Proposed realignment of PCUSA bureaucracy sparks debate
By Paula R. Kincaid, The Presbyterian Layman, February 18, 1999
LOUISVILLE – A proposed realignment of the bureaucracy of the Presbyterian Church (USA) was compared to “a kindly family physician who prescribes an experimental drug for a patient that is not ill” during the meeting of the General Assembly Council.
GAC member Warren Barnes made the comments about the controversial report from the Special Committee for Review of the General Assembly.
Special Committee for Review of the General Assembly
left to right: John Detterick, Janet DeVries, and Gay MothershedReview of the General Assembly
The GAC voted Feb. 13 to transmit the report, which it could not amend, from the Special Committee for Review of the General Assembly to the 211th GA with a recommendation that the Assembly address a list of GAC concerns before implementing the report and its recommendations.
The report calls for the formation of a 21-member Council of Assembly, in place of the Committee of the Office of the General Assembly, with Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick as head of staff. The GAC would be renamed the Mission Agency, with John Detterick as executive director.
The Council of Assembly
The 21 member Council of the Assembly would be made up of:
· Three GA moderators, including the present moderator and last two.
· Three commissioners each from the present and last two GAs.
· One elected (not staff) member each from the Board of Pensions, the Presbyterian Investment and Loan Program, Presbyterian Publishing Corporation and the Presbyterian Foundation.
· Five elected members of the Mission Agency.
The Mission Agency
The proposed Mission Agency would be the same size as the current GAC, but the report calls for the Mission Agency to present a plan to the GA for a possible reduction in membership size in two years. The agency would be the board of directors of the Presbyterian Church (USA), A Corporation.
The report includes a plan for the transition of the current boards to the proposed boards; a plan for resolving disputes between interagency entities; and changes that would be needed in the Book of Order.
Opening night discussions
Discussions on the report began on the opening night of the GAC meeting.
Special Committee Chair Gay Mothershed, along with other committee members, presented the report and its recommendations which would give the Council of Assembly the administrative duties of the GAC. The Mission Agency would be responsible for coordinating the mission program of the Assembly.
Fred Denson
Past GAC ChairPast GAC Chair Fred Denson asked, “If the Mission Agency asks for per capita, does the Council have the power to say no?” He added that it sounded like the council had the power over the mission agency.
The Council of the Assembly has “five mission agency people out of the 21 to make those decisions,” said Mothershed.
“It’s not our intention that the council become a power broker or power group,” said Mothershed. “It’s a table to bring folks together that has not existed before.” She went on to describe the council as a “table of partnership.”
Not a level playing field
The report was also discussed during some of the division committee meetings.
The Congregational Ministries Division (CMDC) voted unanimously “To express concerns about per capita and representations portions of the report.”
Denson said his concern was for the per capita budget. “The new council would be responsible for per capita budget. I feel that is so important that we maintain substantial control over our part of the per capita budget,” he said.
Presently, he said, “We come up with a figure on what we need,” as does the Office of the General Assembly. The two entities then meet at the joint per capita table and “we negotiate what each gets. Then we go to GA to get it approved.”
The way the report reads, said Denson “we don’t have that kind of say. The new council will set that budget … we as a Mission Agency are at their mercy. … there are five people from GAC on the council and that we can make our pitch right then and there. That’s five people out of 21. To me that’s not a level playing field.”
Concentration of power
George Inadomi, GAC executive committee to the CMDC, said he was concerned with the concentration of power. “Because there are less people involved it will be more difficult to continue our good efforts to have diversity at that level.”
Representation issues included racial/ethnic, geographical, gender and age diversity.
“There is going to be a small group of people making decisions about finance, a small group of people not diverse enough doing it, and not an opportunity for the Mission Agency to make the input they need to make to the people who make the final decisions. I don’t know whether the ink is dry [on the report] or if what we are saying makes any difference, but what I hear this group saying is those are the three things we are concerned about,” said LaVerne W. Feaster.
‘Yesteryear’s solution’
The Worldwide Ministries Division Committee also discussed the report during division meetings. Chairman Peter Pizor brought a motion to the plenary floor which read, “… that the General Assembly provide for a two-year study process by the whole church concerning the ramifications of the recommendations made by the Special Committee for Review of the General Assembly, and that the moderator appoint a committee to guide that study process.”
Pizor said the report seems like “yesterday’s solution to yesteryear’s problem … I urge us to be very Presbyterian” and to undertake discussion and discernment. “If the report has merits then the merits will still be there in two years.”
The motion, plus a substitute motion which recommended the 211th GA refer the report to the committee on review to be elected by the 212th GA, were discussed and voted down.
The mission of the church
GAC member David Greer asked for the opinions of GAC Executive Director John Detterick and Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick on the report.
“I would suggest to you that this is part of the question before us [the GAC] ‘Who are we and how do we see our role?'” said Detterick. He said if the mission of the church is “why we are here then the concept of the Special Committee has appeal.” Then the Mission Agency could “focus intently on what may be our primary role – the mission of the church.” It would “takes us out of other things that may take us out of that role.”
Kirkpatrick said there were very important concepts in the report. He named four plagues in the church’s organization life: one, General Assemblies that look more like political assemblies; second, there is not a good arena to resolve conflicts within church entities; third, the disconnection between what GA does and the actions of the church between Assemblies; and fourth, the church has management by special committees, which cost money. “The process of special committees to solve our disputes doesn’t work well,” he said.
The approved motion
GAC member John Evans proposed a third motion, which was later approved. “We have the opportunity to comment to the Assembly on this report. I think we could add some things to which we could applaud but … we need to express what it is we are concerned about,” he said.
The motion applauds the call for accountability to the GA embodied in the proposals; the improved means it offers for partnership and cooperation between assembly agencies; the creation of a means for heading off conflict and for staying a conflict when such stay is needed; and the plan for periodic external evaluation of the work assigned to GA agencies.
GAC concerns include: that the report leaves unresolved issues regarding which continuing services, functions and responsibilities given to the Mission Agency will be part of the GA per capita funding; the report and recommendations lack clarity by assigning responsibilities for church-wide planning, consultation with middle governing bodies, mission directions, mission funding, budgeting and accounting to both the Council of Assembly and the Mission Agency, and thus provides for the potentiality of added ongoing conflict; the recommendations create an additional costly financial staff and structure; the Mission Agency needs to be the body primarily responsible for marshaling the resources of the church for mission at all levels of the church and for the mission of the Mission Agency; and the way the report describes the rationale for the members-at-large is not an adequate understanding of the way Presbyterian polity describes the call to service in the church.
Possible changes
The special committee report given out on the last day of the GAC meeting was labeled Final Draft 3.
“The words on the table are words we can continue to work on. We can continue to edit,” said Mothershed. She added that the committee may meet again by conference call if needed to address the concerns of the GAC, including the addition of the per capita table, before submitting the final draft to the GA.