Subscribe to RSS
"As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." (Joshua 24:15)

Help This Ministry

 

Sign Up 

 For a free subscription to The Layman and/or our weekly e-mail news alerts, click here.

 

[Back to Listing]

GAC meeting had ‘plenty of pain to go around’
for Presbyterians of all ideological persuasions

Analysis by G. Jeffrey MacDonald, The Layman, Posted Monday, March 30, 2009

LOUISVILLE – No one could escape the somber atmosphere enshrouding last week’s General Assembly Council meeting, which culminated Friday in a $4 million budget cut and pink slips for 14 staffers.

But among those involved in denominational politics, the week proved especially trying for left-leaning activists committed to social causes and minority issues. For them, a series of recent developments – from organizational restructuring to GAC bylaw changes – triggered calls to action and concerns that the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s “prophetic” wing wasn’t receiving a fair shake.

“Folks on the left are scared,” observed GAC member Thomas Gillespie as the meeting neared adjournment.

At the meeting’s outset, activists on the political left had reason to hope they might be spared some of the season’s budget-cutting pain. A budget approved Wednesday by the GAC’s Executive Committee showed cuts in multiple areas, but it also indicated a 16 percent increase – from $5.6 million to $6.5 million – for Racial Ethnic and Women’s Ministries.

That increase, however, turned out to reflect some administrative adjustments. The GAC combined the Office of Multicultural Ministry with Racial Ethnic and Women’s Ministries, thus boosting the latter’s line item in the budget. A new Office of Cross-Cultural Ministries and Congregational Support was born, but in the process, Multicultural Ministry is also losing several independent contractors hired to help congregations become more diverse.  

As the week wore on, left-leaning activists learned some of their favorite ministries would take a financial hit. The Presbyterian Peacemaking Program, for instance, is losing three staff positions in the current round of layoffs. The Presbyterian Health, Education and Welfare Association is also losing a staff position.
 
To be sure, the activist camp wasn’t alone in lamenting fresh cuts. Other affected programs include the National Health Ministries Office (eliminated); military chaplains (budget cut by five percent); and World Mission (revised projections call for curtailed growth due in part to reduced giving). For Presbyterians of all ideological persuasions, there was plenty of pain to go around. 

But activists on the left were worried about more than trimmed budgets. A perception that denominational power brokers were trying to keep them out of important decision-making processes triggered a backlash. Activists dug in their heels to fight those who might reduce their sphere of influence. 

At issue was a proposal to bring the GAC’s open meetings policy in line with General Assembly guidelines. The measure, which passed by a slim margin Friday, gave the GAC discretionary authority to exclude non-voting, “corresponding members” from closed sessions for discussion of legal or personnel issues. This affects advocacy groups: Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP), Advisory Committee for Racial Ethnic Concerns (ACREC), and Advisory Committee for Women’s Concerns (ACWC). The change, intended to prevent conflicts of interest, drew pushback in the GAC’s Justice Committee and later on the plenary floor.

“I don’t see this [potential conflict of interest] as significant enough to warrant this kind of atomic bomb response to it,” said Gloria Albrecht, co-chair of ACSWP.

Activists’ allies on the GAC tried to scuttle the proposed bylaw change with a pair of floor amendments, both of which were narrowly defeated.

This wasn’t the first time the denomination’s left-leaning activists have felt snubbed in recent months. A November reorganization of Racial Ethnic and Women’s Ministries angered several, who said they hadn’t been adequately consulted or included in the process.

Since then, the GAC has been trying to smooth ruffled feathers. The council paid for vice chairman Mike Kruse and Executive Director Linda Valentine to fly from Missouri and Kentucky respectively to New York for a winter meeting of disgruntled ACWC members. Then last week, representatives from ACWC, ACSWP and ACREC received another overture: a combined 30 minutes on the GAC’s plenary agenda to explain how they work and what they’re trying to accomplish.

After those presentations, GAC Chair Carol Adcock tried to put the reorganization controversy to rest with a carefully worded statement, including “lessons that have been learned.”
“The General Assembly Council staff thought and truly felt that they engaged in an inclusive, consultative process,” Adcock said. “However some members – including members of the Advocacy Committee for Women’s Concerns – felt that they had not been consulted or included … We know now that listening to and acknowledging each other has been difficult, and expectations were unintentionally unmet.”

Activists and their GAC allies presented a cool reception to the chair’s remarks. They pressed for assurance that they’d have more opportunity to influence organizational decisions in the future.

“We didn’t have time [before the reorganization announcement] to ask the questions that we had,” said Melissa DeRosia, a GAC member from the Presbytery of Lake Huron. “What are the steps that we’re going to take to open that timeline a little bit more?”

In terms of GAC practice, not much had changed by week’s end. Activists from corresponding groups were invited to attend a closed session to discuss personnel matters on Friday morning, apparently because there were no perceived conflicts of interest at stake in the discussion.

Still, a new dynamic may be emerging in PCUSA politics. Groups sanctioned to fight for inclusiveness toward society’s marginalized populations are amassing fodder for the idea that they themselves are increasingly the victims of marginalization in their own church. Whether these groups can convert such an impression into political capital remains to be seen.
Nevertheless, their allies on the GAC stand ready to use whatever political muscle these groups can bring to the table. Justice Committee chair Susan Ezell made that clear when she spoke with a group of advocacy group leaders during a break.

“If you have a resolution that you want to raise up and present to us on the committee, then we can kind of encourage endorsement of some of these things,” Ezell told them. “If your groups are willing to do that, then we can have more of an active committee, rather than a passive one.”

DISCLAIMER: The Layman Online is a news and information resource. We welcome letters and commentaries from readers. Letters and commentaries are selected for publication based on their clarity and brevity, subject to editing, and also are chosen to represent a diverse set of views on as many issues as possible. These letters and commentaries are provided as an informational service and do not necessarily indicate an endorsement by The Layman Online or the Presbyterian Lay Committee.