United Church of God, an International Association
Council of Elders Meeting Report

Wednesday, March 10, 1999 — Cincinnati, Ohio

In contrast to yesterday’s meeting revolving around a singular issue, today’s session saw the Council of Elders trek through a potpourri of topics.

Larry Roybal from Mexico City Chuck Zimmerman from Phoenix

Dennis Luker reported on the seminar he conducted during the general conference on "The Role of the Minister’s Wife." Fifty wives attended and their greatest question, he said, was what biblically-based contributions can godly women make in serving the church of God? Questions abound, and perspectives vary greatly, on this subject, and the women collectively (through Mr. Luker) asked that a study paper be produced to give a clearer definition for the ways they can appropriately and more effectively contribute. The Council members responded very positively to this initiative and supported Mr. Luker’s pursuing it further.

Everyone then moved on to conclude a couple of issues left dangling from yesterday’s discussion on the Rules of Association. Following this, Vic Kubik walked the Council through a final review of a website policy for the church, which is necessary for media insurance coverage. This policy, which will be published after the final edits are incorporated, will be applicable to both the UCGIA and local congregations’ websites.

General Counsel Larry Darden explained to the Council his recommended edits to a Statement of Belief paper on jury duty. What church members mainly need when they are summoned, he said, is official support from the church to help their petitions to be excused. He recommended the paper not deal with how to handle such situations, since court procedures vary widely and are subject to changes. When needed, however, members can individually obtain advice from the legal department.

Don Ward reported that the Worldwide Church of God has denied our request to use the lion and lamb seal, on the basis that it is intertwined in so many of their documents and auxiliary operations, and they plan to continue to use it.

Richard Pinelli, director of Ministerial Services, brought for the Council’s consideration a proposed policy for US ministerial transfers. The Regional Pastors and MS team had worked to develop this plan, which is designed to bring a consistent standard and application to the process. It covers related issues such as the decision-making process involved in determining a transfer, the factors to consider, preparing the membership for the transfer, how pastors should handle the exchange of information and records, how to properly maintain relationships with members in previous church areas, an appeals process, and how this policy pertains to pastors on reduced salary. After incorporating the Council’s input, Mr. Pinelli will return the edited version back to the Council tomorrow. The same holds true for a proposed job description for US church pastors that he also covered at length with the Council.

Mr. Dick presented on behalf of everyone a signed card and gift of appreciation to Jim Franks and Joel Meeker for their work on the Council. This marked their last set of Council meetings, and both in turn expressed their appreciation for being able to serve in this capacity.

Ballot results from the 1999 Annual Meeting of the General Conference of Elders

After the mid-afternoon break the Council received the news regarding this year’s ballot items. The following statement was released by the auditing firm of Clark, Schaefer, Hackett and Co.:

Miscellaneous Ballot items (Items 1-4):

 

                                                                                                      Yes   No Total Cast Approval

Item 1) Item 2)  Item 3) Item 4)

1999-2000 Strategic Plan 1999-2000 Operation Plan 1999-2000 Budget Absentee Ballot Procedures

253 249 252 257

9 13 13 6

262 262 265 263

97% Yes 97% Yes 95% Yes 98% Yes

   Note: approval of the miscellaneous ballot items requires a simple majority of all valid ballots cast.

Constitutional amendments (Items 5 to 42g):

No constitutional amendments (items 5 to 42g) received the required two-thirds majority of the total voting eligible required delegates for approval.

Note: Approval of the constitutional amendments (items 5 to 42g) requires a two-thirds majority of the total voting eligible delegates, i.e. 265 votes (397 total delegates times 2/3).

Problems posed by the results

The fact that no amendment passed confirmed a prediction that Chairman Bob Dick had made to the Council the day before. "The number of elders balloting this year was narrowly more than two-thirds of the whole. There is a distinct possibility that a large number of the amendments will not pass simply because of the number of elders participating," he had stated.

The cause is clear—lack of participation in the balloting process— though the contributing factors are varied. "The total number of elders balloting was not more than seven to 10 more than the 2/3 majority necessary for passage (of any item requiring 2/3), which simply means 10 people saying ‘no’ on any amendment would effectively cancel that amendment’s passage," said Mr. Dick. "So even an amendment that is sound and logical takes only a few people saying no to cancel it out."

For the last few years the GCE has consistently run about 100 short of having full participation in the balloting process. This year is a little less than last year, but this year we did not pay everyone’s way, said Mr. Dick. In essence, commented Aaron Dean, we are starting each amendment proposal with 100 "no" votes. For some who may have a conscience problem with balloting, as others pointed out, they are, in principle, voting anyway because their abstaining is the same as a "no" vote.

The focus shifted to solving the problem, especially in the areas that are pressing. A few items are of such a critical nature that "if they do not pass the Council needs to be prepared to move those forward on their own volition, as a paper ballot that will go out as quickly as possible," Mr. Dick explained. The two most urgent issues are the need to change the fiscal year, and the need to change the number of people necessary to pass an amendment (the Council advises that it should be 2/3 of those present, or balloting, rather than 2/3 of the whole body of the GCE).

Considerable discussion revolved around the urgency for the elders to change this in order for the church to effectively conduct its business. The Council gave unanimous consent without resolution to send to the GCE as soon as possible any amendments it deemed crucial for passage. It then spent quite a bit of time rewriting the pertinent amendment proposals, more effectively wording the statement of justification, and examining any related bylaws that could be affected.  

- Clyde Kilough

© 1999 United Church of God, an International Association

<!--webbot bot="HitCounter" i-image="1" i-digits="0" preview="<strong>[Hit Counter]</strong>" u-custom i-resetvalue="0" startspan --><!--webbot bot="HitCounter" endspan i-checksum="60804" -->