wfn.org | Commentary: Should we do more to influence delegate elections?

[NewsDesk <NewsDesk@UMCOM.UMC.ORG>]

April 15, 1999 News media contact: Thomas S. McAnally*(615)
742-5470*Nashville, Tenn. 10-71B{204}

A UMNS Commentary 
By the Rev. Richard E. Hamilton*

Every four years, annual conference sessions appear with a little extra
flavor. This is the year. 

Along with pages of reports to digest, stirring words from pulpits and floor
discussions, our spring gatherings - a peculiar cross between camp meetings
and business conventions - take on closely contested elections ... right
there in church!

Sending delegates to jurisdictional and general conferences is serious
business. Three weeks on folding chairs is no great prize, but many want to
give it a try, and many others want to make sure that only the right folks
get there. The instinct to choose carefully is on the mark. Bishops are
elected and directions for United Methodism are established at the big
gatherings.

The problem is how to choose wisely those who will represent us. Clergy do
not know one another well in large conferences such as ours in Indiana. Lay
persons find the choices even more difficult. Add distinct theological and
social perspectives, and the process raises anxieties ... and proposals.

Should we not have more information about potential delegates?

Should interest groups and issue clusters prepare "slates" to guide voters?

Should there be structured opportunities provided at the annual conferences
to sound out those likely to garner support?

United Methodist law does not provide for nominees. All clergy members of
the conferences and all lay members of the church, not just delegates to
annual conference sessions, are eligible to serve (with a few restrictions
as to length of church membership for laity). The election process simply
begins. Normally scores of people receive votes in early ballots. Laity and
clergy vote separately for their own representatives. Both conferences in
Indiana provide technology-enhanced processes for speed and accuracy of vote
tallying.

It is natural that a serious approach to choosing representatives and
possible agenda items for General Conference leads to suggestions for more
thorough examination of candidates and exploration of their views. In recent
quadrennia, such concerns have prompted many proposals, numerous gatherings
to "strategize" and a variety of lists or slates. In addition, calls come
for possible delegates to make known their likely votes in advance of
election.

The conferences in Indiana generally have declined to provide any formal
ways of ascertaining the theological or social perspectives of potential
delegates, though simple informational sheets as to identity and willingness
to serve have been used. Bishops rule out of order any motions to instruct
delegates on how they should vote. However, informal polls or questionnaires
prepared by various interest groups are sometimes circulated.

Should more be done to "guide" the selection of delegates? Judgments vary.

My own answers are:

No, if ... the call is for potential candidates to make programmatic
presentations during annual conferences. I'm not in favor of allotting
conference time for candidates to present platforms on specific issues. We
elect representatives whose judgment and commitments we trust.

In the legislative process of the General Conference, votes come in a
variety of forms that differ in nuance. Specific wordings make for
differences that cannot be predicted.

The desire to select delegates to represent particular viewpoints is usually
generated from a narrow range of concerns or issues.

Yes, if ... the suggestion is to encourage informal clusters, individual
conversations and dialogues held in advance of, or following, election of
delegates. Thoughtful letters sent to elected delegates are appreciated by
those who will represent us, especially when they express viewpoints clearly
and in a spirit of support for the delegates in the often difficult
decisions they are called upon to make. Delegations meet often, before and
during the General and Jurisdictional Conferences. Letters and expressed
convictions are reflected in their deliberations. 

The church is well served when clergy and laity approach the elections of
their delegates prayerfully, thoughtfully and with open dialogue, but
without restrictive expectations or agreements. So may it be!
#  #  #
*Hamilton was most recently pastor of North United Methodist Church in
Indianapolis, where he served for 23 years before his retirement in 1997. He
represented South Indiana Conference as a delegate to both general and
jurisdictional conferences.

______________
United Methodist News Service
http://www.umc.org/umns/
newsdesk@umcom.umc.org
(615)742-5472