Major change proposed for GA overtures The Layman Online Friday, June 16, 2000 In a June 14 e-mail with the subject line "How to Read Reports," Bob Davis, executive director of the Presbyterian Forum, has flagged an "addendum" to the voluminous reports now flooding General Assembly commissioners' mailboxes. The addendum proposes an addition to the Standing Rules of the General Assembly that, if adopted, would restrict the ability of presbyteries and synods to bring business before future General Assemblies. The addendum reads: "12.052 Presbyteries or synods submitting overtures with a recommendation(s) that affects the work or budget of a General Assembly entity (ies) shall submit evidence that the affected entity(ies) has (have) been consulted. If such evidence is not submitted, the Stated Clerk shall recommend that the overture be received and referred to a future session of the General Assembly so that consultation may take place." The proposal is so far reaching, and the time before the Assembly so short, that with Davis' permission, The Layman Online is posting his assessment of the proposal and its potential impact: The big topic The big topic: overtures from presbyteries and/or synods. The point: to require "evidence of consultation" with an "affected" denominational entity prior to allowing the General Assembly to consider the substance of the overture. The impact: at the minimum, it requires an extra step for presbyteries to get business before the General Assembly. It's language so broad that it's like the federal government regulating children's lemonade stands for their "impact on interstate commerce." Considering that the Stated Clerk would be REQUIRED (that's what "shall" means) to recommend referral to the General Assembly a year later, some important questions arise: Important questions What constitutes "consultation?" It's not defined. Is a carbon copy of the overture sent to every denominational agency sufficient? What is "evidence of consultation?" It's not defined. Would it be sufficient to provide a copy of a cover letter asking for agency comment or does there have to be some response from every potentially affected agency? How much "affect" triggers the consultation mechanism? It's not defined. If every possible affected agency gets to weigh in on every overture, are there different levels of consultation required? Do theological questions "affect the work" of denominational entities? If so, does that mean that every theological question has to be submitted to every entity for consultation prior to the time that commissioners to the General Assembly consider it? Possible answers The response will be, "Well, we don't mean for it to be applied in an obstructive way." Overtures from presbyteries often have a significant impact on denominational entities. The Rationale argues, "These proposed standing rule amendments seek to address such a situation by insuring that an affected entity has been consulted prior to publication of the recommendation. This not only provides fairness for the affected agency, but also results, as experience has shown, in strengthening the recommendation and broadening the support of the proposal." In other words, the argument is, "It's only fair to give a heads up to the agency." That raises the question, are overtures suggesting change really a surprise to denominational agencies? Not really -- the already existing provisions of the Standing Rules require that any overture that has a "financial implication for current or future years' budgets must be delivered in writing to the Stated Clerk postmarked no later than 60 days prior to the convening of the General Assembly." That's two months before the Assembly convenes. Thus, what's being proposed is a vehicle for denominational agencies to forestall and prevent business from getting before the General Assembly. That means that the only way this proposed rule could be applied is to obstruct change. Think about it: agencies would object if something that would benefit their interests would be postponed for a year! So, the reality is, if something were to be effected by this provision, it would be something that calls agencies into account. By way of comparison, the complimentary "consultation" requirement is not proposed; that is, requiring denominational entities to "consult" with all the presbyteries before the business is heard by the General Assembly. Perhaps that would be good, to require denominational entities to submit all of the proposals to all 173 presbyteries; a majority vote of the presbyteries would determine if the General Assembly would consider the business. A good idea? Is consultation a good idea? Sure. Agencies should be working with synods, presbyteries and congregations. Should consultation be a procedural requirement to get business before the Assembly? Left undefined and with no restrictions on how such a procedural option could be used to thwart accountability? No. These are just starting questions about this one little item found in an addendum to the reports. However, as this illustrates, one little item could have a profound impact on the life and direction of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Not every item is so rich with illustrative material, but it does highlight the need for careful reading of the reports.

Respond to this article

2000 General Assembly news index

News From the PCUSA Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links