The Word on Committee 8 -- will they get through it all?

Started by R. T. Fouts, July 16, 2010, 02:13:00 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

R. T. Fouts

Scott,

What is the news on Committee 8?  Is the convention going to address all these resolutions?  It seems as though time is drawing near a close, and a large portion of these resolutions simply haven't been addressed.  This seems like a HUGE mismanagement of the convention time considering the fact that these matters have consumed the time of SO many people, boards, commissions, over the last 6 years (being discussed over the last 2 conventions).   

I'm sorry -- but with all the money and effort that has been put into this, if these matters are not at least addressed, I find that to be rather outragous!  I'm not in favor of most of them, but if our church is going to pour that much time and resource into these matters, we should at least bring these matters to the floor.   It is, frankly, outrageous.   
----------------
Dr. R.T. Fouts, M.Div, Ph.D.

Scott6

In a word: "HA!"

If they get through all their resolutions, I'll buy you a steak dinner next time we see each other.  At Denny's...  Or, I'll get a thin piece of cow and throw it on the grill... Alright, a burger...

Anyway, I think that the time giving additional explanations on Sunday was somewhat wasted (I say "somewhat" b/c I've talked to a few folks who thought it was helpful) as enough preparation had been done prior to the convention and most everyone really should have known what's going on.  Besides that time, however, I really don't know what more they could have done.  Other committees had work to present to the convention as well, and not even the creamiest of cream puff resolutions (like, "Hey, you've heard of this internet thing?  Yeah, well, why don't we use it to communicate a bit more.  Wha'dya think?") could get through without at least 3 comments and a move to send back to committee.  Really, the number of folks who seem to think that they should have something to say on nearly everything is astounding -- oh, alright.  It really isn't.  I'd guesstimate that there are about two dozen or so people who continually slow down the business of the convention; and I think the convention agrees with me b/c when the question is finally called, large supermajorities (70 or 80 or even 90% +) vote to end debate, and then generally the resolution passes again by a large margin.

So, like I said, the initial time on Sunday probably wasn't the best thing to do.  After that, however, I'm not sure what else the chair or the convention planners could do.  Except to suggest that folks realize that they don't have to address the assembly on nearly every order of business.

Jeremy Loesch

Scott, it appears that you have quite a bit of power or influence. After the nice resolution from the pastoral delegate from PA (Jamison Hardy I believe) to express gratitude and appreciation for Pres. Kieschnick and the singing of the common doxology (why couldn't they have sung the Navy Hymn like that?) Pres. Kieschnick told the assembly that he was going to be an ogre and move things along as quickly as possible.  He told delegates to think thrice before coming to the microphone and that if delegates come to the microphone they need to stay on point.

People are listening to you Scott.  You should feel good about the work you are doing.

Jeremy
A Lutheran pastor growing into all sorts of things.

ptmccain

Scott,

Curiosity question...is this the first convention you've sat through and followed like this?

PTM

Scott6

#4
Quote from: ptmccain on July 16, 2010, 10:22:45 AM
Scott,

Curiosity question...is this the first convention you've sat through and followed like this?

PTM

On the floor, it's my first from beginning to end and second as I was at the ELCA's CWA 2009 from Wed on.  But, if memory serves, it's the 6th convention I've observed (2 LCMS and 3 ELCA conventions).

I make no claim to expertise; but them are my observations above, and I'm sticking with 'em.

Scott6

Alright, considerable testiness with a delegate trying to move a motion that is ruled out of order.  The delegate protests multiple times and is again ruled out of order.  He removes his original motion (sorry, I was talking with Will at the time and missed it as well as the name of the delegate) and then moves to dismiss FC 8 and end all their motions.  He is again ruled out of order.  He protests the ruling of the chair.  The chair puts it to a vote, and his ruling is upheld by 65% of the assembly.  The delegate tries then to ask when his motion would be in order, and exasperated, the chair says he's out of order.  Delegate sits down.

Scott6

Res. 8-02A "Congregations Walking Together in Mission through Circuit Networks to Restore Circuits to their Primary Purpose" (517-518)

<Amendment on floor to restrict circuits to geographical areas.>

David Loy -- pro.  When we re-shuffle circuits to lines beyond geographical, we are no longer forced to sit down with each other over the Word of God.  Creating "silos" over certain issues would not do this.

<PK is really moving the convention along, now>

Robert Sely -- con.  We should give districts flexibility to align districts along their best judgment.

Leaond Astowski (sorry!) -- pro.  You can just see that we're having a problem with unity.  The clapping, etc.  We have to come together b/c it will force us to do so.  You can meet with your circuit -- the guys you don't like as you're supposed to do -- and then meet with your friends, too.

Question called -- 82% to end debate.

Vote on amendment -- 50.7% (556-541) in favor; amendment adopted.

Scott6

Michael Moore -- Point of order.  Confused if the debate over the amendment was in order.  The amendment was to bylaw 5.1.2 which is not included in Res 8-02A.

PK -- Parliamentarian says that by adopting the amendment, it essentially added 5.1.2 to the original motion.

MM -- are bylaw changes in 8-02A no longer the right ones.  Are others going to be inserted?

FC -- Res 8-02 did include 5.1.2; Res 8-02A deleted it.  The bylaws currently in 8-02A are the right ones.

<Main motion>

James Erving -- con.  5.1.1 doesn't have any minimum and could have 2 congregations.  It seems like 5 would be a good number.

John Rosendahl -- pro.  Line 26 & 27 -- to celebrate their "common confession."  I'm not currently in a circuit that has a "common confession;" I hope this resolution does.

<PK goes through many names w/ no one at the mics; so he calls the question>

(817-294) 73.5% in favor

Res 8-02A as amended:

(699-417) 62.6% in favor.  Res 8-02A adopted.

Scott6

Point of Order -- this is the 3rd resolution from FC 8 where we keep bringing amendments not vetted by the CCM.  This is a trainwreck.

<PK refers him to take his concern to the CCM>

Res 8-05B -- combines Res 8-05A & Res 8-26.  P. 603-605.  "To Elect Delegates to the Synod Convention"

FC -- removal of the electoral circuit as the voting body and the establishment of the number of voting delegates combined into one.

FC -- remove lines 19&20 on 603.  We have not eliminated advisory delegates (lines 45-47) on 603.  Cf. 3.1.3.1 on 605.  We still have the category of advisory delegates.  One advisory delegate for every 60 people in the category.  If we set the number of delegates at 10% of the number of congregations, that would be approximately half of the number we currently have.  So a change in the percentage would also impact the # of delegates.

Mark Schulz (I've typed that name bunches, but apparently 3 people by that name are present) -- question.  If we strike lines 19 & 20, can we still elect delegates from our circuits.

FC -- we struck it b/c that action was not yet taken, so it can't be a whereas.  Top of 604.  If this resolution is adopted, circuits will no longer elect reps, but rather the # of delegates will be determined by the provided formula for the district.  Then the district BOD would determine the cluster of congregations.  The cluster could be a circuit or it could be a larger (or smaller) number of congregations.  Those electoral clusters may elect at the district convention or at another time.  This is a change from the earlier resolution which insisted that the election would be done at the district convention.  Now, it could be at other venues.  The last resolution said that circuits would be geographic.  But a cluster is not a circuit.

MS -- con.  It is so confusing and terribly important that many congregations don't want change.  I don't know if recommend that we not adopt it and wait until the next convention.


Michael Hagen -- moves to refer it to the commission on handbook.  Dr. S, w/ all due respect, my concern is that the electoral circuit issue has been in 5 different resolutions.  Now, this one resolution has a number of different things and we only received it this morning.  If we want the grassroots to know what's going on, we need to have the circuits and congregations wrestle with it.

Dr. S --What you have before is nothing that you haven't seen for weeks before.  The only thing that is new is the combining of two resolutions into one.  This eliminates the whole issue of exceptional circuits.  But it's important to realize this isn't a new resolution but merely the joining of two pre-existing ones.

Question called on motion to refer to committee on handbook.

67% called question.

Vote on motion to refer:

51.4% motion to refer adopted!

Scott6

#9
Wow.  Stuff people have looked at for months and years referred to a committee on handbook.  Well, there it is.  I think this means that Res. 8-02B dies, along with the move to reduce the number of delegates and having others means to elect them.  I thought that this was a good idea, if for no other reason than the simple fact that I've met many, many folks who have come to convention after convention -- almost professional delegates.  It is that repetition which seems most problematic to me, as rather than even having congregations represented it really is the personalities of a number of individuals who form what seems to be a significant part of the life of the convention.

Mike Gehlhausen

Quote from: Scott Yakimow on July 16, 2010, 12:17:46 PM
Wow.  Stuff people have looked at for months and years referred to a committee on handbook.  Well, there it is.  I think this means that Res. 8-02B dies, along with the move to reduce the number of delegates and having others means to elect them.  I thought that this was a good idea, if for no other reason than the simple fact that I've met many, many folks who have come to convention after convention -- almost professional delegates.  It is that repetition which seems most problematic to me, as rather than even having congregations represented it really is the personalities of a number of individuals who form what seems to be a significant part of the life of the convention.

You mean 8-05B dies, right?

8-02A was adopted however closely.

I'm usually not so picky -- really, really, I'm not -- I am just trying to keep the resolutions straight.

Accept it as a friendly amendment if it please the ALPB reporter.

Mike

Scott6

Res. 8-03B (518-519)  "To Elect Circuit Counselor"

FC -- nominations for a CC would be made by the congregations, and the DP may choose to make a nomination.  Then the congregations elect the CC from the list of nominations.  The list is then ratified by the district conventions as they currently are now.  The DP's nomination comes before the vote.


Jeffrey Keunting -- amend.  P. 519, line 9 change "and" to "or" and after "president" insert "the latter."  The word "and" indicates that both requirements be met; the word "or" means that either is OK, and "the latter" says that only the DP needs to consult with the district praesidium.

FC -- the way I understand the proposed wording is to eliminate the congregation from the process.  Send to delegates.


<Discuss amendment>

CCM -- amendment out of order.  Needs to be examined by CCM.

PK -- how do we proceed with a resolution that amends bylaws?

CCM -- they must be brought forward in advance.

<Discussion on Original motion>

David Kline -- pro.  It does not take the congregations out; it does not give the DP a heavy hand.  This helps build a bridge.  Clarifying the process for selection of the CC would be helpful.


Jamison Hardy -- point of order -- I got taken out of the queue.  Con.  I'm a VP of the English District.  My heart is heavy.  You see the rising to the issue of the circuit issues.  It doesn't give me any joy that the tabling of the last was passed by a slim margin.  This is very controversial.  This makes it more confusing.  We need time to let these structure things play out.  You see the opposition to these circuit issues.  These things should be evaluated more thoroughly.

FC -- It was the opinion that after 5 years of study and conversation, it was time to have that conversation together at this convention.  That was the hope of the FC.  It is disappointed that the resoultion (8-02B) was referred.  We wanted to talk about it.


Question called.

Todd Peperkorn -- point of order.  There is an amendment that the CCM is discussing an amendment re: this resolution.  We need to deal with that, first.

CCM -- we have just met as the CCM.  And the changes in the bylaw on p. 519 line 9 is acceptable.

PK -- rules motion to call question out of order b/c of the amendment.

Delegate -- add the word "either" on line 8.

FC -- accepts amendment as friendly.

PK -- back to motion to call question.

72% in favor.

Vote on Res 8-03B as amended:

55% in favor (619-509).  Res 8-03B adopted

Scott6

Quote from: Mike Gehlhausen on July 16, 2010, 12:25:00 PM
Quote from: Scott Yakimow on July 16, 2010, 12:17:46 PM
Wow.  Stuff people have looked at for months and years referred to a committee on handbook.  Well, there it is.  I think this means that Res. 8-02B dies, along with the move to reduce the number of delegates and having others means to elect them.  I thought that this was a good idea, if for no other reason than the simple fact that I've met many, many folks who have come to convention after convention -- almost professional delegates.  It is that repetition which seems most problematic to me, as rather than even having congregations represented it really is the personalities of a number of individuals who form what seems to be a significant part of the life of the convention.

You mean 8-05B dies, right?

8-02A was adopted however closely.

I'm usually not so picky -- really, really, I'm not -- I am just trying to keep the resolutions straight.

Accept it as a friendly amendment if it please the ALPB reporter.

Mike

Sorry.  Stuff is really flying here right now.  The chair recognizes his error and apologizes profusely to the delegate.

Scott6

Res 8-12A "To Direct BOD to Amend Bylaws as Necessary"

<Powder-puff resolution to coordinate wording>

Jeffrey Grahams -- question.  How will this differ from the current process?

FC -- it doesn't differ.  It just confirms the process in light of the many previous questions re: this point.

<This is a powder-puff resolution>

Question called.

71% in favor

Vote on resolution 8-12A

74% in favor

ptmccain

Quote from: Scott Yakimow on July 16, 2010, 12:17:46 PM
Wow.  Stuff people have looked at for months and years referred to a committee on handbook.  Well, there it is.  I think this means that Res. 8-02B dies, along with the move to reduce the number of delegates and having others means to elect them.  I thought that this was a good idea, if for no other reason than the simple fact that I've met many, many folks who have come to convention after convention -- almost professional delegates.  It is that repetition which seems most problematic to me, as rather than even having congregations represented it really is the personalities of a number of individuals who form what seems to be a significant part of the life of the convention.

To be blunt, I really think this was the worst suggestion of the Task Force. It would seriously damage and change our understanding of what it is to be a "congregation" and "church." It would reduce representation, not enhance it.

All in all, a bad idea.

For the last several conventions there has been an attempt to push through radical changes on delegate representation. The decision of the Synod in convention, in each instance, has been to reject such moves, by huge percentages, 90%+ It happened at the last convention too, rejected, firmly.

But in spite of this clear will of the convention, there was some perception that this should still be pursued.

I hope this can all be sorted out in a much better way.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk