ACSWP seeks to censor
meeting, draft report information
By Carmen Fowler, The Layman, January 25, 2010
LOUISVILLE, Ky. – The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy concluded its meeting Jan. 24 by failing to agree on the final content of the papers it is slated to present to the 219th General Assembly and tabling a discussion of protocols related to the denomination’s Open Meeting Policy.
Related Stories
Commentary: Did you get your gag order? I got mine
Your stake in open
meetings, part 1
Your stake in open
meetings, part 2
ACSWP re-write of human
life paper secret
The proposed protocol states that “by virtue of the ruling from the Stated Clerk’s office, if the full committee goes into a confidential meeting to discuss the budget and personnel matters or if the full committee breaks into subcommittees or work groups, observers are not entitled to be present for those sessions.” Jerry Van Marter, of the Presbyterian News Service, reminded ACSWP that if the authority of the committee was delegated to any sub-committee, then that meeting must remain open.
In 2008, the denomination’s Open Meeting policy was amended by action of the General Assembly after observers were not allowed access to the documents being discussed in committee meetings. ACSWP’s proposed protocol sought to clarify that ruling by stating that: “At the meeting you may have copies of the documents that ACSWP is discussing, and those copies will be given to you in the session where they are discussed. The purpose of giving you copies is to make it easier for you to follow the deliberations of the committee. These documents are the property of ACSWP and must be returned at the end of the session in which they are considered. Observers are given temporary access to documents before the committee on the understanding that they will not be quoted from or referred to in any outside literature, blogs or conversations until the committee has sent them on to the General Assembly or the General Assembly Mission Council. Violation of that principle may result in the loss of the privilege of receiving such documents in the future.”
Bill Gray, a liaison to ACSWP from the Advisory Committee on Women’s Concerns (ACWC) wanted to see the paragraph strengthened to expressly prohibit photocopying, scanning or otherwise electronically transmitting content from the documents.
Eventually, objections were raised. Van Marter objected that prohibiting the press from “referring to” the documents under discussion would render it impossible to report on the meetings. Carmen Fowler, reporting for The Layman, further objected to ACSWP seeking to censor speech in conversations following the meetings citing the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
ACSWP member, John Knapp, said, “I cannot support this with the final two sentences in paragraph three as they now appear.” To which General Assembly staffer, Chris Iosso responded, “the language there comes from Mark Tammen in the 2006 statement about documents.”
Knapp restated his concern, “I think that a person who reads a document and observes in a blog that this is what is being discussed by ACSWP is well within their rights to do that.”
Ron Kernaghan, co-chair of ACSWP answered, “If they are using a word or two, it’s OK. The rules of plagiarism applied throughout academia apply here. The repeating of an entire sentence or paragraph is problematic.” Kernaghan, who drafted the proposed protocols, continued, “These protocols were worked out with the office of the Stated Clerk to protect the draft nature of the document until it is adopted and sent on.”
Tammen’s response to The Layman’s inquiry regarding his response to ACSWP’s protocols was received via e-mail: “Basically I pointed him (Ron Kernaghan) to the additional sentence in #2, added by the 218th GA, requiring that GA committees share draft documents being reviewed by the whole committee. I think I also pointed him to the rationale for that chance, which reminds committees and observers about their respective responsibilities.”
Later in the discussion, ACSWP member Bill Saint asked for an explanation of the origin of the sanction language for those who fail to comply with the protocol. Chris Iosso answered, “I believe it comes from the GA statement. Either from Mark Tammen or originating with him.”
A committee member then asked to see a copy of the Open Meeting policy. None were available and reference to the one on the GA Web site does not reflect the fully policy as updated by the 2008 General Assembly. That action is reflected on PC-Biz.org, but not on the denomination’s Web posting of the policy.
Before the committee voted to table the discussion until a Task Force could edit the protocol taking into account the committee’s discussion, Kernaghan reminded the committee, “I would like to stipulate that this document has been run by the Stated Clerk’s office and it is in order.”
The motion to table until the report of the task force is complete passed unanimously.
All quotes from the document under discussion are taken from an email received prior to the meeting of ACSWP by The Layman. At that point, the protocols were represented as the standard practice of ACSWP, which the committee is formalizing in printed form for inclusion in their manual of operations.