Amendment to the Charter of the Synod

Hello everyone,

I hope you are all doing well.

After long and fruitful discussion at the November meeting of the clergy, the clergy assembled presented the Synod with an amendment which has been approved and is reflected in the current Charter of the Synod. This amendment is designed to address concerns about interim positions, vacancies, leaves of absence, the process by which they are filled, and the limitations.

The amendment in bold reads as follows

Appointment of Synod Officers :
When an Office is available, a public notice will be made to the Temple requesting applications. Applicants must be a member of the Clergy and be in good standing with the Temple. In the case of Secretarial offices Seminarians may also apply, and if no suitable Clergy are forthcoming, a suitable Seminarian applicant may be appointed as interim officer for a maximum time period of one year and one week. Interim Synod members assume all the roles, rights and responsibilities of the Synod position they are filling, this includes the ability to vote on Synod decisions. All applications will be fairly considered, an interview conducted and a vote taken among the Synod members as to the successful candidate. If the Synod vote results in a tie, or there are fewer than four members of the Synod, Councillors that are also members of the Clergy may be asked to cast deciding votes. Any Councillors chosen to cast votes must not also be members of the Synod.

If you have questions, comments, or concerns feel free to reach out to me or any member of the Synod.

May the Force be with you all.

Jamie Stick wrote: a suitable Seminarian applicant may be appointed as interim officer for a maximum time period of one year and one week.

What is the thinking behind the length of the time period?

From the transcript of the meeting that dealt with this issue:
"Mitchell W.: In that case, it's my opinion that temporary nominees should serve no longer than one year and one week, the maximum length of an LoA followed by a 7 day period to entertain applicants for their replacement. If no other applicants come forth by the end of the week, the temporary member should be considered a fresh applicant in every way except training, since they've been doing the job for the duration of the absence."

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Ministers-Corner/108524-transcript-meeting-of-the-clergy-for-01-nov-14

Connor L. wrote: From the transcript of the meeting that dealt with this issue:
"Mitchell W.: In that case, it's my opinion that temporary nominees should serve no longer than one year and one week, the maximum length of an LoA followed by a 7 day period to entertain applicants for their replacement. If no other applicants come forth by the end of the week, the temporary member should be considered a fresh applicant in every way except training, since they've been doing the job for the duration of the absence."

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Ministers-Corner/108524-transcript-meeting-of-the-clergy-for-01-nov-14

Yes, thank you Connor. I'm aware of who proposed it.

What I was asking is why that particular length of time? To me 53 weeks seems an excessive amount for an LOA or temporary cover, so I'm asking why has that period of time been selected.

More evidence from the transcript:

Alex said that anybody away for more than a year should resign.
"[5:16:02 PM] Alexandre Orion: if it would be a year or more, perhaps resignation would be in order"

Steam confirmed:
"Alexandre believes that an absence of less than or equal to one month doesn't necessitate an LoA, and an absence of a year or greater might call for a resignation."

Nobody dissented this point, so it was included in the proposal.

"evidence"? This isn't a trial or an attack Connor. No need to get all puffed up. I was merely curious.

As I said. I am aware. I have read the transcript.

I was simply wondering if there was any specific reason why 1 year is thought the appropriate time or an acceptable time frame for a LOA. IE. why not 6 months, or two years or whatever. its not a big deal I'm just curious.

No one suggested a shorter limit on time and so the year and a week was what ended up happening.
-Roz

Brenna wrote: "evidence"? This isn't a trial or an attack Connor. No need to get all puffed up. I was merely curious.

You're right, it isn't a trial, but it looks to me like Connor is trying to speak with authority rather than just off the cuff.

Brenna wrote: As I said. I am aware. I have read the transcript.

I was simply wondering if there was any specific reason why 1 year is thought the appropriate time or an acceptable time frame for a LOA. IE. why not 6 months, or two years or whatever. its not a big deal I'm just curious.

I think it was mostly arbitrary. We needed to pick a time frame that was both generous and fair. But more than that, I think it was based on Alex's sense of how long an LOA should last before it really should be made into a resignation. My impression was that once you reach a year's time it's most likely that if you're not ready to return you probably won't be ready to return to the position any time soon. Some people may need a up to that full year to get adjusted if they're going through a period of transition in their life (new job, new school, a serious romantic relationship, etc).

Hope that helps.

Jamie Stick wrote: You're right, it isn't a trial, but it looks to me like Connor is trying to speak with authority.

Yes, certainly looks that way.

Jamie Stick wrote: I think it was mostly arbitrary. We needed to pick a time frame that was both generous and fair.

Thank you for actually answering the question.

I was telling you it was arbitrary... :huh: I thought that was clear.

Connor L. wrote: I was telling you it was arbitrary... :huh: I thought that was clear.

Yes. I saw that. But thats not what I was asking which is why I asked again. Perhaps if you didn't understand what I was asking then you should have clarified.


I was not asking why it was passed during the meeting. I was asking why that specific time period. What is it about that particular time period that people feel it qualifies it as appropriate. Jamie answered with the response that it is a time period thought to be both generous but fair. Long enough to allow people to resolve any lifestyle issues and make a decision about being ready to return or leave one way or the other. I personally think that its an overly long allotment of time in which to sort oneself out, but I suppose thats not really relevant.

All I wanted to know was why that time frame. Not why it passed or whos idea it was.

So, your answer, despite your assertions that its the same thing, is NOT the same as Jamie's.

It amazes me how someones intention can be lost in semantics - it happens to me all of the time. I'm reminded how I like to use the word interrogate (out of habit for aircraft transponder systems), but everyone thinks I mean torture!!! LOL, ooops, when the intent is actually more like the formal questioning of something. I think some people have walked away thinking I'm a nutjob from things like that
:lol: :pinch:

What is it about that particular time period that people feel it qualifies it as appropriate. Jamie answered with the response that it is a time period thought to be both generous but fair.

What else could have motivated their choice? Irrationality and unfairness?

Jamie answered with the response that it is a time period thought to be both generous but fair.

Ah. Well, that's another matter. Sorry about that. I just figured that since it was not discussed, extrapolating Jamie's answer would be pointless. Nobody ever said "it is a time period thought to be both generous but fair" during the meeting. It was only implied.

Yes. It wasn't addressed. Which is why I asked.

There's no need for that Ren. The answer could just as easily been "Alex read somewhere that 1 year was the average accepted LOA time for a not for profit sub committee in the UK"

This thread was to make an announcement. It was not meant to open a debate.

The debate was done in Clergy General Session. It required really very little "debate" to come to this 'arbitrary' decision on a time that was generous and fair. The decision was made there ; this announcement is simply to let everyone know about it ...

The transcript of the meeting is a public record. The way the decision was arrived at is there.

This is not a debate. Not was it intended to be one. I asked a question. The answer to which I could not divine from the transcript. Hence why I asked.

And it was duely answerd so I'm unsure of why the flapping

Brenna wrote: Yes. It wasn't addressed. Which is why I asked.

There's no need for that Ren. The answer could just as easily been "Alex read somewhere that 1 year was the average accepted LOA time for a not for profit sub committee in the UK"

No need for what? Pointing out the obvious answer to a meaningless question? This isn't about LOA, but the maximum length for a temporary appointment to a secretarial position. The way I see it there is no limit on the number of temporary appointments that can be made, only a limit (of one year and one week) per appointee, if that appointee is a seminarian but not a clergy person... That appointee must still be elected the regular way, and I guess would have the limit lifted by becoming a clergy person within the one year and one week time limit.

Now of course you could ask whether this is what they meant to do when they announced there was a need for an amendment, or forgot what it was supposed to be about, or purposefully chose to make something incredibly simple look incredibly complicated, maybe there's more coming... I don't have access to that public record, so I can't look at the conversation that led to this.

ren wrote: The way I see it there is no limit on the number of temporary appointments that can be made, only a limit (of one year and one week) per appointee, if that appointee is a seminarian but not a clergy person... That appointee must still be elected the regular way, and I guess would have the limit lifted by becoming a clergy person within the one year and one week time limit.

ren, that was also covered: the purpose of the year-and-a-week is specifically and solely to find a permanent applicant for the position. If the lieutenant appointed for the interim expresses an interest, they will apply the same as anyone else. Regardless, after the year-and-a-week, according to the discussion that took place in the meeting, there would be a permanent appointment of someone qualified to that position, and thusly, no more interim replacement.

Whether or not that is accurately reflected in the amendment is something I haven't double checked, because I'm on the wrong side of a long, long day and I'm out of coffee and patience. But that was definitely the discussion that was had, and that was definitely the intent.

As far as Seminarians in positions, that was also addressed--mostly by seminarians themselves--and that has also been resolved to satisfaction, as far as I am aware. We felt that only clerical applicants should be entertained for permanent Synod positions, but that seminarians are appropriate for interim secretarial duties (but not other interim capacities). I brought this up, as a seminarian, and other seminarians agreed with me. Clergy--licensed or ordained--are allowed to submit applications for Synod positions, but seminarians are (as written in bold in the OP) limited to interim secretarial positions.


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

If people wish to have further discussion about absolutely anything to do with the clergy/synod then they are welcome to bring it up at our next clergy meeting or start a thread on here about the issue in particular.