Documents released on efforts to manipulate stated clerk vote
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, July 27, 2004
Twenty-four of Clifton Kirkpatrick’s supporters were lined up to control the microphones and ask him “friendly” questions before commissioners to the 216th General Assembly elected Kirkpatrick on July 2 to a third four-year term as stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Kirkpatrick won with two-thirds of the vote.
The participants in an apparent effort to manipulate the election in Kirkpatrick’s favor were identified in a two-page document released to The Layman Online by the Rev. Linn Rus Howard, one of Kirkpatrick’s three evangelical rivals.
Howard said he also made it available to others in hopes that the document would demonstrate the gravity of the stated clerk’s election and the need to ensure fairness.
One page included 10 suggested questions. The other page included assignments for the seven microphones used by commissioners and delegates during the question-and-answer period before the election.
Those selected to ask Kirkpatrick-friendly questions were chosen because of their support for him and their assigned seats near the microphones.
Howard hopes that the lists will be used as part of the investigation of the stated clerk election process that was ordered by the General Assembly.
During the question-and-answer period just before commissioners voted in the stated clerk election, Howard disclosed to the assembly that he had found the list of questions and microphone assignments in a trash can.
Moderator Rick Ufford-Chase supposedly was selecting commissioners at random from the seven microphones being used during the plenary session on the evening before the General Assembly adjourned. But his selections matched the names on Howard’s list.
After Howard’s disclosure and a later acknowledgement by Kirkpatrick that some of his supporters were taking steps on his behalf, the General Assembly voted overwhelmingly (436-77) to have the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly “investigate the integrity, openness, and fairness of our electoral process.”
Kirkpatrick denied that he gave any instructions to his supporters and Ufford-Chase said he was unaware of an orchestrated effort to control the microphones and ask questions that gave Kirkpatrick the edge. Yet, during the questions and answers, Howard noted that the first four questions were taken from the script and posed by commissioners and delegates who were on the list.
The Rev. Timothy Harrison of the Presbytery of Elizabeth, saying he had “grave concerns” about the election, introduced the motion for the investigation.
Harrison added that he feared the voices of some commissioners were marginalized if the process for calling on commissioners during the question period was not fair. Because of his objections to manipulation of the stated clerk election, Harrison has resigned the rest of his tenure as a commissioner to the 216th General Assembly. He would have remained in office until the new commissioners are installed for the 217th General Assembly in 2006.
One of the “captains” for the pro-Kirkpatrick lineup was Commissioner Scott Schaefer of San Francisco, who formerly worked with Kirkpatrick as an associate stated clerk. Schaefer, a fundraiser for San Francisco Theological Seminary, was moderator of the Committee on Church Orders and Ministry.
Before the General Assembly met, Kirkpatrick refused to accept an invitation to participate in a debate before an audience that might not have been so friendly. Howard and the other two candidates – Bob Davis and Alex F. Metherell – did participate in that debate.
Also, the Presbyterian News Service, the denomination’s medium, published a glowing profile of Kirkpatrick a few days before the General Assembly. It ran brief descriptions of the other candidates in another story, but Kirkpatrick, who was depicted as an intellectual with an endearingly friendly demeanor, was clearly the favorite of his fellow employees in the news service.