Draft: [PC 2012.01.01/00] Effective Date: January 01, 2012
Coverage: Staff Review Date: January 2014 AC
I, the undersigned, hereby agree not to divulge any information or records concerning any church and/or staff member without proper authorization in accordance with the Trinity Christian Reformed Church policies and procedures. I recognize that any discussion of. or release of, information concerning a church and/or staff member, to any unauthorized person is forbidden and may be grounds for legal and/or disciplinary action.
During the performance of my assigned duties, I will have access to confidential information required for the effective coordination and delivery of services. I agree that all discussions, deliberations, records, and information generated or maintained in connection with these activities will not be disclosed to any unauthorized person.
When serving on boards in Canada see: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/technical-information/income-tax/income-tax-folios-index/series-1-individuals/series-1-individuals/income-tax-folio-s1-f5-c1-related-persons-dealing-arms-length.html
In terms of this question, it is probably relevant to note that there is an ecclesiastical and civil law component to the question.
Church Order, Article 37 "...Although full consideration shall be given to the judgment expressed by the congregation, the authority for making and carrying out final decisions remains with the council as the governing body of the church, except in those matters stipulated otherwise in the articles of incorporation or by law" indicates that councils are also bound by civil and criminal law. (see also Church Order, Article 32, Supplement, Article 32-d) Since Duncan CRC is in British Columbia, the Society Act, etc. is applicable in this instance, and in particular Duncan CRC's Constitution & Bylaws.
The elders and deacons are the directors of the corporation under civil law, and form the council under Church Order. The executive committee which may include elders and deacons constitute the officers of the Board under civil law. As noted below, the pastor may be part of the executive committee as an elder, but has ex-officio status being an employee, i.e. an non-voting member under civil law.
There may be occasions where the executive committee and/or board/council need to go into executive session which would require the staff/employees, i.e. pastors, etc. (non-voting members) to leave the room. Executive session is not the same thing as mutual censure.
Though one would want to solicit input from all members in the congregation, the question of voting vs professing membership probably boils down to what the church Constitution & Bylaws define as who has voting rights which is guided by civil law. Church Order, Articles 4-c and 37 perhaps also give some guidance inasmuch as they refer to "adult" and "entitled."
Henry's observation "So that leaves it to the Church Order and local council to decide ecclesiastically rather than the more legal route of Articles of Incorporation. Typically provinces and states allow congregations to decide this matter in its own way without dictating any particular voting age" is more than a little problematic.
Members who have "voting rights" would also be able serve as council/board members who can enter into legal contracts, hire employees, etc. which individuals under the age of majority, i.e. under guardianship cannot do.
As such, civil law overrides ecclesiastical law. Or to put it another way, ecclesiastical law needs to follow civil law. In the same way Church Order, Article 27 requires council members to comply with the law, e.g. "Although full consideration shall be given to the judgment expressed by the congregation, the authority for making and carrying out final decisions remains with the council as the governing body of the church, except in those matters stipulated otherwise in the articles of incorporation or by law."
Regarding the matter of Articles of Incorporation (Constitution) versus Bylaws, the province of British Columbia has recently brought into force a new Societies Act which will require all NGO's, e.g. churches to revise their Constitution & Bylaws. Most matters that were formerly included in the Constitution will be required to move into the Bylaws.
Nonetheless, if a 16+/- old person is a person awarded "eligible voting" rights in a society, i.e. church they are still entitled to serve on the board/council regardless of whether the council asks or not. If their name were to be put forward, to cut it off the nomination list based on their age would be an infringement of their legal rights under the Constitution & Bylaws.
Moreover, they may be required as an "eligible voting" member to vote on financial, legal matters, etc. put before the membership, i.e. the congregation when they still under guardianship raising questions about whether their vote is legally binding.
The two things to take into consideration are Church Order, Article 37 and the church's articles of incorporation, i.e. the Constitution & Bylaws. In particular, Article 37 states "Although full consideration shall be given to the judgment expressed by the congregation, the authority for making and carrying out final decisions remains with the council as the governing body of the church, except in those matters stipulated otherwise in the articles of incorporation or by law."
As an incorporated entity, the church's bylaws will usually specifiy what constitutes a quorum required to constitute a congregational meeting. Best to check there first.
The new proposed Model Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws (Canada) released by the CRCNA states "Quorum at All Member Meetings. At each meeting of the Members a quorum shall be 50 percent of the Professing Members present in person or by such electronic means as is approved by the Council as deemed necessary to permit them to participate in the meeting. If a quorum is not present, the meeting shall be adjourned to a date and time set by the Chair."
The bar in your bylaws regarding a quorum may be set lower, or perhaps higher. In the case of the church I attend, the bylaws state "The professing members attending a general meeting, including the annual general meeting, shall constitute a quorum."
There is a caveat in Church Order, Article 37 which I had highlighted, i.e. "except in those matters stipulated otherwise in the articles of incorporation or by law."
Congregational meetings that are called under Articles of Incorporation, in particular those dealing with financial matters fall under the caveat above and therefore authority rests with the quorum of the congregation at the meeting and not council.
Though I can appreciate the matter of individuals being gifted in the area of administration and leadership, and that some pastors may possess these gifts.
Nonetheless, church polity is out of step with contemporary political governance being more in line with 15th / 16th century divine right of kings political theory.
Having an employee as an elected/voting member of the governing board/Council, and possibly as Board Chair, places the church as an institution at jeopardy legally, quite apart from issues of conflict of interest.
That doesn't preclude the pastor, as an elder, being an ex-officio non-voting officer.
Even the Canadian Council of Christian Charities requiries the following standards of charities, i.e. churches:
Standards of Acccountability: http://www.cccc.org/standards_2 "No member of the governing board shall be entitled to receive, either directly or indirectly, any salary, wages, fees, commissions or other amount for services rendered to the organization."
As a former senior administrator, who has been involved with municipal governance boards, I would tend to agree with what John Kralt has to say. In terms of Board Governance and conflict of interest matters, the matter is a bit more than amusing, notwithstanding the fact that the individuals are working for the welfare of the Body of Christ.
A question that begs to be answered is whether the current practice undermines the role of elders and deacons, and by extension the local church as set out in Church Order by creating a parallel universe. Inherently, is this not one of the key issues the the Structure and Culture Report is trying to grapple with, and indirectly the Diaconia Remixed Report?
Posted in: Sample Confidentiality Agreement?
CONFIDENTIALITY OATH
Section: Administration File No. 3050-73
Draft: [PC 2012.01.01/00] Effective Date: January 01, 2012
Coverage: Staff Review Date: January 2014 AC
I, the undersigned, hereby agree not to divulge any information or records concerning any church and/or staff member without proper authorization in accordance with the Trinity Christian Reformed Church policies and procedures. I recognize that any discussion of. or release of, information concerning a church and/or staff member, to any unauthorized person is forbidden and may be grounds for legal and/or disciplinary action.
During the performance of my assigned duties, I will have access to confidential information required for the effective coordination and delivery of services. I agree that all discussions, deliberations, records, and information generated or maintained in connection with these activities will not be disclosed to any unauthorized person.
_____________________________________ _____________________________________
Signature Name (Please Print)
Date: _______________________________
_____________________________________ _____________________________________
Clerk, Council, Trinity CRC Name (Please Print)
Date: _______________________________
Reference: Trinity CRC – Protection of Personal Information Policies and Procedures
Posted in: Appropriate for Pastor's Spouse to Serve on the Board of Deacons?
When serving on boards in Canada see: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/technical-information/income-tax/income-tax-folios-index/series-1-individuals/series-1-individuals/income-tax-folio-s1-f5-c1-related-persons-dealing-arms-length.html
Posted in: What is the Appropriate Membership on an Executive Committee of Council?
In terms of this question, it is probably relevant to note that there is an ecclesiastical and civil law component to the question.
Church Order, Article 37 "...Although full consideration shall be given to the judgment expressed by the congregation, the authority for making and carrying out final decisions remains with the council as the governing body of the church, except in those matters stipulated otherwise in the articles of incorporation or by law" indicates that councils are also bound by civil and criminal law. (see also Church Order, Article 32, Supplement, Article 32-d) Since Duncan CRC is in British Columbia, the Society Act, etc. is applicable in this instance, and in particular Duncan CRC's Constitution & Bylaws.
The elders and deacons are the directors of the corporation under civil law, and form the council under Church Order. The executive committee which may include elders and deacons constitute the officers of the Board under civil law. As noted below, the pastor may be part of the executive committee as an elder, but has ex-officio status being an employee, i.e. an non-voting member under civil law.
There may be occasions where the executive committee and/or board/council need to go into executive session which would require the staff/employees, i.e. pastors, etc. (non-voting members) to leave the room. Executive session is not the same thing as mutual censure.
Posted in: Do Congregational Members Under 18 Vote?
Though one would want to solicit input from all members in the congregation, the question of voting vs professing membership probably boils down to what the church Constitution & Bylaws define as who has voting rights which is guided by civil law. Church Order, Articles 4-c and 37 perhaps also give some guidance inasmuch as they refer to "adult" and "entitled."
Posted in: Do Congregational Members Under 18 Vote?
Henry's observation "So that leaves it to the Church Order and local council to decide ecclesiastically rather than the more legal route of Articles of Incorporation. Typically provinces and states allow congregations to decide this matter in its own way without dictating any particular voting age" is more than a little problematic.
Members who have "voting rights" would also be able serve as council/board members who can enter into legal contracts, hire employees, etc. which individuals under the age of majority, i.e. under guardianship cannot do.
As such, civil law overrides ecclesiastical law. Or to put it another way, ecclesiastical law needs to follow civil law. In the same way Church Order, Article 27 requires council members to comply with the law, e.g. "Although full consideration shall be given to the judgment expressed by the congregation, the authority for making and carrying out final decisions remains with the council as the governing body of the church, except in those matters stipulated otherwise in the articles of incorporation or by law."
Regarding the matter of Articles of Incorporation (Constitution) versus Bylaws, the province of British Columbia has recently brought into force a new Societies Act which will require all NGO's, e.g. churches to revise their Constitution & Bylaws. Most matters that were formerly included in the Constitution will be required to move into the Bylaws.
Posted in: Do Congregational Members Under 18 Vote?
Appreciated Henry.
Nonetheless, if a 16+/- old person is a person awarded "eligible voting" rights in a society, i.e. church they are still entitled to serve on the board/council regardless of whether the council asks or not. If their name were to be put forward, to cut it off the nomination list based on their age would be an infringement of their legal rights under the Constitution & Bylaws.
Moreover, they may be required as an "eligible voting" member to vote on financial, legal matters, etc. put before the membership, i.e. the congregation when they still under guardianship raising questions about whether their vote is legally binding.
Posted in: Is There a Quorum for Confessing Members to Be Present at a Congregational Meeting to Make the Decisions Made Legal?
The two things to take into consideration are Church Order, Article 37 and the church's articles of incorporation, i.e. the Constitution & Bylaws. In particular, Article 37 states "Although full consideration shall be given to the judgment expressed by the congregation, the authority for making and carrying out final decisions remains with the council as the governing body of the church, except in those matters stipulated otherwise in the articles of incorporation or by law."
As an incorporated entity, the church's bylaws will usually specifiy what constitutes a quorum required to constitute a congregational meeting. Best to check there first.
The new proposed Model Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws (Canada) released by the CRCNA states "Quorum at All Member Meetings. At each meeting of the Members a quorum shall be 50 percent of the Professing Members present in person or by such electronic means as is approved by the Council as deemed necessary to permit them to participate in the meeting. If a quorum is not present, the meeting shall be adjourned to a date and time set by the Chair."
The bar in your bylaws regarding a quorum may be set lower, or perhaps higher. In the case of the church I attend, the bylaws state "The professing members attending a general meeting, including the annual general meeting, shall constitute a quorum."
Posted in: Is There a Quorum for Confessing Members to Be Present at a Congregational Meeting to Make the Decisions Made Legal?
Hi Scott...
There is a caveat in Church Order, Article 37 which I had highlighted, i.e. "except in those matters stipulated otherwise in the articles of incorporation or by law."
Congregational meetings that are called under Articles of Incorporation, in particular those dealing with financial matters fall under the caveat above and therefore authority rests with the quorum of the congregation at the meeting and not council.
Posted in: Bible Translations — NIV2011?
I've come across the following review which appears to be fairly comprehensive:
“An Evaluation of the 2011 Edition of the New International Version”, by Rodney J. Decker in Themelios vol 36 issue 3 November 2011
http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/an_evaluation_of_the_2011_edition_of_the_new_international_version
Posted in: Should ministers (who are essentially "paid employees" of the church) chair council meetings or be members of the council?
If not a union, then perhaps a guild. :-)
Posted in: Should ministers (who are essentially "paid employees" of the church) chair council meetings or be members of the council?
Though I can appreciate the matter of individuals being gifted in the area of administration and leadership, and that some pastors may possess these gifts.
Nonetheless, church polity is out of step with contemporary political governance being more in line with 15th / 16th century divine right of kings political theory.
Having an employee as an elected/voting member of the governing board/Council, and possibly as Board Chair, places the church as an institution at jeopardy legally, quite apart from issues of conflict of interest.
That doesn't preclude the pastor, as an elder, being an ex-officio non-voting officer.
Even the Canadian Council of Christian Charities requiries the following standards of charities, i.e. churches:
Standards of Acccountability: http://www.cccc.org/standards_2 "No member of the governing board shall be entitled to receive, either directly or indirectly, any salary, wages, fees, commissions or other amount for services rendered to the organization."
Posted in: Should ministers (who are essentially "paid employees" of the church) chair council meetings or be members of the council?
As a former senior administrator, who has been involved with municipal governance boards, I would tend to agree with what John Kralt has to say. In terms of Board Governance and conflict of interest matters, the matter is a bit more than amusing, notwithstanding the fact that the individuals are working for the welfare of the Body of Christ.
A question that begs to be answered is whether the current practice undermines the role of elders and deacons, and by extension the local church as set out in Church Order by creating a parallel universe. Inherently, is this not one of the key issues the the Structure and Culture Report is trying to grapple with, and indirectly the Diaconia Remixed Report?