Resignation:Pastor/VP of Clerical Affairs, Councillor

First let me start with a sincere apology . This process has been too long and in the meantime, the ministries of this temple have struggled. I also have been appraised of the official process in that the Associate Pastor is meant to take the reigns in the absence of the Pastor. So the process I set up is meant to elect a new Assiciate Pastor, and not Pastor.
In any case, I have overstayed my welcome. I'm happy to Ordain Carlos should he choose to accept the position of Pastor, but this will likely be my last act as a part of the Clergy for a few months. I apologize once again for what mustve been a very laborous waiting process. I am resigning effective immediately

I accept

Huh, that was a quick turn about of events, it went from 2 weeks to 2 hours?

Good, you deserve the break, the Temple is losing one of it's best....

Rosalyn, Thank you for everything you have done for the Temple.

Patty

Ros, thank you for everything you did and do, for the enormous empathy you showed and the guidance you gave during your work as pastor and as a person. It has been a pleasure to work with you.

You're contributions in this role are appeciated, Ros, and congratulations Carlos!

Thank you for your time and efforts, I hope work gives you a break as well so you can enjoy some well-deserved time off!

Confusion abounds...

The Synod Charter states: "In the event of the unavailability or incapacity of the Pastor, the Associate Pastor may exercise executive action." I can't find anywhere where it says that in the event of resignation of a Pastor who has not been at all incapacitated, the Associate Pastor is automatically 'promoted' to permanent Pastor. They're not at all the same scenario, which is presumably why Ros kickstarted an appointment process some time ago now. Have I just missed it somewhere?

FYI article-editing-team, in the FAQ, it actually says "When the Pastor is unavailable, the Associate Pastor for Outreach is acting head of the clergy." Presuming that to mean the Assistant Pastor for Outreach, I imagine this information is incorrect? Although it seems a bit of an odd mistake, as adding the words 'for Outreach' isn't exactly a slip of the finger!


Anyway - Ros, you've been brilliant. Please stop apologising - you most certainly did not outstay your welcome! I'm sorry that you felt your resignation had to be so abrupt in the end, after all of your careful planning. Thank you so much for all of your hard work over the last few years - it's been deeply appreciated.

Not arguing but simply stating I was appointed by the existing pastor to take over as ... pastor. So it was an appointment. I can see the need for clarity at the moment. I can promise that we can look into clarity as far as synod and council for the future. Looking forward to cleaner exit strategies as well as outlining the actual processes current and up to date. There at a lot of things undone that need to be done and a lot of things that just need to be ... straitened out. So give us a bit of grace and we can take all what we need and figure it out. Feel free to contact synod or me directly any time. More to come. Promise

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Not arguing but simply stating I was appointed by the existing pastor to take over as ... pastor. So it was an appointment.

I promise none of my comments are directed at you personally - I'm just curious about the process. And I really appreciate your response.

Reading between the lines of Ros' post she hasn't 'appointed' anyone in the conventional sense - it's not a choice she has made personally, unless I am misunderstanding - she has just named the person that she has been told that the rules (if we can track this legislation down somewhere?) dictate she must name.

I was one of the founding members of the Synod and the purpose of it was always to ensure that all major decisions and the general direction of the Clergy were agreed through a process of group discussion and contemplation - so it's just a little odd to me that, as far as I can tell from what Ros said, there has been no such conversation - neither amongst the Synod, the wider Clergy, the general membership who make up our Clergy's congregation, nor presumably the Council - on probably the most important Clergy matter that we as a Temple ever have to face.

Again, it's not a comment on your appointment - you would very likely have been appointed anyway, I imagine! - it's just a point of personal curiosity as to why, as a Temple, we would allow really any office of such importance to be filled via an automatic process rather than via one of thorough evaluation.