopted a quorum rule of 5%, which works out to 10 people.  Only a dozen people show up on the day of the meeting.  Seven of those in attendance, however, come from a single, extended family.  This group has become upset with the pastor and with the direction of the Session’s leadership.  Finding themselves in the majority, they nominate and elect their own slate of officers, sympathetic to their cause.  Not only that, they go on to pass a motion asking the Presbytery to dissolve the pastoral relationship.  When news of these decisions are announced, most church members are horrified, saying that, if they’d known what this group had planned, they would have pulled on their snow boots and gotten themselves to the meeting some way or other – but by then it’s too late.  The action has been accomplished.  The old congregational-meeting quorum rule of 10% would have prevented that disaster.

So, when pondering whether or not to adopt the old quorum rules of 10% for congregational meetings and one-third-plus-pastor for the Session, think of that old party dance, the Limbo.  “How low can you go?” calls the D.J.

“How low can you go?” the partygoers repeat, their excitement at a peak.

They're eagerly watching that lithe young man, the last survivor of the competition.  He looks so skilled, so smooth, as he contorts his body to get under the bar.  Until he falls flat on his posterior.

In parliamentary quorums, as in the Limbo, there's such a thing as too low.

Enough said.

Don’t let yourself get talked into adopting a quorum rule that’s too low.

Top Ten Things for Sessions To Do To Adapt To the nFOG

It's not every day I recommend an article from The Presbyterian Layman.  Over the years, I've found their reporting on controversial church issues to be far from objective and accurate, and some of their attacks on church leaders I respect and trust to border on the libelous.

Imagine my surprise when I found an article in their current issue called "PCUSA has time to 'live into the nFOG,'" in which they actually refrain from saying anything bad about the denomination!  In fact, the article is filled with useful tips for Sessions that are working to become familiar with the new Form of Government (nFOG).

The article is a straight-up summary of a recent webinar sponsored by The Presbyterian Outlook (a much more moderate independent journal reporting on the denomination).  The teacher behind the webinar was the Rev. Dan Williams, co-moderator of the General Assembly's New Form of Government Task Force.

The article's worth reading in its entirety, but here are some highlights, including a "Top Ten List of Things to Do Sooner, Rather Than Later" with respect to the nFOG:

Sessions should look in the following sections for:

• G-1.03 for membership matters
• G-2.01-2.04 for ordered ministries or deacons and ruling elders
• G-3.01 for general procedures for all four councils
• G-3.02 for specific items that are the responsibility of the session
• G-4.01-4.02 for information on trustees, church property and so forth

Top 10 list

Williams then presented his top 10 list of “Things to do sooner, rather than later.” He told those listening to the webinar that “it’s better to do things thoughtfully and carefully rather than do it right now. … I can’t emphasize enough that you do not have to do anything right away. … No one will rap your knuckles if you do them later.”

10. Study the foundations. “Make sure you have done your homework in that section first,” said Williams. “Building well starts with the foundation.” The “Foundations of Presbyterian Polity” can be found in section F of the nFOG.

9. Quorum. Williams said this issue received a lot of discussion from Presbyterians when the final presbytery votes were being taken. The passage of nFOG removed the system-wide minimum standard for congregational and session forums, he said, “But it does not change your quorum. The number remains your quorum until you have a meeting and take the action to make the change.”

8. Notice for special meetings. Sessions and congregations can now determine how much required notice is needed to hold a special meeting. “It’s now up to you, as to what ‘reasonable notice’ must be,” he said.  “What works best for your situation will inform what your notice will be.”

7.  The nominations process. Williams said that G-2.0401 says the congregation can form the nomination committee in whatever way it deems acceptable. “You can continue to do it the old way,” he said, adding that that the nomination committee must include at least three active members on the committee and one ruling elder who is a current session member.

6. Length of term for the church treasurer found in G-3.0205.

5. Length of term for the clerk of session found in G3.-0104.

4. Strategy for dealing with members who have ceased active participation. “There is no ‘inactive roll’ as a requirement in the nFOG,” said Williams. “You are not required to maintain an inactive roll, but it does not mean you can’t have one. ... If this works best for you and your session then by all means have one.” Williams called the term “inactive member” a “contradiction in terms” and that the task force wanted to get away from that.

3. Sexual misconduct policy. All churches now must have a sexual misconduct policy. This change came from an amendment passed by presbyteries this year to the former Form of Government that also amended the nFOG. Williams advised those on the webinar to “look to your presbytery for guidance.”

2. Preparation and examination of those elected to ordered ministries, found in sections G-2.0402; G-2.0403 and G-2.0104b.

1. Develop or amend a manual of operations.  Williams said that nFOG takes the “how” and “who” matters out of the constitution, and these matters now belong in a church’s manual of operations. “You may not have a manual of operations, but you have standing policies that will likely be in a manual of operations,” he said. Examples include policies on creating committees and on building use. All of those policies should be collected into a manual of operations than can be as “detailed or brief as you need,” he said. “For smaller churches that operate more informally it may be a few pages.”

Parliamentary time bombs?

There's been some discussion, lately, about how local congregations ought to transition to the new Form of Government, that's due to take effect on July 10, 2011. I've been hearing, in particular, about one alarmist critique of the nFOG, that suggests there are a couple of hidden parliamentary time bombs in there that are all ready to blow local churches sky-high if somebody doesn't get in there like MacGyver and defuse them.

In particular, say the alarmists, there are two things local churches need to do, pronto:

1) Set the quorum for congregational meetings, and
2) Establish the most recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised as the parliamentary basis for congregational meetings

Everyone's agreed that, because the nFOG doesn't explicitly adopt these two standards in the case of local churches, congregations do need to vote on these two items at some point, if their By-Laws don't already address these issues. The question is whether this is a matter of such urgency that Sessions need to rush to call a congregational meeting prior to July 10, when the nFOG takes effect. The doomsday scenario - raised by partisans who are no friends of the nFOG and have been opposing it - is that if congregations allow July 10th to come and go without formally adopting the 10% quorum that was in the old book, then they will for all practical purposes be unable to ever meet again, because they'll need to roust out 50% of their membership in order to conduct any business.

The problem with that argument is that it's self-contradictory. If we accept that, after July 10th, the default 50% quorum from Robert's Rules applies to congregational meetings, but we also accept that Robert's has no constitutional basis for congregations after July 10th - unless and until congregations specifically act to adopt it as such - then, how can Robert's impose a 50% quorum from the get-go?

If a congregation can't, or doesn't want to, meet before July 10th, then all it has to do at its first meeting is to adopt a rule stating that, in accordance with former practice, the quorum for a congregational meeting is 10%. Then, it can go on to adopt a second rule, stating that Robert's Rules is the parliamentary authority for all matters not addressed by the Constitution of the PC(USA).

There's actually an easier way to handle this, though, with a single motion (as I describe below).

Furthermore, this is a classic case in which "Jenkins' Law" applies. The late Fred Jenkins was, at one time, our executive presbyter here in Monmouth Presbytery. Fred - who was both an attorney and a minister - left Monmouth to go on to fame and glory as Director of the Office of Constitutional Services in Louisville. Fred had a question he habitually asked, in certain situations in which a council (what we used to call a "governing body") was about to get itself tied up in knots. His question was: "Who's going to sue?"

Let's say a congregation's By-Laws make no mention of either quorum or Robert's Rules - or, worse yet, that a congregation doesn't have any By-Laws at all. Let's also say that congregation tarries, and doesn't hold a meeting until after July 10th. If it makes a good-faith effort at that time to set a reasonable quorum (especially the 10% quorum that, as years of minutes will show, they've been following since forever), and then goes on to establish Robert's as its parliamentary authority (which many successive Books of Order likewise show has historically been our steadfastly reliable guide), then there's not a court in this country, ecclesiastical or otherwise, who's likely to throw a wrench into the works because of such a technicality. And besides, as Fred would say: WHO'S GOING TO SUE, anyway? Who even cares about such a nit-picky point of procedure, when a congregation that takes the steps I've outlined above is doing the most reasonable thing, based on years of past precedent, in order to get through a transitional time?

Now, on to the solution...

Here's what I think all clerks of session ought to do, as we make the change:

1) Find the By-Laws, blow the dust off them, and see what they say about quorum and Robert's Rules. If they already address these matters, you're home free.

2) Failing that, at the next Congregational meeting, have someone propose this motion:

"With respect to any item that the new Form of Government leaves to be set as policy at the discretion of the Congregation, which was formerly included as part of the 2009-2011 Form of Government as amended by the 219th General Assembly (2010), that item is temporarily adopted as Congregational policy until superseded by further action of the Congregation."

Presto! You've just re-established everything that was in the old Book of Order with respect to how congregational meetings operate.

I wouldn't advise keeping that action in place forever, though. If you do, you'll eventually be carrying around a tattered, yellowed copy of the 2009-2011 Book of Order, with all the pages falling out, along with your latest copy of the nFOG. The intent of the change is that every council (formerly "governing body") of the church will go through a careful, deliberate process of writing a policies manual. (From the Presbytery, we'll be sending out guidelines and suggestions in the coming months to help you do so.) This enabling motion is just to buy some time to go through that process in a measured, unhurried way.

The Session ought to to adopt a similar version as well:

"With respect to any item that the new Form of Government leaves to be set as policy at the discretion of the Session, which was formerly included as part of the 2009-2011 Form of Government as amended by the 219th General Assembly (2010), that item is temporarily adopted as Session policy until superseded by further action of the Session."

If you want to, you can add a sunset clause to the end of the motion, saying that it remains in effect until, say, December 31, 2012. But, that's optional.

I think this is a reasonable way to proceed. If you're still concerned about it, of course, you could always suggest to the Session that they call a special congregational meeting before July 10. There's still plenty of time to do that.

The Motion You'll Probably Never Need

Most manuals of parliamentary procedure contain a list of motions in order of precedence. Among the highest of privileged motions is the motion "to lay on the table" - or, in the more common shorthand description - the motion "to table" the current item of business. (The actual Table at the center of Britain's House of Commons is pictured to the right.)

"Let's table that" is a statement frequently heard in parliamentary meetings, from the town council to the P.T.A. - and, yes, sometimes even in Session meetings. The effect of such a motion is to set the current motion aside, freezing it in its current amended or unamended state, until such time as the body wishes to take it up again.

If the body takes up a tabled motion at a later time, debate is resumed at exactly the point at which the motion to table was made. For example, if a proposed amendment to the main motion was being debated, the body will be begin consideration of the un-tabled motion by continuing its debate on the proposed amendment.

If a tabled motion is never re-introduced, it dies.

The motion to lay on the table is perfectly legal, but it can be used in underhanded ways. It's a very powerful motion, taking precedence over most others. It's undebatable, and requires a simple majority vote to pass.

I'm of the opinion that the motion to table should almost never be used. Maybe if the building's on fire, or if Bruce Springsteen's just walked into the room and has offered to sing a solo (but only in the next five minutes, because he's born to run). That's about it. For most everything else, forget it.

In other words, the motion to table could be useful in the rare situation in which something unexpected has happened, and the wisdom of tabling is perfectly clear to everyone.

In almost every other situation, there's a much better alternative: the motion to postpone. Unlike the motion to table, it is debatable.

Debate on a motion to postpone can ONLY be about the wisdom of postponing. If the body begins to slip back into general debate on the merits of the motion itself, the moderator should blow the whistle and remind those in attendance to confine their comments to the question of whether or not postponement is wise.

There are two variations of this motion: to postpone definitely or indefinitely. A definite postponement specifies when the body will take the motion up again, usually at the same meeting or at the next meeting (if other stated meetings are already scheduled, the item can be definitely postponed even further into the future). An indefinite postponement, on the other hand, is vague and open-ended: if no one ever moves to take the item up again, it dies.

Of the two, the motion to postpone definitely is usually the better choice.

In a meeting, if someone moves to table something (and before there has been a second), you as Clerk can swiftly alert the moderator to the fact that a motion to postpone is also possible, and is usually fairer than the motion to table. This will often result in a different motion, one that's more likely to leave all parties feeling like they have been heard and have been treated with respect.

Bartimaeus and the Outreach Committee

Like most other things in this world, when committees are good, they're really, really good. And, when they're bad - well, you know how it goes. In light of that reality, I thought you all might enjoy this little piece (if you haven't seen it before). It's slightly adapted from the original by Andee Zetterbaum, which someone posted on the PresbyNet computer network some years back...

So, herewith, the missing and corrected verses of Mark's gospel. Or, as it should more properly be known, the story of Bartimaeus and the Outreach Committee.

46. They came to Jericho. As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho, Bartimaeus son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside.
46a. "There's no need to pay attention to him," advised several of his disciples. "We already support the Center for the Preservation of Blind Beggars, so we're doing our share for the community."
46b. "If you have to say anything to him, just direct him to the CPBB--they're the agency that can best deal with his problem," said another.
47. When Bartimaeus heard that it was of Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout out and say, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"
48. Many sternly ordered him to be quiet, but he cried out even more loudly, "Son of David, have mercy on me!"
48a. Jesus turned to his disciples. "That man needs me. I want to pause for a moment in our travels to help him."
48b. "Sounds like exactly the kind of project that should fall under our Outreach Committee," said a senior member of Jesus' band. "Go talk to them, and they'll help you."
48c. "Outreach Committee?" said one member. "We're in the middle of a journey to Jerusalem, and that's got to take precedence. Maybe when the journey is done, we can think about doing something for the blind man."
48d. Other committee members pointed out, "We have only limited resources, so we need you to focus on healing only the members of your own band. Maybe someday when we're richer and have several healers, we can look at helping outsiders."
48e. Finally the committee chair suggested, "Why don't you put your proposal in writing so we can take it up at our next meeting?"
48f. Jesus grabbed for a piece of bark, and with a stick, scribbled on it (in words of one syllable), "I want to stop and help that man." He handed it to the committee chair.
48g. Three weeks later, the committee chair found him and said, "We REALLY liked your ideas, but because we're all too busy to help with the project right now, we'd like you to come to our next meeting in a month, to talk with us about it. Then the liaison can present it to the Session the following week. And, oh, by the way, would you like to serve on the Outreach Committee?"

Scholars' notes:
Jesus, having accepted that invitation, was swallowed up in committee work, and disappeared from sight forthwith. The entire remaining episodes of the Gospels are mere fantasy and writers' inventions.

Bartimaeus was hired by the Outreach Committee chair as its public spokesperson, and later became a consultant in organizational communications, pioneering the science of obfuscation and procrastination. Unfortunately, his supremely important role in history was lost due to a scribal error in the late 2nd century. However, echoes of his story surface from time to time in folk wisdom, where his name has been transformed from Bartimaeus into Murphy (as in Murphy's Law).

No other records of the committee chair or its members survive, and the character "God," who is mentioned earlier in the annals of Jesus and Bartimaeus, is still trying to figure out how to get Session approval and support for various projects. A good course in memo writing is recommended to enhance God's career development.

Session Meetings: Open or Closed?

One question frequently asked by Clerks of Session is whether Session meetings are open or closed – in other words, whether members of the church (or even the general public) are permitted to observe the meetings.

The Form of Government is permissive on this question. It’s up to the Session to decide. G-10.0201 says, “The Session may invite members of the congregation to attend its meetings if it so desires, without restricting its right to meet in executive session whenever circumstances indicate the wisdom of doing so.”

If the Session has taken no action to open their meetings, however, the presumption is that Session meetings are closed. The Session can vote at any time to open its meetings, either by adopting a policy or standing rule to that effect, or by voting to open individual meetings to the public. In the case of a closed meeting, the Session can vote to invite particular individuals (such as a church member who’s making a report) to attend all or a portion of the meeting.

This may sound surprising to readers who are used to “sunshine laws” in civil government. The church has no sunshine law, when it comes to Session meetings.

Sessions sometimes need to discuss confidential matters, such as personnel decisions or matters related to pastoral care. These discussions, which impact the privacy rights of individuals, are best undertaken without observers present. Whether the Session prefers to conduct such confidential business in executive session (which means all observers would be asked to leave the room when that item comes up), or to follow the Form of Government’s implicit suggestion and consider all meetings to be closed, is up to the Session to determine.

A Question of Privilege

The Assembly's Civil Unions and Marriage Issues Committee just voted, 15-40-1, not to substitute the Minority Report of the Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage for the Majority Report.

Just before that, a member of the Committee moved that the vote be taken by paper ballot. It's a debatable motion, but there was a surprising amount of debate on the motion to vote by ballot. The mover had expressed how it was, for her, a highly sensitive issue, so she would feel more comfortable voting "privately."

Several other speakers expressed regret that, after many hours of debate, some of their colleagues felt the need to vote in secret.

One member said she thinks that, if even one member wants to vote by paper ballot, the body should honor that request.

Another member expressed how important it was, to him, that all committee members should exercise "the courage of our convictions" and vote publicly.

The Committee voted, by a rather lopsided margin, not to vote by ballot.

This saddens me. It seems to me this committee failed to understand the spirit of Robert's Rules. The motion to vote by ballot is a "privileged motion." Robert's assigns it a high level of priority because it protects the rights of a minority.

For some committee members who are perfectly comfortable with voting by show of hands to impose that viewpoint on a minority who aren't is to trample on an important, protected minority right. It's fundamentally an act of incivility.

Were I the Moderator of the Committee, I would have explained to the members the reason behind privileged motions, and that it ought to be only for a mighty good reason that a member's request for such a small concession to personal privilege be denied.

It's possible to imagine a situation in which a request for a paper ballot could be a bad idea. For example, repeated requests for paper ballots could be used as a delaying tactic. I suppose that's why Robert's allows for a vote at all.

Yet, this was the first such request of the day. Surely this committee could have been more respectful of the proper request of one of its members.

So, Who Was Robert, Anyway?

If you’re a Clerk of Session, you couldn’t have gotten to where you are today without having at least heard of Robert’s Rules of Order. They’re the unquestioned standard for parliamentary procedure in non-governmental decision-making bodies in the English-speaking world.

Ironically, the British Parliament doesn’t use Robert’s Rules, nor does the U.S. Congress - both of them have their own set of similar rules that preceded Robert’s. In fact, Robert himself is said to have modeled his rules after those of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Henry Martyn Robert (1837 - 1923) was a U.S. Army officer in the Civil War, eventually rising to the rank of Brigadier General. He was an engineer who helped design the defenses of Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, and several port cities in New England. Following the war, he had a long career as an engineer, specializing in lighthouses and river-improvement projects. After General Robert’s retirement, in 1901, the Corps of Engineers called him back to chair a board of engineers that designed the seawall that would protect Galveston, Texas, following the disastrous hurricane the previous year that had nearly wiped that city off the map.

Robert’s Rules, first published in 1876, actually arose out of the church. Robert wrote the manual after being asked to chair a church meeting at a Baptist church in New Bedford, Massachusetts. The meeting got out of hand, and he felt so badly about his own poor understanding of the rules that he determined to learn more about parliamentary procedure. When he couldn’t find a book that met his needs, he resolved to write his own.

Although Robert’s Rules has become a byword for Parliamentary procedure, the book has no legal status unless a body adopts it as its own set of rules. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has done just that, declaring in the Form of Government G-9.0302 that all working groups within the church shall use it as their standard “except in those cases where this Constitution provides otherwise.” Interestingly, G-7.0302 allows for exceptions in the case of congregational meetings, by which congregations have the authority to adopt “a comparable parliamentary authority” if they choose to do so (although it’s hard to envision a situation in which a set of alternate rules would make life easier).

It’s advisable, therefore, that all congregations have in their By-Laws a notation that Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised (the official name for the most current edition) is their official standard, secondary to that of the Constitution of the church.

For a little parliamentary fun (no, that expression is NOT an oxymoron!), check out the Frequently-Asked Questions from the Robert's Rules official website. See how many of these you can answer correctly!

No Such Thing As a Friendly Amendment

Sometimes, during debate on a motion, a member of the body will say, “I’d like to make a friendly amendment.” Now, doesn’t that sound like downright congenial? Too bad there’s no such thing in Robert’s Rules.

What movers of such an amendment typically mean is that they don’t anticipate any objection from the mover of the main motion. They’re suggesting some minor change in wording that they figure will make the main motion more likely to pass. Often, the mover of the motion will respond by saying, “I have no objection to that change in wording. In fact, I wish I'd thought of it. Can we just incorporate it into my motion?”

Moderators who are running a tight parliamentary ship will blow the whistle at that point, reminding the body: “There’s no such thing as a friendly amendment. There are only amendments, and all amendments are created equal. We’ll need to vote on this amendment as we would any other.”

So – you may be wondering – what’s the big deal? If the mover of the motion is happy with it, and the seconder has no objection, why not just allow a quick adjustment in wording? After all, doesn’t the motion belong to the member who made it?

Not any longer. Robert’s says that, as soon as debate begins, a motion no longer belongs to the mover. It belongs to the body, and only the body can make changes to it.

Now, I realize that may sound, to some, like parliamentary hair-splitting. But, there’s a good reason for it. Maybe some other members of the body like the original motion just fine, and don’t think the “friendly amendment” is a good idea. If the “friendly amendment” sleight of hand is allowed to proceed, those members have just lost their right to be heard on the subject. And that’s not something Robert’s Rules will allow to happen.

It’s similar to the situation in which the mover of a motion asks to withdraw a motion. Usually this happens after the mover has heard some of the debate, and has become convinced the motion isn’t such a hot idea after all.

The proper parliamentary answer to that request is: “I’m sorry, but once a motion is made and seconded, it belongs to the body. You are certainly entitled to speak against the motion you’ve just made, but we’re still going to have to vote on it, once debate is ended.”

Again, the reason is that some other members of the body may be more enthusiastic about the motion than even its mover. Some of those folks may have been thinking, as the motion was made, “Yes! That’s just what we should be doing.” Maybe some of them are just champing at the bit, now, to get up and wow the body with their eloquent oratory, but – slam, bam! – before they know it, the motion they like so well is no more. And, it happened without so much as a vote!

Robert’s Rules is very protective of the right to free and open debate. A duly made and seconded motion can only be dealt with – whether approved, denied, changed or referred – by the body itself, not by any individual members (no matter how “friendly” they may be).