There is some interesting buzz going around about Overture 117, which would amend the process for electing the Stated Clerk. The overture has not yet been assigned — but will be assigned to Committee 3, General Assembly Procedures. The text is at the bottom.
For most commissioners and advisory delegates, this is a “what do I care?” kind of thing. Commissioners to the 219th General Assembly (2010) do not get to vote for a Stated Clerk. So why should they care what is the process?
They should care. It matters.
Two things before I comment:
First, let me be up front and say that I have some opinions on the matter. When I stood for election for Stated Clerk in 2004, I found the process frustrating and unnecessarily restrictive.
Second, I was not standing for election in competition with the current Stated Clerk, Gradye Parsons, and so this note is not directed as some sort of indictment or veiled criticism of him. This is a post about process.
The role of the Stated Clerk is large within the life of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The Stated Clerk is the chief constitutional officer. There are responsibilities within the denomination and outside of the denomination in ecumenical activities. The Clerk often communicates on behalf of the denomination. The duties are spelled out in Standing Rule H.2.a.(part of the Manual of the General Assembly).
Now, as you are reading through the election portion of the material regarding the Stated Clerk, you will come to Standing Rule H.2.b.(3)(j), which reads,
(j) The committee shall interview all eligible candidates using the same methodology and select one as the committee’s recommendation. All members of the committee shall ordinarily participate in the interview. The committee shall declare its nominee no later than sixty days before the opening of the General Assembly.
“And?” you ask.
This sentence was not part of the Standing Rules in 2004. The Stated Clerk Nominating Committee did not interview, talk with, or do any kind of evaluation of candidates other than their pre-determined nominee. Stated differently, the first words the Stated Clerk Nominating Committee heard me speak were during the election process at the 216th General Assembly (2004) in Richmond.
Which leads us to Standing Rule H.2.b.(3)(m),
(m) The candidates may not distribute any other materials, print or electronic, including flyers, buttons, tokens or other objects that would denote a campaign for the office of Stated Clerk.
“Hmmm….” you may be thinking. What is that about?
Well, imagine you are a called and endorsed as a challenge candidate for Stated Clerk. Imagine further that you see the role and direction of the Clerk’s office very differently than the official nominee’s perspective. Let’s say the issues are significant enough that you believe commissioners and advisory delegates should have an opportunity to evaluate, engage, and debate the option(s) available to them. That is where I was. In 2004, not having ever been considered by the Stated Clerk Nominating Committee, I tried to find a way to communicate with the Assembly to raise those issues. The way I did it was through posters (aka flyers) and print media that identified me as the source. There were two other challenge candidates. There was high interest in the election and a number of individuals and advocacy groups had strong opinions about who should and should not be elected. And, as I discovered when a question was asked from the floor, someone was anonymously distributing negative campaign material into the mailboxes of commissioners and advisory delegates.
“OK,” is your next thought, “But it is true that a campaign is not the most dignified or prayerfully discerning way to evaluate the candidates.” What is the alternative? The rules provide this (Standing Rule H.2.b.(3)(l)): a photo, a biographical sketch, a personal statement, responses to questions from the Stated Clerk Nominating Committee. That is it. No other communication is permitted pre-Assembly. So, ask yourself, “Is the Stated Clerk Nominating Committee likely to pose questions that will highlight their candidate’s weaknesses?”
Then, at the Assembly, candidates are provided a room on Wednesday (during reading time and the start of committee reports to the plenary) to talk with interested commissioners and advisory delegates. They cannot hand out anything other than what has been distributed. Then, on Friday, the election is basically the same format as for the Moderator — only it happens on the last full day of the Assembly and the person elected has day-to-day influence over a significant part of the denomination’s administrative workings for the next four years.
Here’s my point: the process is designed to limit discernment, not enhance it. I don’t think that is good policy.
My non-election is not relevant to my opinion that the process is flawed. And if there is to be a change in the election procedures for the next Stated Clerk election at the 220th General Assembly (2012), the changes need to be made at the 219th General Assembly (2010).
Whether the proposed language in Overture 117 is an improvement is kind of a toss-up for me. Having the Stated Clerk Nominating Committee reprimand a challenge candidate in front of a tired Assembly and requiring the candidate to use part of their 5 minutes to address whatever charges are leveled does not seem like a particularly attractive alternative. I was not a commissioner in 2004, did not know that negative campaign material had gone out, and was blindsided by the question when it was posed and I was the first to have to answer. Again, not that I was going to be elected, but it did not help. It was a kind of a “when did you stop beating your wife,” moment. It put me in the position of having to defend my integrity in front of the body seeking to discern who God was raising up to serve as Clerk. I’m sure somewhere there is video of that moment — though am not sure it is entertaining enough to make YouTube.
At any rate, the process for electing the Stated Clerk is important — and it needs to be important now; important to the commissioners and advisory delegates of the 219th General Assembly (2010).
So, here is the text of Overture 117:
On Amending Standing Rule H.2.b.(4) Regarding Provisions for the Election of the Stated Clerk—From the Presbytery of Detroit.
The Presbytery of Detroit overtures the 219th General Assembly to amend Section H.2.b.(4) of Standing Rules of the General Assembly, which govern the election of the Stated Clerk, by deleting paragraphs (m), (n), (o), and (p) by adding a new paragraph (m), as follows:
(m) The candidates may not distribute any other materials, print or electronic, including flyers, buttons, tokens or other objects that would denote a campaign for the office of Stated Clerk.
(n) Other organizations supporting the candidacy of a particular candidate may not distribute materials electronically, through the mail, or at the General Assembly with the knowledge, support, or permission of that candidate. Should a candidate discover that an organization is advocating or campaigning for him or her, it is expected that the candidate will request that organization to cease its activities. The same expectation will be true of organizations that are critical of a particular candidate for Stated Clerk.
(o) Each candidate will be provided a place to meet and talk with commissioners and advisory delegates two days before the election. Only information provided by the Office of the General Assembly may be distributed in those rooms. Other materials, apart from that packet, are not permitted. Each candidate for Stated Clerk will be allowed to post the times when he/she will be available for conversation in that room.
(p) Any questions concerning interpretation of the election process outlined in H.2.b. shall be determined by the Stated Clerk Nomination Committee.
(m) The Stated Clerk Nominating Committee shall monitor the activities of those standing for election to ensure the election is open, and fair, and that information given by the candidates is accurate and within the bounds of decorum. The Committee shall direct candidates who violate the spirit of the election process to amend their ways. Where a candidate does not properly respond, the Nominating Committee, after giving notice to all the candidates, may inform the Assembly when the election occurs that in its opinion the named candidate(s) has violated the ideals and principles of the election process. The Candidate may in his speech to the Assembly address the allegations made by the Stated Clerk Nominating Committee.
Rationale
After a difficult Stated Clerk election in 2004, the Office of the General Assembly was directed to “investigate the integrity, openness, and fairness of the Stated Clerk’s electoral process.” With the following rationale, Paragraphs H.2.b.4(m)-(p) were added to the rules: “The following changes are in recognition of the fact that the position of Stated Clerk is a calling, and not a popularity contest. Commissioners are entitled to and should receive the same unbiased information for each candidate.”
The reasons for amending the rules are:
It rescinds an attempt to ensure that the bad things that happened in the election of 2004 never happen again. The resolution, proposed after a difficult time, while it had the effect of preventing the perceived problems, had unintended consequences: It severely limited the ability of any candidate to communicate his or her vision to the Assembly and the Church.
The Church and the Assembly have come to expect communication by leaders using all manner of communication strategies: e-mail, web sites, social networking systems, blogs, and such. To prevent candidates from using these means of communicating their visions to the Church is out of synch with the times.
Prohibiting organizations not under the control of the candidate from taking stands is beyond the power of the Assembly, and it limits the kind of advocacies that are permitted in other areas.
Limiting the ability of candidates in their expression of vision is to give additional weight to the candidate brought forward by the Stated Clerk Nominating Committee. The effect is to leave to speculation the competence, motivation, and vision of those nominated from the floor, while the Committee nominee has been vetted by and met the test of knowledgeable and wise members of the Committee.
Where there is a problem of trust, the better way of addressing the matter is by open and unfettered process rather than by the dictation of rules that limit activity.
The Stated Clerk of the General Assembly is one of the most important and powerful people in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). To prohibit the Assembly and the Church from learning of the beliefs, positions, and vision of the candidates is unwise and does not well serve the church in these times of great stress and change.
Protecting the integrity of the election process can better be accomplished by public disclosure rather than authoritarian rules.