COGA says stated clerk election was ‘fair, open,’ and followed rules
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, March 30, 2005
LOUISVILLE, Ky. – After receiving a report reviewing the 2004 stated clerk’s election, the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly (COGA) declared Wednesday that the “election process was fair and open and done in compliance with all relevant Standing Rules of the General Assembly.”
The report, presented by a COGA subcommittee, did recommend some changes, including a requirement that the stated clerk nominating committee interview all candidates for the office. Heretofore, the nominating committee has interviewed only the incumbent stated clerk when he chose to seek re-election.
COGA did not take action on the nominating committee proposal, but COGA members made a number of suggestions. A revised report will be considered at COGA’s meeting in the fall.
During the 2004 election, Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick defeated three evangelical candidates who essentially ran anybody-but-Kirkpatrick campaigns. One of the candidates, L. Rus Howard, revealed to the General Assembly that Kirkpatrick’s supporters had prepared questions that were friendly to Kirkpatrick and that the stated clerk’s allies monopolized the microphones so that they could persuade commissioners that Kirkpatrick was the best candidate.
In response to those allegations, the 216th General Assembly approved a commissioner’s motion that COGA “investigate the integrity, openness and fairness of our electoral process.”
General Assembly Moderator Rick Ufford-Chase, who was in the center of the storm over the manner in which the election was handled, told COGA that he had received a “significant amount of mail” about the election – both from people who were disappointed because their candidate lost and people who were disappointed in the process.
“My concern,” he said, “is how we interpret how you came to these conclusions. That’s just as important as the recommendations.”
Jack Baugh, who served as the chairman of the COGA subcommittee that prepared the election report, briefly outlined the process:
1. Gradye Parsons, associate stated clerk, collected for committee members letters and other material about the election.
2. The committee sent questionnaires to commissioners, delegates and candidates in the 2004 election.
3. The committee held its meetings by telephone. It did not interview any of the candidates.
Ufford-Chase indicated that the committee needed to provide a step-by-step, plain-spoken narrative of its process to convince Presbyterians that they reached the right conclusion without bias.
He offered his own criticism of the process. While presiding over the election at the podium, Ufford-Chase said he could see a computer screen that identified commissioners and advisory delegates by name when they were recognized at the microphones. “What was not helpful to me was that the name shows up,” he said. “There was no reason I needed that.”
Although allegations were made that Ufford-Chase selected people who were friendly to Kirkpatrick because he knew them by name, he told COGA that he actually knew only one of the names appearing on his computer screen and that he was surprised when that person spoke in favor of a candidate that he didn’t think the speaker supported.
But just knowing a speaker’s name raises the possibility of suspicion and criticism, Ufford-Chase said, adding that the PCUSA needs to make clear that moderators are not privy to the names of commissioners and delegates who address the assembly.
“There was a claim that somehow I managed to pick people,” he said. “I couldn’t do it by accident.”
Baugh said his subcommittee had heard similar complaints. “We heard that and didn’t believe it,” he said.
Ufford-Chase also called for “some kind of honor” code for supporters of candidates that would discourage compiling friendly questions for candidates and attempting to monopolize the microphones.
He said he realized that such an honor code could not be enforced, but that candidates and their supporters should know that “it’s inappropriate to try to control the questions asked.”
COGA member Tyler Ward agreed with the call for an honor code. A student at Centre College in Danville, Ky., Ward complained that “there are some things distributed that were uncalled for. I agree that we need some kind of honor code. If we can’t have an election without people being demonized, it’s very frustrating.”
Baugh said the subcommittee considered “all the negative stuff going into the mailboxes” of commissioners and delegates before the election. “We determined there wasn’t much we could do about that,” he said.
Baugh emphasized that his subcommittee wanted to tweak the process to meet the General Assembly’s concern about fairness and integrity. Thus, he said, the subcommittee recommended that the nominating committee examine all of the candidates; that the nominating committee select one candidate; and that the Standing Rules of the General Assembly need to be revised to “provide a balanced exposure of all candidates.”
John Purcell, a member of the election review subcommittee, said he believed the group was unanimous in reaching its recommendations. Helen Murdoch and Barbara Corwin also made brief remarks.
“I think Gradye was a big help,” Murdoch said. “We realized we could tweak it a little to make it fair.”
Corwin said the majority of commissioners and delegates who responded to the subcommittee’s questionnaires like the election system as it stands.
With the subcommittee’s work being done entirely by conference calls, Ward wanted to know whether any of the unsuccessful candidates “had the opportunity to contact you? … The only thing that concerns me is that I can see where there might be criticism of staff influence on you.”
Corwin said the committee was careful to separate Parsons from the information he was providing and his duties as associate stated clerk.