Mr. Michael A. Downs

The Pension Boards United Church of Christ

475 Riverside Drive

Room 1020

New York, NY 10115-0059

 

 

Dear Mike:

 

In response to your letter to John Thomas regarding the Substitute motion made and adopted at the 25^th General Synod, I wish to make several comments from at least two different perspectives.

 

First, since I was moderating at the time of this action I have tried to reflect and evaluate that moment in the Synod’s brief life. In our personal conversation I said that I had not seen the substitute motion in sufficient time to determine if it was actually in order, or should have been treated as a separate motion. If the latter, then all other kinds of Standing Rules would have come into play which probably would have made it impossible to deal with it unless the delegates suspended the rules. Both parliamentarians advised me the substitute was in order, and upon my return home, I went into the BIG Robert’s Rules book to study Substitute motions and the rules relating to them. I believe now the parliamentarians were correct: a substitute motion is given wide latitude and allows the body to compare the substitute with the main motion presented by the Committee in voting its preferences.

 

However, there is a Standing Rule which raises a question more regarding its ambiguity in relationship to substitute motions than anything else. It reads: “(d) Copies of each Resolution or Other Formal Motion and the recommendation pertaining to it must be distributed to delegates at least one-half day before action can be taken. The referent here is New Business, but I believe there is sufficient ambiguity in this statement to suggest a major Substitute Motion may be out of order under any circumstances if it comes from the floor. I encourage the Executive Council to clarify that prior to GS 26, since it appears resolutions will be presented there.

 

And then there is, “19. When a matter has been referred to a committee or group during the General Synod for review prior to its presentation to a plenary session for debate and action, the recommendation made to a plenary session by such committee or group shall be considered an original main motion fully open to amendment by the General Synod, except a recommendation that radically alters the basic intent or direction of the original matter referred to a committee or group shall be regarded as a substitute motion requiring a majority vote of the General Synod for consideration. This permits a Committee to offer a substitute resolution to replace the motion presented to GS by the originators, but says nothing regarding a single delegate moving a Substitute. Therefore, it appears to me that Robert’s Rules pertain, which, as I mentioned above, probably allowed the Substitute motion.

 

Second, I accept on face value your description of how you experienced the activities that produced the substitute. In many ways, that troubles me more than any parliamentary question. I served on the General Synod Committee on Structure and one of our underlying hopes was to construct a structure in which unilateral actions as you described would be left behind. During my brief tenure as OCIS Interim Director I experienced XX much differently than when I was Executive Associate to the President. The collaborative stance had become embedded in the life of XX, and provided a base to move into the new structure. Had something like you described happened when I was in the president’s office, all hell would have broken loose at the next XX meeting – occasionally, hell didn’t need such an opening.

 

I would hope that the Collegium would find it useful to have you and Don Hart present for a meeting ASAP. There is no substitute in the present structure for the expanded entity once known as XX which included everyone – something between the Collegium and the ill-fated Mission Planning Council.

 

It is usually outside of standard operating procedures that breeches of communication like you described tend to happen. So, I believe it is essential some form of standard operating procedure be instituted to accommodate for such lapses.

 

There is no question that the Pension Boards must follow its fiduciary responsibilities re this matter, and I would be astonished at anything other than that.

 

Well, I am now through with all of this now for which others as well as I are grateful (beginning with my wife). Off and on since spring of 1972 I have been attending Executive Council meetings and will not miss them now, while I do not devalue that body. So, I simply want to wish everyone well as you all seek to work toward a constructive reconciliation.

 

 

Cordially,

 

 

 

Norman W. Jackson

660 Alden Toad

Claremont, CA 91711

nwjsenec@gte.net

 

CC:      Collegium – United Church of Christ

            Board of Trustees – Pension Boards – UCC

            Conference Ministers – UCC

            Don Hart – United Church Foundation