Editor’s Note: Prepping for a church meeting is as important as the meeting itself. Continuing her look at effective business meetings through the hypothetical lens of Liz Jones, an experienced business administrator at First Church, Sarah E. Merkle walks us through the three-step process of planning, defining, and ordering a meeting agenda.

This four-part series is offered in support of Merkle’s “Mastering Meeting Basics.”

An effective church meeting can go a long way toward healthy and effective decision-making. Planning the meeting, therefore, is key.

Liz Jones needs an effective business meeting plan.

Last year, First Church’s annual business meeting didn’t go so well. This year, Pastor Steve Hayes has asked Jones to fix that.

Jones, an experienced business administrator, knows preparation will be key. The congregationally led church is 16 years old and recently surpassed 500 members.

As the church grows, the need for meetings to go well only grows, too.

A few things went wrong at last year’s annual meeting:

The next annual business meeting—planned for Sunday, January 8, 2023, at 12:30 p.m.— is still several months away, but Jones knows she needs to work fast to plan and organize it well.

A general search online yielded some ideas. Then she came across a Church Law & Tax article series by Sarah E. Merkle, an attorney with impressive credentials and experience helping churches, nonprofits, businesses, and organizations run meetings.

The article covering meeting preparation especially caught her eye. On a whim, she sent Merkle an email explaining her circumstances. A short while later, Merkle emailed back.

Merkle couldn’t provide specific advice to Jones because legal ethics don’t allow it when an attorney-client relationship doesn’t exist.

But Merkle generally described steps Jones can take to put a better plan together.

Put the church’s articles of incorporation, bylaws, and policy manuals all within arm’s reach, and read through them to note any dates by which things must happen. Whether nominating new board members or approving an annual budget or adopting a pastor’s housing allowance, these dates create deadlines—and to-do lists that should get completed by the appropriate meeting before the corresponding deadline.

For the annual business meeting, recurring dates include submitting board nominations whenever one or more members finish their terms, and getting congregational approval for the next year’s fiscal budget. This year, only the latter needs to happen.

Merkle explained that initial formalities need to be addressed, such as approving the minutes of the last business meeting, plus adopting the agenda for this one.

From there, First Church needs its next fiscal budget approved. It also typically uses the annual business meeting to share updates from the church’s ministries, facilities, and financial health committees. This year, it also faces several other important decisions—it’s about to call a new associate pastor. It is also contemplating repaving its parking lot.

In the past, First Church has typically saved the biggest—and often most controversial—decisions for the end of its annual business meetings.

That’s what happened last year when the church wrestled with the audio/visual proposal. It was costly, members wanted to debate it, and, given that the meeting was already running long, frustrations mounted as a vote was pushed through.

Merkle cautioned Jones about prioritizing the agenda a certain way only because it’s “how the church has always done it.”

With the list of agenda items defined, Merkle said she asks these questions to further understand the potential flow for the agenda:

All presenters should be identified and contacted early to get them started with their respective presentations.

The last major step is to order the agenda.

“There’s no right or wrong answer here,” Merkle wrote. “It’s more important to ask certain questions to decide how to do it. What are you ultimately wanting to accomplish at this meeting? Prioritize the agenda based on what needs to be decided for the healthy functioning of the church over the next 30 to 45 days.”

One evaluation is to anticipate controversies.

“Is everyone coming to the meeting because they are already angry about the issue? If so, then it needs to be earlier in the agenda,” Merkle wrote. “Is everyone coming calm, but an issue on the agenda may anger them? If so, then don’t schedule anything afterward that is heavy or serious—keep it straightforward.”

Another evaluation is the pros and cons of each item happening at specific times on the agenda.

With the associate pastor role, there are positives to placing it early on the agenda. Most people likely will attend because of this specific decision, and they’ll have more energy early in the meeting. One negative, though, is that updates about ministry and financial health may shape how people decide—and those reports would likely come later.

Relatedly, there are pros and cons to placing the item later in the agenda, too. The pro is that all information should be in hand. The con is that people are tired.

For Jones, the order is starting to take shape. Leading the agenda with the ministries, financial health, and facilities reports should start things on a positive note. The facilities report will then include the parking lot project.

From there, the agenda will shift into the associate pastor discussion and decision, since the meeting is still relatively young and the new role’s impact on the church’s mission and operations will be better understood.

Plus, adding the position directly influences the church’s healthy functioning within the next 45 days.

Lastly, the agenda will address approval of the next annual budget.

Jones now can begin working on contacting the individuals she needs to speak on the various topics, and the timetables needed to notify the congregation about the associate pastor vote.

“I’m really glad you reached out,” Merkle wrote. “The thought put into an annual business meeting can turn it into something invigorating. The time you’re using now to prepare can make a massive difference in how people feel—helping them see the big picture and celebrate the church’s direction.”

Editor’s Note: Minding meeting minutes is both an oft-misunderstood and under-appreciated part of a church business meeting. Continuing her look at effective business meetings through the hypothetical lens of Liz Jones, an experienced business administrator at First Church, Sarah E. Merkle shows the important roles that meeting minutes play.

This four-part series is offered in support of Merkle’s “Mastering Meeting Basics.”

Long before First Church’s annual business meeting arrived, Liz Jones mapped out a plan for getting the meeting’s minutes taken, too.

Before proceeding, though, she first needed to clear up some misconceptions about who should take minutes. Some assumed it would be the church secretary. Others assumed it should be Jones as the church business administrator.

Neither assumption was correct.

Instead, the responsibility of taking minutes falls to the church board’s secretary.

Jones reached out to Tom Erickson, the board secretary, and scheduled a meeting ahead of time to go over his duties.

“I’m nervous about this task, to be honest,” Erickson confided to Jones when they met. “I have a hard time capturing everything said in a conversation—there’s so much to keep track of.”

“Don’t worry,” Jones responded. “I’ll help you understand exactly what we need. And remember, I’m attending the meeting, too. There should always be someone backing you up at a meeting, and I can do that for this meeting.”

Jones then walked Erickson through the key tips for taking effective minutes.

“You’re not recording the meeting. You’re not transcribing the meeting,” she explained. “You’re recording what was done, not what was said.”

Erickson nodded but looked slightly confused.

“But to record what was done, don’t we need to know who said what—who supported what, who opposed what, that kind of thing?” he asked.

“No—that’s a common mistake many church leaders make,” Jones answered. “So much of what happens just needs to be a brief, general description. For instance, when Cindy Martinez gets up to give the facilities report, it doesn’t have to be detailed. It should just say, ‘The facilities chair gave a report on behalf of the facilities committee, including details on proposed projects for the parking lot, children’s ministry wing, and HVAC system.’ That’s it.”

Jones paused as Erickson jotted down some notes.

“Is there ever a time when specific details need to be included, though?” Erickson asked.

“Yes,” Jones responded. “Mainly when votes are taken. You need to record the outcomes. If specific counts are made, you need to capture the votes for and the votes against.”

Erickson scribbled down a couple more notes.

“So, this is really about just making sure ultimate decisions and directions are recorded for future reference—not a play-by-play,” he said.

“Exactly,” Jones responded. “And when the next business meeting comes, they’re already prepared and ready to be presented for approval as a way to formally document those decisions and directions.”

Erickson heeded Jones’s advice. Because he wasn’t focused on recording every word said, he found the task much more manageable—and capturing highlights and high-level details came more easily than he expected.

This especially proved true during the extensive discussion about the proposed facilities projects. Erickson knew he would have gotten flustered trying to note each perspective shared about support or opposition—and objectively representing the remarks would be next to impossible anyway.

After First Church’s annual business meeting, he cleaned up the notes he typed during the meeting. To his credit, he needed Jones’s backup notes for only one thing—the official vote count (243 to 13) in favor of the candidate for the new associate pastor role.

Erickson’s draft minutes looked like this:

First Church

Annual Business Meeting

January 8, 2023

12:30 p.m.

Board Chair Terry Christensen called the annual business meeting of First Church to order at 12:35 p.m.. A quorum was present.

Agenda

By unanimous consent, the agenda was adopted as presented.

2022 Annual Business Meeting Minutes

By unanimous consent, the minutes of the January 9, 2022 annual business meeting were approved as distributed.

Ministry Update

Outreach Coordinator Joy Allman provided an update on the progress of various ministries of the church, noting that the children’s ministry was experiencing significant growth and that the church leadership was exploring a new missions opportunity in Ecuador.

Finance Committee

Alex Armstrong, chair of the Finance Committee, provided an overview of the financial reports distributed to the membership, noting that member giving has been steady and that the building and property loan from 2016 remains the church’s only outstanding debt.

Facilities Committee

Cindy Martinez, chair of the Facilities Committee, provided an update on the state of the Church’s facilities. On behalf of the Committee, Ms. Martinez moved that the Facilities Committee obtain bids to begin the following capital projects during the next fiscal year: repave the parking lot, and replace the HVAC system; and, that the Facilities Committee be authorized to proceed with these projects, provided they do not exceed a combined total cost of $200,000. The motion was adopted as amended.

Associate Pastor Search Committee

Russ Moore, chair of the Associate Pastor Search Committee, provided an overview of the associate pastor search, including the Committee’s process for identifying and vetting candidates. On behalf of the Committee, Mr. Moore moved that First Church call Karl Miller to be associate pastor of First Church. The motion was adopted, with 243 in favor and 13 opposed.

2023–2024 Budget

On behalf of the Finance Committee, Alex Armstrong moved that the 2023–2024 budget be adopted as distributed. The motion was adopted.

Adjourn

By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m.

Editor’s Note: Making every vote count in a church business meeting takes many forms. Continuing her look at effective business meetings through the hypothetical lens of Liz Jones, an experienced business administrator at First Church, Sarah E. Merkle illustrates the various types of votes that can be taken at a business meeting, and the methods for calculating their outcomes.

This four-part series is offered in support of Merkle’s “Mastering Meeting Basics.”

Before First Church’s annual business meeting, Liz Jones met with Terry Christensen, the church board’s chairwoman, to go over the four types of votes that can be conducted. The two looked closely at each option, weighing their benefits and drawbacks and assessing when they might prove most useful.

The homework pays off as the annual business meeting unfolds.

“This type of vote is great for noncontroversial matters,” Jones told Christensen during their prep. “It also speeds up the meeting.”

The two agreed she’d use them for the first items on the agenda: adopting the agenda for this meeting and approving the last business meeting’s minutes. She followed that plan in the meeting’s first moments.

“First, we will approve the agenda for this meeting. Are there any objections to today’s agenda as presented?” she asks. Then, as Jones coached her, she pauses and counts to three. “Hearing no objection, the agenda is approved.”

Christensen clears her throat, then leans into the podium microphone again. “Next is approving the minutes from the last business meeting. Are there any corrections to the minutes as distributed?”

Three more seconds pass with silence. “Hearing no objection, the minutes are approved,” she says.

Jones told Christensen the likelihood of objections to either of these agenda items was very small. Had one arisen, though, she would have simply resorted to a voice vote.

Like Jones predicted, members discussed the proposed motion from the facilities committee with zeal.

A proposed amendment to that motion—in which bids would be sought for projects involving the church’s parking lot and HVAC system, but not for repainting the children’s ministry wing—went through lengthy discussion.

After nearly 20 minutes, Christensen senses it’s time to move things along. To do so requires a motion to close debate, followed by a second to that motion, then followed by approval by a two-thirds majority. With 300 members present, Christensen opts to use a voice vote.

“All of those in favor of closing the debate on the amended motion as presented, say ‘Aye.’”

The ‘aye’s’ boom across the room.

“All opposed, say ‘No.’”

Only a smattering of ‘no’s’ arises across the sanctuary. Christensen feels confident that two-thirds voted in favor.

Now it’s time to see if enough support exists to approve the motion as amended with the children’s ministry project removed.

This time, only a majority is needed. Christensen again opts for a voice vote.

“All of those in favor of the motion as amended, say ‘Aye.’” Christensen says.

Another hearty round of ‘aye’s’ fills the sanctuary.

“All opposed, say ‘No.’”

A strong number of ‘no’s’ spread across the sanctuary, too.

It’s too close to call.

During the prep, Jones told Christensen about the usefulness of a “raised hand or standing vote” option. “You use this when a voice vote is too close to call. You can also use it if you need the exact vote count noted in the meeting’s minutes,” Jones explained. “It’s a really effective way to keep things moving when the vote itself doesn’t need to be kept in secret.”

With the voice vote on the parking lot and HVAC projects too close, and no apparent need for secrecy involved with either decision, Christensen chooses a standing vote.

“The chair was uncertain, so we’ll conduct a standing vote,” she says into the microphone. “All of those in favor, please stand.”

A large contingent of individuals across the sanctuary rise.

“Please sit down,” she says. “Now, all of those opposed, please stand.”

Another sizable group rises. It’s still too close to call, even visually.

Christensen asks those standing to sit. She then asks those in favor to stand again.

Two tellers attending the meeting to count votes then proceed to count off those who are standing. Upon finishing, Christensen asks supporters to sit, then asks those opposed to stand. The two tellers then have those who are opposed count off.

The result: Those in favor measured 102, while those opposed measured 101—the closest margin possible.

“The motion as amended passes,” Christensen says.

Going into the annual business meeting, Jones knew the calling of an associate pastor would need a ballot vote. Not only is it a significant decision, and one that members may not wish to openly vote about, but the church’s bylaws require at least two-thirds of those present and voting to approve a decision like this.

A ballot vote ensures an accurate and official count is taken and documented with the meeting’s minutes.

Anticipating this, Jones worked ahead of time with Russ Moore, chair of the Associate Pastor Search Committee, to review the church’s membership roll.

She made certain enough notice was provided to all members about the expected vote during the meeting. And she made certain enough ballots were created and available on the day of the meeting.

Jones also ensured the ballots were printed with the actual question and appropriate responses for members to select. It didn’t have to be fancy—it just simply read, “I am in favor of calling Karl Miller to be associate pastor of First Church,” followed by boxes with “YES” and “NO” next to them. No signature was required since the bylaws didn’t require one and the desire for secrecy weighed heavily.

The ballots for Miller’s candidacy were collected. Two tellers quickly went through them.

Among the 300 members present at the meeting, 256 cast votes.

Jones recalled Sarah E. Merkle’s article on voting and the formula needed for determining at least a two-thirds majority. Here, since there were 256 members present who voted, the tellers would take 256, multiply it by 2, then divide it by 3 to determine the number of votes needed for a two-thirds approval. Since the mathematical result to this formula—170.6—wasn’t a whole number, the tellers rounded up to the nearest whole number, which is 171.

For Miller, the members overwhelmingly approve his call by a margin of 243 to 13.

Christensen breathes a sigh of relief, partly because of the need to get Miller started soon, and partly because the controversy with the facilities projects earlier in the meeting was much closer—and almost didn’t pass.

Part of the reason why was because the calculation for a majority vote works differently from the formula for calculating a two-thirds vote. With a majority, the number of members voting is multiplied times 0.5. If a whole number results, then a 1 gets added. If a fractional number results, then it gets rounded up to the nearest whole number.

In the facilities motion as amended, 203 people voted. Multiplied by 0.5, the result was 101.5, and rounded up to the next whole number, the figure was 102. That meant the motion barely passed.

But it passed nonetheless, and as the meeting headed toward the home stretch, Christensen and Jones believed no major obstacles remained in the way. The church’s budget information was presented well in advance, and support already existed for the variance built in for the facilities projects.

Christensen and Jones were right: A voice vote on the approval of the budget overwhelmingly passed.

The meeting finished. Pastor Hayes considered it a major success.

Editor’s Note: Managing motions during a church business meeting is essential to ensuring the meeting accomplishes its intended purposes. Continuing her look at effective business meetings through the hypothetical lens of Liz Jones, an experienced business administrator at First Church, Sarah E. Merkle explains how to plan, draft, and make a meeting motion.

This four-part series is offered in support of Merkle’s “Mastering Meeting Basics.”

Liz Jones spent months preparing the agenda for First Church’s annual business meeting. As her work progressed, it became apparent that the facilities committee’s report would suggest more potential work would be needed than just repaving the church’s parking lot.

One motion—and possibly more—would likely come up for facilities-related needs.

Cindy Martinez, the facilities committee’s chair, sent an email to Jones several weeks prior to the meeting warning her as much.

Martinez detailed the parking lot project. She also relayed desires from some individuals to repaint the children’s ministry wing, as well as preliminary concerns from others about the church’s aging HVAC system (though some contend the concerns are premature).

The primary tension point? Next year’s proposed annual budget doesn’t account for the expenses to do all three.

“We already know there will be differing opinions about which projects need to be addressed, and which should get priority,” Martinez wrote to Jones. “At least a few also believe the church should borrow some money now and do all three projects, with the goal to have the loan paid off in two years.”

Working through Sarah E. Merkle’s article on motions, Jones decides the smart approach will be to have Martinez present the facilities committee report, including the three possible projects. But Jones gets nervous about the ensuing discussion and how things might bog down in the meeting.

She again reaches out to Merkle with an email. Merkle replied soon after, reminding her she couldn’t provide legal advice but could generally help.

“In general, it’s smart to come to a meeting with a proposed motion drafted,” Merkle wrote. “You don’t want all the information presented about all the projects, say all three need to happen, and stop there. At that point, someone will just present a motion that isn’t well-crafted.”

Jones confers with the finance committee chair, Alex Armstrong, about how next year’s annual budget is taking shape. He tells her a potentially reasonable budget amount for the developing projects based on current financial projections, pending bids for the projects.

Jones then proceeds to help Martinez craft a draft motion that reads as follows:

RESOLVED, that the Facilities Committee obtain bids to begin the following capital projects during the next fiscal year:

that the Facilities Committee be authorized to proceed with these projects, provided they do not exceed a combined total cost of $200,000.

The annual business meeting day arrives and 300 voting members show up, more than enough to satisfy the quorum requirement for First Church’s annual business meeting.

As planned, the agenda begins with the ministries, financial health, and facilities reports.

The ministries report includes exciting developments for First Church, such as big growth in its children’s ministry and a new missions opportunity in Ecuador.

Armstrong’s financial health report reads mostly positive, too. First Church’s only debt is the loan it received to purchase its building and property from another church about seven years ago. Giving over the past year remained steady, a welcome development after years of local and national economic uncertainty.

Then it’s Martinez’s turn to provide her committee’s report on the facilities. She references the packet of information sent out to members a couple of weeks before the meeting.

Martinez uses the PowerPoint that Jones helped create to provide descriptions and photos detailing the parking lot’s rapid deterioration, which was already evident when First Church bought the property seven years ago. She also explains the children’s ministry’s growth, and the children’s ministry director’s desire to freshen things up. Then she discusses some of the HVAC system’s recent problems, including an unexpected breakdown last winter that left the building colder than usual for worship one Sunday.

Martinez finishes and makes the motion that Jones helped her prepare. Since it comes from the committee, the motion doesn’t require anyone to second it.

“Is there any discussion?” asks Terry Christensen, the church’s board chairwoman.

Jones shifts uncomfortably in her first-row seat. This would be the first opportunity for the meeting to go off the rails.

The discussion was as lively as Jones and Martinez anticipated. Thankfully they warned Christensen ahead of time so that presiding over it wouldn’t surprise her.

Some members express immediate opposition to the repainting. “The wing doesn’t look that bad, and the money should be used for the HVAC,” an older man opines.

Another member jumps in: “I move we strike the children’s ministry wing repainting from the motion.”

“Is there a second to the amendment?” Christensen asks. Since the amendment didn’t come from the committee, a second to this motion is needed. The older man seconds the motion.

“Is there discussion about the amendment?” Christensen asks.

A young mother raises her hand. “I know repainting may seem unnecessary. But we’ve heard about how the children’s ministry has grown,” she says. “Anyone who serves downstairs knows how dingy everything looks.”

Other members speak up. Some support the repainting. Others oppose it. One suggests doing all three but borrowing money, which elicits a somewhat snarky response from a longtime member who boasts how the church has historically avoided debt beyond its mortgage. Eventually, a majority votes to adopt the amendment.

Discussion then resumes on the motion as amended. Nearly 20 minutes pass. Sensing it’s time to move things along, a longtime member makes a motion to close debate that gets seconded and then approved by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast.

Now it’s time to see if enough support exists to approve the motion as amended with the children’s ministry project removed. Another voice vote must be done, but this time, only a majority is needed to approve it.