wfn.org | Agency executives share concerns about single-board idea

[NewsDesk <NewsDesk@UMCOM.ORG>]

April 25, 2002  News media contact: Tim Tanton7(615)742-54707Nashville,
Tenn.  10-71BP{184}

NOTE: This report is a sidebar to UMNS story #183. Photographs of the staff
executives and bishops are available at
http://umns.umc.org/photos/headshots.html online.

By Tim Tanton*

OKLAHOMA CITY (UMNS) - Top staff executives of some of the United Methodist
Church's general agencies found themselves in the uncomfortable if not
awkward position of criticizing a proposal that could lead to the
elimination of their governing boards.

Those executives, or general secretaries, shared their concerns during the
April 19-23 meeting of the General Council on Ministries. The general
secretaries sit on the 82-member council but have no vote. GCOM is
developing the proposal, "Living Into the Future," in response to a mandate
from the church's General Conference, which expects a report in 2004 on the
most effective design for ordering the agencies' work. 

GCOM members supported the idea of creating a single, common, connectional
table that would be responsible for overseeing the work of most of the
church's program agencies, but they stopped short of approving a
recommendation for dissolving the agencies' governing boards.

The proposal is in the early stages of being written, and its details will
become clearer in the months ahead as work progresses.

The Rev. Karen Greenwaldt, top staff executive of the Board of Discipleship,
told the council that she hesitated to speak for fear of appearing defensive
about her agency. However, several points about the proposal troubled her.

"This proposal is suggesting a modern structure in a post-modern world," she
said. In some ways, it seems to be an attempt to "legislate passion" for
people, she said.

"I worry and wonder whether a centralized governing body provides enough
diversity," she continued. Others have expressed a similar concern that a
single governing board would not reflect the church's diversity in terms of
age, gender, race and ethnicity to the extent that currently exists among
the larger number of governing boards.

Greenwaldt questioned whether GCOM's potential was being used fully, noting
that issues of overlapping agency functions and collaboration among agencies
hadn't been discussed before in the council. A lot of collaboration and
cooperation occurs among the agencies, she said. "Why does this body not
know that?" 

She also said she was worried that the assumptions underlying much of the
proposal hadn't been discussed in the council. Greenwaldt has agreed to
serve on the writing team.

The Rev. Larry Hollon, top staff executive of United Methodist
Communications, voiced concern about the proposal's emphasis on the words
"governance" and "competition" over "collaboration."

"The world that I see as a new general secretary is not the world that is
reflected in this document," he said.

He took issue with the proposal's description of the church agencies as
operating in a climate of competition. "UMCom does not see itself in
competition with other boards and agencies," he said. It sees itself in
collaboration, as evidenced by the fact that it has seconded staff to other
units of the church, provided consultation and held meetings with
representatives of other boards and agencies, he said.

"I am concerned that we are talking about governance," he said. Instead of
looking at the connectional table in terms of how agencies are governed and
held accountable, he suggested looking at it as a means for collaboration in
the "widest way possible" for the mission and ministry of the church. He
added that he hoped it would foster community.

The Rev. Jerome King Del Pino, top staff executive of the Board of Higher
Education and Ministry, expressed the most pointed criticism in a written
statement distributed to GCOM members in advance of the meeting. The "Living
Into the Future" proposal relies on a "rhetoric of crisis," fails to
substantiate its claims, focuses too much on structure, misstates facts and
is counter to the church's spirit of "connectionalism," he wrote. 

The proposal shows "deficient theological rigor," he told United Methodist
News Service, citing as an example the document's statement that "just as
there is one faith, one Lord, one baptism and one universal Church, we
believe there is a need for one governing body for all the general
agencies."

"We have never had the need to create a shadow Curia as in Roman Catholic
tradition," he said, referring to the Catholic Church's central governing
body.

He described the single-board proposal as an attempt to co-opt governance
responsibilities from duly elected boards of directors, consisting of people
who are focused, committed and competent in working with their agencies. 

Del Pino said he was disappointed that the general secretaries had not been
consulted. Collaboration, he said, had not been a core value in the way the
GCOM had handled the process. "That flies in the face of the very things
that are being called for in the document," he said. 

"A rhetoric of crisis without empirical verification should not be permitted
to invite United Methodists to try to make trust monolithic and management
our most important core value," he said.

Bishop Edward Paup, GCOM president and leader of the church's Portland
(Ore.) Area, noted after the meeting that the full council had not had a
proposal to consider until now. "There really has not been anything
definitive on the table until this meeting." He described the proposal as
"very definitely a work in progress" and said the council planned to gather
input from around the denomination, including the general secretaries.

After a small-group discussion, a table of GCOM members even suggested
asking the executives to draft their own proposal in response to the General
Conference mandate. The council received that suggestion, along with other
ideas, without action.

Oyvind Helliesen of Stavanger, Norway, said the writing team and general
secretaries should communicate, but the task of writing the proposal must
not be given away.

The people who would be most affected should propose and design a model,
said Seong Kwan Rhee of Northville, Mich. Involving the general agencies
would eliminate negative energy and ensure support, he said.

Council members expressed appreciation for the general secretaries along
with concern that the executives might have been hurt in the meeting. 

However, Bishop John Hopkins of the Minnesota Area said the general
secretaries have not been "proactive in modeling" what it means to work as a
team. "They are extremely talented and gifted," but no structure exists for
them to come together, he said.

At one point, Bishop Joseph Yeakel of Smithsburg, Md., a consultant to GCOM,
offered a metaphor for why the general secretaries hadn't been brought into
the process earlier.

"I think what we've done this week is finally said, 'You know what? We're
pregnant,'" Yeakel said. Everyone wants to know if the baby is going to be a
boy or a girl, a Republican or Democrat, but "we're not there yet," he said.
The general secretaries have said "you haven't talked to us," but the
council didn't know if it was pregnant or not until now, he said. "Now we
know. Let's talk."
# # #
*Tanton is news editor for United Methodist News Service.

*************************************
United Methodist News Service
Photos and stories also available at:
http://umns.umc.org