A live report from the 2005 US National Conference and General Conference.
Written, with occasionally annoying commentary, by Steve Dennie, UB Communications Director

Tuesday Morning

Page 2 (10:30 - noon)

10:30 a.m.

They ran out of coffee way to quickly on the refreshment table in the foyer. After a frenzied search, I discovered coffee still downstairs in the cafeteria. Others followed me. UBs must have coffee.

Randy Carpenter says "Hi" to Molly Kessler.

Bishop Hirschy called everyone back to order at 10:30. He directs attention to Report 71, the two referenda items. We'll start with the Property referendum, then deal with the National Conference referenda. These are proposed changes to the Constitution whch were approved by the membership in nationwide voting last October. (A third referendum, on joining the Missionary Church, didn't get the 50% vote needed to be passed on to the US National Conference.)

Property Referendum

A motion was made to approve the Property referendum.

Paul Lehman (Mid-Atlantic layperson) spoke against passing the referendum. He thought it would be too easy for churches to withdraw from the denomination.

Sam Quinn (California clergy) asked how this would affect the situation in California, where many local churches have given their property over to a trust fund. In that case, Bishop Hirschy said, the property would remain in the hands of the trust fund, and they wouldn't have the right to own their own property, since they voluntarily gave up their property.

Sam said it wouldn't qualify as conference property, either, since the trust fund is a separate entity with its own board.

Paul Seward (Midwest clergy) wondered where the conference property would go if we eliminate the conferences. Bishop Hirschy said the conferences, as separate incorporated entities, would decide what happens to their assets.

Bishop Hirschy called for a standing vote. The referendum passed 60-1.

National Conference Referendum

It was moved that we approve the National Conference referendum.

Ted Doolittle (Sandusky clergy) raised a question about wording which says only "active licensed ministers" could be clergy delegates. Who exactly would this refer to, he wondered? Bishop Hirschy said we would be including all levels of licensed ministers.

Tom Brodbeck (Central clergy) wondered if we could amend the motion--not the wording, but the main motion--to say, "That we approve the National Conference referendum with the understanding that 'active licensed ministers' refers to all licensed United Brethren ministers."

Jim Kendall (Michigan clergy) asked for clarification. Does "active licensed" refer to retired ministers? Bishop Hirschy said it would--that even if you're retired, you still have a vote in your conference, and the Constitution says no ministers can be deprived of a vote in the conference to which they belong.

Bishop Hirschy called for another standing vote. Only two persons, both from Northwest Conference, stood in opposition.

So, both of the referenda items have been approved. That went fairly fast.

10:50

Tom Brodbeck moved, "That the phrase 'active licensed ministers' in the newly-adopted referendum items be interpreted to refer to all levels of ministers anywhere in the Discipline." That's a close paraphrase. You get the idea.

Anthony Blair (Mid-Atlantic clergy) said he didn't think this should refer to lay ministers or local conference ministers. Tom--was this your intent, asked Bishop Hirschy?

Tom said local conference ministers don't currently have a vote in their annual conference, and neither do lay ministers. So he wasn't referring to them--only to the levels of annual conference minister on up, which do have current voting privileges. His intent, he said, was not to give voting rights to anyone who doesn't currently have such rights, but to preserve the rights for those who currently do.

The motion was amended to specifically include annual conference ministers and specialized ministers, in addition to ordained elders.

Dan Paternoster suggested using wording which he found somewhere else in the Discipline, which refers to ministers who have been duly accepted by the conference. That way, if we create new categories of ministers, we won't be excluding them.

Tom Datema (Central clergy) didn't like "the annual conference part." Because if we eliminate annual conferences, it would be problematic. He suggested that we refer to "licentiates who are recognized by the National Conference." Then we can add or remove categories, and it doesn't matter.

Tom moved to amend the motion to define "active licensed ministers" to refer to ministers who have been duly received by the national conference. Support.

Tom Brodbeck said the national conference doesn't receive anyone, so that makes Datema's motion a problem.

There was some more discussion, but it was tabled, since it ties in with some motions we'll deal with later.

Proposed New Referenda

Tom Brodbeck, as chairman of the Discipline Revision Committee, went to the podium (at the bishop's request) to present Report 85, which deals with proposed referenda for 2007. He walked us through the five proposed referenda.

That was just for information.

Legal Opinions

Now Bishop Hirschy drew attention to the two legal opinions presented concerning the idea of combining all conferences into one national conference. Both opinions--one from the Michigan Conference attorney, one from the UB Headquarters attorney--suggest that we can't create a national conference without doing a referendum first.

"I'm thankful that both attorneys agree," Bishop Hirschy said. "If they didn't, then we could have a lot of hassle."

This goes back to the February National Board meeting. The Constitution gives the US National Conference the right to set the boundaries of the anual conferences, so the Board wanted to define the boundaries of the US National Conference to include the entire USA. So we would have just one "annual conference" covering the whole country.

Anthony Blair felt both attorneys were addressing the appropriateness of this national conference "abolishing" the annual conferences. He felt we weren't abolishing them, but combining the existing conferences into a single conference. That's the general idea of his argument.

Any more questions?

Well, discussion meandered here and there. Should we deal with the proposed referenda now? Should we go to other Discipline revision proposals first? Chicken or the egg stuff. Brian Hughes (Sandusky layperson) thought we should deal with the proposed referenda now.

Okay, it was decided to deal with the referenda items. You can download a PDF containing those proposals.

Referendum 1 deals with the Preamble. It would remove the words in bold:

We, the members of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, United States of America, in the name of God do, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, as well as to produce and secure a uniform mode of action in faith and practice, also to define the powers and the business of local, annual, and national conferences, as recognized by this church, ordain the following articles of Constitution:

A voice vote passed with no opposition. So Referendum 1 is a go for 2007.

Referendum 2 was relevant only if the National Conference referendum didn't pass. It did pass, so Referendum 2 isn't needed. But Referendum 3 would then amend the NC referendum we just passed. It would change the reference to "active licensed ministers" to "all licensed ministers." An amendment was made to make that "all conference licensed ministers."

Referendum 3 passed with a voice vote.

Referendum 4 would remove three of the duties of the US National Conference, all of which deal with annual conferences (which we want to eliminate):

1. The national conference shall define the boundaries of the annual conferences.

4. The business of each annual conference shall be done strictly according to Discipline; and any conference acting contrary thereunto shall, by impeachment, be tried by the national conference.

7. There shall no rule be made that will deprive local ministers of their votes in the annual conferences to which they severally belong.

There was a lot of discussion about the format for presenting the referendum before the people. Should only the three items to be deleted be put on the ballot? Or should we put all nine of them, so people could see what those three items are being removed from?

George Kreger (Michindoh clergy) wondered what was meant by point 9, "The right of appeal shall be inviolate." Does that refer to anything in the Discipline? He was pointed to portions of the Discipline where it would apply, but I didn't catch the specific references. It's somewhere in there.

11:55 am

Anthony Blair made a motion to amend duty 2, by removing the words in bold, so that the National Conference wouldn't be required to elect a bishop every time it meets:

2. The national conference shall at every session elect one or more bishops from among the elders throughout the church, who have stood six years in that capacity.

Tom Brodbeck suggested making these separate refernda. That way, if you're in favor of removing the other duties, but not in favor of the change regarding electing bishops, then you're not caught in a dilemma. So it was suggested making them separate referenda. Anthony Blair capitulated by withdrawing his motion. He referenced the hymn, "I surrender all."

They voted on Referendum 4, with an amendment which I'm not sure was all that consequential, but which I didn't catch. The referendum passed on a voice vote.

On to referendum 5, which deals with the amendment process. It just spells things out a bit better. It passed with no discussion on a unanimous voice vote. Hmmm.

Now Anthony returned to "Revive Us Again." What a joker. He presented a motion to reword Article II, Duties, point 2, to delete the words "at every session" as given a few paragraphs earlier. Look it up.

Tom Brodbeck suggested that something be added concerning the bishop's term of office. Since each National Conference wouldn't be electing a bishop, the bishop could, theoretically, serve indefinitely. A life term. It would be tyranny! Yikes! Tom didn't say that. I'm just ranting.

Time for lunch. Bishop Hirschy gave a plug for the new United Brethren coffee mugs--go buy one at the book table. Concerning whether or not to have an evening session--some people had said they didn't realize we would have one--Bishop Hirschy said that if we continue moving along so well, we may not need an evening session. "Let's see how the day goes. If we do very well, we may well say, 'Relax, enjoy your meal, we'll see you in the morning.'"

12:05. Time for lunch.

Ron Cook offered a prayer for the meal. Good. I almost forgot at breakfast.

Go to Page 3 (Tuesday afternoon)