Committee favors restricted access to PCUSA meetings
By Paula R. Kincaid, The Layman Online, February 16, 2000
LOUISVILLE – The executive committee of the General Assembly Council voted on Feb. 15 to restrict the access of church members and media representatives to any Presbyterian Church (USA) event where no business is conducted.
The proposed policy will be presented to the full General Assembly Council later this week. Even if the council approves the change, it will not become official unless it is adopted by commissioners to the 2000 General Assembly in Long Beach, Calif.
Currently, the General Assembly’s open-meetings policy allows closed meetings only to consider confidential personnel matters, security, litigation and property acquisition. It says all “work done and decisions made” by the General Assembly and its committees and boards will be open to the media and visitors.
The focus of the more restrictive proposal approved by the Council is whether boards and committees can hold secret meetings to discuss non-business matters deemed “personal” by the participants. Opponents raised concerns that closed meetings could involve significant behind-the-scenes comment on issues that are not fully discussed when considered for final action. They also said closed meetings would remove from public scrutiny the promotion of ideas and theology that do not conform to denominational standards.
‘Advocates for openness’
“There are no greater advocates for openness than the elected members and staff of the committee,” said John Silbert, chair of the advisory committee that drafted the proposed change. There is darkness when there is misunderstanding and lack of clarity. We believe that we need to have a policy that would provide clarity and light for non-business meetings.”
His mention of darkness referred to statements given earlier in the day by members of the Presbyterian Renewal Network, who favored keeping all meetings of the church open.
Renewal leaders speak
Alan Wisdom of Presbyterian Action, Terry Schlossberg of Presbyterians Pro-Life, Parker T. Williamson of The Presbyterian Layman and Sylvia Dooling of Voices of Orthodox Women spoke to the executive committee.
“General Assembly events are not the best setting the church has to offer for an individual grappling with sensitive ‘personal issues of life,'” Wisdom said. “The speakers and small group facilitators are not usually trained counselors or therapists. The other participants do not comprise a known, trusted, consistent, mutually accountable ‘support group.’ In many cases, the troubled individual may never have met the other participants before – and may never meet them again. It is foolish to attempt some kind of ‘therapy on the cheap’ in a few short small group sessions over a two or three-day event. And such an attempt diverts the event from its objective, which is to strengthen the congregational, national, and worldwide ministries of the church.”
“Denominational entities supported by the congregations’ mission dollars must operate with integrity. And they must be perceived to operate with integrity,” said Schlossberg. “Closing meetings raise suspicions. Suspicions fester and grow even where meetings behind closed doors involve no wrongdoing at all. That is because suspicions are a natural result of meetings held in the dark.”
Current policy applauded
“This excellent [current] policy is consistent with the character of Christian witness. The very nature of our faith is public proclamation. … What could they [proponents of the loophole] possibly want to hide, and especially from sisters and brothers in the faith? Scripture speaks of those who love darkness rather than light. It says they do so because their deeds are evil,” said Williamson.
“The body of Christ has never expected a ‘safe’ place tucked away from the listening ears of the Church. In fact, Jesus taught we are a light set up on a hill – exposed, speaking the good news of the gospel from the rooftops,” said Dooling. “Not only during times of distrust, but at all times in all places, we should never seek to hide under cover because people are ‘sharing personal issues of faith and life.'”
Williamson read into the record a published statement by Robert Bullock, editor of The Presbyterian Outlook: “We believe that there is a clear danger of unintended consequences: the inevitable use of this loophole to close meetings to protect GA staff, elected officials and officially invited group leaders from press scrutiny of their words and actions … the Church does have a right to know what is being said by those who represent it officially.”
Small groups
Silbert explained that under the proposed policy the only time a non-business gathering could be closed was by the choice of small group participants “whose purpose is the sharing of personal issues of faith and life.”
Executive committee member Thomas E. Fisher asked for definitions of terms used in the policy including “non-business gathering” “active participation” and “small.”
Joanne Hull, a member of the Advisory Committee on the News and the executive committee, said, “The language was broad so we could make it applicable to a variety of situations.”
“We need to provide a little bit of wiggle room to provide for all of the possibilities,” said Silbert.
Openness is the norm, said Silbert. “Where we move away from that is in the intimate sharing in small groups.”
Silbert had high praise for the denomination’s open-meeting policy. He said the proposed change does not alter that policy. Instead, it limits those circumstances in which the policy may be applied.
Related stories
PCUSA group proposes closing doors
to portions of denominational meetings
The Presbyterian Layman
Nov/Dec 1999