I took a moment to go over the 14 August Council of Elders Meeting Report on this and other days from United Church of God, and I have to say there are some that raise questions.
Roc Corbett led the CoE through an hour of going through the Bylaws line by line from where they left off the previous day.Mr. Corbett thanked everyone for their help. He felt they had made excellent progress. They plan to review the remainder of the Bylaws by the end of the December Council meetings.
Am I the only one that thinks this odd? After all of the huffing and puffing over bylaws and such leading up to the UCG-COGWA split, people were getting beaten over the head about bylaws. Now, after all opposition has left, these sacrosanct bylaws will be amended?
That’s not the most important eyebrow raiser, however.
A three-part resolution to address employee compensation and benefits during this fiscal year was then presented for the Council’s review. The plan included authorization for a one-time employee bonus, for all full-time and part-time employees, to be paid in November 2014…
Huh? Another item that led up to the split was trying to rearrange and downsize ministers, even if it meant breaking a promise and taking retirement papers to the hospital to be signed by a minister with no desire to resign. Was this a financial ploy all along? I’m being serious. That is a legitimate question!
Enough speculation. On to harder stuff.
On 13 August 2014, we read:
Mr. Corbett discussed how the committee has been going through the Church’s governing documents very carefully. The Documents Review Team has given careful thought to this process, and there may be some changes that will need specific amendments for approval due to moving beyond simply grammatical or technical issues. The topic of what constitutes 75 percent approval regarding Fundamental Beliefs is one of those areas. The committee is seeking input from the CoE and ultimately the GCE on this topic.
For as long as I can remember, there was the notion that many of the GCE do not ballot on issues. While I’ve heard a few speculative answers, I haven’t before heard a really good reason that this would be the case.
Mr. Seelig mentioned that there is another important issue that should be included with this. In 1995 when this original article was adopted it was with the mindset that all elders would have their way paid to the GCE. Two years later the elders no longer had their way paid, so it has affected this issue as well.
Are you serious? So, the real reason all along that some of them don’t vote on issues is because they cannot attend? Really? How lame is that?
If I, a humble blogger, can put up a poll on a website, why can’t they, with all their Internet savvy, create a website with polling questions, logins and provide answers?
Yes, they could potentially collect who voted for what, but from what I understand, the private voting has already been done away with anyhow. Maybe the problem isn’t the bylaws. Maybe the problem is that enough cannot make a show.
Am I misunderstanding this issue?