Recommended Amendments to 4 Resolutions by Members

Dear Calvary Today,

After the EGM some members had asked for the amended resolutions which some concerned members had intended to propose. Making his own rules, the Chairman disallowed amendments to the resolutions in clear violation of Robert's Rules of Orders, the very rules of meeting which he himself had used to control previous meetings of members.

In response to the members' request I am submitting to you the four resolutions with the proposed amendments. The words to be inserted are in GREEN and the words to be deleted are struck through and in BLUE.

As can be seen, there are good reasons for the proposed amendments.

Blessing,
Hong Meng

Note : The GREEN is the proposed addition by Concerned Members and the BLUE is to be dropped.

EGM Resolution No. 1


Rationale:
The BOD had only made one technical change from “receipts and payments” to “income and expenditure”. It was noticed that Rule XII(2c) is not consistent with Rule IV which states:

“The Board of Deacons shall cause true accounts to be kept:-
a) of the assets and liabilities of the Church; and
b) of all sums of money received and expended by the Church.

The accounts shall be opened to the inspection of members of the Church upon written request to the Board of Deacons and subject to any reasonable restrictions as to the time and manner of inspecting the same that may be imposed by the Board of Deacons.”

The resolution can be improved by making clear that the Church accounts include the financials of all its components. This would be in line with Rule IV which requires “all” sums of money received by the Church to be accounted for. At last year’s AGM, we were similarly advised by the technical partner of the largest firm of accountants in the world that the financials of the various components must be consolidated into the Church accounts. The members at that AGM also voted for the accounts of the extended ministries to be annexed to the main Church accounts.

Rule IV allows all members to inspect the accounts. Therefore this inconsistency must be removed. The resolution for Rule XII(2c) must allow all members to peruse the accounts and not be restricted to only “Voting” members.


EGM Resolution No.2 Rationale:
The proposal by the Board for the Church to appoint external professional auditors is to be welcome. However, it is important to define who can be the external auditors. As the constitution does not have a list of definitions it has to be done here. To avoid potential conflict of interest the actual auditor doing the work should not be a member of the Church.

To limit the auditors to a maximum of a 5 year continuous term is to prevent the development of too much familiarity. It will also allow for opportunities to bring fresh approaches to the audit.

The addition of the last paragraph is to allow the Board as well as the members to appoint auditors for special work.


EGM Resolution No. 3


Rationale:
The proposed amendments are to relieve pastors from the burden of cheque signing. This would not remove the Senior Pastor from involvement in the approving of expenditure for the Church. Cheque signing is the tail end of the expenditure process. The start of the process is when the Church incurs or commits to an expenditure. As is clear from the first paragraph of the resolution the Senior Pastor being a member of the Board would be part of the approving process of all expenditure for the Church save for what the Board chooses to delegate to others.

The restriction on family members being signatories is obvious.

As the position of the Financial Controller is not presently covered by the Constitution or the by-laws, it is proposed that the appointment and reporting line of the position be covered here.


EGM Resolution No. 5
Rationale:
The change made by the Board is that each member of the Nominating Committee no longer requires the specific approval of the Senior Pastor. This is not adequate to correct the circularity of the process as described in my paper, “The Need for Constitutional Amendments”.

The Board had proposed that the Nominating Committee be appointed jointly by the Board and the Elders, if any. The Senior Pastor is the Chairman of the Board and will therefore be participating in the appointment of the Nominating Committee. He also appoints the Elders. Therefore there would be no necessity for him to be on the Nominating Committee itself. His presence would compromise the independence of the Committee. However, it is important that the Senior Pastor gives his input to the Committee if he knows of any reason why a certain nominee is not suitable to serve as a deacon. The current process is that the members of the Nominating Committee submit their shortlist to the Chairman by early January. The Chairman, who would be elected from among themselves from the appointed members, would compile a complete list of nominees. This list can be submitted to the Senior Pastor for him to eliminate any name for justifiable reason. The Nominating Committee must respect the input from the Senior Pastor.