In my understanding, the By Law governing Procedures (26) is about the reports of entities and is broken into three areas. The first section details the report that every entity regularly gives at every convention. The second section controls that reports that are in response to motions from messengers. The third area gives special limitation to all reports.
26 (A) “Standard Reporting” – my unofficial term for this section, which is broken into in three subsections.
A 1. All reports from boards, institutions, commissions and standing committees are compiled into a Book of Reports, which is distributed to all messengers when they register. This will give everyone time to read all of the reports in advance and think through any questions they may like to ask at the time of the official report when given on the convention floor.
A 2. Reports from special commissions and standing committees that have recommendations for action from the convention will be in the Book of Reports.
A 3. Recommendations for action of boards, institutions, commissions, committees should be included at the end of each individual report before the convention can take action on it. If the committee or entity is unable to print its recommendation for action in the Book of Reports then the recommendation must be distributed as a part of the convention Bulletin before the convention will be able to take action.
In other words, they must give messengers a look at their report before they give it to allow you the opportunity to formulate questions or in any other way think through what they are saying. Also, if they ask for the convention to take action in a certain area, then they must print the recommendation so you can read it, either in the Book of Reports or in the Bulletin.
26 (B) “Special Reporting” – my unofficial term for this section
As I mentioned in the Primer on Order of Business, motions coming from the messengers that concern the internal operations of an entity will be referred to the entity’s governing body. The entity must then report back AT THE NEXT CONVENTION how it was considered, how it was reported and any actions recommended to the convention.
There is one caveat, however. If the house votes by a 2/3 margin, they can direct the Committee on Order of Business to schedule a time DURING THE SAME CONVENTION for the report to be given.
So, if a motion concerning policies at the IMB were “in order” and therefore referred to the IMB’s BOT, the convention could then direct, by 2/3 vote, that the BOT answer back to the convention before we dismissed. Now, this does not give the convention the right to tell the IMB what to do concerning any policy, but it does give the convention the opportunity to express its mind clearly to the IMB’s governing body. Moreover, after the report is made, the convention can then vote to reject the report once given.
I know that many people are crying that changes be made to the policies and procedures of our institutions. Let me be clear: Unless you are on that entity’s governing body, you do not have that authority. As a messenger, you may require a report and you may accept or reject that report. You may make resolutions and then question any entity as to why its policies or procedures are out of step with the expressed mind of the convention.
Speaking of questions, it is time for the third section of By Law 26.
26 (C) Limitations – the official term for this section
When a report is given, 1/3 of the time scheduled for the report is to be scheduled for questions.
I reported in the Introduction to this series of primers that some agency heads were reporting for about 22 of their allotted 25 minutes and then leaving a very brief time for questions to be answered. This is clearly in violation of By Law 26 (C). I would understand that if they are allotted 25 minutes and they are still reporting at the 16 minute and 40 second mark, the “Point of Order” button may be pressed at any microphone, which takes precedence and a messenger can call for the convention to enforce its by law at that time, thus opening the floor to questions.
Another option, of course, is to move that the convention extend the time of business so that sufficient questions may be asked and answered. The downside of this is that the motion may be voted down. As the by laws are approved, they must be enforced, although you may alienate the general population of the convention if they perceive you as rude to the speaker.
In the end, you must judge for yourself if the time for questions is so vital that you will risk being seen as insolate. Of course, the person reporting can always act with integrity and decorum by following the rules in the first place, which is appropriate to every godly man or woman, even in the face of adversity.
Wouldn’t you agree?
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Kevin Bussey
on Apr 17th, 2006
@ 10:15 am:
Art,
You have been busy! Thanks for doing all of this work. What was your Undergrad degree? Pre-law? :)
art rogers
on Apr 17th, 2006
@ 10:34 am:
No, but many said I would have mad an excellent lawyer.
That’s not really the thing most people like said about their pastor, though.
At least Dorcas is a kind and generous example of a great mind in the profession of lawyer. Maybe she will help the reputation of all lawyers, at least a little.
Wes Kenney
on Apr 17th, 2006
@ 11:37 am:
Art,
Great work, as always.
Maybe I’m missing something here, but my reading of bylaw 26 gives me a different understanding than what you have communicated here. I think the difference is in the understanding of the broader purpose of the bylaw.
You said that it is about the reports of entities. As I read it, of the three sections, the first and the last deal with reports, but the second doesn’t mention them, and the title is Procedures.
It seems to me that a motion could come from the floor instructing an entity to do anything, and 2/3 could prevent it from simply being referred by forcing a vote at a later session of the same convention.
If someone wanted to require all employees of the ERLC to wear purple socks, for example, and two-thirds of the messengers agreed, would it not happen as I have described? The normal process would have that motion referred to the trustees of the ERLC, but as I read section B of bylaw 26, two-thirds can instruct the committee on order of business to arrange for consideration at a later session. Not seeing an indication to the contrary, I read consideration to mean debate and possible vote of the convention on the motion. Hence, purple socks.
Please tell me why I am wrong here. I’d hate to see Dr. Land in purple socks.
art rogers
on Apr 17th, 2006
@ 12:04 pm:
Wes,
Many wish that it were so, but the constitution of each entity gives the power to control the entity to its board and not to the convention. This is a good thing, though it may be frustrating when we want something done quickly. It is important that there be some stability within the governance of the entities of the convention and that they do not receive guidance directly from the convention once a year. Such guidance is reactionary, often times, and it also invalidates the need for a board, since the convention would instruct its direction in an ineffective way.
We do need the Boards to exist, even if we don’t like what they may do sometimes.
However, the board is responsible to the convention. Therefore, we are able call them to account, but not to direct them to do anything, specifically.
The short version is that I understand from several convention officers that the entities are governed by their boards and the boards can not receive dictated direction.
The title, by the way, for all of By Law 26 is Procedures and the title of subsection “B” is Procedure for Motions of Messengers Concerning Entities.
It reads:
Motions made by messengers dealing with the internal operations or ministries of an entity shall be referred to the elected board of the entity for consideration and report to the constituency and to the next annual meeting of the Convention for action with the exception that the Committee on Order of Business may be instructed by a two-thirds vote to arrange for consideration at a subsequent session of the same Convention, subject to provision of Bylaw 21.
On all matters referrd by the Convention, entities shall respond in writin at the close of their report in the Book of Reports and Annual, giving specific information on: 1) how the matter referred was considered; 2) how it was reported to the constituency; and 3) any actions on the matter taken by the entity or action proposed to the Convention.
In the end, we can send a specific issue to the body that governs an entity and they must report. That is the long and short of it.
Tim Sweatman
on Apr 17th, 2006
@ 2:30 pm:
Art,
Unless things have changed for this year, the Book of Reports is not given to messengers at registration. Messengers have to pay $5.00 to purchase the Book of Reports.
art rogers
on Apr 17th, 2006
@ 2:46 pm:
Tim,
Yes, I think that was mentioned in a comment earlier last week, but is pertinent here. By-Law 26 A (1) says:
“Printed reports of the boards, institutions, commissions, and standing committees shall be consolidated into the Book of Reports for distribution to messengers on their enrollment;”
Of course, it does not say that the messengers may or may not be charged for the book, so charging $5 is not out of order.
Bring your money, folks.
Jeff Richard Young
on Apr 17th, 2006
@ 7:33 pm:
Dear Art,
What if an agency, let’s say the IMB, has done things this past year with which the convention strongly disagrees, and we muster the fortitude to NOT accept their report. What happens? (Nothing, I suppose.)
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Pastor Joe
on Apr 17th, 2006
@ 8:39 pm:
Wes: Certainly, the interpretation that Art has given of Bylaw 26 is the one that has been accepted for as long as I have been attending. Your interpretation is not unreasonable, but on balance, I think the other interpretation is correct.
I think that Roberts Rules of Orders Newly Revised (RONR) would allow any messenger to challenge the ruling of the chair that the middle section of Bylaw 26 does not permit by 2/3 vote the COB to schedule a vote to instruct an agency to do something -your example require the wearing of purple socks. If seconded, it would be debated, and the convention could overrule the decision of the chair. I would very strongly discourage that. It would almost certainly lead to litigation over the meaning of the bylaws. It would alienate many, and Art is right. Though frustrating, it is best that the trustees run the agencies. By the way such motions are offered every convention, a common one is to require all seminaries to require a course something, e.g. counseling homosexuals (this is real folks). They are always referred.
There is a way that the convention can express formal lack of confidence in a board. the website of RONR explains it.
What is a vote of no confidence?
Answer:
The term “vote of no confidence” is not used or defined anywhere in RONR, and there is no mention of any motion for such a vote. However, this does not mean that an assembly cannot adopt a motion, if it wishes, expressing either its confidence or lack of confidence in any of its officers or subordinate boards or committees. Any such motion would simply be a main motion, and would have no effect other than to express the assembly’s views concerning the matter. A vote of “no confidence” does not – as it would in the British Parliament – remove an officer from office.
It does not force the trustees to do anything, but it officially expresses that the Convention is displeased with their decision. This, of course, is also confrontational. However, it would certainly express the will of the messengers.
It is possible to remove the trustees of an agency, but that was last successfully accomplished in 1881 if memory serves me correctly (a big if at my age). I was long a certified parliamentarian and was the parliamentarian for some state convention annual meetings, but I long ago let my certification lapse, so don’t take me as the law and the gospel on anything.
Jeff Richard Young
on Apr 17th, 2006
@ 8:46 pm:
Dear Pastor Joe,
Thanks for the good information, as always.
Was that 1881 meeting when you were still in seminary? :)
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Pastor Joe
on Apr 17th, 2006
@ 8:55 pm:
Nah, I was still in high school then.
Kevin Bussey
on Apr 17th, 2006
@ 10:00 pm:
Art,
You made the Baptist Press! U da man!
art rogers
on Apr 17th, 2006
@ 10:23 pm:
Ok, for those freaking out like myself when I read Kevin’s comment, you can find the story here:
IMB critics propose resolution affirming right of dissent among Southern Baptists
It is really about Ben Cole, with some helpings of Marty Duren, but thanks for the support, KDawg.
You da Man!
Jeff Richard Young
on Apr 17th, 2006
@ 10:31 pm:
Dear Brother Art,
People are starting to listen—keep up the good work!
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Dorcas
on Apr 17th, 2006
@ 10:47 pm:
Art -
I posted about that article an hour before you. You need to keep up! :)
All -
This is not an official legal opinion as I can’t practice law outside the state of Texas … but here are some basic legal concepts to remember …
First, when interpreting a rule, bylaw, statute and the like, the “headings” to the sections are considered only as helpful for division and not usually considered as legally relevant in interpreting the document.
Second, a court would likely check a rule for its common meaning first before parsing it into pieces. If section (A) and section (C) are about one thing, it is common to understand that (B) is also referring to that thing. I think it would be a rare instance wherein (B) would be interpreted to have a broader meaning than (A) and (C) unless proven by clear “legislative history” (i.e. what the drafters of the bylaw considered and discussed while drafting it) to the contrary.
There is more to it than that … but that is the basic version for our purposes here.
art rogers
on Apr 17th, 2006
@ 10:54 pm:
Honestly, I have been away from the computer most of the afternoon and evening.
I logged on to check the blog for comments and found several. While I was reading Wes, Jeff and Joe, Kevin tells me I am famous.
Go figure. And Dorcas, hold your tongue when you read the end of tomorrow’s post.
Dorcas
on Apr 17th, 2006
@ 11:01 pm:
Wow, a warning ahead of time … tomorrow’s post must be something good. Ok, I’ll behave … sides I think you are just trying to make sure I come back and read what you have to say tomorrow.
art rogers
on Apr 17th, 2006
@ 11:02 pm:
Could be…