Amendment to the Charter of the Synod

Hello everyone,

I hope you are all doing well.

After long and fruitful discussion at the November meeting of the clergy, the clergy assembled presented the Synod with an amendment which has been approved and is reflected in the current Charter of the Synod. This amendment is designed to address concerns about interim positions, vacancies, leaves of absence, the process by which they are filled, and the limitations.

The amendment in bold reads as follows

Appointment of Synod Officers :
When an Office is available, a public notice will be made to the Temple requesting applications. Applicants must be a member of the Clergy and be in good standing with the Temple. In the case of Secretarial offices Seminarians may also apply, and if no suitable Clergy are forthcoming, a suitable Seminarian applicant may be appointed as interim officer for a maximum time period of one year and one week. Interim Synod members assume all the roles, rights and responsibilities of the Synod position they are filling, this includes the ability to vote on Synod decisions. All applications will be fairly considered, an interview conducted and a vote taken among the Synod members as to the successful candidate. If the Synod vote results in a tie, or there are fewer than four members of the Synod, Councillors that are also members of the Clergy may be asked to cast deciding votes. Any Councillors chosen to cast votes must not also be members of the Synod.

If you have questions, comments, or concerns feel free to reach out to me or any member of the Synod.

May the Force be with you all.

Jamie Stick wrote: a suitable Seminarian applicant may be appointed as interim officer for a maximum time period of one year and one week.

What is the thinking behind the length of the time period?

From the transcript of the meeting that dealt with this issue:
"Mitchell W.: In that case, it's my opinion that temporary nominees should serve no longer than one year and one week, the maximum length of an LoA followed by a 7 day period to entertain applicants for their replacement. If no other applicants come forth by the end of the week, the temporary member should be considered a fresh applicant in every way except training, since they've been doing the job for the duration of the absence."

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Ministers-Corner/108524-transcript-meeting-of-the-clergy-for-01-nov-14

Connor L. wrote: From the transcript of the meeting that dealt with this issue:
"Mitchell W.: In that case, it's my opinion that temporary nominees should serve no longer than one year and one week, the maximum length of an LoA followed by a 7 day period to entertain applicants for their replacement. If no other applicants come forth by the end of the week, the temporary member should be considered a fresh applicant in every way except training, since they've been doing the job for the duration of the absence."

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Ministers-Corner/108524-transcript-meeting-of-the-clergy-for-01-nov-14

Yes, thank you Connor. I'm aware of who proposed it.

What I was asking is why that particular length of time? To me 53 weeks seems an excessive amount for an LOA or temporary cover, so I'm asking why has that period of time been selected.

More evidence from the transcript:

Alex said that anybody away for more than a year should resign.
"[5:16:02 PM] Alexandre Orion: if it would be a year or more, perhaps resignation would be in order"

Steam confirmed:
"Alexandre believes that an absence of less than or equal to one month doesn't necessitate an LoA, and an absence of a year or greater might call for a resignation."

Nobody dissented this point, so it was included in the proposal.

"evidence"? This isn't a trial or an attack Connor. No need to get all puffed up. I was merely curious.

As I said. I am aware. I have read the transcript.

I was simply wondering if there was any specific reason why 1 year is thought the appropriate time or an acceptable time frame for a LOA. IE. why not 6 months, or two years or whatever. its not a big deal I'm just curious.

No one suggested a shorter limit on time and so the year and a week was what ended up happening.
-Roz

Brenna wrote: "evidence"? This isn't a trial or an attack Connor. No need to get all puffed up. I was merely curious.

You're right, it isn't a trial, but it looks to me like Connor is trying to speak with authority rather than just off the cuff.

Brenna wrote: As I said. I am aware. I have read the transcript.

I was simply wondering if there was any specific reason why 1 year is thought the appropriate time or an acceptable time frame for a LOA. IE. why not 6 months, or two years or whatever. its not a big deal I'm just curious.

I think it was mostly arbitrary. We needed to pick a time frame that was both generous and fair. But more than that, I think it was based on Alex's sense of how long an LOA should last before it really should be made into a resignation. My impression was that once you reach a year's time it's most likely that if you're not ready to return you probably won't be ready to return to the position any time soon. Some people may need a up to that full year to get adjusted if they're going through a period of transition in their life (new job, new school, a serious romantic relationship, etc).

Hope that helps.

Jamie Stick wrote: You're right, it isn't a trial, but it looks to me like Connor is trying to speak with authority.

Yes, certainly looks that way.

Jamie Stick wrote: I think it was mostly arbitrary. We needed to pick a time frame that was both generous and fair.

Thank you for actually answering the question.

I was telling you it was arbitrary... :huh: I thought that was clear.