Open Meeting Policy restrictions proposed
By Paula R. Kincaid, The Layman Online, October 19, 1999
LOUISVILLE – The Presbyterian Church (USA)’s Advisory Committee on the News has proposed a “Media and Visitor Policy for Non-Business Gatherings,” which would restrict access of church members and media representatives to any Presbyterian Church (USA) event where no business is conducted, even if funded by denomination dollars.
Even if the proposed policy is adopted, the current Open Meeting Policy will continue to govern business meetings of the denomination. The proposed policy, which emerged from the committee’s Oct. 15-16 meeting in Louisville, calls for all plenary and non-plenary sessions to be open, except in small groups “whose purpose is the sharing of personal issues of faith and life, the discussion may be closed to media representatives and visitors at the choice of the small group participants.”
There is no other definition or clarification of the term “small group.”
While it was the consensus of the group that workshops would be open, that was not stated in the proposed policy. “Workshops ought to be open,” said committee member Bill Lancaster.
“It strikes me that there is a distinction of being in a workshop and small groups,” said Ann Gillies, the denomination’s coordinator of media services. “I urge you to look at workshops as public.”
The proposed policy says that media representatives must register as such, including the name of the publication they represent, and media and visitors must wear nametags at all times. Media representatives will not be required to pay registration fees, but visitors will be required to pay “appropriate fees.”
It also states that “Media representatives are observers and may not speak or actively participate in any portion of the gathering unless invited.”
Approval process
The committee is recommending that the General Assembly Council executive committee approve the proposed policy, and that the Council approve adding a line to the current Open Meeting Policy stating, “A Separate policy exists with regards to media access to non-business gatherings.” The committee also affirmed the current Open Meeting Policy.
If approved by the executive committee, the proposed policy will be reviewed by the full General Assembly Council, and upon their approval it will proceed to the General Assembly. Each legislative body will be able to make changes in the proposed policy.
“If it is adopted as policy it will wind up in the Manual of Operations of the General Assembly Council and the manual of the General Assembly. The Open Meeting Policy is in both of those documents because they are policy,” said Jerry Van Marter, coordinator of news services.
An important issue
Gary Luhr, associate director of communications for the Presbyterian Church (USA) began the discussion of the proposed policy, calling it an important issue.
He said the issue of small groups and the open meeting policy doesn’t come into play in meetings of the General Assembly, or General Assembly Council, or other elected bodies.
“It’s usually in non-business gatherings, such as conferences, workshops, retreats and the like, where issues of life and faith get explored usually in small groups,” he said.
The current Open Meeting Policy does not make a distinction between business gatherings and non-business gatherings, he said.
The policy reads, “It is the policy of the General Assembly, the General Assembly Council, its divisions and Finance and Technology Office, and of the entities and work groups related to them, that their meetings shall be open to all interested persons.”
Open discussion
On Friday, before Saturday’s discussion on the Open Meeting Policy, the committee decided to open the floor for 45 minutes to allow visitors to speak. While no visitors were present Friday, Luhr said he expected three or four people for Saturday.
Wilma Bennett, chair of the arrangements committee for Presbyterian Women’s Churchwide Gathering, and Gillies attended Saturday’s meeting. Both spoke during the allotted open time period, and both were allowed to continue in the discussion after the open time was closed, despite assurances from committee chair John Silbert that after the 45 minute time period was over, “the committee will come back to do its work in a parliamentary fashion … Certainly those who are visiting are welcome to sit in, but we will be working as a committee only at that point.”
No members of the independent press were able to travel to Louisville to testify on such short notice.
“My experiences in small groups is those are where you finally say what is in your heart,” said Gillies. “If we don’t provide those safe haven places, which I think is an important role of the church, then we don’t allow for personal growth. … We must provide for people to be people otherwise we really put ourselves in the position of tyrannizing the whole aspect of the area or the issue.”
Ecclesiastical stalking
Committee member Pat Brown brought up an editorial published the previous week in the Presbyterian Outlook. The editorial condemned “ecclesiastical stalking,” which it defined as “selecting a group whose views or activities you oppose, to pursue that group relentlessly for the purpose of putting that group in the most unfavorable possible light – to expose it, to destroy it.”
“When you think about stalking, even as I talk and Paula [Kincaid, reporter for The Presbyterian Layman. Evan Silverstein, reporter for the Presbyterian News Service was also in the room covering the event.] writes, I have a sense that there is risk taking, but I also have a sense that it needs to be said. … There are crazies who walk into youth events and start shooting people, what do we mean when we are talking about what meetings should be open?”
“When we talk about the Open Meeting Policy, we’re not just talking about press. Anybody can come in and anybody can listen,” she said. “There has to be a discussion of behavior.”
A violation of ethics
Committee member James Nelson suggested writing a letter of advice to groups on proper conduct of journalism. “It seems there has been a violation here of ethics of not just journalistic ethics, but Christian ethics.”
“The ecclesiastical stalking that Robert Bullock referred to in his editorial, I don’t believe is related to the Open Meeting Policy,” said Van Marter. “There are advocacy groups within the church who are opposed to certain programs and activities of the General Assembly and they take those advocacy positions very strongly.”
Van Marter used the National Network of Presbyterian College Women as an example. He said none of the positions The Presbyterian Layman and Voices of Orthodox Women have against the Network have resulted from their coverage of a meeting. “It frankly hasn’t happened. They took the resources of the NNPCW and extrapolated from that their opposition to the group. It has not been a result of their coverage of anything that [The Layman and Voices of Orthodox Women] have made their attack.”
Personal stuff
Committee member Joanne Hull raised concerns about youth meetings and their small group times. “These kids will share, … This stuff is very, very personal.” She said there have been times when people, not media, have wanted to come into the group. “This is a problem,” she said.
Alexa Smith, a reporter for the Presbyterian News Services, responded, “The groups that are going to be invaded are probably not Montreat youth groups. The groups that feel the anxiety, and that are going to be identified for coverage are very specific.”
Hull referred to the Network, saying “Like the 18-19-20 year olds. They are still adolescents.”
“But the issue here is the ideas they are dealing with. That’s what the whole struggle is in this church. The ideas. It’s not the fact that they are having a meeting or a workshop. It’s the ideas,” said Smith.
“And it’s very seldom participants. It’s always staff,” said Van Marter.
Denominational money
“Let’s be very frank, The Presbyterian Layman and Voices of Orthodox Women are opposed to the use of denominational money and staff time for the propounding of views that they believe are beyond the pale,” said Van Marter.
So The Layman and Voices of Orthodox Women go into a workshop, he said, not looking to betray a personal story of a participant, but to find out if a staff person is propounding a view that they believe is contrary to General Assembly policy.
“It’s not participants that they are scrutinizing. It’s staff persons using staff time with denomination money to propound views that they believe are contrary to General Assembly policy,” he said. “That’s what they are looking for in these things.”
Brown suggested that the young women of the Network who have had their pictures taken were “put into a demonic cast.” But, she insisted, “They’re not that.”
“But they are the ones who produced Young Women Speak. It was the nature of the way the development of those resources were done. It was young women producing their own resources. The people who were gone after were the people who were responsible for publishing with denominational money materials that even the review committee said were beyond the pale,” said Van Marter.
“To [The Layman and Voices of Orthodox Women] it’s an issue of accountability. Denominational money and staff time should not spent stuff that is beyond the pale. That’s the issue,” he said. “I’m not advocating this. I’m just saying that’s where the folk you’re concerned about are coming from.”