Ovt 087

On Amending G-3.0103 and G-3.0111 of the New Form of Government—From the

Presbytery of San Fernando.
The Presbytery of San Fernando overtures the 219th General Assembly (2010) to:
if the proposed Form Of Government is approved, amend the proposed language of G-
3.0103 as follows:
“Each council shall develop procedures and mechanisms for promoting and reviewing
that body’s implementation of the church’s commitment to inclusiveness and
representation. Councils above the session shall establish [an independent committee on
representation in accordance with the Articles of Agreement] by their own rule committees or
entities to fulfill the following functions: to [advise and report to] the council regarding the
[fair and effective] implementation of principles of unity and diversity, to advocate for
diversity in leadership, and to consult with the council on the employment of personnel, in
accordance with the principles of unity and diversity in F-1.0403.”
And amend the proposed language of G-3.0111 as follows:
“All councils higher than the session shall have a process for nominating persons to
serve in positions requiring election by the council. The process shall ensure that
nominations are made by an entity broadly representative of the constituency of the council,
[in consultation with the council's committee on representation] and in conformity with the
church's commitment to unity in diversity F-1.0403.”
Rationale
Having studied the Proposed Form Of Government that will come before the 219th GA, we
are concerned about the potential lack of representative accountability and the message we may
be sending to our churches and the community at large about our commitment to diversity and
full and fair representation, which has been addressed heretofore by the Committee on
Representation.
We do not think the Proposed Form Of Government adequately takes into consideration the
following:
1. the potential challenge to the Articles of Agreement
2. the nature of cultural integration and understanding
3. the nature of the Committee On Representation as compared with other
committees/entities
1. The Committee on Representation is mandated by the 1983 Articles of Agreement.
Some of the other Articles are time specific. However, the Committee on Representation is not,
implying that it was intended to be a permanent committee. If the Book of Order is amended, and
COR is not defined and constituted in a way consistent with the Articles, the Articles may be
challenged. We are concerned that a challenge to the Articles would make them subject to
interpretation. Furthermore, we strongly believe that the original concern for parity in
PC(U.S.A.) life that is expressed in the Articles, is of no less importance now. We do not think
the Proposed FOG adequately takes this into consideration.
 2. F- 3.0103 states that “the councils of the church shall give full expression to the rich
diversity of the church’s membership and shall provide for full participation and access to
representation in decision-making and employment.” We are concerned that the pFOG without
specific mechanisms for implementation and oversight is not enough to enforce the imperative
“shall”. People naturally seek sameness. For cultures to be integrated, we must be challenged.
“Full participation and access” are terms open to interpretation. While we understand that the
intention of the pFOG is to give us more flexibility, we fear that in this case, it may be too much
flexibility. The task of learning to love, which is at the essence of cultural integration, is not
accomplished by good intentions. It is learned in the midst of change and challenge. Change is
not something we find comfortable. It must be intentional. We must have some sort of
accountability; or we may naturally, and perhaps unintentionally, define our “membership” as
“us”.
3. While there are many committees, like COM or CPM, that are not spelled out in the
pFOG, we see those entities as ones which address the concerns of “us.” There is a necessary
degree of self-interest involved as we strive to order our ministry and mission. COR however,
seeks to challenge the definition of “us”. This does set it apart from other entities. If
“participation” is left to our ruling councils to define and form, our concern is that we will not
actively seek parity. There must be something, a separate entity, to create and maintain a healthy
tension, without which we will not change.
In particular…
We think that by including “in accordance with the Articles of Agreement,” we are referred
to our foundational values, and a model after which we may create our own accountability for
parity.
The reporting of this separate committee to its council we think is crucial for accountability.
We also think maintaining the “fair and effective” qualification lends some needed evaluative
weight.