Week #8 Parliamentary Law

Thursday 3/12/09
By Nick Smith

1. Though, we might agree as a church to build an elevator for the elderly people who are having a hard time with the stairs, that agreement does not put anyone in charge of the task of making the phone calls to get that done. I would use the “law” to make committees.
2. I would not allow for the option of tabling an issue. This is because if no one can feel the Holy Spirits calling on an issue, then it should just be thrown out altogether.
3. I would also get rid of the chair. The Holy Spirit would be the rightful chair person. If people are getting out of line, the Spirit will correct them, not a human authority.

There are many problem with my new method. It just does not seem like there can really be an adaptation between these two structures.

1. First of all, if we agree on a committee, we could have put people in that committee who would not help the decision process at all and could possibly even hender it, yet they are on there because no one was willing to speak out of place and disagree with the majority.
2. The final decisions made could end up being bad decisions because no one wants to speak up and disagree.
3. Finally, having no chair could be very problematic. People could speak too long and out of turn often without a physical being directing.

Though I do appreciate the Quaker and Brethren approach to voting, I do not see anyways to adapt both models.