The Real Business of the Assembly: Day 3

When the moderator’s entourage came to Committee 5 (Mid Council Issues) today, and Assembly vice moderator Larissa Kwong Abazia addressed the committee, she told them to hang tough: “It’s like a marathon. There’s a lot of Assembly left to go, and it’s still only Tuesday. No, Monday. Wait, what day is today?” Larissa can certainly be forgiven for losing track of time here. It is a nearly non-stop ride of business, worship, events, and fellowship (often of the libational variety). And it’s still only…Monday.

Monday is the day when Assembly standing committees get into full swing. After the committees convene with worship, they begin the process of working through the particular items of business assigned to them. Each committee is free to set their agenda a little differently, but the same general pattern holds: first, hold “open hearings” to receive input from Assembly attenders who have signed up to speak to a particular topic; then presentations from overture advocates representing the sponsoring presbyteries, and responses, if called for, from General Assembly entities. The committee can also invite corresponding and advisory members to speak to a topic (as I will speak on the Mid Councils Commission recommendations tomorrow).  They may have a period of less structured discussion as a “committee of the whole” in order to determine if there is a consensus to approve, disapprove, refer, or answer with a different item. At some point, they return to formal process, a motion is made, and they proceed using Gen. Robert’s famous rules.

Because of the volume of business to be covered in a short amount of time, assemblies give great deference to the recommendations that emerge from standing committees. It’s a simple division of labor, and since committees are large enough to be representative of the whole assembly (typically between 50 and 70 members), it is likely the committee will reflect the will of the Assembly. That is why veteran strategists know that the “real business” of the Assembly happens in the committees. The outcome in committee will almost always be the decision of the Assembly (99% on routine items, 90-95% on debated items).

I spent most of my time today in Committee 5, the Mid Council Issues standing committee, getting a feel for how well the committee and its leaders function in handling business. This is a committee which works together well. They listen to each other, speak respectfully, and share the conversation.  They generally came to sound decisions on the items before them today.  The big issue today was the future of Hanmi Presbytery in the Synod of Southern California & Hawaii (see my previous blog on “sleeper” issues). After several hours of testimony and deliberation, they ultimately decided to recommend approval of the overture from the Synod seeking to dissolve the presbytery – which was founded in 1984 as the first Korean-language presbytery in the denomination.

But another items was unexpectedly interesting. It involved a Commissioner’s Resolution to establish a requirement of full disclosure of the legal history of ministers who are the topic of executive background checks. A commissioner’s resolution originates at the request of three or more commissioners at an Assembly. It is an item of business with no previous history. What made this one noteworthy was the gross overreach of jurisdiction by the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly (COGA), which requested the item be referred to them (and which the committee innocently obliged). COGA is charged with the review of the work done by the Stated Clerk and the various departments of ecclesiastical service (as opposed to mission) under his direction.

Speaking for COGA, member Jim Wilson (a former moderator of the ACC) informed the committee that it should be referred to them rather than the Office of Vocations or the Office of the Stated Clerk “because they are an elected body and the Stated Clerk reports to them.” This disregards the fact that Executive Presbyters are accountable to their presbyteries, not the General Assembly, and that COGA’s prescribed role is “to carry out the assembly’s oversight of the Stated Clerk and the Office of the General Assembly; to assure the accountability of the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly during the interim between sessions of the assembly.” Nothing there about handling referrals on issues of ethics. The appropriate GA entity to deal with this should have been the Office of Vocations, with input from the Office of Constitutional Interpretation - as suggested by one commissioner before it was seized by COGA.

Some have suggested that a power vortex is forming in what is designed as a review committee – “The Presbyterian Curia” as someone (not me) put it. I have previously written about their move to occupy a third of the seats on the second Mid Council Commission. It has even been suggested that the particular form of the Commission’s recommendations (to be acted on tomorrow) will lead either by design or default to COGA determining the boundaries of synods and presbyteries should the proposed consolidation process end up being referred to an MCC3 commission in 2016. I am not attributing this to malice -- COGA is comprised of good, conscientious Presbyterians. I would suggest it is very possibly the systemic response to the weakening of the office of Stated Clerk in the denomination since the end of the "imperial" Stated Clerk. 

There was business in other committees, of course – but no recommendations on the “hot button” issues have been adopted yet. That will happen tomorrow.