Full-disclosure advice and counsel
By James D. Berkley, The Layman, January 30, 2009
BERKELEY, Calif. – At any General Assembly, advocacy and advisory committees enjoy the privileged status of providing “Advice and Counsel” communications to the commissioners. These memos get attached to items of assembly business and are sent to the commissioners in the official papers they receive from the Office of the General Assembly. The Advice and Counsel (A&C) papers carry weight and can be a powerful way to influence votes.
On the final day of the winter meeting of the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP), one of the committee members brought up some unease he had about the use of A&Cs at last summer’s General Assembly. John Knapp was on the ACSWP team in San Jose working on A&Cs and wrote some himself, so he was speaking from experience. “I have some concern that A&C comments are being published as from the whole committee,” he began. Although the A&Cs are typically written by an individual and then edited and approved by a subcommittee of the ACSWP, the A&Cs are worded as if the whole ACSWP were providing the advice and counsel. “I think we need a process for all of us to see the counsel and then comment on it before it is published,” Knapp suggested. “Once they’re before a committee, it is too late.”
Knapp seemed troubled about a couple of matters. First, “I don’t want anything designated as coming out from ACSWP that I haven’t seen.” The advice obviously couldn’t come from him or the committee if neither has ever seen it. In addition, what is an ACSWP member to do if the A&C proves to be contrary to what that person would agree to, or if it seems to violate good sense or group process? “Is there a way to get feedback?” he asked, suggesting vetting the A&C by e-mail.
A second problem with the current system, according to Knapp, is that “When I’m at GA, I feel at a disadvantage when asked about some items.” The items supposedly are coming from the ACSWP, and yet they might be totally unknown to him, even though he is actively functioning as an ACSWP worker at the Assembly. It is embarrassing to have to plead ignorance. But even more awkward is his disclosure of not being in the loop on that item, since it uncovers the conceit that the A&C is from the ACSWP as a whole.
So what is the A&C subcommittee to do? Things do move quickly at a General Assembly. “There are two problems that complicate matters,” co-chair Ron Kernaghan interjected. “First, there is a problem with commissioners’ resolutions.” The commissioners’ resolutions come in at the last minute, and if an A&C is to be written, it needs to be done very quickly on the spot. Vetting the A&C would slow down the process or be next to impossible.
Second, Kernaghan added, “we are sometimes asked for an A&C at GA on items we haven’t seen before.” The fact that ACSWP might want to weigh in on a given item may have escaped the Office of General Assembly prior to the Assembly, but then someone may notice that a certain business item does actually fall within ACSWP’s area of interest or expertise. Thus, in the rush of business at General Assembly, the A&C subcommittee may need to wing it on the official advice it provides – again, with precious little time to poll the whole ACSWP for its opinion.
Trust and buy-in appear to be at the heart of the kind of caution John Knapp was expressing. If all A&Cs were routine and all advice and counsel rendered were “just the facts, ma’am” and absolutely neutral, there would be little to worry about. But often the A&C subjects lend themselves to conjecture, bias and politics. The ACSWP often has an ax to grind, just as affinity groups or caucuses have their own slants on matters.
The ACSWP, through its officially distributed A&Cs, has a distinct advantage, however, being able to push its ideology through denomination-published channels. Thus, just what is said in an A&C seems legitimately of concern to committee members, such as Knapp. And exactly how the A&Cs are produced and what real weight of authority they carry is of concern to those who value a level playing field at the General Assembly.
“An A&C is supposedly written on existing policy,” Co-Chair Gloria Albrecht reminded the committee. While that is the theory, those who follow the history of ACSWP A&Cs might beg to differ. It is always a struggle for any advisory group to advise and not advocate, and the ACSWP has not always exercised restraint.
“The A&Cs are written by people close to the situation,” continued Albrecht, supplying in her mind a reason to trust the current process. However, “people close to the situation” may well be persons who have a strong personal interest in the ideology of the matter, parties who would find it exceedingly difficult not to advocate for a specific decision, rather than confining A&C remarks to dry policy and precedent matters.
The committee wrestled some time with the matter, understanding that the reliability of its advice and counsel and the integrity of the individual committee members are at stake. “I’m hesitant to say [polling ACSWP members] should always be done,” Albrecht concluded, “but let’s say we’ll try to submit A&Cs to the entire committee membership by e-mail for comment ‘to the extent possible.’”
Still, Albrecht’s co-chair, Ron Kernaghan, was uneasy. “Let me be honest,” he began. “I have given four days to write A&Cs, and I realize a good effort should be made to have the full committee weigh in. But when I am done writing, I don’t have much appetite for further discussion.” It is difficult to open up Pandora’s box for comments, and the A&C writers often operate under major time constraints and fatigue.
Members of the committee seemed to understand Kernaghan’s reluctance to complicate the process. But John Knapp returned to a sober reality. “The A&C writers do exercise judgment,” he contended. “There is subjectivity that goes into the writing, and it becomes an official public statement from ACSWP – seen as important as anything we publish.” If it is going to be advertised as coming from the whole committee, he argued, committee members have a responsibility to know and shape what is attributed to them as a whole.
The discussion will resume and a decision will be made at the next ACSWP meeting, May 14–17 in Washington, D.C. “In only a few cases at the margins would we not heed a [committee member’s] comment,” assured ACSWP coordinator Chris Iosso, speaking as one who makes such decisions.