It’s not looking like I will make the annual meeting in Columbus but a few housekeeping matters concerning SBC bylaws will be on the agenda anyway.
1. Electronic Voting…the SBC dragged into the 21st Century.
The punch card ballots used all these years at the annual meetings (“Take out your ballots and tear off ballot number four and only ballot number four…punch out the little square…”) is technology that is more than two centuries old ( Go to the Smithsonian and check out the Jacquard Loom for an early example, fascinating). The SBC has managed the counting of ballots this way for as long as I have attended but, wonder of wonders, allowance is being made in the bylaws for electronic voting. It will not happen this year but the bylaw change proposal if passed will allow for electronic voting next year. I suppose some kind of cell phone vote will be configured then. Wonder if there will be surcharges for texting your vote? Luddites, and I know some SBC Luddites, are welcome to vote against the bylaw change. Good move by the SBC Executive Committee.
One notes that the Executive Committee says not one syllable about allowing off-premises voting, as in remote locations or registration and balloting for those not present and in the convention hall. You’ve got to have your physical self inside of the hall to vote. Maybe in the next century we will kick around the idea of remote voting, satellite locations or such.
2. Quorum, what quorum?
A couple of years ago one of the VP ballots was held when, according to observers, there was not even close to a quorum (25% of registered messengers) present. I think it was an early morning so I suppose great numbers of rotund reverends were still finishing their cholesterol-saturated breakfast and didn’t make it to the hall for the session. No big deal about that, no damage done, and no one noticed except for a busybody blogger or two; however, the Executive Committee noticed so a bylaw change is proposed concerning a quorum.
The proposal replaces the requirement that “25 percent of those duly registered and seated messengers” with a simpler, non-mathematical statement that a “quorum for conducting business at a meeting of the Southern Baptists Convention shall be those present.” No need for the chair to make a determination or to start using fingers and toes to get an estimate. Under the new bylaws, if as few as a half-dozen messengers are in the hall, the SBC can vote to amend the budget to give SBC Voices a grant of a million dollars to buy a new wardrobe. Not a bad idea but probably not something other SBC entities would be willing to fund from their budget proposals.
We Southern Baptists have had a tussle or two amongst ourselves, haven’t we? I recall that at least once SBC Moderates picked a sparsely attended session to introduce and pass something. One hopes that this lack of any minimum number for a quorum doesn’t lead to that kind of stuff. No one would actually try and pull that, would they?
3. Condensed business schedule.
I read that convention planners and leaders have squeezed “almost every committee report, election, and major business time” into just a single afternoon, Tuesday. That sounds good to me although the elections and business times were about the only times that I recall where attendees would leave the exhibit hall, snack bar, and LifeWay store to take their seats in the convention hall. These mass meetings are a tough sell these days so I’m for trying anything. Guess we will see how this works.
4. SBC Constitution amendment on ‘friendly cooperation’ and messenger numbers
It was passed last year. Second vote to finish the deal this year. No big deal.
I hope my colleagues and friends have a grand time in Columbus. Try and hold down the selfies with Dave Miller and other blogging personalities, will you? Doesn’t look dignified.
I am waiting on the EC report in response to my motion and the report on trustee nominations for the boards of SBC entities to see what kind of progress is being made on the appointment or racial minorities. If we continue on with situations like we have now where 81 of 82 EC trustees are white, then I will bring a bylaw change calling for quotas in the same way that we have quotas now for lay/clergy distinction. Ronnie Floyd did a good job with his appointments. He seemed to use a 20% metric that reflects the ethnic makeup… Read more »
Good to hear Floyd has done a good job. I would also much prefer this shift to take place organically, but it’s probably good to hold the nuclear option in your pocket. Certainly forces people to take notice.
Yep, Brent. That is my thinking. I have even been calling it the “nuclear option.” I imagine that it will fail, but letting people know that it is an option and putting it forward will hopefully highlight/motivate the organic change that we all want.
I am still waiting to see if it is necessary. 20 years after the 1995 apology and looking for continued progress here.
That is encouraging.
I would oppose this too, sorry Alan…but I think you knew that. LOL
Nothing personal, I admire your conviction and the idea behind why you are advocating for quotas – but I am against them because I think it is the absolute wrong way to achieve it.
I have no issue with the clergy/lay rotations and the like – as that seeks to keep the convention committees and entities from becoming run by “professional clergy” which would undercut our polity and is not, unlike the “racial” quotas based on how one “identifies” based on skin color.
I know, Tarheel. I am not in favor of quotas either, per se. I AM in favor of full participation from a broad spectrum of the SBC. Since the SBC has used quotas to accomplish this diversity in one area for decades, I figure we can use it in another, at least philosophically.
After Dave and Jonathan Howe announced last night on twitter they’re both buying selfie sticks (https://twitter.com/davemiller7/status/595752439166443522), I got the idea maybe we should have a selfie contest at this year’s convention. Completely tongue-in-cheek to mock the ridiculous cultural trend. We could have a twitter campaign on the #SBC15 hashtag to see who could take the the most absurd selfie while at the convention.
Most Excellent Comment Award.
Everyone say goodbye to Brent. He will not only be banned from Voices, but severely pummeled.
Yes….with a selfie stick.
“One notes that the Executive Committee says not one syllable about allowing off-premises voting, as in remote locations or registration and balloting for those not present and in the convention hall. You’ve got to have your physical self inside of the hall to vote. Maybe in the next century we will kick around the idea of remote voting, satellite locations or such.” Satellite/remote voting would be a fraud inviting, power grabbing nightmare and I would oppose it with every legal and godly effort I could bring to the table. I hope I am not alone. If you want to vote….if… Read more »
I disagree totally. Safeguards can be put in place for ‘remote’ conventions. With the cost of travel and time to the messengers, this is an idea long over due.
Problem with implementing it will be that those who typically go to the conventions will oppose it because it will reduce their power. Those who do not go will support it. But who gets to vote to implement or not implement? Those who go.
😉
Clark,
Would you support such an idea for your church business meetings?
I can see it now….people saying “log on to http://www.SBCvotemyway and do this….”
At least the way it is now in order to “stack a slate of votes” – one would have to actually get people to the venue.
I for one do not want polling places and “poll workers” in the various and sundry associational meetings across the country.
Apples and Oranges, Tarheel. And, if my church was multi-campus, yes, I would support it. Why not have state meetings at large churches where you simulcast the convention and have registered messengers attend and vote there, if they are interested. Secret Church had 60,000 people attend their recent simulcast. Willow Creek Leadership Summit has done this for years. It could be done using the same technology and the chance for corruption would be minimal. The problem would be, of course, that it would diminish the national convention even more, thus reducing the power of those who go to it. I… Read more »
Multi site churches….lol…don’t get me started there. 😉
The potentiality for abuse is only one reason I would oppose it…I started with that….but the gathering together is an important one too…
There is something special, unifying and important about gathering together at the same time and at the same place….we would utterly lose that with remote/satellite voting.
I have not gone every year….and when I do not go I understand AND accept that my absence negates my (albeit limited) influence over decisions.
I am not trying to be flippant here but I do not know why this basic concept is so hard for some to grasp.
Brent,
I hope this comment doesn’t give you a heart attack, but I agree with you on item #1. As a single staff pastor, I would like to attend the Annual Meeting but cannot afford to do so. I believe a regional remote location in which single staff pastors like me could attend can be implemented rather easily. Voter fraud can be prevented by counting the votes manually and uploading them electronically by a regional leadership team. IMHO, this approach will allow more participation throughout the entire SBC.
Sorry, I meant William, not Brent, although I agree with Brent too. 🙂
Electronic voting … I can see the young whippersnappers now outrunning the multitude of old “rotund reverends” when all are tweeted to scramble back to the convention hall for hot-topic votes.
Some say that is now Dave Miller beat out Eric Hankins for 2nd VP in 2012. There was a pretty strong Twitter/Texting campaign alerting people that the vote was going to take place soon. Personally, I think it had more to do with the dashing good looks of Dave’s nominator, but I’ve never gotten any confirmation on that. Just a personal theory.
“Twitter/Texting campaigns … dashing good looks”
Tough for the old boys to compete with that strategy! And they just ain’t got a chance considering that the Chicken and Eggs Restaurant is near the convention center. On the other hand, it might be hard flushing out some of the young messengers from the host of breweries in the area ;^)
Hummm…I wonder why so many SB Convention goers, who Twitter, were so against Eric Hankins, and so for Dave Miller? Hummmm.
What was it that made them not want Eric Hankins to be 2nd VP? What would make it so important to them? Why would all the Twitterers be so concerned? so organized? Hummmmm.
David
I always assumed it was my good looks.
Dave,
No…no, that just couldn’t be it.
🙂
David
You and E. H. standing next to each other look like a before and after picture.
No one likes Dean Stewart.
I voted for Dave because I heard his dad promised not to verbally abuse whoever won the election after it was done.
🙂
haha
Wow.
Up vote.
Like.
David Worley, your “hummmmming” is distracting.
Again, my theory is that it was the dashing good looks of the nominator – and his thrilling prose.
That is my theory. All others are not as appealing to me.
Remote voting I’d guess to be in the SBC’s future but it does change the power equation, so it would have a lot of opponents and sceptics. At some point these mass meetings will be completely irrelevant, quaint, and archaic. Electronic voting sets the table for it, though. I like the mass meeting myself. Wish I could be there.
I’m in favor on the remote voting….but I do think it needs some form of safeguard.
If you implement an app-based voting, I would expect there would be challenges to limiting voting only to those in the convention hall. I’d be curious if there is a system, besides honesty, that would prevent votes by those in the exhibit hall, etc, there on site.
Ideally, honesty should work for both electronic onsite and eventual remote meeting voting, though. Shouldn’t it?
I am not so concerned with “dishonesty” as that can happen in the hall – people will find ways to sin and we can only offer reasonable safeguards… I am more concerned about “stacking” which I guess is a form of cheating and dishonesty – but I can see an associational missionary or associational lay leader influencing people to vote in certain ways – like I said above – that can happen at the convention hall too, but at least the barrier of getting them there stops most of it. I have seen first hand associational meetings where certain pastors… Read more »
My concern is that there’s already a stack in the direction of the wealthier churches/pastors. This includes me: when I served a larger church with a larger expense account, I was able to attend the SBC. When I came out here to a smaller church, I could no longer afford to go. If the situation changes, then I’ll be back at the SBC regularly. So, the votes automatically stack toward the minority of churches, those with attendances and budgets large enough to support a pastor to attend. I’m not sure we would be any worse off with remote locations which… Read more »
I think you are right on target here. Larger/wealthier SBC churches will be increasingly over-represented at the annual meetings. This doesn’t mean that the results are less desirable.
And I’m with you. Without an expense account I forego the annual meetings because of higher financial priorities.
I’m curious as to why the change in the requirement for a quorum seems to be of no interest. I wouldn’t pastor a church that didn’t have some minimum number or percentage of membership required for a quorum.
I’m guessing that the XC figured that there will always be enough sensible messengers in the hall to stave off any renegade motions attempted when the convention is in session and attendance is low. Or, the chair and OB committee could quash a renegade motion.
I think of a quorum as being more important for groups that have regular meetings in the same place — such as a deacon board or city council. There are lots of reasons why a couple of deacons or council members might have to miss a particular meeting (one of many throughout the year), and a quorum requirement prevents opportunistic members from taking unfair advantage of their absence. I think it’s different with an annual meeting like the SBC where the quorum is based on those who have already registered as being in attendance. If you’re in Columbus for the… Read more »
I agree with Jeff. The purpose of quorum rules, as I understand it, is to prevent people from scheduling secret meetings, or declaring a meeting at the local McDonalds as an official business session. The meeting is scheduled. The agenda is announced. Quorum becomes insignificant. I would give a couple of exceptions to that. 1) If they were to introduce a significant motion when the crowds were small and packed the place with supporters. If they did that, blogs like ours and others would go off – I don’t think it would happen more than once. But it could happen… Read more »
Since the discussion took place a little bit on both places, let me share this info on both.
As I now understand it, what the EC is recommending will likely not be a phone app or anything like that, but perhaps some sort of handheld device that will be distributed when you register and collected again as you leave the convention.
I’m not sure if it will also blink when your sandwich is ready at the snack bar!