Tuesday, May 23, 2006

5/23/06 - 5/27/06, Albany Financial Meeting, Comments, Retractions and Clarifications

From: SA
To: [List]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 2:33 PM
Subject: Conclusion of Albany Financial Meeting 5-21-06

Dear Brethren,
I’m writing so that you may be informed of the public discussion/proceedings regarding Elder Barrow in relation to his salary. Many of you have contacted me requesting information. Pastor Price has publicly given his consent that any individual in Albany can communicate these things with other members.
The Elders sent out an announcement May 20, stating:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

The Session has decided that we lack enough income to support two full time elders in the oversight of our societies. Therefore, September 2006 will be the final pay period for Elder Greg Barrow. Please pray for Elder Barrow as he seeks employment to support his family.

The Session of the RPNA (General Meeting)
Pastor Greg Price
Ruling Elder Lyndon Dohms
Ruling Elder Greg Barrow

Just to add to their record on a few points.
1. The Edmonton account can pay Elder Barrow up to July 31st.
2. The Session came to a “general consensus” that they would use money from the Albany Society’s account to pay Elder Barrow for the other 2 months.
a) Elder Barrow was able to give input into the decision, but was not part of the “consensus”.
b) Pastor Price, as Moderator, admitted that he technically should not have been included in a vote, but they don’t use Robert’s Rules for ordering their meetings. They also did not vote, but had a “general consensus”
c) Pastor Price pointed out that it would have been fine if Elder Dohms acted alone in this decision.
3. The decision included 2 months salary at $4,000 CAD per month.
4. The matter was brought before the Albany Congregation for consent in 2 meetings.
a) In the first meeting I, _____ _______, kept personal records, and Pastor Price did give additional comments, to clarify something that I confused in my notes.
b) Those notes are available to any who request them – not being of a private nature – as well as the comments Pastor Price offers.
c) I did not keep good notes of the second meeting, mainly because I was involved in the dialogue. The Session did answer the questions we had, and asked if anyone did not consent to the Session’s decision. ____ _______ and I did not consent, and all others did.
5. It was communicated to Albany that the accounts in Albany/Edmonton belong to the Session to distribute as they see fit. They told us that in the past they have extended the liberty to the Albany Society to make certain financial decisions (ie Pastor Price’s Salary), but it has always been the Sessions final decision.
6. It was answered that the nature of Elder Barrow’s 2 month income is to be understood as both a Diaconal Need, as well as an Employment Issue. It was made clear, however, that if Greg Barrow does find a job that is able to adequately support his family’s needs, before August 1st, he would not need to receive funds from Albany, per Pastor Price.
This is the closest thing I have to offer as notes to the second meeting conclusions regarding the public report of Elder Barrow’s Salary.
I’m sure the Elders are willing, as always, to answer any questions you have.
Thanks,
-SA
Treasurer of the Albany Congregation



From: SA
To: [List]
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 5:43 PM
Subject: Letter of retraction and clarification

Dear Brethren,
On Tuesday May 23rd, I sent out an email entitled, “Conclusion of Albany Financial Meeting 5-21-06”
I’d like to retract this letter in that I did not receive permission from Pastor Price to send this out as Treasurer. He only received the communication at the same time as you.
Also, I was not seeking to represent the Congregation in Albany, but meant to communicate that I, as an individual, was sending this conclusion from my notes and perspective. They too did not consent, but only received the communication at the same time as you.
To those who thought I was representing the Congregation, forgive me for being so vague.
Thank you,
-SA (an individual responsible for his knowledge and actions)



From: G Price
To:[List]
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 6:12 PM
Subject: Clarification

May 25, 2006

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I am writing to clarify a matter that was made know in
a recent email that you received from SA
(entitled "Conclusion of Albany Financial Meeting
5-21-06" and which has now been retracted) wherein
there was mentioned the following: "It was answered
that the nature of Elder Barrow's 2 month income is to
be understood as both a Diaconal Need, as well as an
Employment Issue."

I want to make it clear (since I was the one who
answered the question that was mentioned above) that
the use of the term "diaconal need" in no way was
intended to imply that Elder Barrow was not working
for the Church through September 2006 ("For the
laborer is worthy of his hire" Luke 10:7). What funds
Albany is sending to Edmonton is for Elder Barrow's
salary and for the faithful work which he will perform
on behalf of the Church during that period of time.
The reason I used the term "diaconal need" (in
addition to "salary) was to indicate that there were
insufficient funds to cover his salary in the Edmonton
account and so there was a "need" which Elder Barrow
had as a result of this.

I am sorry for any offense I may have caused to anyone
due to the choice of words used by me in the Financial
Meeting. I ask any who were offended by the use of
these words to please forgive me.

The last thing I want is for there to be discussion
focused around something I said at a time in which a
faithful Elder has the tremendous hardship of finding
a job that will provide for his family in the next 3-4
months.

May the Lord bless our dear brother and makes his
paths straight in locating a job that will meet the
needs of his family.

With Christian affection for you all,

Greg L. Price



0 comments: