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.
Under Canon Law, the pastor MUST have a "financial board" from his parish. Sometimes this is disguised as a Parish Council--but in any case, the Finance Board/whatever must exist.
In Wisconsin, the parishes are separate corporate entities, but there are 5 trustees who actually run the Parish. Two of them are elected by the Parish at large, and ex-officio are the Pastor, the Archbishop, and the Chancellor of the Archdiocese.
Since this group serves as the "Financial Board", there is no Canonical need for a Council. However, most parishes up here have one. Keeps a lot of people busy one night/month, and gives the impression that parishioners actually have some say in things.
As you can see from the above graph on Trustees, however, it's just a show.