Sunday, June 15, 2014

On Maneuvers: Day 2

Sunday of General Assembly is generally a Sabbatical from business. It begins with worship in local congregations, which helps the commissioners and observers get a larger picture for the host community. I attended First Presbyterian Church of Farmington Hills – the home church of my seminary field education mentor Sue Ellis Melrose (who is also vice-moderator of the Committee on Local Arrangements). Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons was the preacher, and the occasion was also the 60th anniversary of the church’s chartering – believed to be the only such chartering to have been conducted by a General Assembly during the Assembly (which met in Detroit in 1954). It was an uplifting service and we were warmly welcomed. Other Assembly-goers reported equally positive experiences among the forty or so host congregations.

Then it was back to the COBO center for an afternoon of light business. This included the installation of the Assembly vice-moderator, Larissa Kwong Abazia of the Presbytery of New York City. After last night’s stunning first ballot win for new moderator Heath Rada, many attributed the surprise victory to his savvy choice of a vice-moderator candidate.

But the brief afternoon session also included the first genuine procedural maneuver of the Assembly. Commissioners from New Covenant Presbytery (disclosure: in my synod) proposed a motion that the Assembly be permitted to poll Executive Presbyters as an advisory group (similar to YAADs,TSADs, MADs, and EADs). The motion was before the Assembly with no warning, it was rushed to a vote by the new moderator, and was adopted by a show of hands (well, voting cards). This has major significance for a number of reasons, and is likely to be challenged. The significance is that it is the first time such advisory powers have been given to a group with established power in the church. Advisory votes are designed to empower those on the margins, or those with whom we have important mission relationships. An advisory vote given to those already with power in the church has the appearance of a power grab.

It is also significant because the two sources of this motion are leaders in the presbyteries of New Covenant and National Capital – the two most outspoken supporters of the Israeli side in the hot-button divestment issue. This has given rise to the speculation in some quarters that there may be a hidden agenda to this maneuver. True or not, it casts suspicion on the motion. It did not help that the inexperienced moderator made remarks in calling for the vote that could have been heard as advocacy for the motion (a moderatorial no-no).

But it appears that major procedural mistakes were made. Advisory delegates and their voting rights are specified in the Standing Rules of the Assembly (B.2.b-c), so that extending advisory privileges to others constitutes a suspension of the rules. Standing Rule L.3 (on suspension of the rules) provides (1) that the motion must first be submitted to the Committee on the General Assembly for review (it was not clear that such a review was made, and I, at least, did not hear them report); and (2) that adoption requires a 2/3 majority vote. The 2/3 majority requirement was not indicated prior to the vote, and from where I sat, the ayes appeared to be less than a 2/3 majority.  I understand that a division has been called for by a commissioner, and that it will be revisited when the Assembly reconvenes in plenary on Wednesday.

If there is any consolation to be found here, granting advisory status to EPs could backfire big-time. Commissioners typically disdain advice rendered by synod executives at the Assembly (who, as corresponding members have voice but not vote). I don't expect EPs will get any warmer reception.

Was this just a procedural snafu, or are there other agendas afoot? We shall see. But the maneuvers have commenced. 

3 comments:

  1. Prayers are with all the commissioners - may God open ears and hearts and minds - praying for our Church.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gosh Dan, my sinister plot is foiled. Must confess I have a magical advisory vote card, which when I wave it renders all commissioners subject to my infallible opinion. I pulled it from a ream of paper. No one else was able to get it out, Said "Ex Caliber" at the top. I gave half of it to Mike Cole. We're going to pull it out on the Middle East Committee today.

    Seriously Dan, do you know how paranoid you are sounding right now?

    1. I agree the moderator rushed the vote and did not allow discussion, nor did the assembly rise to give it.
    2. According to the motion, the Moderator "may" seek the Executives' advice. Not "shall". Probably best that Exec's advice not be sought on Israel/Palestine. I would abstain if asked for it. However for Synod reconfiguration, the Moderator may perceive that the assembly might profit from what the Execs have to offer in that regard. On the proposed D-10 change we hear from the ACC (which you recently served) which wields remarkable power on every GA Committee and pretends it "only" has a Constitutional comment. Why would the Assembly not hear from Execs who do the other side of the heavy lifting on Sexual Misconduct?
    3. The real value to the church would be to have one clerk and one Exec with voice (not vote) on each Committee. Too often I witness questions by commissioners to which a clerk or Exec would have the answers. We also are aware how certain matters might fly in our congregations. It might be that Commissioners share a sufficient degree of your paranoia to refuse again to value our advice with an occasional advisory vote and would seethe value instead of an committee level advisory voice.
    4. I defer to your expertise, however, in all matters Constitutional. You do know your stuff there.
    Wilson Gunn, General Presbyter, National Capital Presbytery

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your critique, Wilson. I am glad to hear from you that you and Mike, both of whom I hold in high esteem, were not acting duplicitously. Am I paranoid? Who told you?!

      Seriously, when business is rushed and the Assembly is asked to vote on something without proper context or preparation, confusion and distrust are the result. As I unpacked in my memory that night what had happened, I wondered if there no debate because of an oversight, or because a motion to suspend standing rules is not debatable. The motion clearly deviated from traditional Assembly practice, and how it is governed under the Standing Rules should have been explained, especially so early in what was not a regular business session. (IMHO, it should have been postponed for consideration until Wednesday.)

      The rumor relative to a hidden agenda came from someone deeply engaged with the Israel-Palestine issue. I thought that opinion was noteworthy, because even if unsubstantiated, it reveals how failing to provide clear moderatorial guidance can fuel distrust.

      It is not for me to defend the work of the ACC at this Assembly, but at least they have a constitutionally established right to comment. I agree there might be occasions where the input of the executives could be of benefit to the Assembly, but the same is true of others in position of influence such as GA staff.

      It is not the maker of the motion's responsibility to know the Standing Rules - it is the Clerk's. And it is not your fault it was not handled well by the Moderator (who gets a pass since it was his very first item of non-routine business).

      And, I had no idea that the blog would be picked up by the Outlook. I got 10x the normal number of page hits than normal. Now THAT makes me paranoid!

      Delete