PCA BCO 24-5

[scottwesley89]

I was hoping someone could explain how PCA BCO 24-5 (procedure for election of elders and deacons) plays out in real time if there is a large minority of voters averse to a particular candidate. This section of the BCO seems to leave much up to interpretation, and I have the following questions.

1. How is "large minority" defined?
2. How does the moderator identify who in the congregation is a averse to the candidate, and then determine if they are willing to change their vote to align with the majority (e.g., show of hands, another unanimous vote, etc.)?
3. Is this attempt to induce those voters who are averse required if a lager minority exists in the vote? The term "shall" seems to indicate it is (see BCO 24-5 below).

24-5. On the election of a ruling elder or deacon, if it appears that a large minority of the voters are averse to a candidate, and cannot be induced to concur in the choice, the moderator shall endeavor to dissuade the majority from prosecuting it further; but if the electors are nearly or quite unanimous, or if the majority insist upon their right to choose their officers, the election shall stand.

Any help navigating this section is greatly appreciated!!!

 

[Edward]

It would take a good bit of organizing to even get to that point in our church. We use paper ballots, you check off the ones you support, sign and print your name on the back, and drop it in the basket. So someone would need to move and second to vote by show of hands, get that carried, and then oppose one or more of the candidates. Most folks aren't going to know most of the candidates, and enough folks are going to vote for the entire slate (which has been vetted by the session) that I can't see someone not getting enough votes.

I was on the officer selection committee for a year or two, and that's where significant opposition would get someone removed from the pool early in the process.

The only successful opposition I've seen in a congregational meeting was enough folks exiting the room, and then someone who remained suggesting the absence of a quorum. It just delayed things a few weeks, but it did give some feedback to the leadership.

 

[scottwesley89]

It would take a good bit of organizing to even get to that point in our church. We use paper ballots, you check off the ones you support, sign and print your name on the back, and drop it in the basket. So someone would need to move and second to vote by show of hands, get that carried, and then oppose one or more of the candidates. Most folks aren't going to know most of the candidates, and enough folks are going to vote for the entire slate (which has been vetted by the session) that I can't see someone not getting enough votes.

I was on the officer selection committee for a year or two, and that's where significant opposition would get someone removed from the pool early in the process.

The only successful opposition I've seen in a congregational meeting was enough folks exiting the room, and then someone who remained suggesting the absence of a quorum. It just delayed things a few weeks, but it did give some feedback to the leadership.

Thanks Edward!

So am I reading you correctly that under normal circumstances the moderator doesn't have any obligation, per the BCO, to induce a large minority of voters averse to a particular candidate to change their vote to align with the majority? And that this only applies if someone moves to oppose the candidate under consideration?

I'm thinking of a scenario (which I don't think is too far fetched) where a congregation of, say, 100 is voting on a particular elder candidate, and the result is 70 yes's and 30 no's. Can the moderator simply move forward with announcing that the candidate has been voted in as an elder, or does BCO 24-5 require more discussion?

I appreciate you helping clarify this for me Brother!

 

[iainduguid]

Hi Scott,
Edward is part of a large church, with (I think) a rotating Session (?), so their situation is a bit different from the one you describe, though I think your thoughts fit most small churches where the question is not "Pick three of the following six candidates to fill available slots" but "Should this man be an elder, yes or no?"

I think the BCO gives some leeway to the moderator as to what constitutes a "large" minority. He will also hopefully have knowledge of the church situation. In some churches, the apostle Paul might struggle to get a majority, and a wise moderator - while verbally fulfilling the conditions of the BCO - might well recognize that the majority will need to insist. In other settings, where the church is otherwise healthy and united, 20% voting against might be a significant minority that should give the Session and the elder candidate pause as to whether now is the right time. I read BCO 24-5 as an admonition to wisdom on the part of the moderator to try where possible to avoid inflaming divisions.

A concrete example might be a man with a past history of significant sin. The Session, who knows the man well, may be convinced that he has fully repented and his life is adorned with the fruits of repentance so that he is qualified to be an elder. Yet perhaps some of the congregation, who do not know the man person personally and reading his story are not convinced. It may be wise for the Session and the man not to press his candidacy at this point (even if 65% voted for him), allowing more time for people to get to know him and be convinced of his qualifications. That's very different from a church where 35% of the members want to leave the PCA and join a denomination where they can ordain women elders and be more gay affirming and therefore voted against an orthodox elder candidate.

 

[jfhutson]

I was hoping someone could explain how PCA BCO 24-5 (procedure for election of elders and deacons) plays out in real time if there is a large minority of voters averse to a particular candidate. This section of the BCO seems to leave much up to interpretation, and I have the following questions.

1. How is "large minority" defined?
2. How does the moderator identify who in the congregation is a averse to the candidate, and then determine if they are willing to change their vote to align with the majority (e.g., show of hands, another unanimous vote, etc.)?
3. Is this attempt to induce those voters who are averse required if a lager minority exists in the vote? The term "shall" seems to indicate it is (see BCO 24-5 below).



Any help navigating this section is greatly appreciated!!!

I think one interpretation would be that the moderator, after hearing the teller's report, should say before announcing the actual election result that it appears that a large minority is averse to a candidate and ask for a motion to retake the vote. He would then endeavor to persuade them to not prosecute the candidate further in the debate on that motion. Such a "retake" is not described in Robert's Rules, but the BCO supersedes it. Failure of that motion would be the majority insisting on their right to elect the candidate.

That's one interpretation, and another could be that only if it "appears" to the moderator that there is a large minority before the vote, perhaps because of credible statements from congregants to that effect, that he needs to endeavor to induce the majority before the vote, and then you don't have to worry about the procedural stuff above. But maybe you do both (if this large minority is silent until the vote you still ask for a retake).

As for the size of a "large minority," I think it would be in the judgment of the moderator.

The shall does seem to require he endeavor to induce them, but there's obviously a lot open to interpretation. It seems wise to err on the side of endeavoring to induce. I think the spirit of it is to try to get unanimity.

I don't think it should be in order to change votes on a ballot vote. RONR says that ballots are for secrecy, and specifically exempts ballot votes from the section on changing votes. I also don't think it would be appropriate to ask anyone to publicly identify themselves as opposed, again because ballot votes are implied to be secret, and BCO 24-4 says "private ballot."

 

[scottwesley89]

Hi Scott,
Edward is part of a large church, with (I think) a rotating Session (?), so their situation is a bit different from the one you describe, though I think your thoughts fit most small churches where the question is not "Pick three of the following six candidates to fill available slots" but "Should this man be an elder, yes or no?"

I think the BCO gives some leeway to the moderator as to what constitutes a "large" minority. He will also hopefully have knowledge of the church situation. In some churches, the apostle Paul might struggle to get a majority, and a wise moderator - while verbally fulfilling the conditions of the BCO - might well recognize that the majority will need to insist. In other settings, where the church is otherwise healthy and united, 20% voting against might be a significant minority that should give the Session and the elder candidate pause as to whether now is the right time. I read BCO 24-5 as an admonition to wisdom on the part of the moderator to try where possible to avoid inflaming divisions.

A concrete example might be a man with a past history of significant sin. The Session, who knows the man well, may be convinced that he has fully repented and his life is adorned with the fruits of repentance so that he is qualified to be an elder. Yet perhaps some of the congregation, who do not know the man person personally and reading his story are not convinced. It may be wise for the Session and the man not to press his candidacy at this point (even if 65% voted for him), allowing more time for people to get to know him and be convinced of his qualifications. That's very different from a church where 35% of the members want to leave the PCA and join a denomination where they can ordain women elders and be more gay affirming and therefore voted against an orthodox elder candidate.

Thank you Dr. Duguid!

That makes a whole lot of sense. At first I was frustrated by the ambiguity of 24-5, but your explanation and examples help me see the wisdom in leaving leeway for the moderator in the wide spectrum of congregations that it is applied in.

Also, I very much enjoyed reading your commentary on Daniel last year!

 

[jfhutson]

The only successful opposition I've seen in a congregational meeting was enough folks exiting the room, and then someone who remained suggesting the absence of a quorum. It just delayed things a few weeks, but it did give some feedback to the leadership.

If those who left were a "large minority," do you think the moderator erred in not endeavoring to persuade the majority when they reconvened to not prosecute it further?

 

[Edward]

I'm thinking of a scenario (which I don't think is too far fetched) where a congregation of, say, 100 is voting on a particular elder candidate, and the result is 70 yes's and 30 no's.

Ballots are taken downstairs for verification and counting. No results announced at the meeting.

with (I think) a rotating Session (?),

Elders serve a fixed term for attending meetings and voting; they are expected to continue all their other elder duties until they leave the church or become retired (or are deposed for cause).

 

[jfhutson]

No results announced at the meeting.

This violates RONR 45:37 (unless your church's bylaws say otherwise). Not saying it isn't common, but I don't think it's good procedure, as everything that an assembly does should be done in a meeting.