Print This Post
BOA ACTION: Forwarded to 2011 General Conference for consideration.
GCRCC Status: forwarded for July 2011 General Conference action
GC11 ACTION: Rejected
Introduced by: David Fisher, North Central Conference
Written by: David Fisher
Related to Paragraph(s) #: 4300
Whereas:
in 1999 the General Conference, with the view to achieving a smaller and perhaps a more effective BOA, changed the membership of the BOA from representation from each Annual Conference to the election of equal numbers of members from each of the Bishops’ assigned areas resulting in a total of 20-21 delegates representing approximately 30 Conferences, with less than one half of the Conferences then having direct representation on the BOA. (See Table 1)
Whereas, the change perhaps improved the efficiency of the BOA and certainly resulted in less cost, there are new factors that that should be considered concerning the tradeoff between benefits of efficiency and cost and the loss of direct representation by one half of the Conferences
Whereas, the significant dominance of the governance influence of the BOA as opposed to that of the General Conference will be even greater with the recent agreement allowing the BOA to select a small group that will determine which resolutions will be forwarded to the General Conference and which resolutions it will process,
Whereas, the number of Conferences has been reduced by five since 2007, making the size of a BOA with representation from all Conferences less burdensome than in 1999
Whereas, with the removal of the requirement for representation from conferences of mission origin, the total membership of a BOA (with representation from all conferences) would be 32 members
Whereas, in the 2007 General Conference, during deliberations on a resolution calling for a return to BOA membership that would allow each Annual conference to have representation, it was reported that the dominate argument was not against the merits of universal Annual Conference representation on the BOA, but, rather, against the excessive member turnover at each General Conference that was perceived to result from implementation
Therefore, be it resolved:
that each annual conference be represented on the BOA by adopting strategies incorporated in the exemplar Table 2 which include the alternating of ministerial and lay member allocations after two terms instead of a single term and the division of the conferences into groups to allow the staggering of the alternating allocation transitions at the General Conferences in order to allow good continuity of the BOA, and
Annual conferences be permitted to switch allocations (either min or lay) with another conference in order to allow for continuation of a BOA member, and
The BOA composition no longer include the requirement of representation from conferences of mission origin.
…. TABLES AND DISCIPLINE REVISIONS BELOW
Table 1 Summary of members elected, at the respective General Conferences, to the General BOA since 1999 when the BOA membership was restructured
CONFERENCE Members in Yearbook Elected to BOA
1999 2003 2007 1999 2003 2007
AL-GA x x 467
AZ 830 719 669
CR 1538 1936 1854 Roberts Roberts Roberts
EM 3880 3825 3853 Shinabarger Shinabarger/Toy Shinabarger/Toy
FL 2157 xx Bedford/Fajardo
GT 2106 2240 2224 Whitlock Whitlock Whitlock
GN 3797 3848 4166 Logan xx Pierce
GP 1689 1592 1412
GC xx 538 392
KS 1761 1663 1562 xx xx Collins
LS 488 xx xx
MD-VA 917 804 819 xx Davis Davis
MD-AM 508 488 698 Baird Kendall Angel/Johnson
NE 759 976 1092 Snyder xx xx
NS xx 946 965
NY 2903 2659 3296 Fernandez Carvalho/Gabriel Sones/Gabriel
NC 2448 2912 2987 xx Fisher xx
N.MI 1517 1628 1594
OH 2390 2903 2828 Hasse/Young Hasse/Young Hasse/Young
OR 2422 1904 1585
PCJ 1590 1570 1463
PNW 5487 5529 5153 Keene Whitehead/Keene Whitehead/Kline
PTBG 2704 2548 2549 xx xx Kelly
RM 926 593 473
SP 1400 1476 1540 Bush/Forbes Forbes xx
SA xx 2665 2784 xx Bedford/Martinez xx
SR 1262
SC 4121 5417 6421 Bode/Fitch Haskins/Fitch Conklin/Flores
S.MI 4144 4687 5194 Cryderman/Turner Turner/Lamoreaux Ramundo
SQH 912 1226 1601
TX xx xx 616
UK/BR 781 779 2585
UK/NI 146 149 158
WB 5363 5066 5338 Miller/Van Valin Miller/Martin Miller
WV 475 384 xx
Conferences with delegates elected to the BOA
14 of 30 14 of 30 14 of 31
Percent of members without elected representation on the BOA
61421 63670 6833
23471 16269 20452 38% 26% 30%
*Number of members retained at the 2003 and 2007 BOA elections
x9 of 21 10 of 20
Number of elected BOA members
21 20 21
Table 2 Showing an exemplar model explicitly tailored for the current number of annual conference indicating the allocated members of BOA with the staggering of the terms between the first and third groups with the second group in order to allow the most practical overlap of terms of the respective BOA members
Group 1 The 3 largest conferences will always provide an additional lay member to balance the Bishops
2011 2015 2019 2023
Genesis min min lay lay
Lay lay lay lay
PNW lay lay min min
Lay lay lay lay
Wabash min min lay lay
Lay lay lay lay
Group 2 Most of these conferences have BOA members serving in the present Quad. To provide continuity for the BOA, it is desirable for these conferences, where possible, to elect a current BOA member for another term and subsequently elect members, where possible, for two terms
Columbia River Lay min min lay
East Michigan min lay lay min
Gateway Lay min min lay
Keystone min lay lay min
Mid-Ameri Lay min min lay
Mid Atlantic min lay lay min
Ohio Lay min min lay
Pittsburgh min lay lay min
Southern California Lay min min lay
Southern Michigan min lay lay min
Alabama-Georgia Lay min min lay
Arizona min lay lay min
Group 3 These conferences do not now have members serving on the BOA. To provide continuity for the BOA it is desirable for the delegates selected to be those who could likely serve for two terms
Great Plaines lay lay min min
Gulf Coast min min lay lay
New England lay lay min min
New South min min lay lay
North Central lay lay min min
North Michigan min min lay lay
Oregon lay lay min min
PC J min min lay lay
Sierra Pacific lay lay min min
South Atlantic min min lay lay
The River lay lay min min
Discipline alterations:
Board of Administration
The Nomination and Election of the Board of Administration
¶4300
A. The general conference shall elect a board of administration, determine its powers, and prescribe the qualifications of its members and manner of their selection.
The board shall be comprised of:
1. all the U.S. bishops;
2. an elder or lay member from each U. S, annual conference as allocated by the Board of Bishops (with the conferences divided such that the elder and lay members are as equal as possible), and, to balance the bishops, and the inequity occurring when there is an odd number of annual conferences, the number of additional lay members necessary to establish equal representation shall be provided by an equal number of the conferences with the largest membership, each providing a lay member in addition to its allocated member; and
3. honorary members to include president of Women’s Ministries International, executive director of Men’s Ministries International, president of Association of Human Services Ministries, president of Association of Free Methodist Educational Institutions, president of Free Methodist Foundation and denominational executive directors.
B Provision for adequate continuity of the Board of Administration shall be accomplished by the member allocation assignments to the annual conferences by the Board of Bishops be such that that an annual conference will be given the same member allocation for two consecutive quadrenniums before switching to the opposite member allocation. The continuity shall be achieved by having only one half of the conferences transitioning from elder to lay members allocations and visa versa at each General Conference. Beginning this cycle necessitates that the allocations for one half of the conferences to be for only one quadrennium.
C Each annual conference shall, as allocated by the Board of Bishops, submit a nomination for either an elder or a lay candidate (with the exception of those largest conferences which are selected to nominate a lay candidate in addition to its allocated member) for election to the board of administration. Exception: In the interest of continuing either an elder or lay member for another quadrennium, where its allocation does not match, an annual conference shall be permitted to trade allocations with another agreeing annual conference, with the opposite allocation, upon notice to and the concurrence of the Board of Bishops. All nominees shall:
1. be widely known in the community, church and conference as a follower of Christ in word, attitude and deed;
2. have demonstrated keen interest in the mission of the Free Methodist Church;
3. have served on at least one local church and one conference board;
4. have served, or be serving, as a delegate to annual conference, or be an ordained elder in the conference;
5. have demonstrated strong ability to engage in dialog and listen reflectively; and
6. have demonstrated commitment to attend and positively participate in scheduled meetings.
Submission of such nominees must be completed no later than sixty days prior to the general conference, and must be submitted on the provided nomination form, including biographical data. A one-paragraph introduction from the conference may be attached to the nominating form.
Nomination forms from each annual conference will be sent to the general conference delegates no later than thirty days prior to the general conference.
A majority of the board of administration members shall be delegates to the general conference electing them.
Does the resolution have a direct relationship to the vision and mission of the Free Methodist Church?
Yes.
How will the proposed change help us accomplish our vision and mission?
It allows the representative nature of Free Methodism to be preserved during a time when the BOA or subcommittee of the BOA is responsible for writing and editing matters of the constitution that would otherwise have received full vote of the delegates at General Conference.
The Resolutions Committee rates this resolution as:
(A) Support – recommend adoption
Comments:
We understand that this is a very complex resolution. The heart of the resolution is requiring proportional representation from all conferences on the BOA. The tables were provided to demonstrate with clarity a method where this might occur, but the method is less relevant than the concept.
Related posts:
Regarding the resolution (30), one of the key drivers behind it is a desire to retain the Free Methodist value of all churches having representative say in the formation of the Discipline and Doctrine. These matters have historically been accomplished through General Conference delegates, elected and sent by annual conferences to create, review, revise, reject, affirm, adopt resolutions and affirmations as the denominational standard.
The current trend toward resolutions being reviewed, revised, rejected or adopted by the Board of Administration is a move away from the role played by general church delegates. It is necessary as there are too many resolutions to process appropriately at general conference, and many are really detail items that can legitimately be dealt (with at the BOA level (or referred to SCOD or COLD or other standing committees that think about such things).
For that reason primarily, if there were equal conference representation on the BOA, particularly as it relates to dealing with general church matters that probably should be reviewed by a representative group, the increasing powers of the BOA would have an offset regarding these matters.
There would be no reason that a larger BOA could not have a subset executive committee that dealt wit
h the critical, necessarily more fluid issues of policy, procedure, vision, direction and resource generation and allocation, which would allow for a smaller leadership team that led well and freely and with accountability.
The charts associated with the resolution are cumbersome, and only meant to demonstrate that it is in fact both historically and currently possible to form an active BOA with representation from each conference. The details are flexible.
It’s a good and legitimate choice the general church has before it regarding how we shall self-govern. I hope this generates healthy, civil, productive conversation and whatever the outcome, a unified love for the church and its leaders will be the result.