Proposals and Such

I've a really hard time coming up with a Title for this, so thats what we have.

What I'd like to do is change the way that Clergy makes proposals. Currently it happens this way.
1. Person makes proposal
2. Proposal goes to Synod
3. Synod votes, it passes/fails
4. If it passes, its implemented unless it needs to go to Council. If not, it is explained why it did not pass. Proposal maker has an opportunity to rework it.
5. Council votes if needed and its implemented if it passes.

What I'd like to do is this:
1. Person makes proposal
2. Proposal goes to the General body of the Clergy.
3. Clergy votes.
4. Proposal passes/fails
5. Proposal is implemented if passed if it doesn't need Council approval
6. If it does, Proposal is brought to Council by Secretary to the Clergy.

Synod would be limited to facilitating their respective roles as Assistant/Associate Pastors/Secretary or Pastor and dealing with personnel matters only. Less governance in that sense.

Please tell me what you all think

I like that

I think this is great. Not only will it create better intercommunication between us but highlight the idea of clergy driving clergy.

I like this. This should be done with the knighting process as well.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I like this. This should be done with the knighting process as well.

Could you bring that idea to Adhara so she can put it on the agenda for knights meeting?

Rosalyn J wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I like this. This should be done with the knighting process as well.

Could you bring that idea to Adhara so she can put it on the agenda for knights meeting?

I have done this before. Do you think this time will make a difference?

I see. I'm happy to bring it to Adhara. But I do need an itemized process for this similar to the one I provided in the OP. Since this particular discussion is outside the realm of the Clergy, can I ask you to start another thread?

Rosalyn J wrote: I see. I'm happy to bring it to Adhara. But I do need an itemized process for this similar to the one I provided in the OP. Since this particular discussion is outside the realm of the Clergy, can I ask you to start another thread?

Thanks for your consideration but I see no need to start another thread. It has been done before to no avail. I see no reason to believe this time will be any different. My comment was just a passing thought and unless evidence is produced to the contrary and I'm unwilling to put any further work into a futile effort.

I appreciate your frustration, Kyrin, and your hesitancy to put in work that will go unrewarded or ignored. I will tell you here that this discussion is part of larger efforts by Ros in the Clergy and other Councillors in other areas to establish a better workflow for us so we can get things done more efficiently. If you want to discuss with me a basic idea of what the knighting process should look like, I'll take it from there and put the real work into presenting it.

OK, that's fine Kyrin. I'll go ahead and start the thread. Thank you for bringing it forward again.
"Try fail, try fail, try succeed."- Dr. Abraham Low

Edit. Actually, it's great Senan will take it from here

Because I feel this exchange on Skype should be posted here:

Rax: I definitely like the idea of decentralizing power within the clergy. Quite frankly I would like to see it in the temple as a whole.That said, would each vote be given a time period? The benefit of a synod is that votes are passed relatively quickly, especially since the clergy hasn't exactly had the best turnout for votes in the past. What are your envisioned parameters for pass/fail?

Ros: Please can we have this discussion in forum? But what I'd like to see is a quarterly "check in" thread for clergy. So on the first day of the quarter, a PM goes out to all active clergy. They then have 1-2 weeks to check in. The General Clergy would be made up of those people who checked in that quarter. With a simple majority being sufficient to pass a proposal. And Pastor stepping in to break a tie.

Any more thoughts here?

I like it we'll thought out Master Ros.

I really like this.
The rolling stone's gotta start somewhere.

Edit: As for the time limit-- that makes sense and I agree with it as well. There needs to be a time limit set so that things can move with relative speed. Anyone involved enough to make an informed decision can then vote (or perhaps designate someone to carry their vote for them under special circumstances, such as an emergency LOA or a pre-planned vacation where access is limited).

I dunno if you ever have to handle any sensitive issues that may come to clergy via someone who is not in synod (structural changes to the temple which affect the clergy are about all I can think of...) You may need to be able to control the agenda (what comes in, at stages 1 or 2), at times... Just a thought. You'll need to know who has oversight to say - "nah, that might affect individual people's dignities if discussed so openly" (just like you noted that role facilitation or personnel issues would, so are kept to synod).

Things of a personal nature or a confidential nature would and should never be discussed openly. That would be handled by the relevant party.

JLSpinner wrote: Things of a personal nature or a confidential nature would and should never be discussed openly. That would be handled by the relevant party.

I'm pleased that's been stated JLSpinner; because it's beyond important that people know they are safe with clergy. But I suppose I was meaning a different kind of singling out.

Say someone proposed to bring a non-clergy thing under the clergy umbrella - like the unofficial discord, because it is so very very good. That could be entered as an idea in "1", but then there may be individuals feeling as though they are being discussed too openly; the users and host - nothing directly personal/private; but that could hurt feelings.

I am now hoping the amazing steamboat recognises how great I think the discord is, and how brilliantly he runs it, keeping ranks in order, and an eye on over 20 chat rooms... But he COULD rightly feel singled out by this comment, rather than encouraged by it... So there'd need to be a way to intervene at stage "1/2" to control the agenda, so there are no hurt feelings.

I hope that clarifies the difference I am trying to make. That clergy seal is golden and solid folks... You can trust it. Hit the button up top if ever you need it

Increased detail to step one. All proposals are handled by Atticus. I trust his discernment in deciding which goes where.

Let me wake up a bit and ill articulate better