Bishops, Presidency's and why bother asking?

[bsjkki]

When serving as a President of an organization in the church is it normal for the Bishop to assign your counselors without input?  Our Bishopric is making the habit of not informing the president when a member under jurisdiction is being released.  The Bishopric counselor makes a token request for names for replacement but doesn't actually want any advice because they already have a person to call.  I think it would be better not to bother asking for names to be submitted when there is such a clear pattern that they don't really want any input.  This has been a year long pattern of behavior and it seems to be a huge waste of time to pray and fast about staffing when your recommendations are always dismissed.   Not occasionally or regularly but always ignored and not even discussed. I realize Bishop's can do what they want so why do they waste everyone's time pretending.  

[bluebell]

I've never had that experience before. I can see why it would be very frustrating. Maybe it's time to just ask the bishop why he does it. 

[Traela]

No, it is absolutely not normal.  He is interfering with your stewardship.  You can talk directly to him, or you can take it up with the stake RS president.

 

[Doctrine 612]

When was serving as a Sunday school president we had a teacher move and we need a replacement to fill the spot we prayed and prayed and submitted many names but always got turned down. Then I told the bishop to just pick someone since he did not like any of ours.

he told me that we were doing a great job in finding the right people not for the calling, I said "what?" He told me that every name we submitted was getting two out of three votes needed but to keep trying.

everyone called needed to have approval of all the leadership.

so we tryed again then it finally worked.

[Jeanne]

I wish that you could just pick your own counselors,

[CMZ]

"presidencies" (proper plural form)

Edited September 12, 2016 by CMZ

[bsjkki]

34 minutes ago, CMZ said:

"presidencies" (proper plural form)

Sorry--I should make a tagline explaining grammar was never my strong suit!  Is this fixable?

Edited September 12, 2016 by bsjkki

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

When serving as a President of an organization in the church is it normal for the Bishop to assign your counselors without input?  Our Bishopric is making the habit of not informing the president when a member under jurisdiction is being released.  The Bishopric counselor makes a token request for names for replacement but doesn't actually want any advice because they already have a person to call.  I think it would be better not to bother asking for names to be submitted when there is such a clear pattern that they don't really want any input.  This has been a year long pattern of behavior and it seems to be a huge waste of time to pray and fast about staffing when your recommendations are always dismissed.   Not occasionally or regularly but always ignored and not even discussed. I realize Bishop's can do what they want so why do they waste everyone's time pretending.  

Sometimes changing one key person can ripple effects through the ward.

The person requested for counselor in the Relief Society may be a counselor in Young Womens, now requiring a reorganization there with someone from primary, causing a reorganization of primary, then Sunday school, etc. 

Sometimes people you think are worthy are not.  Sometimes there is a long standing conflict between two individuals known only to the bishop.

Some individuals may not be able to work with youth.  Some individuals should not be trusted with funds due to past transgressions.

But all that said, generally speaking, a president should choose their own counselors, barring a good reason like those above.

"Three votes" are not required - I have never heard of such a thing in 25 years of leadership positions. That's not in any manual

The bishop receives revelation and may have reasons for not approving an individual, but it certainly does not take 3 votes.

[Duncan]

I'll tell you my fool proof method of dealing with the Stake or Bishop. Submit three or four names of people you know you'll never get and then submit who you really want, they'll usually approve it

[bsjkki]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I'll tell you my fool proof method of dealing with the Stake or Bishop. Submit three or four names of people you know you'll never get and then submit who you really want, they'll usually approve it

They really don't wait for any submissions.  They just put someone in.  Like I said, Bishops prerogative but I would prefer just being honest about it so time is not completely wasted. 

[Kenngo1969]

I was going to respond, but my response largely would echo Bishop/Brother Bukowski's.  As something of a real-world illustration, I'll offer the following: my mother was serving as the secretary in the Primary Presidency while I was serving as Executive Secretary to the Bishop, and as we discussed the staffing needs of various organizations, the idea of calling my mother into Relief Society (if I remember correctly) was brought up.  I said, "Well, one thing you'll want to consider is that, whether or not the office of Secretary largely is 'ceremonial' in some organizations, in the Primary, the Secretary is expected to, you know, actually do stuff, so not just anyone will do in that calling ..."   We ended up leaving her where she was.

My $0.02, actual value much less, as usual. 

[CMZ]

39 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Sorry--I should make a tagline explaining grammar was never my strong suit!  Is this fixable?

No apologies necessary.

"presidencies" (plural)

"presidency's" (possessive)

[Duncan]

32 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

They really don't wait for any submissions.  They just put someone in.  Like I said, Bishops prerogative but I would prefer just being honest about it so time is not completely wasted. 

Well, I'd just say that Bro. Wahoo J. Macyumyum you gave me smokes and steals candy OR you can talk to the Stake Presidency about it, suggesting the better way of having the Bishopric give you names of folks who are available and then you pick the counselour

Edited September 12, 2016 by Duncan

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

..........................................................

"Three votes" are not required - I have never heard of such a thing in 25 years of leadership positions. That's not in any manual

The bishop receives revelation and may have reasons for not approving an individual, but it certainly does not take 3 votes.

It could be that a particular bishop is trying to follow the example of the Brethren in seeking unanimity.  But, yeh, the bishop can do whatever he wants.  They usually ask for recommendations, but (for all the reasons you mentioned) may not go along.

[gopher]

It does depend on the organization - for example, YM Presidents do not recommend new counselors to the Bishop, but YW Presidents do.  It's all listed in the Chart of Callings in Handbook 2.  Sometimes Bishops need to be reminded what's in the handbook.  I don't think there is anything wrong with taking your concerns to the Bishop.  He may have no idea that you (and maybe others) have these concerns.

[ladyshanae]

I've found that it depends on the bishopric. I've had some that rely on the names submitted and others who do things without the presidencies knowledge. I remember in one ward when I was Secretary of the primary I made sure I was early every week so I could write down all the changes that happened during ward business in Sacrament Meeting because we lost/gained people regularly without prior knowledge. However, in another ward our presidency seemed to always be aware of any changes coming. I definitely preferred the latter.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, bsjkki said:

When serving as a President of an organization in the church is it normal for the Bishop to assign your counselors without input?  Our Bishopric is making the habit of not informing the president when a member under jurisdiction is being released.  The Bishopric counselor makes a token request for names for replacement but doesn't actually want any advice because they already have a person to call.  I think it would be better not to bother asking for names to be submitted when there is such a clear pattern that they don't really want any input.  This has been a year long pattern of behavior and it seems to be a huge waste of time to pray and fast about staffing when your recommendations are always dismissed.   Not occasionally or regularly but always ignored and not even discussed. I realize Bishop's can do what they want so why do they waste everyone's time pretending.  

I think the Bishop might appreciate the feedback. As far as coming up with names of individuals that end up not being called, in my experience on both sides of the process, the Lord will inspire presidents to come up with names for counselors just so the Bishop can consider them, which can lead to outcomes far more important than callings. The Lord knows how we think and who needs help and how to get our attention; this is one way He operates.

P.S. I've had one or both counselors chosen for me before, but not very often. Sometimes my recommendations were approved and sometimes not, as were recommendations made to me.

Edited September 12, 2016 by CV75

[HappyJackWagon]

40

53 minutes ago, gopher said:

It does depend on the organization - for example, YM Presidents do not recommend new counselors to the Bishop, but YW Presidents do.  It's all listed in the Chart of Callings in Handbook 2.  Sometimes Bishops need to be reminded what's in the handbook.  I don't think there is anything wrong with taking your concerns to the Bishop.  He may have no idea that you (and maybe others) have these concerns.

This is exactly right. The calling organization chart shows who recommends, who calls/releases. The handbook does not require counselor recommendations from every organization President.

But even though a bishopric isn't required to get feedback from the YM President for counselors, a wise bishop will counsel with the YM president on this. A dictatorial leadership style is not sustainable for long. I currently have a dictatorial bishop who feels (acts like) he is the only person who can receive revelation for the benefit of the ward and organizations. He even takes it a step farther by stating that when he makes a call or begins a project he is not required to get a sustaining vote because we already sustained him when he was called, therefore his idea should be viewed as my idea. It's crap.

[rockpond]

12 hours ago, bsjkki said:

When serving as a President of an organization in the church is it normal for the Bishop to assign your counselors without input?  Our Bishopric is making the habit of not informing the president when a member under jurisdiction is being released.  The Bishopric counselor makes a token request for names for replacement but doesn't actually want any advice because they already have a person to call.  I think it would be better not to bother asking for names to be submitted when there is such a clear pattern that they don't really want any input.  This has been a year long pattern of behavior and it seems to be a huge waste of time to pray and fast about staffing when your recommendations are always dismissed.   Not occasionally or regularly but always ignored and not even discussed. I realize Bishop's can do what they want so why do they waste everyone's time pretending.  

I second mfbukowski's answer but thought I'd add some additional thoughts based on my experience serving as a bishop's counselor for a few years now:

If there is a clear pattern of a bishopric not approving any names submitted to them, I believe that's a problem.  As has been pointed out, with the exception of YM, the auxiliary presidents are supposed to recommend names for approval by the bishopric.

As a bishopric, our default is to try to receive a confirmation of those names so that we can move forward with the president's recommendation.

I really do not like having to go back to an auxiliary president, who I know has prayed about the name they gave me, and tell them "no".  But there are some common reasons why a "no" answer may be given to an auxiliary president's recommendation... often with no explanation because there are issues that must be kept confidential.  Sometimes there are other changes in the ward that cannot yet be discussed.  Sometimes another auxiliary president has requested the same person.  Sometimes there is a "counseling" issue that is held private between the bishop and the person being requested.  Sometimes the person being requested does not have a temple recommend and the calling necessitates having one (in this case I wouldn't go telling the auxiliary president "hey, they don't have a recommend!" ... I would just have to tell them "sorry, we need to choose someone else").  And on some occasions we've felt prompted to use someone who (for whatever reasons) keeps getting overlooked but needs an opportunity to serve in a given capacity.

For the most part, I have found the auxiliary leaders in my ward to be very accepting and appreciative when we return to them with and explanation that the bishop felt prompted to use a name other than the one that was submitted.  But, they also know that --for the most part-- when they submit a name, the call is usually approved as recommended.

Edited September 12, 2016 by rockpond

[Rain]

12 hours ago, bsjkki said:

They really don't wait for any submissions.  They just put someone in.  Like I said, Bishops prerogative but I would prefer just being honest about it so time is not completely wasted. 

Ok, just to be clear here. People keep mentioning reasons that when you ask for someone in a presidency it might be turned down and you wouldn't be given a reason. I didn't read your OP or your subsequent posts that these applied in your case so I want to make sure I am reading you correctly.

What I am reading is that often in your ward the bishopric just tells you who your counselors are rather than ask for your input. And when they ask for input they don't accept it, they just go for a predetermined person for the calling. And this isn't a once in awhile thing, but an every time thing. Have I got a correct understanding?

If I am correct then I neeed a little more info. How do you know that he had someone picked out already if he asked you to consider it?  Does he tell you? Did someone else?  Had he already called that other person? These are not accusations, but true questions. 

Also, are you finding this just with counselors or with other callings under your direction as well - teachers, pianists, specialist etc.?

[rpn]

If I was president, I would insist on getting spiritual confirmation of whom my counselors were to be.   This is not a business, this is not a non-profit.  This is a faith that believes that Christ Himself runs the church.   If He does, and He wants (or agrees, of course it is true that most of the time, He is happy with whomever is willing to do something at a specific time) a person to be president, then everyone with stewardship who prays should be getting the same answer.  

And if one person in a bishopric was always getting a different answer than the others, maybe it is time to explore that dynamic.  It is true that God can use one person to prompt others what He wants to be done.    But that is an unusual situation and this description suggests someone who is serving their own interests and not those of the ward or God.   And further, if the vote is 2-1, then it isn't a vote, since councils are supposed to do things with unanimity:   they should keep praying until their decision is 3-0, because if it is from God everyone will know it is.

[bsjkki]

42 minutes ago, Rain said:

If I am correct then I neeed a little more info. How do you know that he had someone picked out already if he asked you to consider it?  Does he tell you? Did someone else?  Had he already called that other person? These are not accusations, but true questions.

With the counselors and secretary, they were assigned. (All half-active so a lot of training and not a lot of leadership support.) This does pertain to all other callings in the organization too.   On Wednesday at 10:00 got an email to submit name for a new teacher.  Emailed suggestions Saturday and was told "no" they had already called a couple.(And the counselor imply's he took too long submitting a name.)  This is the pattern.  They ask for a name.  Prayer and pondering takes place, names are submitted, told "no" and they call someone else or have already called someone.  On Sunday, the new couple was sustained and they took away a different teacher without informing the presidency. The couple they called, is causing much concern and not wanted by the presidency--no discussion or input on the decision was requested or received.  The President did not sustain this couple to serve in the organization (youth sunday school teacher) because so many concerns and a "bad feeling" exist.  The organization is Sunday School and my spouse is the President. He has also been a Branch President, Stake and Ward Young Men's Pres  and served on the High Council--he's getting really annoyed so has a meeting set-up with our Bishop.    

I have served in so many presidencies, and different levels of this exist but some Bishops are much better at listening to their presidencies than others.  Often, I've comforted crying Presidents that feel they are not counseled with or respected in their stewardships by the Bishopric.  I think most of the time it comes down to poor communication skills on the part of Bishopric counselor and poor organizational processes that are not clearly defined or followed.  It really is not much different than the business world--do your routine things routinely.  Follow best practices and standards and so many problems can be avoided.  

 

Edited September 12, 2016 by bsjkki

[Rain]

Thank you.  

Yes, it definitely sounds like more is going on than I have seen in the wards I have been in with the leadership callings I, my husband, and parents have had.  When I have asked for people I have not always got a yes answer, but I have deinfitely  felt like my prayeful choice was considered.  

Has anyone talked to the bishop about this?

Not quite the same I have gone into a bishop once and last week I went to my stake presidency counselor and said, something along the lines of  "I thought my calling was this.  This is why I thought that.  If this wasn't what was meant when you called me I am ok with that, but I have been working towards this and have felt frustrated because it seems that we may be working in different directions.  So were you wanting me to do what I felt we should do or did you want me to take the calling in a different direction:" We also talked about communication.

The bishop looked into the handbook that I was trying to follow and realized we didn't need that calling in our ward and so released me. The counselor was surprised that I had been frustrated, was glad I came in, felt I was doing what I should be doing and told me steps that he would be taking so  I could do that. I don't expect everything to be changed over night, especially on the communication, but it is a start.  

So maybe it needs to be brought up either in a one on one interview or ward counsel?    

[Boanerges]

I once lived in a ward with a controlling/power hungry bishop such as yours. I found a reason to move, but I was young and single then so it was easier. Interestingly, I was SS president in that ward for a time and very similar things happened - no names we submitted (I had two good counselors) were ever approved but the bishop would tell us who we could have (usually one name) and usually not someone we wanted or thought would do well. And we found out when one of our teachers was being released at the same time as everyone else, during ward business, which also meant coming up with a sub or combining classes on no notice.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Boanerges
fixed typo

[HappyJackWagon]

At a very basic level, a bishop is a ward manager with a volunteer staff. He's an administrator. I know a lot of people treat that like it's a dirty word because a bishop should be more of a "minister" than an "administrator", but frankly, if he's going to administrate so badly, and alienate his volunteer staff and undercut his own credibility, then he likely won't ever be an effective bishop.