by Iwonder17 21 Replies latest jw friends
Once we had a resolution voted for and immediately after they "passed it" they informed the congregation they already hired a crew to do the work!!! (it was to repave our parking lot for $12,000) Wow! Talk about not caring what we say!! They already decided on theit own before hand!! What fools to say that...
burnignbridges
I often wonder if this is legal, don't they have to ask if any are against, because some abstain, but how can they claim they have a majority in favor, and what about absentees?
LEGAL? There are two answers here: YES and IT DOESN'T MATTER.
YES- Once you have joined a Church, you are UNDER IT'S RULES (or CHURCH LAW) regarding Church activities, membership, circumstances of association and donations. There is legal precedent for this.
IT DOESN'T MATTER- Most of the casework on that subject has to do with members donating money and property to the Church auspices and then disagreeing with how the resources were subsequently handled. Then the donor wants something back. Some of the casework has to do with employment circumstances of clergymen.
The long and the short of it is that IT IS A BLACK HOLE. Once you join the Church: anything that you donate is lost to the Church, with NO LEGAL RECOURSE.
BOTTOM LINE: Resolutions are a formality and a ritual to be observed.
Finally-free has voiced the only real answer to this.
BTW, the casework that I alluded to above is the groundwork for establishing CHURCH LAW; this is the basis for the WTS defense against legal action over DF'ing. And it holds water.
Mustang
My father and one other elder would question resolutions all the time. Some would get irritated, but when you're talking about the distribution of money or other assets, there are important questions that must be asked before giving it the nod of approval. My father would usually ask how much, how many payments, and for how long.... did we get other estimates? etc., etc. The fact that people would just raise their hands like idiots was scary. Usually, people who raise their hands and don't ask any questions are the same people that can't manage their own finances, either.
Burningbridges inspires another thought:
1) The Elders (and WTS) cook these things up.
2) Who pays if there is a shortfall? Usually the Elders have to 'dig deep' into their pockets.
(Sometimes Elders are there because they have money and influence prior to their promotion. Otherwise the Elders will approach the other well-heeled members of the congo.)
3) If you don't contribute, it will leave the Elders holding the bag :)
Mustang
That always pissed me off. When I was young they actually properly followed parliamentary procedure. There would be motions made, seconded, discussion, THEN a vote. And the vote wasn't always positive.
Sometime later everyone seemed to have forgotten the procedure. Just read the proposal, no discussion, and vote. The vote would be worded something like - "Who here support the elders prayerfull decision to ...(insert something expensive)"
One that particularly pissed me off was before our quick build. I do computer work, so I was asked to do some 3D models for the new hall design. I was given cloth,carpet, and paint swatches in 3 different colour schemes to render out how the place would look in the different schemes. It was all presented (we got a video projector and did a 3d walkthru), and the colour scheme renders were printed on A4 glossy paper and posted on the bulliten board. This was great - the people who were paying for it were actually going to get to pick the colour scheme. A vote was taken. But the elder in charge didn't like the congregation's decision. So he told everyone the vote results were actually in line with his decision. I spent days doing the modelling and rendering work. I was pretty pissed.
People forget what they raised their hand for. I do. We had a resolution a few months back about upping our 'per publisher cost' to "rent" the assembly hall (for one reason or another) There was a specific amount, so we are supposed to factor this in to our 'voluntary' donations. I'm sure everyone forgot about it the following week, except for a faithful few.
"Can you imagine what would happen to the person that voted against anything?!
A JC that very night probably."
I have seen many "no's" given to resolutions, even did so myself. No backroom, no JC, no rubber hose. Even saw a couple of elders vote against some resolutions.
Even saw a couple of elders vote against some resolutions.
hmmm poor show.
since it is the elders that are putting the resolution to the cong then there is no need for them to vote at that time. even if they disagreed with the decision then they would have had the oppurtunity to discuss this at an elders meeting and on being out-voted at that they ought to have then gone along with the decision..(according to jw rules)
i know of a cong that put a resolution to the hall that they purchase 2 antique chairs for the platform since they had the chance to do so at a reduced rate (altho still not cheap).... the cong voted against it on the grounds that the money being spent would be better used to fix the holes in the roof of the kh..at which point they were told that the chairs had already been bought. i was visiting the cong the following week and the watchtower reader refused to sit on them. bad form..but still funny.
There is a safety net for allowing the cong to use your money. In many resolutions they will make an allowance for friends that wish to LEND the cong money . Once the project has been completed, you may ask for your loan back from them. No interest of course, but they were allowed to use your money, on a friendly basis.
I did this for the quick build at one of the cong I had attended . After a few years, I had a spat with the BOE, I very cordially requested my loan be returned to me. I had their check in 3 days. Oh, I knew they had the money because they had just read the accounts report.
Now , of course if I were still in, I would NEVER give them a DAMN CENT!!!
NMG
MissingLink
When I was young they actually properly followed parliamentary procedure. There would be motions made, seconded, discussion, THEN a vote.
That's how I remember it. It was always the same person to second the motion too.
