The vote went civilly enough. Carl LaBarbera, who recently assumed the leadership of the Executive Board of Elders, presided. A number of guidelines had been put into place to assure that only members voted.
In the past, members over 18 just stood to indicate they were authorized to vote and the ushers handed them ballots. This time members had to line up out on the patio to be given their ballot--in an unmarked envelope inside an envelope with their name printed on it--based on a membership list we have never seen and didn't know existed, whose criteria were never divulged to us.
In the past, members over 18 just stood to indicate they were authorized to vote and the ushers handed them ballots. This time members had to line up out on the patio to be given their ballot--in an unmarked envelope inside an envelope with their name printed on it--based on a membership list we have never seen and didn't know existed, whose criteria were never divulged to us.
Only members who were on this list were given ballots and only those given ballots were allowed into the social hall where we were going to vote. By the way, there were two police cars outside, presumably to keep order. (One member asked the policewoman, "Why are you here?" She said, "That's what I'm here to find out.")
Carl had hired a parliamentarian to help us all stick to Robert's Rules of Order but on the whole attorney John Anderson ("Bear") was the one who kept us on track.
Bear called a point of order when Carl took a motion to close down the debate after a couple of members had made comments, while a third one was standing at the microphone waiting to speak.
Bear called a point of order to announce that at least seven members had been told they were not eligible to vote. (We heard of more later.) Carl had elder Ted Moncure, on stage with him, quickly check the (mysterious) list and confirm that indeed they were not members. I knew most of these people and have no idea by what criteria they were excluded. A few had been attending other churches lately but had not removed their membership from Grace. Doris Schilling, a member since 1945, attends regularly but hasn't been able to give much money to the church. Did those things count?Yet the leaders of the Watchmen--and we--were acknowledged to be members.
Bear then pointed out that members can not be removed from membership unless they themselves request to be removed in writing or unless they have gone through the complete Matthew 18:15-20 disciplinary process, the one which had been begun on himself.
Carl conferred with the parliamentarian and then agreed--but those members were still excluded from voting, at least at that time.
Carl conferred with the parliamentarian and then agreed--but those members were still excluded from voting, at least at that time.
At the end of the hour, when the debate, which never became inflamed, was over and the ballots were marked, Carl instructed us to put our ballots back in the unmarked envelopes, and put the unmarked envelopes back into the marked envelopes before turning them in.
My Jerry took the microphone to challenge the "secrecy" of turning in ballots in envelopes with our names printed on them. Carl assured him that the inner envelope and outer envelope would be separated before the votes were counted. He said they needed the outer, marked envelopes to "know who voted."
He asked Jerry something like, "Is there something you need to keep secret?"
Jerry asked, "Do you not understand the term 'secret ballot'?" Carl brushed that off with a comment to the effect that it wasn't important, we're all friends, we all trust each
other and "everyone knows what we're up to anyway-" hastily changing that to "what we're doing."
I see. That's why we needed to have people who claim to be members checked against a membership list for the first time in the history of our church, why we had to hire a parliamentarian and why there was a police presence. Because we trust each other.
I see. That's why we needed to have people who claim to be members checked against a membership list for the first time in the history of our church, why we had to hire a parliamentarian and why there was a police presence. Because we trust each other.
I wanted to ask why, since the envelopes were already separate, we could not turn them in separately, why the leadership needed to know who voted and why they couldn't determine who voted by checking names on the envelopes which had been picked up against names on the ones which remained. But I didn't have an opportunity.
I wanted to say, too, that no, frankly we don't trust them, that the Executive Board of Elders has a history of declaring bogus results of their votes and that although I trust each of the five individual men doing the counting, I could think of all kinds of ways of abusing the process between "the cup and the lip."
But we had no choice so we turned in ballots with our names emblazoned on the outer envelope and left for lunch where I had my first solid food for ten days. When we drove back by the church the two police cars were still there. I felt a little better, hoping that the officers were inside monitoring the count.
Then we went home where Jerry, always unperturbed, bless him, finished reading Nicholas Nickleby and I lay on the bed with pesto pasta and fudge ice cream competing in my stomach, trying not to throw up. I regretted letting myself getting so caught up emotionally in the day. (continued)
Many people who are following this from other local Brethren Churches are praying for today's vote. Hearts are broken to see the direction Grace church is moving. It makes me sad to know the church I grew up in is going through such spiritual warfare. Keep up the good fight.
ReplyDeleteYes, Jessica. At the Members' meeting, the Statement of Faith (SOF) was trivialized through statements made by Leadership. Praise the Lord for the wonderful young man who took a bold stand for the truth and stated that in the proposed new SOF there were a total of 43 scriptures removed from the old SOF. Praise God for His Truth and even though we may not care for the results we expect, the Lord reigns and God is in control and we look forward to His perfect reign. The "Blessed Hope" of His 2nd Coming is indeed wonderful!
ReplyDeleteIt is always interesting to see what is left out of ones perception of an event.
ReplyDelete"Carl had hired a parliamentarian to help us all stick to Robert's Rules of Order but on the whole attorney John Anderson ("Bear") was the one who kept us on track." - Jessica Renshaw
"Bear then pointed out that members can not be removed from membership unless they themselves request to be removed in writing or unless they have gone through the complete Matthew 18:15-20 disciplinary process, the one which had been begun on himself.
Carl agreed--but those members were still excluded from voting, at least at that time." -- Jessica Renshaw
This description omits what actually took place. John Anderson ("Bear") was corrected by the group overseeing the meeting via Carl LaBarbera as to additional rules for removing members, one of which is based on lack of attendance. (Three additional reasons were raised in correction to John Anderson's shorter list). So the moderators of the meeting did not agree and the statement that John Anderson "...was the one who kept us on track." does not fairly represent what took place. This is presented as if [implied in its presentation here], things would not have been addressed correctly if John had not been present.
Being that an incomplete set of reasons for removal from membership was presented by John Anderson (which is ok...no implication of wrong doing intended whatsoever), it seems the process worked as intended in this area of the discussion.
Why was this omitted in the blog from the account of events that took place?
"I wanted to say, too, that no, frankly we don't trust them, that the Executive Board of Elders has a history of declaring bogus results of their votes and that although I trust each of the five individual men doing the counting, I could think of all kinds of ways of abusing the process between "the cup and the lip." -- Jessica Renshaw
There are many who would indeed be concerned with such acts! Can you please point to the evidence for this! It would be great to ensure we are following I Tim 5:19 and if this is indeed happening, that real evidence is presented and brought forward! Why is this only coming out now – which votes were tampered with in the past?
It also appears that there is legitimate concern about the fairness of the count and voting process, as represented in this paragraph (quoted above by Jessica)....so it seem to make sense to ensure that when ballots are turned in, it can be confirmed that someone who should be voting is the submitter of that said ballot and conversely to ensure that someone who was not a member submitted an identical plain yellow envelope with an easy to photocopy ballot. How do you ensure that the concerns you have about vote manipulation are addressed, if there is no validation method to ensure ballots weren't added by those not eligible to vote?
If there is a very real concern about manipulation of the vote, removing the method of validation as desired and seen in the statement –
“But we had no choice so we turned in ballots with our names emblazoned on the outer envelope and left for lunch where I had my first solid food for ten days.” -- Jessica Renshaw
….wouldn’t there be even more concern about someone adding fictitious or invalid ballots? This is very easily done when no method is provided to ensure only valid ballots are counted. This concern is expressed in the statement in the above blog:
“I wanted to say, too, that no, frankly we don't trust them, that the Executive Board of Elders has a history of declaring bogus results of their votes…” -- Jessica Renshaw
Dear Context,
DeleteYour concerns are legitimate. Please be patient with my husband and me as we respond to them one at a time.
First, you are right that something was omitted in discussing ways to (voluntarily or involuntarily) lose your membership. I had included details giving exactly the information you say is missing--facts I struck before posting so as not to detail readers to death. Namely--
John brought up the only three ways, according to the Bylaws, by which members can be removed from membership. Carl responded that there are FIVE ways. John corrected Carl, pointing out that there are five REASONS for membership to be relinquished or taken away. They were talking about two different lists. Carl was discussing WHAT; John was discussing HOW. He said each of those five REASONS for removing membership has to be dealt with by one of the three METHODS. Double-checking with the parliamentarian, Carl acknowledged John was right, which proved John's original claim.
The parliamentarian was an expert on Robert's Rles of Order. So was John. But I think it was evident John was also an expert on our church Bylaws, which the parliamentarian may not have been. It was just a misunderstanding.
As to "the Executive Board of Elders has a history of declaring bogus results of their votes…" this is not "only coming out now." I have documented this fact in at least two posts on this blog.
DeleteYears ago John Anderson was an elder in this church and was also chairman of the elder board at one time. Some time after he had cycled out of the position of chairman, another chairman instructed the elders to present their most recent decision to the congregation as "unanimous."
John told him, "It wasn't unanimous and I won't lie for you. I quit."
As I say, that was years ago. However, the Executive Board of Elders (EBOE) is still announcing all their decisions as unanimous, "representing all the elders and pastors of this church." We know from several elders that not only are these decisions not unanimous, the Executive Elders make them without even including the other 20 (now 19) elders in the decision process. Two or three of them have told us, "We don't even know what subject they have been discussing until they announce the decision as a done deal to the congregation in our names."
Finally getting around to your last point, Context. I guess it's moot now. As you point out, both sides wanted to prevent tampering --and we, at least, are confident that it was kept honest.
DeleteHowever, (this is Jerry writing), the point I made about the envelope with the names was that all the ballots were collected before we left the room, which precludes someone running out to make copies on the proper colors of paper and smuggleing them in. The chairman said that the double envelope was a common thing to do, but we've never seen it except when the ballots are mailed in.
Back to Jessica: Since the police officers were not needed to supervise the counting of the vote, why were both vehicles still parked at the church for at least an hour after the meeting ended? Just curious.
I am hopeful that in a spirit of discourse and conversation other additons to the events that transpired are indeed accepted and posted on this blog.
ReplyDeleteIt is a good amount of the intent behind public discourse, blogging and sharing of views in many forums, including on the Internet.