As you may have noted, there are a few By Laws that I have left unaddressed for several reasons. I am afraid that, while important, they were not the highest priority when preparing for the Convention in Greensboro. There is another By Law that I might have passed over were it not relevant. Mind you, it is not necessarily relevant to an item that will come before the Convention. It was to come before the convention, in fact, but was withdrawn. Nevertheless, because it was slated to come before us, it becomes relevant.

The By Law is 36: Trustee Absenteeism. I reproduce it here in its entirety.

A. Upon the request of any entity, the Convention may remove from office any trustee/director of that entity who has excessive unexcused absences. Following such removal, the Convention shall elect a successor to complete the term of office of the person removed.

B. An entity shall give written notice of any request to remove a trustee/director for absenteeism at least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the meeting of the Convention which shall consider the removal. The notice shall be given to the president of the Convention, the president/chief executive officer of the Executive Committee, the chairman of the Committee on Nominations, and the individual trustee/director whose removal shall be considered.

C. If required by state law, an entity shall incorporate this procedure in its charter or bylaws prior to requesting the Convention to remove any trustee.

It is under this By Law that the Board of Trustees of the International Mission Board sought to remove Wade Burleson. I have several observations.

First, the authority and procedure to remove a trustee is clearly given to the entities of the SBC. There is no doubt they can and no doubt as to the method.

Second, the sole reason for such a removal given in the By Law is absenteeism. As I understand it, Wade Burleson has been extremely dedicated in his service to Southern Baptists at the local and state levels. His service to the IMB was appearing to take the same shape.

Third, the accusations of “gossip” and “slander” were serious charges, and if they were able to be substantiated, I think that a broad reading of this By Law would have been allowed by all Southern Baptists. This would have given the IMB BOT the opportunity have Wade removed. As I have said before, the charges were removed because they were unsustainable.

Fourth, the charges against Wade now, which keep him from service on any committee, forbidding him from bearing the load to which he was appointed by the Southern Baptist Convention, are that he is unable to get along with fellow trustees. This accusation is accompanied by several trustees who say that they are frequent dissenters themselves. Since when does the disagreement with others on the Board of Trustees result in being put in reserve without the ability to serve as appointed? Never before.

I submit that Wade Burleson should serve in the capacity to which he was appointed by the Southern Baptist Convention and that the Board of Trustees, and its chairman, stop seeking to thwart the expressed will of the Convention when it appointed him to his post.

I daresay that when the question time comes during the IMB report, my question to the Board of Trustees will be concerning why the Board of Trustees is violating the commission of the SBC by refusing to allow Wade to serve fully the post to which it has appointed him.

Of course, they can avoid such a question by reinstating him immediately. I recommend they do so.

[update]

Wade Burleson, citing frequent requests by many Southern Baptists to run for President of the SBC, has withdrawn his name from the slate of speakers at the Younger Leaders Summit II. You can find the full story at SBC Outpost.

[/update]

[update #2]

I was forwarded the relevant governing document for the removal of a Trustee from within the Board – its Trustee Manual. This is NOT the Blue Book, and it was approved by the Convention. Because the authority to govern the IMB rests with the Trustees and because the manual of the Trustees has been approved by the convention, it would seem that this document is primary for the BOT and does give authority to do exactly as they did. Mind you, I did not approve their actions, but merely said they had the right to the process they followed.

Here is 4 (E) in the IMB Trustee Manual:

The convention as Member of this coproration, in any meeting of the member and without regard to the call of the meeting, may remove a trustee prior to the expiration of the trustee’s term for any reason deemed sufficient to the convention, the election and removal of trustees by the Convention being religious acts within the scope of the free exercise of the Convention’s religion under the Constitution of the United States. A motion in an annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention to remove a trustee may be made only after the following prerequesites have been accomplished:

1. Written notice by the proponent of the motion shall have been given to the board, the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention (referred to hereafter as the “Executive Committee”), and to the trustee whose removal is sought (which trustee shall be referred to hereafter as “the Subject”) at least ninety days prior to the convening of the next meeting of the Convention.

2. Either the Executive Committee or the Board shall have approved a motion recommending or opposing removal of a single trustee.

3. Written notice of the result of any vote by either the Executive Committee or Board whether recommending or opposing removal shall have been sent to the Subject and released to Baptist Press at least thirty days prior to any vote by the Member to remove the Subject as a trustee. There shall be no requirement that such notices be sent simultaneously.

The motions to remove a trustee shall be made to the messengers at an annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention by the Executive Committee or the Board, whichever has recommended the removal, or by the proponent of the motion if neither the Executive Committee nor the Board recommends removal. The motion may be brought as a joint recommendation if both the Executive Committee and the Board have recommended removal. No single motion may undertake to remove more than one trustee. The motion to remove shall be adopted if it receives the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the messengers present and voting. If the motion to remove a trustee is adopted, the removal shall be effective immediately upon delivery to the Board’s secretary of a written notice of removal signed by the president or the recording secretary of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Any vote by the member in favor of the removal of a trustee shall be deemed as having conclusively established the sufficiency of any reason for removal. There shall be no right of judicial review concerning the removal of a trustee before, during, or after consideration of the matter by anybody referred to above.

A trustee shall be considered as having resigned when he/she ceases to be a resident member of a church either geographically within the state or affiliated with the convention of the state from which he/she has been elected as a representative.

I am seeking to find out whether this document governs the SBC, and it may. If it does, then the threat to remove any trustee that comes from the floor of the convention may be ruled “out of order” because the appropriate processes were not followed as prescribed here.

On the other hand, this document may describe only the process the BOT may take, but have no governance over the individual messengers or collective messengers of the Convention. Again, I am seeking for a definitave ruling. When I get one, I will make this a primary post of its own, so you won’t miss it.

[/update #2]

Today we are talking about voting and what that entails. The primary governance in voting is held in the two By Laws, 34 and 35. 34 deals with how we vote and 35 deals with whether or not we can officially vote as a convention.

As to how we vote, By Law 34 gives detail that votes are won by a simple majority except where provisions have been made for a greater than majority vote. An example of this is the 2/3 vote that is required to bring a resolution to the floor when it is not brought there by the Committee on Resolutions.

Also, the method of voting can be by ballot, the raising of hands, standing, by voice, by common consent or by another method that seems reasonable. This seems to be a clause that leaves open the method while giving a few options. Some may question the accuracy of such voting methods, other than by ballot. Generally, those counting the votes are able to get a pretty accurate picture and they don’t usually call for voice votes on crucial issues. It is usually reserved for stuff that seems obvious, like the motion to dismiss for lunch.

If you feel that a vote is not fair or balanced, you can always push the “Point of Order” button on the microphone and call for a ballot vote. I tried to verify this before posting, but was unable to reach anyone that could give me a definitive answer. I will continue to search and will update this post when I know.

Also, you must be present to vote. There are no absentee votes and no votes by proxy. This brings us to the subject of being present and how many present makes a quorum, which is described in By Law 35.

For those who do not know, a quorum is the minimum number of a body present that is required to ensure that the mind of the whole is represented fairly by those present. That’s pretty technical. Try this: Minimum number needed to conduct business.

It would not be fair to allow twenty people gathered in a room to represent 30,000 who are at lunch. That could potentially allow for a select small group to organize, call themselves to order and do things that the whole body would never allow. Having a quorum is a common part of organizations that govern themselves by Robert’s Rules of Order.

A quorum for us is 25% of the registered messengers. Usually, there are more than enough to make a quorum when the SBC does its business, so it should not be an issue.

What really matters here is that some messengers do not stay for the Convention. This is a sad statement, but true. When the Resurgence was underway, it was typical for some to make sure they were present to vote for President, and then go on a tour of the host city.

However, I think with the particular interest this Convention has accrued, there will be much less in the way of absenteeism. There had better be a dramatic drop in absenteeism. If I find out YSBC has gone to Starbucks when votes were being taken, you will be hearing from me.

Ok, I have made that threat more than enough for now. I’ll save it for awhile – at least until we get closer to Greensboro.

Oh, yes, speaking of Absenteeism… Did you know that they only reason given in the By Laws for a Trustee of an SBC entity to be removed is absenteeism?

Tomorrow’s post…

By Law 31 is merely one sentence, which gives us room for some consideration of it and other pertinent matters today.

The By Law governing the adoption of reports is a good follow up on yesterday’s By Law governing the giving of reports. Since it is so brief, I will post it in its entirety for you here:

The adoption of recommendations contained in reports to the Convention shall not bind the Convention on any other matters in the body of the reports; but the Convention reserves the right to consider and amend the body of all reports.

What does this mean? As I read it, the Convention may accept the recommendation of an entity, but the acceptance of that recommendation does not constitute the acceptance of the report as a whole. Rather, the convention may amend the reports of the agencies and entities if it so chooses.

Some may see an opportunity here that is not there. Do not assume that you might change the report of the IMB to reflect a shift in policy and that the IMB would then be governed by the wording therein. That would not affect the policies or procedures in any way.

You may, however, clarify something that you think is glossed over in a report. If there is a section that is not quite “transparent” in its dealings with a certain topic, you may move that the section be rephrased in a more accurate way. With a majority vote on the amendment, the report will be codified in the Book of Reports and the Annual as you may reword it.

Let me again urge temperance with such a thing. If you are considered rude or mean to the person giving the report, you will only invite the ire of the Convention body to be directed toward you and your position.

If you choose to do this, choose your words wisely and make them as kind as you can while still maintaining your point with integrity.

Having gone quickly through this point, roughly 2/3 through the entire Primer Presentation, I open the floor for questions and comments.

I will start with this question: Has anyone heard anything new about potential nominees for President? It was rumored that Johnny Hunt would be bowing out of the race, but since we have not heard any more, I think it may have been idle talk or wishful thinking. What do you think? Also, I am expecting at least one more nomination this year. Any ideas on who it may be?

If we follow the pattern of watching the Pastor’s Conference for “anointed” candidate, it might seem the candidate from YSBC is Tim Sweatman, since he is on the podium at the Young Leaders Summit II. Way to go, Tim!

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?

Part 1 of the introduction to this series provides a description of how business will be run during the convention. Since that is done, and you can reference it there, I want to focus on the details of the Committee on Order of Business and then some semi-random thoughts about business and business meetings.

The committee is made up of the President of the Convention and six other members. Two of the six rotate off the committee each year after having served three years. The committee is to have at least two people who are not full time ministers or denominational servants. When you rotate off, you may not rotate back on the next year. I presume this is to ensure a wider scope of servants on this vital committee and so that the controlling of business does not come down to six people who serve in perpetuity.

This committee sets the schedule for business. Such items of business that are able to be scheduled prior to the convention, the committee sets and releases the schedule well in advance of the convention. I understand the schedule for such business is due out any day now.

When a motion comes from the floor, with a second, the committee gets the motion and investigates it. If it is in conflict with a governing document of the convention or in conflict with the rules of the convention (speaking in a disparaging way, for instance) then it will be ruled “Out of Order.”

Demanding that an agency of the convention do such and such is out of order because the convention does not govern its agencies. The Boards of Trustees, or similar governing bodies, govern their individual agencies. If the motion refers to a particular agency, but is not in violation of this type of governing stipulation, the committee will refer it to that agency. The agency’s Board of Trustees, or similar governing body, can do what it pleases at this point.

If a motion is in order, and is the business of the convention and not an agency of the convention, then the committee will schedule it to be brought to the floor for a discussion and a vote. The committee will publish the substance of the motion and its schedule in the convention Bulletin. If they are to schedule the motion to be brought to the floor of the convention before the printing of the next Bulletin, then they will announce all the pertinent information on the floor of the convention.

There is only one time a motion can be discussed and voted on at the time of the motion instead of it being scheduled by the committee for a later time. If it is in order, and the convention UNANIMOUSLY votes to bring it to the floor immediately, it may be done. With all of those various minded folks gathered, though, it would have to be an overwhelmingly unifying motion to get a unanimous vote.

The committee is to schedule a time for all such motions to be brought. All motions to be considered must be brought before the close of the afternoon session on the first day of the convention. After that, I believe, they are ruled “Out of Order.”

SEMI-RANDOM THOUGHTS

The proper phrasing of a motion is of interest to some. The way to properly phrase the opening of a motion is,
“I move…,” and not, “I make a motion that…” This is just for those who care about such things. I think you could technically be ruled “Out of Order” for phrasing it that way, but I doubt that you would be – especially this year.

It is also this committee that selects the director of Music and the Convention Preacher. If you have suggestions or complaints about the music or the preaching, save them until after the convention. These people will have plenty on their plate. Literally. They meet to go over the business of the convention during lunch and supper breaks.

Over at SBC Outpost today, there is posted a letter that claims that there is some conspiracy to make the convention in Greensboro about Dr. Paige Patterson, President of SWBTS and one of the architects of the resurgence. The last time I checked, I thought the convention swell was about getting on with the business of reaching the world.

Besides that, Dr. Patterson is the President of an SBC agency, and his role within the convention is the per view of the Board of Trustees at SWBTS. Any motion regarding him in that role would be either out of order or referred to that institution’s trustees. I don’t see any way to make him the focus of the convention, even if anybody wanted to do so.

==========

Off – Topic – IMB and Dissent

The Biblical Recorder has weighed in, again, on the IMB BOT and their newest policy concerning public dissent. In the article, Baptists don’t wear muzzles, Tony Cartledge outlines how such a move is against the very history of being Baptist.

It seems I have heard this before. I like this guy.

art

The Committee on Resolutions (By Law 20) is actually easy and complicated at the same time. A lot of help, huh? It’s easy to understand the process, but can get complicated when submitting a resolution of your own. Because of this, I will break this post into these two areas.

GENERAL PROCESS

The President and VP’s appoint this committee and publish the names of its members at least 75 days before the convention. It consists of 10 people, 2 of whom have served this committee before and 3 of whom serve on the current Executive Committee. The chair, this year, is TC “Tommy” French, as has been noted by Dorcas Hawker.

The committee receives resolutions from April 15 until 15 days before the convention [Monday, May 29, 2006 - for this year's convention]. The committee sorts through the resolutions and recommends some of them to the convention.

The Titles of every Resolution properly submitted are printed in the convention Bulletin. This means that all of the convention will see every submitted resolution, whether the committee chooses to bring it to the floor or not. If the committee chooses not to bring a properly submitted resolution, the convention can, with a 2/3 vote, bring a resolution to the floor for discussion and a vote. I have heard it said that the only man ever to accomplish this is Wiley Drake – known by some as “Mr. Resolution.”

The fallout is this: Only properly submitted resolutions can be voted on by the convention. Any resolution brought from the floor of the convention will be ruled out of order. If you want a resolution brought to the floor that the committee didn’t want passed, then a motion, second and 2/3 vote will get it to the floor. Presumably, if you get it to the floor with 2/3 of the voting messengers, you will be able to get it passed unless a persuasive argument is made not to pass it. In other words, once you get it there, it is your vote to lose.

Resolutions are not binding. Nobody has to do anything that a resolution calls for, but they are supposedly a “snapshot” of the convention. Media picks up on the resolutions [remember Disney?] and so do the pastors and therefore the churches.

Moreover, if the convention passes a particular resolution and an entity of the convention has policy or procedure that is in conflict with that resolution, which supposedly expresses the “will and mind of the convention,” then during the question and answer time of that entity’s report to the convention, the entity may be asked to account for the discrepancy. Egg on the face does have an impact.

PROPERLY SUBMITTING A RESOLUTION

Resolutions must fit a certain formula to be properly submitted.

1. They must be submitted between April 15 and May 29 for this year’s convention.

2. They must be addressed to the Committee on Resolutions in care of the Executive Committee of the SBC at it’s Nashville address: 901 Commerce Street, Nashville, TN 37203 OR you can email your submission. In fact, sbc.net has an online submission form that you can use.

3. The resolution must be typewritten, titled and dated.

4. The resolution must be accompanied by specific contact information for the person submitting and the person’s church. This information is compiled into a form verifying the church’s credentials as qualifying to send a messenger to the convention. You do not have to use the credential form, but it makes it easier. This form can be found at sbc.net. If you choose to submit your resolution online, the credentials are part of the form.

5. The resolution must also be accompanied by a letter from your church validating that you are a member in good standing. If you submit the resolution online, you must send this letter in the mail following your online submission.

6. You can only submit 3 resolutions per year.

7. The committee will date the resolution when they receive it. Since they require you to date it also, this, apparently, is to validate that it was received within the appropriate window of time.

The wording of resolutions is also somewhat technical. How to Frame a Resolution is a helpful page found at sbc.net.

Again, while not binding, resolutions often reveal the heart of the convention to those at home and to the outside world. They also might shed some light on our hearts to those who are in certain leadership positions within the SBC, letting them know that we are paying close attention and are active. They also might reveal to us just how many leaders within the convention are in agreement with us.

The Committee on Nominations is the second part of the Conservative strategy during the resurgence. The Committee on Nominations is appointed by the President. This committee then proposes a slate of officers to the convention to fill various SBC roles. The plan was that the President picked nominators who were conservative and they filled vacancies with fellow conservatives. Over the span of ten years, all of the vacancies had come open in all of the institutions and were then filled with conservatives.

When entities of the convention began to have boards that were populated with a decided majority of conservatives, the boards began to overhaul the staff of the various entities. This is what really split the convention.

It wasn’t that conservatives were on the committees and boards. They were already represented to some degree or another. The thing that got people mad was when certain people got fired. I have a close friend who was a graduate of SBTS in Louisville. He is a good guy and I would say as conservative in his beliefs about the Bible and practice as most Southern Baptists today. However, he was furious when he perceived that some of the professors at Southern were moved out politically. These men had a great impact on him, but they weren’t part of the “inner circle,” or so his perception runs.

His perception may or may not be true, or may even be true to some degree or in some instances. Perception is reality, though, and for many conservative, non-political Southern Baptists, this is where they really burned. Many left; many just dropped out of the convention in everything except donations and name.

Again, you have not heard too much about this committee lately. I have not heard anybody espousing a plan to utilize this committee or its slate in an effort to take over the convention again. It seems to be the mood of Southern Baptists, now that “the war is over,” to quit utilizing this plan altogether and quit filtering the servants of the denomination by loyalties. We are now a pool of conservative believers; we ought to be able to work together, shouldn’t we?

There are a few things that first timers need to know. One is that there are various sub points to this by law that direct the committee against nepotism and cronyism. Another is that the committee must release the slate of nominees to the Baptist Press by April 28. There have been a few accusations concerning the skirting of the aforementioned sub points and they have led to accusations of cronyism and nepotism after the fact. No doubt the release of this slate, 45 days before the convention, will allow the opportunity to highlight potential irregularities. I am assured that the slate will be scoured for possible offenses in this area.

The schedule for this particular business has not yet been released, but the fixed business schedule is set to be released any day now. I will alert you when it is released.

If you would like to recommend someone else for a specific position, substitute nominations may be made, and they must be one at a time. This will be done as an amendment to the slate, and, I believe, each amendment will have its own vote. When the amendment process is done, the adoption of the amended slate will be the new officers.

This means that no one will be allowed to substitute an alternate slate as a whole. In essence, it keeps a person or a small group of people from undoing the work of the entire committee, which is a good thing.

If one seeks to substitute a name on the slate, you will be saying something to the effect of, “Because of [well thought out, concise reason for the substitution], I move that the motion from the Committee on Nominations be amended to include [Name] as the nominee for [certain post].” There will need to be a second and then discussion and a vote on whether or not that person becomes the new nominee.

Obviously, this will take some thinking out and should be done with great trepidation. Anyone seeking to simply remove the entire slate will begin an extremely tedious process that will likely raise the ire of the convention. On top of this, there is a time limit of ten minutes for this business. If there is a need to go beyond the ten minutes, it can be handled from the floor with a motion, a second and a vote in favor to extend the time for this business. The Committee on Order of Business can also choose to extend the time if they see the need. If neither of these are done, the President will call for the vote after the ten minutes is up and the slate will be adopted “as is.”

In previous years, the Committee on Order of Business has instituted a rule limiting comments to 2-3 minutes for the duration of the convention. At the end of the set time the mic will be cut off. If your motion does not make sense, that is if it is incomplete, it will be ruled out of order. The 2-3 minute rule may or may not be in effect this year. The Committee on Order of Business will decide the week before the convention. The President may simply ask for this, and that is just as good as a rule from the committee.

In any event, be prepared to be short. The fact that only one substitute can be made at a time and the need to vote on each amendment will gobble up the ten minutes quickly.

My recommendation is that you look over the list carefully when it comes out in a couple of weeks. If you have no real objections, then you shouldn’t mess with it.

On the other hand, if there are violations of the nepotism and cronyism rules, or there are nominees whose nomination flirts with such rules, or there are nominees who have documented instances of historical actions inappropriate to the leadership of the convention appearing on the slate, then prepare and amend. Do NOT bring spurious charges against nominees, either. We are talking about a documented “arrest for fraud,” as an example.

You may think that you have a person whose character and leadership gifts would be of great benefit to the convention and want to nominate them for this reason. You could do so in similar manner, praising the service of the committee and not running down the current nominee. This would be accepted by many, I would think.

====================

There are a couple of other interesting issues within By Law 15. 15(E) states: “The committee shall recognize the principle that the persons it recommends shall represent the constituency of the Convention, rather than the staff of the entity.”

This causes Wade Burleson’s blogging concerning the IMB and its policies to be very defensible. While the governing documents for the convention do not govern the individual entities, a question might be raised after an entities’ report as to why they have rules that are in apparent contradiction to SBC By Laws – whose nomination and election to their positions came under these By Laws.

In my mind, this would be an appropriate question for the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the IMB concerning its newly adopted policy that, at certain times, prohibits the Trustees from expressing their full mind to the convention at large concerning the business of the IMB. The response may be that this By Law delineates accountability to the Convention as opposed to the Staff, so that policy is not in opposition to the By Law. This is a poor defense, as accountability to the convention is expressed clearly as the sole responsibility of the elected Trustees, regardless of any other entity claiming the Trustee’s allegiance.

In another application of this section of By Law 15, entity heads who hold sway over their entity’s Trustees are in complete defiance of this By Law. The question of specific, documented instances of such would be completely justified at that entity’s time of report.

OK, to heck with the schedule. I had extra time today, so I wrote up the officer election post ahead of my intended time. What can I say? I’m an over-achiever.

The election of officers is crucial for a unique reason. The Conservatives of the resurgence recognized just how crucial it was and marked it as the key to winning the “Battle for the Bible.” The President of the Convention appoints nominators who nominate key individuals to certain posts – such as Trustees, etc.

This is not that. You have noted, probably, the distinct lack of people clamoring or maneuvering to run an opposition candidate over these issues. I think this is because we are all conservatives and are willing to work together to move forward. Things are not now like they were in the 80′s.

There was some early flap about running an opposition candidate to Johnny Hunt, but political back room appointments were never the real problem, although many expressed distaste in the “Kingmakers” still picking the president. The first issue I saw raised was that Dr. Hunt has been openly critical of “Calvinists,” or “Reformed Theologians,” and there are a significant number of those holding to this theology within the convention. Mark what I said, here. Dr. Hunt was perceived as publicly critical of the people, not just the theology. The question was raised as to whether or not he could lead the convention after being so disparaging in his comments toward many Southern Baptists. This was discussed at length at Dr. Tom Ascol’s Founder’s Ministry blog. In fact, the brothers Cainer joined in the discussion and became quite disparaging themselves, which boggled the minds of many.

Several at Founder’s put forward the name of Dr. Mark Dever as a potential rival for the Presidency and it was picked up across the internet. Dr. Dever is known as a Reformed Theologian and was seen as a rebuttal to what was offensive to many in the Reformed camp. Peace seemed to be the mindset as Dr. Dever’s name was quickly added to the ballot, as 1st VP. Some, I think, felt robbed of their candidate, but others seemed to take it as an olive branch.

The other question raised was that FBC Woodstock, whose pastor is Dr. Hunt, had given an amount to the Cooperative Program that was much smaller than the 10% for which the leadership of the convention has been asking. Some have speculated that this may be somewhat embarrassing to Dr. Hunt. I recently read in the comment section of a post at Founder’s that the speculation had reached the point of thinking that Dr. Hunt will withdraw his name over it.

While Dr. Hunt may or may not be on the ballot, the question of additional nominees is still looming. If the ballot is swamped with nominees, most will rally to the identifiable name that was endorsed by the “Kingmakers” of old – at this point Johnny Hunt, or their next appointment should he withdraw. If the ballot has two names, there could be some degree of uncertainty as to the outcome of the vote before the tally is reported. I think the SBC is somewhat divided culturally and generationally. This could be evidenced in a split ballot, but I hope not.

We should prayerfully approach this issue over the next two months. This president will not begin to serve until we adjourn the convention, so will not have any say as to the business in the front of most of our minds at Greensboro. However, we also need to wisely discern if the man for whom we vote is a “political appointment” who owes allegiances to his appointers, or if he is a fair minded and independent visionary leader like Bobby Welch has been. (I know not everyone has been head over heels for Dr. Welch’s leadership – but I am going to defend him here. He has attempted to focus us outward toward the lost – off the petty cultural bickering in which we have often been mired – and he has been fair in moderating the convention. He should be set apart as a fine President in the annuls of our Convention.)

Here is a breakdown of the By Laws #8 – the election of officers.

The President, the 2 VP’s and the secretaries are elected at the convention and start their service after we adjourn. The President is the key elected official.

When you register, you get a book of ballots and this election is by ballot. Not all elections are by ballot, but this is a crucial vote. Don’t lose your ballots! If there is one nominee, the chair can declare the election of that nominee without messing with the ballots. I’m betting somebody will nominate more than one candidate. I hope we don’t have more than two, or at the most three, but the way things are spinning now, who knows? If officers do not receive 50% or more of the votes, we have a run off. Been a while since that happened, huh?

A nominee can only be put forward by one person. The speech given in that nomination is limited to 3 minutes. You have a brief time to convince the convention your man is THE MAN, and you will be the only one allowed to speak on his behalf.

The ballots are tabulated by tellers who are appointed by the current President. This is a pretty trusted deal and I think there is a lot of accountability there. Remember, the resurgence really put this to the test with huge conventions and closely contested elections. It has been a while since they needed to do much of this, but I think Dr. Welch has his eye on it and will appoint capable people.

Please remember to put, “Primer – Officer Election” at the top of your comments so I will know where they are when I get the email notice. I can respond more quickly that way. Thanks!

First off, the Southern Baptist Convention does not have “delegates” and if you call yourself or anyone else that, you will be known immediately as a “newbie.”

The secular press makes this mistake every year. Sometimes they even condescendingly say something to the effect of, “their delegates, which they call ‘messengers’…” This tells us that someone has tried to explain the difference to them and they clearly thought that it was a nuisance to be bothered with the subtleties and therefore glossed over the whole thing.

Here is the difference as I understand it. A delegate is given a specific task for which they are responsible. There is a sense of obligation to do a certain thing. A messenger has no such obligation, but is simply a representative of the congregation, endorsed to handle things as they see fit and with no duty to answer back to the congregation for any particular issue.

During the resurgence, I knew of several groups from certain churches whose messengers would sit in different places so that no one could see them vote. Usually, this was because they were splitting the vote.

Anyway, each Southern Baptist church gets messengers, up to ten, depending on how much they give to the Cooperative Program. No, it is not according to the size of the church. Yes, that means “Mega Churches” get ten votes, as does FBC, Russellville, KY. I won’t bother to explain what some have called the “buy a vote” plan that allows you to get up to ten messengers, but most churches qualify for ten. If anyone wants to flesh that out in the comments, feel free, but for the sake of keeping this readable, I will move on.

If you are to be a messenger, you must be voted as such by your church. The church will then send you to the convention with credentials that identify you as their messenger. This is a standard form, but if the church doesn’t give it to you, or you lose it, a fax, letter or email to that effect will still get you your packet of information, ballots, etc. when you register at the convention site. It is not really a big deal and they do a good job of getting everyone settled.

The total number of messengers who are registered are the “convention.” It is this total number that percentages will be based on when deciding a quorum. I am going to discuss quorums later, but since it relates here, I will define it for you now.

A quorum is the minimum number of registered messengers necessary to say that the convention is adequately represented and therefore can conduct business. For us, 25% of registered messengers must be present.

Here is the fallout of that deal.

IF, say 19% of the registered messengers at the convention are in support of the new IMB policies and 13% think that Wade Burleson should be removed from office as a Trustee to the IMB,

AND we assume that the rest of the convention disagrees with the policies and thinks Wade should be restored to full duty,

THEN, we can safely say that the particular views for the policies and against Wade are in the minority and by a wide margin,

BUT, if we have a quorum of 28% (just over 25% needed) and they are made up of all of the aforementioned minority, and just a few of the vast majority,

THEN, the convention will do business as if it is fairly represented, even though it is not.

Let’s say that all of those particular people know that the subject of the IMB is due to come up and, it being important to them, they show up. Meanwhile, all those new to the convention, thinking it is a little tedious, head for the local Starbucks, since hanging out is our thing, we leave the business in the hands of those with whom we vastly disagree. We then will end up not doing what we came to do, right?

My point is…

1 Be properly voted as a messenger by your church.

2 Keep up with your credentials.

3 Arrive in plenty of time to register.

4 Keep up with the ballots and schedule given to you at registration.

5 Do not faint, and do not grow weary. You will be needed to vote and you can only do that if you are there.

Also, you will get a schedule of set business at the Young Leaders Summitt II and the daily bulletin will give you an updated schedule.

Don’t be overwhelmed. This is just the beginning, but it is easier than you think. I promise.

Oh, yeah, one last thing. I was reading over on Wade’s blog about a pastor who told Wade that he would move to have Wade removed as a Trustee for the IMB. You want to know what there will be to vote on? He just gave you one – and it’s a big one.

I would like to thank this pastor for giving us the rally point the IMB took away when they rescinded their motion. Some people just don’t know how to follow leadership, and in this case, I am glad.

If that vote makes it to the floor, I am thinking that the overwhelming vote against it may help people who are in the minority understand that working with others is better than trying to force people to do what you want them to do.

Please remember to put “Primer – Messengers” at the top of your comments so I will know where to find it when I get the email notice. Thanks.

It has been intimated and overtly questioned as to whether or not the convention leadership will be “fair” during the upcoming Convention in Greensboro. I have many reasons to believe that everyone, no matter what their convictions, will be treated fairly.

I want to publicly affirm my trust in Bobby Welch as the moderator of our convention. I think that he is a fair person and will be fair while fulfilling his duties. Why do I think that?

In previous years, when some Entity Heads gave their report, it would last for about 22 of their allotted 25 minutes and then open the floor for questions in the final three minutes. Last year, Bobby asked them to open the floor for questions early in their report so there would be plenty of time for interaction with the messengers. Some did not exactly follow the wishes of the President. Occasionally, our President would use the prerogative of his office to extend the time of the report to give the floor the ability to ask questions they felt necessary.

This sounds fair to me. How about you?

I understand that he is more committed to making sure that this accountability happens this year.

For those of you never having been to the convention, you might like to see what it is like and what matters. Did you know that the convention has live video streaming? Did you know you can still access last year’s video?

Click on this link to the ’05 annual meeting and then click the link entitled, “Watch the 2005 SBC Annual Meeting.”

Pay close attention to the reports on the Committee on Order of Business reports on Tuesday. There are two. This will show you how some of what has been explained above is fleshed out.

Tomorrow it is time to start in on the bylaws.