Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Plan UMC is on the Floor



A picture of the committee that will debate Plan UMC on the floor.
So...here's a play-by-play of Plan UMC's "fifteen minutes of fame" (ha!):
Andy Langford, a clergy delegate from North Carolina and one of the authors of Plan UMC, offered Plan UMC as a substitute petition to the IOT plan that did not pass in committee last week. He offered to make a presentation about Plan B if the body would agree to accept it as a substitution.

This was greatly debated, but eventually Plan UMC took the place as the main petition for our consideration. We all knew the IOT plan, Plan B, and MFSA plan were all dead, but this is still a big deal. A lot of time and energy was put into the plans that did not make it to the floor.

Lay Delegate Ricky Harrison (North Texas) takes the floor to urge
General Conference delegates to move ahead with allowing Plan UMC
to be presented on the floor.
After Plan UMC took the floor, there was an immediate request to refer it to a committee. This is short-hand for "We won't make any decision about this for four more years." This might sound wimpy; however, there are some valid points to be made. This document has only been available to us for 24 hours. It was only available in print in the English language (although other languages are available on the website.) There is concern about making hasty, uninformed petitions.

On the other hand, we haven't even heard a presentation about this proposal yet. Seems to me that we should do this before we simply refer....

There is also a lot of concern about who wrote this proposal. The names are printed, but who are these people? What color are they? How old are they? What country are they from? What special interest groups do they affiliate with? The presiding bishop, Bishop Watson, waffled a bit on having the members of the group visually identified, but it was finally ruled out of order.

So, 30 minutes later, Plan UMC will be presented and debated...following a much-needed break!

*****

Bishop Watson gratefully and joyfully conceded the floor to Bishop Huie before the break. She began her session by quoting from John Wesley's sermon on sanctification, that we might remember that we ourselves are being sanctified, and, by the grace of God, we are seeking the mind of Christ.

Debbie McCloud of the GA Conference moved to allow a 10 minute presentation on Plan UMC, and the motion (miraculously) passed!

Main Points of the Presentation:
This was taken from the gc2012.umc.org website.
I hope it's accurate!
  • We've heard the plea for a sensible plan that unites us all
  • This plan will move us forward with vision and hope, in light of the Call to Action report
  • Focus on vital congregations that impact their communities
  • Support new connectional opportunities in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Philippines, and the U.S.
  • Encourages Annual Conferences to be nimble and adaptive
  • Aligns general program agencies
  • Keeps ultimate accountability and authority with General Conference
  • Top Authority (under General Conference) is General Council for Strategy & Oversight
    • Comprised of 45 members - replaces Connectional Table
      • Includes the five racial-ethnic caucuses
      • Leadership provided by Executive General Secretary
      • Coordinate mission, ministries, and resources
      • Amenable and accountable to General Conference
      • Elects its own officers
      • Provides church-wide shared services housed in the most effective locations
  • Reporting to the General Council for Strategy & Oversight
    • Committee on Inclusiveness
      • GCORR and COSROW will be combined to make up Committee on Inclusiveness
    • Program Agencies
      • General Board of Church & Society
      • General Board of Discipleship
      • General Board of Global Ministries
      • General Board of Higher Education and Ministry
      • Each board will nominate their own General Secretary, to be elected by the GC, for Strategy & Oversight
      • Each retains assets
      • Maintain distributed liability
    • Amenable and accountable to General Conference
  • National Plans (5)
    • Continue ministry among racial/ethnic persons
  • Independent
    • General Council on Finance & Administration
    • United Methodist Communications
    • General Board of Pension & Health Benefits
    • United Methodist Publishing House
    • United Methodist Men
    • United Methodist Women
  • Proposed 312 total directors (down from 634 members)
Okay.

First proposed amendment to the plan is to not have COSROW (Committee on Status & Role of Women) and GCORR (General Commission on Religion & Race) combined in one committee reporting directly to the GCSO (General Council for Strategy & Oversight). Arguments include: 1) issues of race and issues of gender are sufficiently distinct to require two separate boards, and 2) these groups would not be able to monitor the GCSO if they report to the GCSO. General Secretaries of COSROW and GCORR responded by saying that they did not feel it was good to combine these two; however, they do have a plan to move in that direction if that is the discerned will of the body.

And, after much debate, and (inevitably, it seems) an amendment to the amendment, the amendment fails by a very narrow margin (459/493).

Speakers addressed grave concerns about underrepresentation
of marginalized groups in the creation of Plan UMC and the
implication of this plan on marginalized groups in our
denomination.
Second proposed amendment to Plan UMC comes from Liberian delegate who proposes increases in the size of boards as proposed in this plan. This would allow more representation from the Central Conferences. A representative of the authors of the plan agrees. Naturally, an amendment to the amendment was proposed. I honestly got lost in a sea of United Methodist acronyms as the young man who was making the proposal glibly named our beloved boards and agencies: GBCS, GBOD, GBGM, GBHEM, GBOPHB, UMPH, UMM....and the proposed number of members on each board.

Truly, it's a bit challenging to make an informed decision. You'd have to be up-to-speed on each of these boards and agencies and the implications of changing the representation on each. We knew it would be challenging for a committee of 988 to make these kinds of decisions. And we were right.

It does appear that we are trying to maintain the current proportions of Central Conference membership on our boards: 30%. 

It also appears to me that if this amendment does not pass, the Plan itself will never pass. With 41% international representation, General Conference is unlikely to approve a plan that does not offer strong representation from the Central Conferences.

And the amendment passes (64%).

A clergywoman speaks about the difficulty of being
both female and Korean, arguing that it is essential to
keep COSROW & GCORR separate.

This allows the floor to open up for a speech (not the first) about why we should not even be discussing this when there has not been enough time for everyone to study the material properly. A question is also asked requesting clarification on how much money this plan will save and what we will do with the money we save. There appears to be no firm answer to this, as GCFA (General Council of Finance & Administration) has not yet analyzed the Plan.

And we have another proposal to amend the Plan. As written, the Plan names the following representation from each U.S. Jurisdiction for the General Council for Strategy and Oversight: North Central (3), Northeastern (3), South Central (5), Southeastern (8), Western (1). The proposed amendment would equalize representation so all jurisdictions have 3 members. And the amendment fails.

So...a request has been made to Call the Question. This means that we vote on whether or not we want to vote on Plan UMC.  Vote is taken, and it passes. This puts us in a position to vote Plan UMC up or down.

But wait! There is a point of order question. Can we vote before the Plan has gone to GCF&A? Yes, we can. But after we vote, it will have to go to GCF&A. It will then have to come back to the floor in the form of the GCF&A report. So...we can approve it now, but we could kill it later when the budget comes before us.

Still with me? Let's vote.

And the petition passes: 566/384 (60%/40%)




1 comment:

  1. So very clearly written. I really appreciate the time and effort it took to put this together, especially since it seemed even the presenters couldn't keep up with the amendments. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete