Note from Web Admin- The following was copied from a Facebook Group. To continue the discussion or add your own documents, photos, or comments, please reply in the comment box below under this topic. You may also wish to post to another topic or start a new one. Thank you.

----------------

Dear members of the AEPS GA Discernment, Protocols and Process Work Group/Face book group,
Cc. AEPS Steering Committee, MGB-GAC Advisory Board

Paul Reiter is making progress from what I hear and is listening to the doctor. Thanks be to God!
Paul got this group started, but has had to resign from convening it due to his health issues. So the question is how do we move forward?

As a way to jump-start the conversation, Tom Hay e-mailed me to see if the face book group and those interested in this conversation can meet at 3:30 on Friday, June 12
at the Big Tent. The Stated Clerk has invited us to meet in his suite (though he won't be there at the time), and we can meet there unless we get a larger group coming.

Please let me know if you are going to be at the Big Tent and if that works for you? I have copied below the face book discussion we have had o far - FYI.

Also, would any of you be interested in meeting October 2 [9:30 - noon] for a face to face conversation on this topic so as to continue the conversation? Our annual meeting of AEPS will start after lunch on Saturday, so an idea the AEPS steering committee is suggesting is that the workgroups of AEPS meet on Saturday morning. That means you would have to fly in on Friday. We need to let Deb Davis [OGA] know the approximate numbers to reserve the rooms and the price. Let me know if there is interest among you to do that?

Blessings,
Graham


Topic: Working toward a new paradigm for GA
Reply to Topic
Displaying all 22 posts by 7 people.

Post #1
Paul Reiter (St. Louis, MO) wrote on January 19, 2009 at 9:11pm
Friends:
We are finally up and running. I am going to assume that our group is now formed and up and running. In a conversation with Tom Hay from GA last week he suggested that we begin with some discussion around some of the ways we might reframe GA meetings. He is offering the following suggestions which I have cut from an email note from him

Let me share some principles and ideas we are looking at as we make plans for GA for you or the group to munch over:

 

1. Out of concern for the growing size of each committee, and the work load of committees, we are looking at adding two committees by splitting two others - perhaps the Peacemaking and International Issues Committee and the Social Justice Issues Committee. That would make for 18 committees, including Bills and Overtures and Youth.

2. Last year, for several reasons, the GA convened at 10:00 on Saturday morning. We are considering returning to an afternoon start with the morning given over to a selection of Pre-Assembly workshops. The workshops would convene in the morning and some would last for 2.5 hours, and others just an hour (with a break). This pre-assembly conference "lite" would serve several purposes:

a. Give Commissioners a chance to engage in study and conversation about some issues (such as NFOG) before the issue hits the floor at plenary.

b. Provide a chance for commissioners to engage the Stated Clerk and GAC exec (and for them to give their reports) in a town-meeting atmosphere.

c. Provide opportunity for anti-racism training (and perhaps other sensitivity training).

3. Look at orientation of commissioners at the Assembly in a new way. In recent years it has been a 3-hour block that divided the commissioners into three groups and moved them between three experiences: plenary preparation; a report from Cliff and Linda; and (last year) an introduction to the agencies at the exhibit hall. We are considering a new principle for orientation - that it does not occur just on day one, but is integrated into every day. Orientation on Saturday will be cut to 45 minutes, and we will schedule short orientations into each meeting to lift up information important to the day's activities. Maybe some FAQ sheets will be produced for each day targeting something that is before the commissioners.

4. And yes, there is general agreement that some way of changing the Standing Rules to allow more power to committees making unanimous decisions, to bypass the need for plenary action.

Let's open the discussion!

happ Inaguaration Day!
Reply to PaulReport

Post #2
Clark Cowden (San Diego, CA) wroteon January 19, 2009 at 10:15pm
Paul, Thanks for getting the ball rolling on this. I appreciate it.
This beginning list deals with the issues of committees that are too large, adequate preparation and orientation of commissioners, and reducing the amount of business going out of committee to the plenary. While these are important, I think these basically keep us in the same paradigm for GA and don't move us into a new place. I think we need to address the more fundamental issues that there are too many commissioners, they are not adequately informed and trained before they arrive at GA, and there is far too much business that can be adequately discussed and decided in one short week. The people who have the most knowledge about the issues don't get to vote, and some of the people with the least amount of knowledge do get to vote. This needs to change. We keep asking strangers to decide huge emotional issues and that just doesn't work. We need to look at how really good decisions get made in session and presbytery meetings, and figure out how to transfer them to the GA level.
Reply to ClarkReport

Post #3
Tom Hay wroteon January 22, 2009 at 8:26am
Good point Clark. From my seat, this discussion really has to have two tracks -- the goals, imagining what a GA could become, and the objectives -- our immediate need to make the 119th a better experience for the commissioners and the church. Unfortunately, there are only so many changes we can make before 2010.

So I threw out some objectives in the 1-4 list above, but you raise a very important question for who we can be: How do really good decisions get made in session and presbytery meetings? Charles Olsen used to say that no board can make more than one really important decision a year. We expect 750 strangers to make 10 in ten days.
Reply to TomReport

Post #4
Paul Hooker wroteon January 22, 2009 at 9:22am
Thanks to Tom and Paul for starting this, and to Clark for his reply.

Here's a thought or two about Clark's list of core problems. i am playing with ideas here, so I am not prepared to die on any of the hills I propose to climb herein. With that caveat in mind, here goes:

1. Too many commissioners. This is an easy one to fix, I think. We repeal the 2003 amendment to G-13.0102b that increased the number of commissioners. While we're at it, we might want to think about reducing the number even below pre-2004 levels. Perhaps every presbytery has 1 minister and 1 elder commissioner, and increase the threshold for incremental increases based on size. I believe that smaller groups are more difficult to manipulate, because more people feel empowered to participate in the discussion, and there is less anonymity in which to hide. So by decreasing its size, we may actually improve the deliberative quality of the body.

2. Inadequate preparation. I think this is a presbytery responsibility, not a GA task. But could we add a requirement to the standing rules that each presbytery certify that its commissioners have completed a preparation course on the principle issues and conduct of the assembly before being seated as commissioners? I would envision such a course being created as an online and interactive course - perhaps by OGA, perhaps by AEP/ASC - and having two parts: one that discusses how the assembly works, and the other that briefs commissioners on the key issues and directs them to resources.

3. Too much business. Part of the problem is that business comes from so many directions. Most of my suggestions here are problematic, but here are a few:

a) amend G-18.0301 to require that an overture must have the endorsement of at least two presbyteries other than the original sender. This would ensure that there is at least broad interest in an issue. Would also force presbyteries to put an overture out earlier, rather than waiting till the last minute before the 120-day deadline, thereby giving more time for the church as a whole to consider the idea before the assembly convenes.

b) amend G-18.0301 to require that no overture that contemplates altering the text of a section of the BoO may be considered for a period of not less than four years (or two assemblies) after the most recent amendment of that section. This would give us some time to live with a provision, deal with judicial challenges to it, and avoids the "pendulum effect" - or at least lengthens the frequency modulation.

c) limit the number of commissioners' resolutions to no more than 25% (or more radical: 10%) of the number of commissioners, and require three commissioners rather than the current two to sponsor. Require that all CRs be in the hands of the Clerk no later than one month prior to the opening gavel. Clerk then sends all CRs to Bills and Overtures, and ask B&O to recommend whether this CR merits the consideration of the assembly. GA can overrule B&O, but it would at least raise the question of the merits of any proposal, and ensures that more than just a couple of people think the CR is worth the time and energy spent on it.

4. People with knowledge not eligible to vote. It's already been suggested by some, but I agree with the idea that EPs and Stated Clerks ought to get an advisory vote in both committees and plenary. Perhaps more than any other groups, these two are aware of both the constitutional and practical issues likely to be generated by a proposed action. Committees and commissioners would benefit from their input. As it is, the only moment at which most EPs and SCs can enter the process is in the open hearings before the committee, a moment that is already overcrowded and badly abused.

As an alternative to this, AEP/ASC might think about holding a pre-assembly work session for presbytery and synod EPs and SCs at which they could discuss and draft comments to the assembly on significant issues before the body. The comments of this group would be just that: grist for the commissioners' mill. We might talk with both AEP and ASC about taking responsibility for this gathering, perhaps in place of annual meetings in assembly years.

Well, as I said, just some thoughts. I can already think of problems with each of them, but perhaps they might engender some conversation.

Reply to PaulReport

Post #5
Tom Hay wroteon January 22, 2009 at 10:40am
Let's think about the too many commissioners question.
1. It really is a balance isn't it, between a sense of representation (fewer commissioners mean that fewer people ever GA) and efficacy -- the right size for effective decision making. Which value is more important to the church?
2. If membership trends continue, using the current formula for representation, we will already see a decline in the numbers of commissioners in the years ahead. Does that sound defeatist?
3. Is the problem really the number of commissioners, or the inexperience? What if Commissioners were elected to attend two consecutive assemblies, so that each year half of the commissioners would be attending their second assembly and half would be freshmen?
Reply to TomReport

Post #6
Clark Cowden (San Diego, CA) wroteon January 24, 2009 at 7:24pm
Tom and Paul,

Thanks for your comments. Here are my suggestions:

1. I would suggest we reduce the number of commissioners to even lower than the pre-2004 levels. I think smaller groups make better decisions, have longer conversations, can build better relationships, and are harder to manipulate. I think waiting for membership decline to reduce our commissioners will take too long. Inexperience is a problem as well as too many commissioners. Just like we elect people to serve three year terms on committees in churches and in presbyteries, it would be good to elect commissioners to a 4 year term as GA commissioner, so they could go to two GAs.

2. Inadequate preparation. I think of this in terms of not knowing and understanding the issues vs. not being familiar with the process. I think it's hard to prepare people ahead of time for the process. It's something you really have to participate in.

3. Paul, I like both of your a and b suggestions on reducing the amount of business. I think it needs a radical reduction. Most people I know only ask about 3 issues that GA decides. The ones who are really involved ask about the top 10. Yet, we do hundreds of pieces of business, and nobody can handle the amount of knowledge to adequately deal with all of that. I think some items get delegated to GAC or OGA staff to decide. Some get delegated to GA committees to make final decisions on. On the first day of GA, the Bills and Overtures committee recommends the top 10 issues GA will deal with that week. The rest are sent back to presbyteries without a GA vote and told 'you guys talk about how you want to do this'.

Or, we could ask ourselves, how do we set the agenda for our session and presbytery meetings? When I pastored a church, the clerk of session and I set the agenda. In our presbytery, the executive committee of council (council moderator, presbytery moderator, presbytery moderator elect, executive presbyter, and stated clerk) set the agenda with the concurrence of the presbytery council. Why not do the same at GA? Let the executive committee of GAC, along with the stated clerk, and final approval of GAC set the agenda for GA?

Personally I don't see a big problem with commissioner resolutions. To me, they are kind of a pain, but maybe we could let GA committees make final decisions on them, or send them to presbytery or a GAC or OGA committee to deal with them.

4. I think adding Executive Presbyters and Stated Clerks and even some senior GAC or OGA staff as advisory delegates would be good. They have an awful lot of knowledge about what is being voted on, yet usually do not even get asked.

5. One item I would add to this list. I think it's time we recommend making a change with our YADs/YAADs. We definitely need to listen to our young people, and try to see things from their perspective, but they are hurting us far more than they are helping us. They are easily manipulated by the various groups in the church. They talk a lot in committees and in plenary, keeping more seasoned commissioners from participating. We need to create either a youth GA or a polity class (like we do for our seminarians), so they can learn the system. When GA is over, and many people are mad, the YAADs just go back to school and don't have to deal with the consequences of their actions.
Reply to ClarkReport

Post #7
Dana Knapp (Columbus, OH) wroteon January 28, 2009 at 1:41pm
I am just joining this conversation and would add some comments. I had the opportunity to serve as a commissioner to Assembly. I served on the Peace Making and Justice Committee and can state that the size of the committee inhibited our making good decisions. As you may recall we were the committee that set back to the plenary session conflicting actions. Part of this had to di wth the YADs on the committee and their abscence from the work of the committee when hey all bailed to attend the YAD event. In their abscence the folks who did not agree with earlier actions were able to pass the conflicting actions. I do think, as Clark suggests that we need to rethink the role of the YAADS at GA.

In terms of the EP/GPS and Stated Clerks being advisory members to the GA and its work, I would endorse this and did attempt to make that happen through a Commissioner's Resolution which never got out of committee. I found myself being able to give important advice not only tomy commissioners but other commissioners sitting around me in regards to votes on issues and the implications they would have in the grass roots if the issues passed or failed. I think we have a very important role to play as advisory members to the GA.

I consur whole heartedly with Paul and the need for some Pre-Assembly workshops prior to the start of business. The orientation is not helpful and mvoing around the convention center like herded cattle did not give people an opportunity to meet one another or have any conversation of depth or to engage the people presenting their part of the orientation.
Reply to DanaReport

Post #8
Sue Coller (St. Cloud, MN) wroteon January 29, 2009 at 7:43am
Its always interesting to let others start a conversation, then I can just add "ditto" to much of what was said. :) And I do. Especially about the size of committees, the participation of YAADs, and the issue of preparation for commissioners. Min.. Valleys is fortunate that we still send alternate commissioners to GA who, in most cases, will become our commissioners to our next GA. But I know we are in the minority in doing that.

I think a huge issue is how much support a business item has before it comes to GA. I would like to see a lot more conversation on the issues happening in sessions and presbyteryies before they are discussed at GA. Someone I think suggested that more than one presbytery be required to sign on to an overture. I would dare to suggest that at least 9 - a huge number, yes, but still only 5% of our presbyteries. That way we won't be dealing with business that is a pet issue of just one or two presbyteries and will require presbyteries who really want to bring forth business to do a lot more leg work in laying a good foundation. I keep thinking of what a Free Methodist colleague said about our GA process - that they would never bring the kinds of issues forward with the frequency we do because they seek to have more consensus in the church before bringing things for action.

Preparation at the presbytery level is a huge issue. Last time we elected our commissioners earlier than usual so we could so a bit more in helping them prepare - but we were also somewhat limited in what we could do because they did not know yet what committees they would be on, so we could not focus on helping them prepare for the particular issues they would be dealing with for the first half of their GA work.

Finally - has any group done serious study of how other churches make decisions, who use more of a discernment model? I'm tired of the "discernment" word - it is way over- and miss-used - but there is still something to be learned. The Uniting Church of Australia is the one I think we hear most about using more of a discernment model, but surely there are others we can also learn from so we don't have to completely reinvent the wheel if we want to try something different. It would be interesting to talk to the woman who headed up the change in process at the UCA and talk with her about what she learned from leading them in that shift. I think her name is Jill Talbert? Or something like that.
Reply to SueReport

Post #9
Clark Cowden (San Diego, CA) wroteon January 29, 2009 at 10:34am
Sue, I think your idea of getting at least 9 presbyteries to sign on to an overture before it will be addressed by the GA is a great idea. We talk about how to build consensu at GA, but I think we need to build more consensus before we get to GA. This would be a way to do it. A national assembly should really deal with national issues, that a number of presbyteries feel is important enough for us to spend time on. If an overture is only supported by one or two presbyteries, that's not a national issue. That's a local issue that those presbyteries should decide. If only one or two presbyteries care enough to support an overture, the GA doesn't really need to spend time on that.
Reply to ClarkReport

Post #10
Tom Hay wroteon January 29, 2009 at 11:21am
Good stuff. What has been coming up to the surface are some important management principles -- smaller committees make better decisions; better trained and experienced commissioners make better decisions; an agenda that reflects the true issues of the church rather than the pet ideas of a few encourages better decisions. No question.

But what happens when these management principles conflict with some values we share -- wide and generous participation; an assembly (with the Spirit) has the right to set it's own agenda; processes which protect the minority from the power of the majority.

What does our theology have to say in relation to our management principles? Do we really think the church is trustful enough to cut the number of commissioners in half because it is good management strategy? Help me think through the values.
Reply to TomReport

Post #11
Clark Cowden (San Diego, CA) wroteon January 29, 2009 at 3:28pm
Tom, thanks for your post. There will definitely be conflict here. This is part of moving into a new paradigm. I would say two things:
1. We develop a GA that more closely follows session and presbytery models. How do sessions and presbyteries develop their agendas? They don't let anybody bring anything at any time. If something comes up unexpectedly, sometimes we deal with it right then, and sometimes we put it off to the next meeting. GA can learn to do that too.
2. We say that the wide and generous participation happens leading up to the Assembly. If only one presbytery brings an overture, that's not wide and generous participation. If 10 presbyteries bring the same overture, that is. I would also suggest that business from Advisory and Advocacy committees be sent to the presbyteries first, to see if there is wide and generous interest at the grass roots level, before we waste time at GA dealing with an issue that very few people are passionate about.

The other paradigm shift going on is why do we gather together as governing bodies? What is the purpose of our meetings? I think more and more presbyteries are saying that we do not gather to vote on motions. We are gathering to build relationships, to become a learning community, to talk theology, to do ministry training, to share mission stories, etc. The last thing our people want to do anymore is vote. GA can learn to shift to this paradigm too.
Reply to ClarkReport

Post #12
Wayne A. Yost wroteon February 2, 2009 at 4:39pm
In an era of radical democratization in church and society people are less willing to trust smaller groups in decision making. "If I, or somebody I have personally picked, do not get to vote on the issue I don't trust the decision." Lessening the number of commissioners is a good idea, but folks back home will cry that smaller groups can be manipulated more easily.

As for EPs and SCs having advisory voice/vote either in committees or plenary, what do we do with the suspicion and distrust many have that too many of us want to act like bishops?

The plenary debates/discussions are not rational. Each speaker throws a statement against the wall and hopes it will stick. There is no logical back and forth where the statement of speaker B relates to the statement of speaker A. The debates/discussions are sound bites more often geared to emotions than reason.

What if we were to ask, "What is/are the compelling reason(s) for this piece of business to be before the Assembly?" I underscore "compelling." I know that for some any particular piece of business is there for a compelling"reason. I like the idea of presbytery or synod overtures requiring support from other presbyteries or synods. However, in relation to Clark's comment that the last thing people want to do is more voting, wouldn't we have to vote on whether or not to add our support to several overtures which are being proposed?

I wonder what we really mean by "discernment." Does it mean just taking more time in more deliberate prayer and listening? Are we willing to either attempt to do a whole lot less or take a whole lot more time? what would happen if after each plenary time of debate/discussion we were to have a significant period of silence for reflection and prayer? Does discernment mean protracting the debate until we have worn down people on the other side? Are we convinced any better decisions would be made if we were making decisions in a different pattern? Would it help to break away from Robert's Rules and say that every action would need a 66% affirmative vote to pass? What if we used the 66% and had the opportunity for another round of debate/discussion if a measure did not get the 66%, but did get more than 50%. Anything with less than 50% support on the first ballot would be considered defeated.

Probably enough said in this posting.
Reply to WayneReport

Post #13
Clark Cowden (San Diego, CA) wroteon February 2, 2009 at 10:41pm
Wayne, Thanks for your ideas. I think we need to look at doing a whole lot less. I think asking for a 66% affirmation for a vote to pass is a great idea.

I think that people don't care if smaller groups make decisions on issues they don't care about. I think people don't care if EPs and SCs have an advisory vote on issues they don't care about. And most of GA today is on issues that people don't care about. Unfortunately, the small number of issues that people do care about are handled poorly, with decisions made by people who don't have all the knowledge and information they need. This small number of decisions does a massive amount of damage on the denomination after every GA meeting, alienating people, breaking down our connectionalism, and causing people to ask why we still belong to this troubled church.
Reply to ClarkReport

Post #14
Wayne A. Yost wroteon February 3, 2009 at 9:56am
It would be interesting to look at the business from the last few Assemblies and have a diverse group decide what are issues people don't care about and which they do.

I think one of our problems, across the church, is we don't know how to say NO. If a session or presbytery committee sends something to the presbytery as a possible overture, the presbytery is loathe to say no. If a person becomes an inquirer, the CPM is reluctant to say no and possibly upset the church from which the person is a member.

I admit I do not like to be told no, so I understand the reactions of others when they think their cause is just or their program is the fix-all for a particular issue when they are told no. In too many cases, if a particular vote does not go the way some folks think it should, they become upset and are alienated. Even if the Assembly were to make no decisions or if it were to pass everything which comes before it, somebody is going to be alienated. The only medicine for this would seem to be Phillippians 2:1-4, but it is sure hard to practice.

The first line of defense against the Assembly being overwhelmed with business is the presbytery. Not everything needs to be sent on to the Assembly just because a particular session overtures the presbytery to overture the GA.
Reply to WayneReport

Post #15
Clark Cowden (San Diego, CA) wroteon February 4, 2009 at 12:17pm
Wayne, Amen and Amen. If we did a better job saying no, we would have a lot less problems.
Reply to ClarkReport

Post #16
Tom Hay wroteon February 12, 2009 at 3:26pm
It seems to me that one thing stops us from moving toward the wisdom being lifted up here: Trust. Do we trust each other enough to let a smaller group govern and a small group edit the business before the Assembly?
Reply to TomReport

Post #17
Wayne A. Yost wroteon February 14, 2009 at 8:20am
That is THE question. It seems the answer is "no." It seems we are doing are best to live like the early church, filled with strife. Why are we surprised with "party spirit," and deep conflict?

What I see is more and more of our people want to function as pure democracy. Everybody wants to vote on everything. I believe acceptance of decisions by the GA would be helped if votes were required to have a greater majority than 50% + 1. That level does not inspire trust.
Reply to WayneReport

Post #18
Clark Cowden (San Diego, CA) wroteon February 16, 2009 at 11:15am
Yes, trust is a major problem. But, I still think we can make some changes.

1. When we went to biennial assemblies, we increased the number of commissioners from about 550-750. The process, the quality of decisions, and the level of trust have all decreased since then. At the very least, we could roll back to 550. But, I think we can do more. If all 171 presbyteries sent one elder and one pastor, that would give us 342 commissioners. That would be enough. The large presbyteries would not be happy. So, if we give those with more than 20,000 members an extra elder and pastor, that would give us maybe 400 commissioners.

2. Each GA makes about 750 decisions. I would suggest 99% of our members have no clue what 700 of those decisions are. So, they are already trusting somebody to make those decisions for them. After GA, people only ask me about 3 decisions. Those who are really involved want to know about 10. They don't want to participate in decisions they don't care about, only those they do care about, and don't trust others to make for them. So, we identify the issues that people won't trust to a smaller group (fidelity/chastity, property, Israel, authoritative interpretations, etc.) You divide your 400 commissioners into 10 committees. Each committee only has 1-2 decisions to make. They have two whole days to pray together, read scripture together, build relationships, and discuss all the ramifications in depth.

3. If you increase the percentage needed to pass a decision at GA to 66%, people will trust a smaller group to make those decisions.

4. If you require that all 10-20 decisions made at GA to be approved by 2/3 of the presbyteries, people will trust a smaller group to make those decisions. It can be done.
Reply to ClarkReport

Post #19
Wayne A. Yost wroteon February 16, 2009 at 4:09pm
Ah, but who is going to make the other 680 decisions?

If presbyteries vote to ratify the decisions of the GA, won't sessions want to ratify decisions of presbyteries, and congregations want to verify the decisions of the session?
Reply to WayneReport

Post #20
Tom Hay wroteon February 20, 2009 at 8:16am
Presbyteries already ratify some of the decisions GA makes -- specifically constiututional changes and covenants with other denominations.

I want to figure out how many of those 700 decisions are really just routine approval of reports from agencies, schools, boards, etc.

One of the ideas that has lots of legs, is to let committee decisions that are unanimous in committee become the actions of the Assembly, so that the whole assemly does not have to deal with those routine actions. This would be a first filter.
Reply to TomReport

Post #21
Tom Hay wroteon February 25, 2009 at 10:40am
Statistics! I played around with some committee work this morning. Picked 5 rather random GA committees from the 218th GA to see how many items they had, how many were brought to the GA for approval and how many to disapprove. And how many received unanimous votes from the committee.

Here is what I found out:

Voting Records: 218th GA

General Assembly Procedures:
26 items of business requiring action
Recommend approval (sometimes with amendment) 16
Recommend Disapproval 9
Answer with action on another resolution 1
14 Unanimous votes

Mission Coordination and Budgets
31 items of business requiring action
Recommend approval (sometimes with amendment) 28
Recommend Disapproval 1
Answer with action on another resolution 2
13 unanimous votes

Social Justice Issues
20 items of business requiring action
Recommend approval (sometimes with amendment) 18
Recommend Disapproval 0
Answer with action on another resolution 2
5 unanimous votes

Peacemaking and International Issues
32 items of business requiring action
Recommend approval (sometimes with amendment) 21
Recommend Disapproval 3
Answer with action on another resolution 8
10 unanimous votes

Church Orders
18 items of business requiring action
Recommend approval (sometimes with amendment) 7
Recommend Disapproval 0
Answer with action on another resolution 11
4 unanimous votes

 

Reply to TomReport

Post #22
Wayne A. Yost wroteon February 25, 2009 at 9:18pm
All in all, there were not many unanimous votes coming out of committees.

I think the filter on things sent up to the Assembly and considered by the committees should be, "What is the compelling reason the Assembly should consider this piece of business?"
Reply to WayneReport
Top of Form
Reply
(post is too long by 1 characters)
Bottom of Form
Advertise
Do you know your score?

A good credit score is 700 & above. Click here to see yours online in just two easy steps at FreeCreditReport.com.


More Ads
Facebook © 2009
English (US)
About
Advertising
Developers
Careers
Terms

Find Friends
Privacy
Mobile
Help





We are finally up and running. I am going to assume that our group is now formed and up and running. In a conversation with Tom Hay from GA last week he suggested that we begin with some discussion around some of the ways we migth reframe GA meetings. He is offering the following suggestions which I have cut from an email note from him

Let me share some principles and ideas we are looking at as we make plans for GA for you or the group to munch over:

 

1. Out of concern for the growing size of each committee, and the work load of committees, we are looking at adding two committees by splitting two others - perhaps the Peacemaking and International Issues Committee and the Social Justice Issues Committee. That would make for 18 committees, including Bills and Overtures and Youth.

2. Last year, for several reasons, the GA convened at 10:00 on Saturday morning. We are considering returning to an afternoon start with the morning given over to a selection of Pre-Assembly workshops. The workshops would convene in the morning and some would last for 2.5 hours, and others just an hour (with a break). This pre-assembly conference "lite" would serve several purposes:

a. Give Commissioners a chance to engage in study and conversation about some issues (such as NFOG) before the issue hits the floor at plenary.

b. Provide a chance for commissioners to engage the Stated Clerk and GAC exec (and for them to give their reports) in a town-meeting atmosphere.

c. Provide opportunity for anti-racism training (and perhaps other sensitivity training).

3. Look at orientation of commissioners at the Assembly in a new way. In recent years it has been a 3-hour block that divided the commissioners into three groups and moved them between three experiences: plenary preparation; a report from Cliff and Linda; and (last year) an introduction to the agencies at the exhibit hall. We are considering a new principle for orientation - that it does not occur just on day one, but is integrated into every day. Orientation on Saturday will be cut to 45 minutes, and we will schedule short orientations into each meeting to lift up information important to the day's activities. Maybe some FAQ sheets will be produced for each day targeting something that is before the commissioners.

4. And yes, there is general agreement that some way of changing the Standing Rules to allow more power to committees making unanimous decisions, to bypass the need for plenary action.

Let's open the discussion!

happ Inaguaration Day!
Reply to PaulReport

Post #2
Clark Cowden (San Diego, CA) wroteon January 19, 2009 at 10:15pm
Paul, Thanks for getting the ball rolling on this. I appreciate it.
This beginning list deals with the issues of committees that are too large, adequate preparation and orientation of commissioners, and reducing the amount of business going out of committee to the plenary. While these are important, I think these basically keep us in the same paradigm for GA and don't move us into a new place. I think we need to address the more fundamental issues that there are too many commissioners, they are not adequately informed and trained before they arrive at GA, and there is far too much business that can be adequately discussed and decided in one short week. The people who have the most knowledge about the issues don't get to vote, and some of the people with the least amount of knowledge do get to vote. This needs to change. We keep asking strangers to decide huge emotional issues and that just doesn't work. We need to look at how really good decisions get made in session and presbytery meetings, and figure out how to transfer them to the GA level.
Reply to ClarkReport

Post #3
Tom Hay wroteon January 22, 2009 at 8:26am
Good point Clark. From my seat, this discussion really has to have two tracks -- the goals, imagining what a GA could become, and the objectives -- our immediate need to make the 119th a better experience for the commissioners and the church. Unfortunately, there are only so many changes we can make before 2010.

So I threw out some objectives in the 1-4 list above, but you raise a very important question for who we can be: How do really good decisions get made in session and presbytery meetings? Charles Olsen used to say that no board can make more than one really important decision a year. We expect 750 strangers to make 10 in ten days.
Reply to TomReport

Post #4
Paul Hooker wroteon January 22, 2009 at 9:22am
Thanks to Tom and Paul for starting this, and to Clark for his reply.

Here's a thought or two about Clark's list of core problems. i am playing with ideas here, so I am not prepared to die on any of the hills I propose to climb herein. With that caveat in mind, here goes:

1. Too many commissioners. This is an easy one to fix, I think. We repeal the 2003 amendment to G-13.0102b that increased the number of commissioners. While we're at it, we might want to think about reducing the number even below pre-2004 levels. Perhaps every presbytery has 1 minister and 1 elder commissioner, and increase the threshold for incremental increases based on size. I believe that smaller groups are more difficult to manipulate, because more people feel empowered to participate in the discussion, and there is less anonymity in which to hide. So by decreasing its size, we may actually improve the deliberative quality of the body.

2. Inadequate preparation. I think this is a presbytery responsibility, not a GA task. But could we add a requirement to the standing rules that each presbytery certify that its commissioners have completed a preparation course on the principle issues and conduct of the assembly before being seated as commissioners? I would envision such a course being created as an online and interactive course - perhaps by OGA, perhaps by AEP/ASC - and having two parts: one that discusses how the assembly works, and the other that briefs commissioners on the key issues and directs them to resources.

3. Too much business. Part of the problem is that business comes from so many directions. Most of my suggestions here are problematic, but here are a few:

a) amend G-18.0301 to require that an overture must have the endorsement of at least two presbyteries other than the original sender. This would ensure that there is at least broad interest in an issue. Would also force presbyteries to put an overture out earlier, rather than waiting till the last minute before the 120-day deadline, thereby giving more time for the church as a whole to consider the idea before the assembly convenes.

b) amend G-18.0301 to require that no overture that contemplates altering the text of a section of the BoO may be considered for a period of not less than four years (or two assemblies) after the most recent amendment of that section. This would give us some time to live with a provision, deal with judicial challenges to it, and avoids the "pendulum effect" - or at least lengthens the frequency modulation.

c) limit the number of commissioners' resolutions to no more than 25% (or more radical: 10%) of the number of commissioners, and require three commissioners rather than the current two to sponsor. Require that all CRs be in the hands of the Clerk no later than one month prior to the opening gavel. Clerk then sends all CRs to Bills and Overtures, and ask B&O to recommend whether this CR merits the consideration of the assembly. GA can overrule B&O, but it would at least raise the question of the merits of any proposal, and ensures that more than just a couple of people think the CR is worth the time and energy spent on it.

4. People with knowledge not eligible to vote. It's already been suggested by some, but I agree with the idea that EPs and Stated Clerks ought to get an advisory vote in both committees and plenary. Perhaps more than any other groups, these two are aware of both the constitutional and practical issues likely to be generated by a proposed action. Committees and commissioners would benefit from their input. As it is, the only moment at which most EPs and SCs can enter the process is in the open hearings before the committee, a moment that is already overcrowded and badly abused.

As an alternative to this, AEP/ASC might think about holding a pre-assembly work session for presbytery and synod EPs and SCs at which they could discuss and draft comments to the assembly on significant issues before the body. The comments of this group would be just that: grist for the commissioners' mill. We might talk with both AEP and ASC about taking responsibility for this gathering, perhaps in place of annual meetings in assembly years.

Well, as I said, just some thoughts. I can already think of problems with each of them, but perhaps they might engender some conversation.

Reply to PaulReport

Post #5
Tom Hay wroteon January 22, 2009 at 10:40am
Let's think about the too many commissioners question.
1. It really is a balance isn't it, between a sense of representation (fewer commissioners mean that fewer people ever GA) and efficacy -- the right size for effective decision making. Which value is more important to the church?
2. If membership trends continue, using the current formula for representation, we will already see a decline in the numbers of commissioners in the years ahead. Does that sound defeatist?
3. Is the problem really the number of commissioners, or the inexperience? What if Commissioners were elected to attend two consecutive assemblies, so that each year half of the commissioners would be attending their second assembly and half would be freshmen?
Reply to TomReport

Post #6
Clark Cowden (San Diego, CA) wroteon January 24, 2009 at 7:24pm
Tom and Paul,

Thanks for your comments. Here are my suggestions:

1. I would suggest we reduce the number of commissioners to even lower than the pre-2004 levels. I think smaller groups make better decisions, have longer conversations, can build better relationships, and are harder to manipulate. I think waiting for membership decline to reduce our commissioners will take too long. Inexperience is a problem as well as too many commissioners. Just like we elect people to serve three year terms on committees in churches and in presbyteries, it would be good to elect commissioners to a 4 year term as GA commissioner, so they could go to two GAs.

2. Inadequate preparation. I think of this in terms of not knowing and understanding the issues vs. not being familiar with the process. I think it's hard to prepare people ahead of time for the process. It's something you really have to participate in.

3. Paul, I like both of your a and b suggestions on reducing the amount of business. I think it needs a radical reduction. Most people I know only ask about 3 issues that GA decides. The ones who are really involved ask about the top 10. Yet, we do hundreds of pieces of business, and nobody can handle the amount of knowledge to adequately deal with all of that. I think some items get delegated to GAC or OGA staff to decide. Some get delegated to GA committees to make final decisions on. On the first day of GA, the Bills and Overtures committee recommends the top 10 issues GA will deal with that week. The rest are sent back to presbyteries without a GA vote and told 'you guys talk about how you want to do this'.

Or, we could ask ourselves, how do we set the agenda for our session and presbytery meetings? When I pastored a church, the clerk of session and I set the agenda. In our presbytery, the executive committee of council (council moderator, presbytery moderator, presbytery moderator elect, executive presbyter, and stated clerk) set the agenda with the concurrence of the presbytery council. Why not do the same at GA? Let the executive committee of GAC, along with the stated clerk, and final approval of GAC set the agenda for GA?

Personally I don't see a big problem with commissioner resolutions. To me, they are kind of a pain, but maybe we could let GA committees make final decisions on them, or send them to presbytery or a GAC or OGA committee to deal with them.

4. I think adding Executive Presbyters and Stated Clerks and even some senior GAC or OGA staff as advisory delegates would be good. They have an awful lot of knowledge about what is being voted on, yet usually do not even get asked.

5. One item I would add to this list. I think it's time we recommend making a change with our YADs/YAADs. We definitely need to listen to our young people, and try to see things from their perspective, but they are hurting us far more than they are helping us. They are easily manipulated by the various groups in the church. They talk a lot in committees and in plenary, keeping more seasoned commissioners from participating. We need to create either a youth GA or a polity class (like we do for our seminarians), so they can learn the system. When GA is over, and many people are mad, the YAADs just go back to school and don't have to deal with the consequences of their actions.
Reply to ClarkReport

Post #7
Dana Knapp (Columbus, OH) wroteon January 28, 2009 at 1:41pm
I am just joining this conversation and would add some comments. I had the opportunity to serve as a commissioner to Assembly. I served on the Peace Making and Justice Committee and can state that the size of the committee inhibited our making good decisions. As you may recall we were the committee that set back to the plenary session conflicting actions. Part of this had to di wth the YADs on the committee and their abscence from the work of the committee when hey all bailed to attend the YAD event. In their abscence the folks who did not agree with earlier actions were able to pass the conflicting actions. I do think, as Clark suggests that we need to rethink the role of the YAADS at GA.

In terms of the EP/GPS and Stated Clerks being advisory members to the GA and its work, I would endorse this and did attempt to make that happen through a Commissioner's Resolution whihc never got out of committee. I found myself being able to give important advice not only tomy commissioners but other commissioners sitting around me in regards to votes on issues and the implications they would have in the grass roots if the issues passed or failed. I think we have a very important role to play as advisory members to the GA.

I consur whole heartedly with Paul and the need for some Pre-Assembly workshops prior to the start of business. The orientation is not helpful and mvoing around the convention center like herded cattle did not give people an opportunity to meet one another or have any conversation of depth or to engage the people presenting their part of the orientation.
Reply to DanaReport

Post #8
Sue Coller (St. Cloud, MN) wroteon January 29, 2009 at 7:43am
Its always interesting to let others start a conversation, then I can just add "ditto" to much of what was said. :) And I do. Especially about the size of committees, the participation of YAADs, and the issue of preparation for commissioners. Min.. Valleys is fortunate that we still send alternate commissioners to GA who, in most cases, will become our commissioners to our next GA. But I know we are in the minority in doing that.

I think a huge issue is how much support a business item has before it comes to GA. I would like to see a lot more conversation on the issues happening in sessions and presbyteryies before they are discussed at GA. Someone I think suggested that more than one presbytery be required to sign on to an overture. I would dare to suggest that at least 9 - a huge number, yes, but still only 5% of our presbyteries. That way we won't be dealing with business that is a pet issue of just one or two presbyteries and will require presbyteries who really want to bring forth business to do a lot more leg work in laying a good foundation. I keep thinking of what a Free Methodist colleague said about our GA process - that they would never bring the kinds of issues forward with the frequency we do because they seek to have more consensus in the church before bringing things for action.

Preparation at the presbytery level is a huge issue. Last time we elected our commissioners earlier than usual so we could so a bit more in helping them prepare - but we were also somewhat limited in what we could do because they did not know yet what committees they would be on, so we could not focus on helping them prepare for the particular issues they would be dealing with for the first half of their GA work.

Finally - has any group done serious study of how other churches make decisions, who use more of a discernment model? I'm tired of the "discernment" word - it is way over- and miss-used - but there is still something to be learned. The Uniting Church of Australia is the one I think we hear most about using more of a discernment model, but surely there are others we can also learn from so we don't have to completely reinvent the wheel if we want to try something different. It would be interesting to talk to the woman who headed up the change in process at the UCA and talk with her about what she learned from leading them in that shift. I think her name is Jill Talbert? Or something like that.
Reply to SueReport

Post #9
Clark Cowden (San Diego, CA) wroteon January 29, 2009 at 10:34am
Sue, I think your idea of getting at least 9 presbyteries to sign on to an overture before it will be addressed by the GA is a great idea. We talk about how to build consensu at GA, but I think we need to build more consensus before we get to GA. This would be a way to do it. A national assembly should really deal with national issues, that a number of presbyteries feel is important enough for us to spend time on. If an overture is only supported by one or two presbyteries, that's not a national issue. That's a local issue that those presbyteries should decide. If only one or two presbyteries care enough to support an overture, the GA doesn't really need to spend time on that.
Reply to ClarkReport

Post #10
Tom Hay wroteon January 29, 2009 at 11:21am
Good stuff. What has been coming up to the surface are some important management principles -- smaller committees make better decisions; better trained and experienced commissioners make better decisions; an agenda that reflects the true issues of the church rather than the pet ideas of a few encourages better decisions. No question.

But what happens when these management principles conflict with some values we share -- wide and generous participation; an assembly (with the Spirit) has the right to set it's own agenda; processes which protect the minority from the power of the majority.

What does our theology have to say in relation to our management principles? Do we really think the church is trustful enough to cut the number of commissioners in half because it is good management strategy? Help me think through the values.
Reply to TomReport

Post #11
Clark Cowden (San Diego, CA) wroteon January 29, 2009 at 3:28pm
Tom, thanks for your post. There will definitely be conflict here. This is part of moving into a new paradigm. I would say two things:
1. We develop a GA that more closely follows session and presbytery models. How do sessions and presbyteries develop their agendas? They don't let anybody bring anything at any time. If something comes up unexpectedly, sometimes we deal with it right then, and sometimes we put it off to the next meeting. GA can learn to do that too.
2. We say that the wide and generous participation happens leading up to the Assembly. If only one presbytery brings an overture, that's not wide and generous participation. If 10 presbyteries bring the same overture, that is. I would also suggest that business from Advisory and Advocacy committees be sent to the presbyteries first, to see if there is wide and generous interest at the grass roots level, before we waste time at GA dealing with an issue that very few people are passionate about.

The other paradigm shift going on is why do we gather together as governing bodies? What is the purpose of our meetings? I think more and more presbyteries are saying that we do not gather to vote on motions. We are gathering to build relationships, to become a learning community, to talk theology, to do ministry training, to share mission stories, etc. The last thing our people want to do anymore is vote. GA can learn to shift to this paradigm too.
Reply to ClarkReport

Post #12
Wayne A. Yost wroteon February 2, 2009 at 4:39pm
In an era of radical democratization in church and society people are less willing to trust smaller groups in decision making. "If I, or somebody I have personally picked, do not get to vote on the issue I don't trust the decision." Lessening the number of commissioners is a good idea, but folks back home will cry that smaller groups can be manipulated more easily.

As for EPs and SCs having advisory voice/vote either in committees or plenary, what do we do with the suspicion and distrust many have that too many of us want to act like bishops?

The plenary debates/discussions are not rational. Each speaker throws a statement against the wall and hopes it will stick. There is no logical back and forth where the statement of speaker B relates to the statement of speaker A. The debates/discussions are sound bites more often geared to emotions than reason.

What if we were to ask, "What is/are the compelling reason(s) for this piece of business to be before the Assembly?" I underscore "compelling." I know that for some any particular piece of business is there for a compelling"reason. I like the idea of presbytery or synod overtures requiring support from other presbyteries or synods. However, in relation to Clark's comment that the last thing people want to do is more voting, wouldn't we have to vote on whether or not to add our support to several overtures which are being proposed?

I wonder what we really mean by "discernment." Does it mean just taking more time in more deliberate prayer and listening? Are we willing to either attempt to do a whole lot less or take a whole lot more time? what would happen if after each plenary time of debate/discussion we were to have a significant period of silence for reflection and prayer? Does discernment mean protracting the debate until we have worn down people on the other side? Are we convinced any better decisions would be made if we were making decisions in a different pattern? Would it help to break away from Robert's Rules and say that every action would need a 66% affirmative vote to pass? What if we used the 66% and had the opportunity for another round of debate/discussion if a measure did not get the 66%, but did get more than 50%. Anything with less than 50% support on the first ballot would be considered defeated.

Probably enough said in this posting.
Reply to WayneReport

Post #13
Clark Cowden (San Diego, CA) wroteon February 2, 2009 at 10:41pm
Wayne, Thanks for your ideas. I think we need to look at doing a whole lot less. I think asking for a 66% affirmation for a vote to pass is a great idea.

I think that people don't care if smaller groups make decisions on issues they don't care about. I think people don't care if EPs and SCs have an advisory vote on issues they don't care about. And most of GA today is on issues that people don't care about. Unfortunately, the small number of issues that people do care about are handled poorly, with decisions made by people who don't have all the knowledge and information they need. This small number of decisions does a massive amount of damage on the denomination after every GA meeting, alienating people, breaking down our connectionalism, and causing people to ask why we still belong to this troubled church.
Reply to ClarkReport

Post #14
Wayne A. Yost wroteon February 3, 2009 at 9:56am
It would be interesting to look at the business from the last few Assemblies and have a diverse group decide what are issues people don't care about and which they do.

I think one of our problems, across the church, is we don't know how to say NO. If a session or presbytery committee sends something to the presbytery as a possible overture, the presbytery is loathe to say no. If a person becomes an inquirer, the CPM is reluctant to say no and possibly upset the church from which the person is a member.

I admit I do not like to be told no, so I understand the reactions of others when they think their cause is just or their program is the fix-all for a particular issue when they are told no. In too many cases, if a particular vote does not go the way some folks think it should, they become upset and are alienated. Even if the Assembly were to make no decisions or if it were to pass everything which comes before it, somebody is going to be alienated. The only medicine for this would seem to be Phillippians 2:1-4, but it is sure hard to practice.

The first line of defense against the Assembly being overwhelmed with business is the presbytery. Not everything needs to be sent on to the Assembly just because a particular session overtures the presbytery to overture the GA.
Reply to WayneReport

Post #15
Clark Cowden (San Diego, CA) wroteon February 4, 2009 at 12:17pm
Wayne, Amen and Amen. If we did a better job saying no, we would have a lot less problems.
Reply to ClarkReport

Post #16
Tom Hay wroteon February 12, 2009 at 3:26pm
It seems to me that one thing stops us from moving toward the wisdom being lifted up here: Trust. Do we trust each other enough to let a smaller group govern and a small group edit the business before the Assembly?
Reply to TomReport

Post #17
Wayne A. Yost wroteon February 14, 2009 at 8:20am
That is THE question. It seems the answer is "no." It seems we are doing are best to live like the early church, filled with strife. Why are we surprised with "party spirit," and deep conflict?

What I see is more and more of our people want to function as pure democracy. Everybody wants to vote on everything. I believe acceptance of decisions by the GA would be helped if votes were required to have a greater majority than 50% + 1. That level does not inspire trust.
Reply to WayneReport

Post #18
Clark Cowden (San Diego, CA) wroteon February 16, 2009 at 11:15am
Yes, trust is a major problem. But, I still think we can make some changes.

1. When we went to biennial assemblies, we increased the number of commissioners from about 550-750. The process, the quality of decisions, and the level of trust have all decreased since then. At the very least, we could roll back to 550. But, I think we can do more. If all 171 presbyteries sent one elder and one pastor, that would give us 342 commissioners. That would be enough. The large presbyteries would not be happy. So, if we give those with more than 20,000 members an extra elder and pastor, that would give us maybe 400 commissioners.

2. Each GA makes about 750 decisions. I would suggest 99% of our members have no clue what 700 of those decisions are. So, they are already trusting somebody to make those decisions for them. After GA, people only ask me about 3 decisions. Those who are really involved want to know about 10. They don't want to participate in decisions they don't care about, only those they do care about, and don't trust others to make for them. So, we identify the issues that people won't trust to a smaller group (fidelity/chastity, property, Israel, authoritative interpretations, etc.) You divide your 400 commissioners into 10 committees. Each committee only has 1-2 decisions to make. They have two whole days to pray together, read scripture together, build relationships, and discuss all the ramifications in depth.

3. If you increase the percentage needed to pass a decision at GA to 66%, people will trust a smaller group to make those decisions.

4. If you require that all 10-20 decisions made at GA to be approved by 2/3 of the presbyteries, people will trust a smaller group to make those decisions. It can be done.
Reply to ClarkReport

Post #19
Wayne A. Yost wroteon February 16, 2009 at 4:09pm
Ah, but who is going to make the other 680 decisions?

If presbyteries vote to ratify the decisions of the GA, won't sessions want to ratify decisions of presbyteries, and congregations want to verify the decisions of the session?
Reply to WayneReport

Post #20
Tom Hay wroteon February 20, 2009 at 8:16am
Presbyteries already ratify some of the decisions GA makes -- specifically constiututional changes and covenants with other denominations.

I want to figure out how many of those 700 decisions are really just routine approval of reports from agencies, schools, boards, etc.

One of the ideas that has lots of legs, is to let committee decisions that are unanimous in committee become the actions of the Assembly, so that the whole assemly does not have to deal with those routine actions. This would be a first filter.
Reply to TomReport

Post #21
Tom Hay wroteon February 25, 2009 at 10:40am
Statistics! I played around with some committee work this morning. Picked 5 rather random GA committees from the 218th GA to see how many items they had, how many were brought to the GA for approval and how many to disapprove. And how many received unanimous votes from the committee.

Here is what I found out:

Voting Records: 218th GA

General Assembly Procedures:
26 items of business requiring action
Recommend approval (sometimes with amendment) 16
Recommend Disapproval 9
Answer with action on another resolution 1
14 Unanimous votes

Mission Coordination and Budgets
31 items of business requiring action
Recommend approval (sometimes with amendment) 28
Recommend Disapproval 1
Answer with action on another resolution 2
13 unanimous votes

Social Justice Issues
20 items of business requiring action
Recommend approval (sometimes with amendment) 18
Recommend Disapproval 0
Answer with action on another resolution 2
5 unanimous votes

Peacemaking and International Issues
32 items of business requiring action
Recommend approval (sometimes with amendment) 21
Recommend Disapproval 3
Answer with action on another resolution 8
10 unanimous votes

Chu

Here's a test.