Questions regarding Clergy processes

I wonder if the Synod would be able to take a moment to clarify the new appointment of a replacement (interim from my understanding) secretary to the clergy that has happened with no notice or announcement?

I think the person appointed is a great choice (congrats Jamie) but I am uncertain as to the process, considering the following paragraphs from the Synod charter.

"When an Office is available, a public notice will be made to the Temple requesting applications. Applicants must be a member of the Clergy or a Seminarian and be in good standing with the Temple. All applications will be fairly considered, an interview conducted and a vote taken among the Synod members as to the successful candidate. "

and

the Synod is organised into an open and accessible administrative body, dedicated to transparency and balance in Clergy management

Seconded. Found out about it in the skype room, and it was not addressed. :whistle:

Yeah, just a little weird. Also, would like to know whats going on...now and in the future

I'm just reading this now.. I was contacted by someone over this issue, but I don't see "an issue" myself...

I am an interm supervisor at my job...

Interm, meaning temporary, does not have to be announced, as I understand it, nor do candidates need to apply....

An Interm whatever is a person ask to fill the role of whatever for a temporary length of time....

Should the Synod be seeking to fill the position permanently, an announcement, and the acceptance of applications, should happen then....

The Council doesn't micro manage the Synod, although we (the Council) did probably drag down the updated training a bit, we also trust them to make decisions such as these without having to account for every movement...

My thinking is, if we want to know more about what the Synod is doing, joining it might be a better way of staying in the loop.....

Although I'm sure they won't have an issue answering this "calling out"...

Thanks Jestor. Appreciate the reply. That's what I was thinking as well, just wanted some clarification.

Sure. You make some good points.

But the lack of transparency or process for "temporary" positions is not mentioned or accounted for in the charter. There is a difference between the "letter of the law" and "spirit of the law"

One of the goals of having a charter was transparency, and a sense that the clergy did not operate in secret and behind closed doors. This seems like a step backward in that endeavor.

We weren't told it was a temporary position. :side:

We weren't told anything. I specifically asked after a throw away comment that mentioned a new secretary. The justification of it being temporary was the reponse to my query about it being out of alignment with the recently announced charter.

That's what "interm" means Connor...

Brenna, if I get you right, you are simply pointing out, what you see as, a violation of the rules?

Council wasn't informed either...

I don't inform about each person I block, application I accept, or posts I modify (trying to get better on this last one though)...

As long as its not permanent, the rules are not broken if you ask me...

Yes. You're right Jestor.

The part of the synod charter governing appointments to postitions was meant to cover anyone being added to the synod for any reason.

because in the past people have felt that these things happen in secret, without notice and some felt that clergy appointed their "buddies"

I know that this was the intention of that clause, because I wrote it.

Well, you stated it was "interm", I guess a Synod person will have to post on it....

I took what (evidently) you wrote, as it addressed permanent appointments...

Even if that is a "loop hole"

the Synod is organised into an open and accessible administrative body, dedicated to transparency

May I ask a genuine question, sarcasm-free?

Why are we hand-waving someone's concerns about the way in which this Temple operates instead of acknowledging the legitimacy of their feelings and offering to investigate the matter, whether or not it ultimately turns out to be true?

Being completely honest here: a situation in which the Clergy is questioned on their adherence to their governing documents, and that question is answered with anything except a promise to look into it, my trust in the Clergy is shaken. If we trust anyone here at TOTJO, it should be the clergy. We trust them daily with our thoughts and feelings, we trust them to help guide us back to the proper path, and we trust them with a legally-binding seal of confession in all but two ranks. We should also be able to trust them to hold to their own rules, and if their adherence to them is questioned in any way--even a way that is caused by misunderstanding or is blatantly false--we should be able to trust them to investigate the issue and give a clear answer.

Because if you can't trust the clergy completely, they serve exactly zero purpose in this organization.

OK... I'm confused, sorry. We haven't recruited a new Officer - our Secretary for the Clergy is MCSH.

A few days ago we heard he was going on an LOA from his duties, of as yet indeterminate length. Full transparency, at the moment we're not sure how long Saj is going to be busy for, so if this LOA is short-term or whether a resignation might be more appropriate. If this is a 2 week sort of thing, making an announcement of a vacancy, taking applications, conducting interviews and announcing a "replacement" would take longer than that.

The point being... Saj's post is NOT available. He's filling it, just either on a short-term LOA, or pending his resignation if we discover this is long-term and that's more appropriate. If that turns out to be the case, the procedure you quoted Brenna will be followed and a notice of vacancy posted... when the post is actually vacant.

Given we have been slipping in the sorts of areas usually taken care of by the Clergy Secretary (meetings and sermons), we reached out to a current, active Seminarian with an opportunity to help us out. Jamie is well aware she's serving in MCSH's stead only for the period of his LOA.

We made a comment about the Secretary for the Synod in the Charter, which represents the "spirit of law" we followed here:

This role is not currently filled [...] As such this office will be supported by other members of the Synod, Clergy and Congregation in the interim.

That's the only reference to "interim" support in the Charter, and is exactly what we're doing here.

I'm sorry this seems like a lack of transparency, but frankly we didn't feel an announcement was appropriate until we knew what was actually going on with Saj. We have a Clergy meeting next Sunday which we started putting together as soon as we were sure we could staff one (ie with a Clerical Secretary), and all of this was due to be discussed there.

The full text of that clause is thus:

* This role is not currently filled as Synod initiatives will not require a dedicated officer at the outset. As such this office will be supported by other members of the Synod, Clergy and Congregation in the interim.

I bolded that part in the middle, because

1. If Jamie is assuming MCSH's post in the interim, that's a change to an official post--however temporary--and we should've been notified.
2. If Jamie is assuming the interim post of Secretary of the Synod, that rather makes Jamie the "dedicated officer"--however temporarily--and we should've been notified.

The running theme here is why people are confused/upset.

And, quite honestly, I can't blame them. How long has this topic been up without an official answer from the Synod? How many people asked about it in the chat messages I just read through in Skype? Why was Jestor the only person answering questions here when there were (without a doubt) other clergy members--potentially even synod members--online? If you were busy, or asleep, or afk, that's fine. I understand. But if any of you were here and could've answered in an official capacity and instead chose to let Jestor field it and catch the flak for it, I'm afraid I don't understand the reasoning there.

The problem with this isn't Jamie's appointment as secretary--congratulations, by the way, Jamie--or even that this particular issue is a "big" deal. But it rather does set a poor precedent, the kind of precedent that I understand this whole synod transparency restructurey-thingy was supposed to avoid making in the first place.

I've just had a conversation with Maitre Alexandre Orion about this matter. Here are the specifics:

Sajjad, who is the Secretary to the Clergy, has taken a Leave of Absence from his duties. The Synod was informed of this three days ago. Because an official appointment is not in order, Jamie Stick is now functioning as a temporary replacement until his return. Sajjad has not resigned, but without the immediate appointment of a temporary secretary, the Synod is handicapped.

Such a course of action should not cause us to loose faith in our clergy or the leaders therein. In fact, their immediate response to this temporary vacancy should inspire confidence that they take everything seriously and strive to find effective and efficient solutions.

Hope this helps clear everything up.
-Roz

Edit: Tzb got in there before me

steamboat28 wrote:
The full text of that clause is thus:

* This role is not currently filled as Synod initiatives will not require a dedicated officer at the outset. As such this office will be supported by other members of the Synod, Clergy and Congregation in the interim.

I bolded that part in the middle, because

1. If Jamie is assuming MCSH's post in the interim, that's a change to an official post--however temporary--and we should've been notified.
2. If Jamie is assuming the interim post of Secretary of the Synod, that rather makes Jamie the "dedicated officer"--however temporarily--and we should've been notified.

The running theme here is why people are confused/upset.

1. You were due to be, at our meeting next Sunday. That's our standard mechanism for communicating and discussing administrative issues with the Clergy.

2. That's not the case, at least no more than it has been since the Charter announced members of the community will be supporting the role, and Jamie is a member of the community, if you see what I mean.

tzb wrote: 1. You were due to be, at our meeting next Sunday. That's our standard mechanism for communicating and discussing administrative issues with the Clergy.

So meetings will be happening at least monthly again starting Sunday. Right?

2. That's not the case, at least no more than it has been since the Charter announced members of the community will be supporting the role, and Jamie is a member of the community, if you see what I mean.

The wording in the Charter carries the connotation of a per-session basis. Perhaps that wording should be clarified to include temorary interim appointments of undetermined length, even though the office temporarily vacant and the office being filled aren't the same office, and arguably have different duties.

steamboat28 wrote: So meetings will be happening at least monthly again starting Sunday. Right?

That's always been the plan and it hasn't panned out that way... but as much as that's our plan, yes. Like I say, one reason we've sought Jamie's support is to make this possible. If not, we'll be looking for another solution.

While I appreciate the replies Tzb, this does little to quell my concerns. And it’s made me realise just how little faith I have left in the clergy and its processes, because of this, because of previous issues with the same lack of transparency, and because of the many behind the scenes conversations resulting in rifts because of a refusal to just go along with things that are not in keeping with the “spirit” of what we are meant to be doing here.

For me, this seems like just yet another example of decisions being made on the fly, with the lack of transparency and a “secretive” nature that has been brought up by many members before me.

I have reached a stage where I can have no confidence in the leadership or manifestation of purpose of our clergy.