We elect our parish councils.
If the pastor appoints the council, why have one? Just let the priest run the parish, since he's surrounding himself with "yes" men anyway.
Our pastor never talks about money; the stewardship committee people do that. He never talks about lay ministries in the parish; the stewardship committee people do that.
That's why the number of people involved in ministry has tripled over the past three years, and our average Sunday collection tops $30,000.
Electing parish councils is another failed experiment of the AmChurch revolution. Pastors ought to be pastors. If the pastor does not run the parish (preferably making the real decisions and removing malcontent "council" members as appropriate, and if the pastor is an exemplar, the parish is far better served. An increasing number of pastors refuse to cooperate with the farce of parish councils, call no elections, and hold no meetings. Good for them.
Also, a lot of parishes with "councils" develop imperial ministry structures to provide paychecks to the parish liberals to further subvert Catholicism. It sounds like the "stewardship" committee also needs abolition if it has the consummate gall to replace the pastor in running parish ministries. The pastor might consider spending less time on the golf course and more time doing his job. AND money isn't everything. The poorest parishes in our diocese can do major renovations and restorations (NOT wreckovations!) out of their own collection baskets.
An appointed council, serving at the pleasure of the pastor, will cooperate with the pastor and serve under him or not at all. Much better model. Not unlike pope and curia.