PCA Officer election process - separate nomination and election meetings? BCO 24-1

[LighthouseAttendant]

I'm confused as I review the process for electing church officers in the PCA as outlined in BCO 24-1.

If the session initiates a nomination period, I understand the process.

But when you get to the last paragraph of 24-1, you see the opportunity for the congregation to initiate an officer election process.

"If one-fourth (1/4) of the persons entitled to vote shall at any time request the Session to call a congregational meeting for the purpose of electing additional officers, it shall be the duty of the Session to call such a meeting on the above procedure. The number of officers to be elected shall be determined by the congregation after hearing the Session’s recommendation. "

So if 1/4th of persons entitled to vote petition the session to call a congregational meeting for the purpose of electing additional officers, does that meeting become a meeting where only nominations are accepted? I'm thinking you can't have an election at the very first meeting to address the issue, because you need a period of examination.

For context, the current setting where this is occurring there is no nomination process. The session is hand selecting candidates, examining, and then holding the election. There is no opportunity for congregants to nominate, and the examination is done in secret.

 

[Edward]

For context, the current setting where this is occurring there is no nomination process. The session is hand selecting candidates, examining, and then holding the election.

That would be irregular. They should give the congregation the opportunity to submit names. As a practical matter, they could get to the same result by determining that anyone they didn't want was unsuitable, and not submitting them to the congregation for election.

As for the congregation calling for a meeting. If petitioned to do so, it appears that that just deals with setting the number of ruling elders on the session, and after hearing a recommendation from the session, the congregation can come up with a different number. But that isn't going to change, I don't think, the process of actually electing any additional number of men approved, and the existing session is going to control that process. So other than firing a warning shot at the session that a quarter or more of the congregation is quite unhappy with how things are being run, the final result is likely to leave the same folks in control and the petition leaders are probably going to need to look for another church eventually.

The better practice would be to bring your concerns to the session pointing out any shortcomings in the current process that don't meet the standards of the BCO. If they are smart, they'll correct any errors pointed out. If not, document and bring it to the attention of Presbytery.

I qualify all my comments on the BCO with a statement that if Fred Greco ever says anything different from what I've said, go with what he says. He's right.

 

[LighthouseAttendant]

That would be irregular. They should give the congregation the opportunity to submit names. As a practical matter, they could get to the same result by determining that anyone they didn't want was unsuitable, and not submitting them to the congregation for election.

As for the congregation calling for a meeting. If petitioned to do so, it appears that that just deals with setting the number of ruling elders on the session, and after hearing a recommendation from the session, the congregation can come up with a different number. But that isn't going to change, I don't think, the process of actually electing any additional number of men approved, and the existing session is going to control that process. So other than firing a warning shot at the session that a quarter or more of the congregation is quite unhappy with how things are being run, the final result is likely to leave the same folks in control and the petition leaders are probably going to need to look for another church eventually.

The better practice would be to bring your concerns to the session pointing out any shortcomings in the current process that don't meet the standards of the BCO. If they are smart, they'll correct any errors pointed out. If not, document and bring it to the attention of Presbytery.

I qualify all my comments on the BCO with a statement that if Fred Greco ever says anything different from what I've said, go with what he says. He's right.

Thank you, Edward.

I agree with your statement that, practically, there would not be a change in the result of the election, due to the examination requirement.

I also have brought my concerns to the session regarding their process. I have been told that the rationale is that doing it this way is "the way it's always been done" and that it avoids embarrassment of the candidate that doesn't pass examination. I'm also told that, by retaining the last step of election, that the congregation has it's voice heard.

I don't agree with the explanation for the following reasons:

1. The BCO is clear to me that the congregation nominates
2. I believe congregational nomination is important because the drafters of the BCO saw fit to have the congregational voice heard in two steps, not just one
3. I believe that the examination results should be public, and I'm not convinced that a candidate should be embarrassed by not passing examination, and could avoid this by declining the nomination
4. Our current process leads to a much less transparent officer election process, as no one knows that candidates are even being examined while the examination phase proceeds
5. The congregation might feel pressured to elect the candidates presented at the election meeting, as it would occur in one evening

For some additional context, the session is well aware of the need for additional officers (as evidenced by having done an iteration of the process starting at examination). The effort being considered is not to add officers against the will of the current officers.

I also agree that the 1/4 petition could cause some division, something I want to avoid.

Perhaps involving the Presbytery is the next step.

But first, do you agree with my rational for being concerned? Am I way off base here?

 

[Edward]

I hadn't looked that closely at the provision for calling a congregational meeting for that, and was surprised by the higher bar for most congregations (or rather for most members - there are a lot of tiny churches in the denomination) than is required to call a congregational meeting for any other purposes.

25% for calling one to set the number of officers in any church, vs. say as few as 5% in a 2000 (voting) member church for other purposes. (BCO 25-2)

 

[LighthouseAttendant]

I hadn't looked that closely at the provision for calling a congregational meeting for that, and was surprised by the higher bar for most congregations (or rather for most members - there are a lot of tiny churches in the denomination) than is required to call a congregational meeting for any other purposes.

25% for calling one to set the number of officers in any church, vs. say as few as 5% in a 2000 (voting) member church for other purposes. (BCO 25-2)

I still think the end of 24-1 is for congregants to call for an election process, not merely a number of officers. "If one-fourth (1/4) of the persons entitled to vote shall at any time request the Session to call a congregational meeting for the purpose of electing additional officers, it shall be the duty of the Session to call such a meeting on the above procedure."

 

[johnmo]

So if 1/4th of persons entitled to vote petition the session to call a congregational meeting for the purpose of electing additional officers, does that meeting become a meeting where only nominations are accepted?

It says nothing about nomination in a meeting. It says "submit names to the Session," which in my experience means there is an announcement, and forms are made available where members may submit names.

I read it as, if 1/4 of the congregation petitions, the session must go through "the above procedure" of asking for names, examining the nominees, and holding the meeting, where they might recommend that they already have the number of elders they want, but the congregation can vote for a greater number. I guess @Edward is right that in some ways the session controls the procedure, in that they could disqualify any nominee they don't like. But the disqualification has to be based on a specified list of criteria. If a congregation requested the session to call a meeting for electing officers, and the session examined their nominees and found none eligible, I would think that a member who disagreed could make a complaint to presbytery if they had some evidence that the disqualification wasn't justified, or the process wasn't followed (they never even examined the man).

I do agree with @Edward that the better way would be to sit down with the elders and explain your concerns rather than going through that procedure. But if they don't want to follow the process after that, I don't think there's anything wrong with making such a complaint.

I don't understand the rationale given that it would be embarrassing to follow the BCO procedure. The session does not need to tell the congregation that a man's name was submitted and he was not found qualified. The submissions are usually confidential. So I suppose that the person who submits a name will find out if his candidate is not qualified, but that seems unavoidable. Even if there was no right to nominate, there are always going to be informal conversations where Mrs. X says to the elders, shouldn't Mr. Y be an elder? She should be given an answer, and it's better when there's an actual process to that.

 

[Edward]

So I suppose that the person who submits a name will find out if his candidate is not qualified

Not necessarily. Some folks drop out during the process when they realize what is involved. Others will drop for personal reasons. So adverse conclusions shouldn't be drawn between the time a name is put into the process and the time ballots are distributed.