[Mins] Question about Nomination of Office Bearers

[mins at crca.org.au]

Hi Jack,

It just so happens that we have just gone through the nomination process
too, so this is fresh in our memories! We do what you do, as well as the two
suggested amendments.

The reasoning behind the first point is that it just seems like good manners
for a nominator to get the nominee¹s consent before their names will be put
before Session and discussed (and possibly dissected!). It also potentially
saves time: there seems no point discussing a nominee at length and
eventually accepting their nomination, only to them have them refuse to
accept it themselves when they are informed of it.

The reasoning behind the second point is that: if the nominee doesn¹t know
they¹ve been nominated, of course, there¹s no point in telling them they
were and then rejected. But if they do know they¹ve been nominated, it is
much better that they find out in person from an elder than merely by the
fact that their name isn¹t on the voting slip. This also provides pastoral
opportunities, i.e. to explain to someone who might think they are
leadership material why they are not, which might have broader impacts in
the church.

Anyway, that¹s just my two cents¹ worth!

Cheers,

Des Smith, CRC Kingston
 


On 18/03/13 2:08 PM, "mins at crca.org.au" <mins at crca.org.au> wrote:

>  
> Hi Everyone,
>  
> In Launceston Session we have always followed what I thought was fairly
> standard procedure when it comes to nominating office bearers, that is we call
> for nominations from the congregation, we receive some names in reply, we add
> some extra names of our own, we consider them carefully and prayerfully, we
> come up with a list of candidates and then we announce this to the
> congregation. It has recently been suggested that we do a couple of things
> differently, namely:
>  
> 1) That it should be specified that nominators should always gain permission
> from the person they wish to nominate before putting their name forward to
> Session.
> 2) That if someone is nominated and Session decide not to put them up for
> election, that Session should go back to the nominator and the nominee and
> explain why their nomination was rejected.
>  
> We are wondering if anyone has any experience, thoughts or wisdom for us on
> this matter?
>  
> Yours in Christ, Jack Kapinga.
>        
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mins mailing list
> Mins at crca.org.au
> To manage subscription settings -
> http://crca.org.au/mailman/listinfo/mins_crca.org.au

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://crca.org.au/pipermail/mins_crca.org.au/attachments/20130318/6970d692/attachment.htm>