Pastor Mark Williams

Delegate Reports

Day 10 - Wednesday, May 5

I needed the extra sleep last night, so I slept in and missed the opening worship service. I heard from others that Bishop Beverly Shamana from the California-Nevada Conference preached a wonderful sermon.

The opening business session of the day began just as I arrived. With three days of General Conference left, it seems that only now delegates are beginning to feel the pressure of time to get through the hundreds of petitions that still need to be acted upon individually, as well as clear the consent calendar. Ironically, to start the meeting this morning, the Calendar Committee announced several dozens of petitions that were being removed from the consent calendar, meaning the work of the conference was actually growing rather than getting smaller with 72 hours left to complete our business.

Several controversial petitions came up this morning related to representation and authority. The first petition of the morning, submitted by the Oregon-Idaho Conference, would require that every Jurisdiction be represented in membership on the Judicial Council. Coincidentally, this came just the day after the Western Jurisdiction lost all voice in the Judicial Council membership. The motion to require Jurisdictional membership on Judicial Council failed by a vote of 90% - 10%. A second, similar petition was then considered that would add Jurisdictional and Central Conference representation to the list of diversity concerns that delegates were encouraged to consider when voting for Judicial Council members. This non-binding encouragement was passed with 94% approval.

Next, a petition from an individual in the Pacific Northwest Conference was considered. This petition would automatically forward to trial any charges against a clergyperson who failed to respond fully to questions asked during investigation of the charges. This petition, from a woman in Mt. Vernon, Washington, seemed to me to be a direct reference to her displeasure with the outcome of my judicial process. The conservative evangelicals have charged, based on what they read in newspapers, that I refused to answer questions during my hearing before the Committee on Investigation regarding my sexual activity. Since the charges against me were dismissed, this petition would seek to make sure that such a situation could not happen. The petition was not debated, and it failed with less then 7% of the General Conference voting for it.

Another fascinating petition came before the body that would make bribery of delegates to General Conference a chargeable offense in the Discipline. The sub-committee chairperson who presented the petition made light of it, as did the presiding bishop. But the chairperson did acknowledge that someone in his subcommittee had shared a story of extravagant gifts being given to a delegate, with later encouragement to vote in particular ways. But the subcommittee voted against the petition because they felt it would be too difficult to determine what is bribery, considering the number of gifts that all delegates receive, such as complimentary books and hymnals, commemorative items, food and transportation from various caucuses. Personally, I thought that seemed like sufficient evidence that people are being bribed in small (and sometimes big) ways. But the Conference voted the petition down by a vote of 80% - 20%.

The next petition that came forward this morning implicitly placed the Pacific Northwest Conference at the center of the debate. The petition would allow the church the right of appeal in trials where there's an acquittal. Currently, our Discipline allows the defendant the right of appeal of a trial, but not the church. The legislation would allow the church to appeal the application of church law, but not the findings of a trial. In addition, the petition provided a vague reference to allowing for the Jurisdictional Committee on Appeals or the Judicial Council to order a change of venue for a trial. The sub-committee chairperson presenting the petition initially stated that the petition was not in reference to any certain case. But in debate, several people argued that clearly this was a response to the trial of Pastor Karen Dammann, and that completely reordering our judicial system and radically changing our rules and rights of clergy in a knee-jerk reaction to one case was terrible legislation. While still maintaining that the sub-committee's recommendation was not directly in response to Pastor Dammann's trial, the subcommittee chairperson claimed to have consulted with people involved in that trial to learn more about what happened in that situation. The members of our delegation, including several people directly involved with the trial, looked at one another with clear confusion, wondering who was consulted.

Elaine Stanovsky, the head of our Pacific Northwest delegation made a motion to refer the petition to the Judicial Council to rule on its constitutionality, considering it appeared to take the final decision regarding a clergyperson's standing and appointment status out of the hands of the annual conference. This is prohibited in paragraph 31 of our Discipline. The motion to refer was defeated. Another motion to refer, this time to the General Council on Finance and Administration for their legal analysis of the petition also failed by a vote of 46% to 54%. In final arguments on the petition, several speakers argued that this action was punitive, even vindictive. The votes of the previous day were adamant and uncompromising, and this further chipping away at our Discipline's constitutional protection of the rights of individuals and annual conferences was mean-spirited. One speaker said that continuing to consider these sorts of petitions in response to one issue was a sinful waste of our time and money, while there are many crucial items that must be dealt with by the conference to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, stand with the marginalized and spread the good news of God's love to a hurting world. A motion to postpone the decision indefinitely was made. Surprisingly, the motion was approved by a margin of 16 votes (49% - 51%). There were audible gasps and moans from the conference. This appeared to be the first vote that the conservative caucuses had thrown their weight behind, but had not gotten their way.

The approval of the Igniting Ministry Campaign came before the conference, with a request for $33 million additional dollars than what was already budgeted by the General Council on Finance and Administration. A proposed amendment to reduce that number to $23 million failed by a vote of 46% to 54%. The conference took their mid-morning break at this time. As the session was called back to order, another amendment was proposed to reduce the money to $22 million dollars. Significant numbers of delegates had not yet returned to their seats from break, and did not vote on this amendment. I believe as a result of that fact, this amendment passed 50.9% to 49.1%. Timing is everything, it seems.

A long debate erupted over the Igniting Ministry Campaign's use of the slogan "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors." Several delegates argued that it was blatantly hypocritical to continue to use that slogan after so completely proving their closed hearts, minds and doors after yesterday's votes to further marginalize and condemn GLBT persons. The director of the campaign pointed out that it would be disastrous to change this slogan which has just started to give a "brand association" with the United Methodist Church. In the end, the Igniting Ministry campaign with fewer dollars than requested was approved for another four years passed.

A new youth component of Igniting Ministries was then presented for approval. This legislation would authorize $5.4 million for an advertising campaign directed specifically to youth on behalf of the church. And amendment was proposed to reduce the dollar amount to $3 million, arguing that we have many more "excellent causes" to consider funding, and we need to be fiscally conservative now in order to have resources by the end of our week still to allocate. The amendment to reduce the dollar amount failed by a vote of 47% to 53%. The petition in support of a youth Igniting Ministry campaign eventually passed 79%-21%.

The conference approved individual ministries that the General Council on Finance and Administration has already included in their budget proposal. The church endorsed an Asian language ministry program, the Korean American National Plan, Substance Abuse and Related Violence ministries, the National Hispanic Plan, Ministry in Latin America, the Global Aids Fund, and Ministry with the Deaf and Blind. Some debate popped up at times during these petitions, calling for the conference not to give away all our money this early in the conference. But they all passed overwhelmingly.

A proposal for additional money for United Methodist Men beyond what the GCF&A had already included in their budget passed by a vote of 51% to 49%.

During the afternoon and evening, the most contentious items of business centered around the "Living Into the Future" proposal presented by the General Council on Ministries. At the 2000 General Conference, the GCOM was charged with bringing back a report and legislation about how to restructure our General Boards and Agencies of the church in a way that they can work more efficiently. GCOM was given a significant budget by General Conference in 2000 to initiate this study and develop comprehensive legislation to implement a new plan of organizing our denomination's ministries. In return, GCOM came to this General Conference with an ambitious plan to eliminate the GCOM, and in its place create a group that they would call the "Connectional Table," where representatives from the remaining General Boards and Agencies would work together with representatives from the General Council on Finance and Administration to set ministry priorities for the denomination and negotiate together their budgets. GCOM presented dozens of enabling petitions that would tie up all the loose ends in the Discipline to make this new structure work.

The sub-committee that was charged with considering this proposal decided that they didn't like what GCOM came up with, so they scrapped it. In its place, they took four days to develop their own proposal for a "Connectional Table." Their version of the Connectional Table would have only 47 members on it, as opposed to the 130 members that GCOM had proposed. They created new formulas for determining where those 47 members would come from. The sub-committee also explained that they were prepared to present comprehensive enabling petitions to tie down all the loose ends in the Discipline.

Exhaustive debate ensued on whether to accept the GCOM proposal, the sub-committee's proposal, or leave things the way they are. In the end, the conference voted narrowly to accept the sub-committee's proposal over the GCOM "Living Into the Future" proposal. The sub-committee then proceeded to present enabling petition that would change the language throughout the Discipline to bring it into line with this new Connectional Table that we just created. Unfortunately, the sub-committee was not able to bring as comprehensive a plan for this enabling legislation as the Living Into the Future folks had, which isn't surprising considering Living Into the Future was developed over four years and the sub-committee did their work in four days. The sub-committee was unclear as to what, exactly they were presenting as enabling legislation for the conference. After a 30 minute break to get their act together, the sub-committee had to withdraw some of their petitions because they had failed to have them printed appropriately ahead of time for the conference to properly consider them.

Several other petitions with financial implications were also considered, but there are too many to mention them all. Suffice it to say that the plenary session began at 9:00 this morning and finished at midnight tonight. I think pretty much everyone was physically and mentally exhausted by the end of the day, and it will all start again at 9:00 in the morning.

One final ominous note, "UM Decision 2004," the legislative wing of the conservative caucuses, has drafted a proposal to reconsider the decision from early in the day that postponed indefinitely the petition to give the church the right to appeal a trial court verdict. A paper was circulated broadly that gave talking points to people to be prepared to speak to, in order to convince that one-half a percent of the delegates who made the difference to swing the other way. This has been a repeated strategy throughout the conference, both in legislative committee sessions and in plenary. When votes don't go their way, the conservatives bring it up again to be reconsidered. A motion to reconsider did not come to the floor tonight, but it appears as though they are strategizing to bring it up before the end of the conference. I've heard of no plans for the progressives to try to bring up the vote on the chargeable offenses that were passed the night before by a margin of 10 votes. But the conservatives cannot live with only 95% of their agenda accomplished, it seems. We'll see if they manage to pull this back up and turn it around.

The political maneuvering and manipulations are remarkable. I'd been warned by others who've been here that this would be the case, but it really is shocking at times. This is clearly a human institution, with all (and perhaps more than) the failings of each of us at work here. The business of the conference leaves me feeling numb and cold inside. I'm reminded of the Spirit at work here mostly when I gather with friends and allies for worship, meals, and community.

Mark Williams
Pacific Northwest Conference Delegation
First Alternate Delegate

The First United Methodist Church of Ellensburg

Delegate Reports

Day 10 - Wednesday, May 5