Council of the Assembly (Amendment F) is a bad idea
By Fred L. Denson, The Layman Online, January 5, 2000
At first glimpse, proposed Amendment F seems like a good idea — a simple concept worthy of favorable consideration. Various reports describe it as calling for the creation of a small Council of the Assembly (21 members) to coordinate the work of agencies of the General Assembly and to resolve conflict.
In reality, it is a complex proposal that would, in my opinion, have an adverse impact on church governance. There are a myriad of complexities that flow from the Council of Assembly’s proposed responsibilities which involve much more than coordination and dispute reso-lution. Some of its other responsibilities include promoting the spiritual welfare of the whole church, consulting with other governing bodies regarding staff and the mission of the whole church, ensuring maintenance of equal employment and affirmative action programs, budgeting, overseeing the stated clerk and Office of the General Assembly and planning General Assembly meetings.
The impact of Amendment F is not readily apparent from reviewing the surface of the proposal. A deeper examination reveals at least nine reasons why it is not such a good idea and is not worthy of approval.
Representation
Representation on the General Assembly Council, which currently consists of about 75 members, is diverse and inclusive. The membership includes representatives from each of the denomination’s 16 synods (100 percent) and from 50 presbyteries (about 30 percent).
It also includes three moderators of the General Assembly, two youth/young adult members, the moderator of Presbyterian Women and four ecumenical advisory members from other denominations in the United States and other countries.
Members are representative of various racial ethnic groups (Native American, Middle East-ern, Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian and African American). The current council also includes persons of different marital conditions (married, single, widowed, divorced), different theo-logical positions within the Reformed tradition, persons with various disabilities and a good balance of lay, clergy, females and males. The quality of the council’s decision making process is enriched by the diversity and inclusiveness of its membership.
The proposed Council of Assembly inherently lacks the ability to be a widely diverse and inclusive body because of its size and method of selection of its members. This has an adverse impact on the quality of its decision making processes and consequently, on the acceptability of its decisions by the larger church. The notion that “smaller is better”, as it pertains to the composition of a decision making body within the PCUSA, lacks validity when decisions are to be made by a body that is not representative of the rich diversity within the membership of our denomination.
Another layer of bureaucracy
At a time when the church is trying to move toward more emphasis on local congregations and less emphasis on higher governing bodies by simplifying its structure, establishment of the Council of Assembly interposes yet another bureaucratic, hierarchical layer between General Assembly and the local church. Concentration of power Council of Assembly, a group of 21 people, will be granted jurisdiction over all or part of 10 of the 11 responsibilities currently assigned to the General Assembly Council under the Book of Order. The responsibilities assigned to Council of Assembly are significant, ranging from budgetary matters to promotion of the spiritual welfare of the whole church. The members of Council of Assembly are not accountable to synods or presbyteries for their actions and are not selected or proposed for nomination by either of these adjudicatory bodies.
Another restructure
General Assembly Council acquired its present configuration as a result of the 1993 “Shape and Form” restructure. The council underwent an extensive quadrennial review and evaluation process in 1996 which resulted in a set of recommendations by Arthur Andersen LLP (“Andersen Report”) in 1997. Council fully complied with these recommendations by changing certain of its operations, procedures and staffing configurations and through an internal restructuring of its Office of the Executive Director. While all indications are that the Council is currently functioning well, it has not been reviewed or undergone a comprehensive evaluation since 1996 to determine whether this in fact is the case. If Amendment F is not approved, the next quadrennial review and evaluation of General Assembly Council is scheduled to begin in 2000 with the results being reported to the General Assembly in 2001. It is not good stewardship to undertake a major restructuring before the current General Assembly Council has been thoroughly evaluated through the quadrennial review process to fairly determine what, if any, changes need to be made.
Financial implications
While the meeting costs for the elected members of Council of Assembly should not have an appreciable affect on the per capita budget, the activities of Council of Assembly will generate a need for increased staff services which will impact the per capita budget. Moreover, at least some of the work of Council of Assembly will be accomplished through committees and work groups which will further increase costs.
Time implications
The proposed Council of Assembly is too small to handle the range of responsibilities as-signed to it. This means that more work will be done by staff and more decisions affecting the entire denomination will be formulated by staff rather than by elected representatives from synods and presbyteries. It is not fair to ask so much of staff in addition to their ongoing duties of providing staff support services. As an example, Council of Assembly has the responsibility “to promote and cultivate the spiritual welfare of the whole church.” This responsibility is presently accomplished through the Congregational Ministries Division of General Assem-bly Council, its elected members who are representative of the entire denomination and through its staff who have substantial experience in spiritual welfare matters. Council of Assembly is ill-equipped to meet this responsibility because of representation deficiencies and because of the lack of adequate staff. Another example is in the judicial process area where members of Council of Assembly are required to serve on committees of counsel to represent Council of Assembly as a party in judicial cases. Such matters have taxed the work load of the current General Assembly Council and will be even more taxing on Council of Assembly since it is ¼ the size of General Assembly Council.
Reversal of ecclesiastical and mission priorities
A primary function of the current General Assembly Council is to plan, propose to General Assembly, coordinate and implement mission directions, goals, objectives and priorities of the church. Because of the importance of mission (former General Assembly Moderator Marj Carpenter has pointed out that the three highest priorities for the church are “mission, mission and mission”), General Assembly Council coordinates the work of other General Assembly agencies and other adjudicatory bodies to ensure that their work is consistent with and supportive of the mission endeavors.
The proposed new structure places the church’s ecclesiastical unit, Council of Assembly, over its mission unit, the proposed Mission Agency. Council of Assembly is staffed by the Stated Clerk and personnel from the Office of the General Assembly who are engaged in ecclesiastical functions. Not only does this represent an inversion of priorities, but it also diverts time and attention of mission staff by introducing uncertainties as to when it is acceptable to proceed with work without being second guessed by a higher layer of bureaucratic govern-ance.
Regression of inter-agency coordination
The General Assembly Council presently serves as the coordinator of all the agencies of the General Assembly. This function is accomplished in several ways (reporting systems, consultations, Council concurrence with certain actions by other agencies, etc.). Coordination is also achieved through various members of General Assembly Council serving on boards of other agencies or on other adjudicatory bodies. Also, members of the other agencies and adjudica-tory bodies, including the Stated Clerk, are corresponding members of General Assembly Council. In order to ensure coordination with the PCUSA in its corporate capacity, each member of General Assembly Council serves as a member of the corporate board of directors of PCUSA, Inc. These roles are designed to ensure that the church’s mission remains among the highest priorities for the church.
There are yet other levels of coordination by General Assembly Council with General As-sembly agencies. At least two times each year, the elected chairs and chief executive officers of General Assembly’s six agencies meet (“Chiefs and Chairs” meeting) to coordinate activities and to resolve potential areas of conflict. The staff leadership team of General Assembly Council and the other agency heads (i.e. Expanded Staff Leadership Team or “ESLT”) meet several times each year for coordination and planning purposes. Additional coordination is achieved by three members of General Assembly Council serving on the Committee of the Office of the General Assembly (or COGA, which provides elected oversight over the Office of the General Assembly but which is to be eliminated under Amendment F), a General As-sembly Council/Foundation Joint Table which meets at least three times a year and a General Assembly Council/COGA Joint Per Capita Table which meets twice a year to formulate the per capita budget.
In view of these extensive coordination activities which are now conducted by General Assembly Council or through its involvement with other agencies, the assignment of the coordination function to Council of Assembly presents a potential regression rather than improve-ment in interagency relationships.
Dispute resolution
With its wide range of responsibilities, disputes are inevitable between Council of Assembly and other agencies or governing bodies. Under such circumstances, Council of Assembly’s dispute resolution ability is substantially impaired because it is a stakeholder.
As to disputes between other agencies, there are already existing channels for resolving such disputes within the present structure, such as through the “Chiefs and Chairs” meetings or through the ESLT meetings. While the General Assembly currently has the constitutional authority to decide controversies brought before it, there have been no significant inter-agency disputes brought to it for resolution since the current structure of General Assembly Council has been in place. Disputes which have arisen between entities have been successfully resolved by the parties prior to General Assembly involvement. This was the case in a dispute that arose in 1996 between the Foundation and General Assembly Council which was resolved by a joint work group (which I moderated) prior to any involvement by the General Assembly.
At the present time and under the present circumstances, establishment of a Council of As-sembly is not such a good idea. Amendment F should be rejected.
Fred L. Denson is an elder in Webster (N.Y.) Presbyterian Church, a member of the General Assembly Council, former chairman of the council, commissioner to 1992 and 1993 Gen-eral Assemblies and moderator of the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Northeast.