Thread by @presbyterianpew

We're back for Tuesday Morning Overtures Committee, beginning with Overtures 43 and 34. Admin Committee CoC representative is reporting to the Overtures Committee about their recommendations which differ from the recommendations of the permanent committee.

https://twitter.com/presbyterianpew/status/1937225580333649926

Point of order: the BCO requires that the OC hears from both a representative of the CoC and the permanent committee. Folks are working on arranging representative from permanent committee to speak.

Discussion of O43 - Representative of AC CoC says that they are offering an amendment to allow for collection of age data but not ethnic data. How do you collect ethnic data? It's not clear cut. Not all churches report, inaccurate data could cause problems.

Motion to postpone consideration of O43 until after O34 to give time to hear from AC permanent committee if they wish to speak. Sustained without objection.

Discussion of O34 - require reporting on membership of session and diaconate

This is a part of review and control. Some churches have shared that they do not ordain deacons but commission men and women to some other role. How can we make it more clear what the BCO requires?

Representative of CCB offers some advice on O34 - Overture creates an inconsistency with the part of the BCO that states who should handle the role the deaconate if there is none.

Amendment to add "or" to respond to conflict noted by CCB. Sustained without objection.

Substitute to answer in the negative: we are not currently compelled to have a diaconate. This amendment compels us to do something not currently required. RAO isn't the best place for this.

Against substitute: Biblical case made for the requirement to establish a diaconate (Acts)

For the substitute: this is an important conversation to have, RAO reporting isn't the way to do this. We should do this by making a change to the BCO.

Against substitute: this amendment is exactly where it needs to be. RAO is the appropriate place to talk about reporting. Reference to church websites where women are pictured as part of the diaconate.

For the substitute: we've heard that this isn't a top-down mechanism. There is a way to handle problems you see on other church websites and how to challenge that if they disagree. We should handle this through the BCO.

Against the substitute: this isn't an attempt to change the constitution. There may be reasons why a church can't appoint deacons. This isn't requiring deacons, it's a mechanism for reporting and explaining why. We want more light not less.

For the substitute: this adds logistical confusion to change the Directory of Presbytery. Who produces this report about why no diaconate? Church? Presbytery? What if they disagree about reasons? RPR might be a better place to handle this.

For the substitute: this could better be approached through the BCO

Against the substitute: deacons can be appointed to serve on Presbytery committees. This change could supply a list of deacons who could be recruited for these tasks.

Amendment to insert "from the session" to clarify that a report about the reasons for lack of diaconate should come from the session, not the Presbytery. Sustained without objection.

Substitute (answer O34 in the negative) fails by voice vote.

Amendment to strike "or given titles" as this Overture speaks to ordained officers and referring to other given titles ads confusion.

Amendment to the amendment delete "arranged by their ordained". Neither ordained or given titles are necessary since this amendment already refers to session and diaconate - all ordained officers. Sustained without objection.

Full amendment sustained without objection.

Vote on O34 (answer in the affirmative)

Y: 93
N: 32
A: 1

Returning to discussion of O43 - disallowing collection of age or ethnicity data - representative of AC permanent committee says AC will not meet until later.

Motion to postpone consideration of O43 until the afternoon session after AC meets.

Amendment to motion: postpone until after consideration of O50 in case OC is done with their work before lunch. Sustained without objection.

Word from the Stated Clerk's office that the minority report on O12 has been received and timely filed.

Discussion of Overture 10 - changes to the role of assistant pastor

Motion to give the author of the Overture permission of the floor but not debate sustained without objection.

Author stresses that the purpose of this Overture is not to eliminate the role of Assistant Pastor but to make Associates the norm, not long-term service of Assistant pastor which happens in lots of churches.

Amendment to simplify and make original Overture more concise. Assistant pastor called for a definite period set at time of call. Extending call requires congregational meeting to call man as Associate. Editorial note about this not applying to men ordained before 6/22/26

Neither for or against the amendment: brevity is good, but no clarity about what what happens when a session doesn't call a man. We need something more to clarify that.

Substitute motion to refer back to Presbytery: sympathetic to idea but some issues that still need resolving.

For the substitute: I am in favor.

For the substitute: there needs to be a reporting mechanism to make sure this is followed.

Substitute to refer O10 back to Presbytery passes by voice vote.

Vote to recommend refer O10 back

Y: 119
N: 7
A: 2

Discussion of O9 - voting members of admin committee

Move to answer affirmative: this is an overture about the relationship b/w denomination and permanent committees and agencies. Most commissioners probably don't know how AC members are selected. 9 are appointed from among ...

membership of other committees and agencies. Only 11 are directly elected by the GA to serve on the AC. AC is not sufficiently sensitive to the needs of the AC in the statistical sense - doesn't change much in response to the Assembly. Recent AC actions that don't represent PCA.

Substitute motion to answer O9 in the negative. Original AC contained only members at large. Change was made to add reps from committees and agencies. RAO change but sent to Presbyteries for ratification in 1991. 9 reps to AC were "double elected" by the GA...

... yes, we have a Cooperative Ministries Committee (CMC) to facilitate coordination but the CMC does not have a way to send recommendations to the GA. Of the 9 at large members, 2 are from the same Presbyter. That's one Presbytery that would hold 10% of votes...

... that also doesn't represent the PCA well either. Integrity of AC doesn't come from the accountability of the GA but from the integrity of the men who serve on the AC. Current structure has served well. No know occasion of votes that were self-serving.

Amendment to allow committees and agencies to send budgets directly to GA not to AC.

Point of order: this amendment is not germane. O9 seeks to amend who votes. Amendment discusses budgets. Chairman rules point of order out of order and not well taken.

Chair is challenged.

Point of order to ask the chair for a rationale. Doesn't believe the subject of budgets is out of the range of what is discussed.

Objection to ruling of chair: amendment changes active obligations of all permanent committees and agencies.

In support of ruling: speaks to the composition of the AC so that committees and agencies would have control over their budgets, needed change to respond to objections against O9.

Against ruling: rational of O9 didn't include anything about budgets.

For ruling: germane = "bearing on", question of budget does "bear on" the voting members of AC.

Against ruling: if the amendment is suggested to fix a problem with the O, that should be considered a speech against the O.

Voice vote to sustain the chair results in division.

Vote to sustain the ruling of the chair.

Y: 68
N: 49
A: 7

Amendment is considered germane and may now be discussed.

For amendment: primary objection to overture is lack of ability for committees and agencies to vote on budget. They shouldn't have 1 vote, they should have all votes on budget. 2/3 vote required for CoC to change budget. Streamlines work of AC, makes change less catastrophic.

For the substitute: suggestion that this O hinges on budgets is incorrect. Consolidation of budgets in a normal practice of non-profits. Men who rep committees and agencies have been elected by: Presbytery, nominating committee, GA and committee or agency...

... These are men who have a depth of experience and are equipped to serve the body well. Against any expression that these men cannot be trusted.

Motion to allow reps of committees and agencies to address this. Haven't had a chance to speak to this new issue: budgets.

Point of order: amendment to the constitution doesn't require input from committees and agencies. Point of order ruled out of order.

Chair is challenged. This falls under 11-5 b not 11-5 c.

Clarification that offer to hear from PC&As is a "may" not a "shall", points of order are withdrawn. Motion to hear from PC&A passes by voice vote.

Rep from PC&A says typically an amendment like this would be referred for advice. PC&A advises answering O9 in the negative...

... as there has been no proof that this is an existing problem and no study about the impact of making these changes. O9 threatens the unity of the body and disregards the wisdom of our fathers.

Representative from MNA permanent committee shares that there was significant discussion about this and MNA decided to advise in favor of O9.

Against the amendment: are members of CoCs qualified and equipped to vote on budgets in this way?

Called the question for the amendment. 3/4 vote failed by 1%.

Point of order: amendment is substantial and Stated Clerk should have the right to determine if this Overture should be referred to these PC&As for advice.

Point of order: vote to call the question included abstentions in the percentage and it shouldn't.

Against point of order: 3/4 of members "present and voting.

For point of order: only yes and no votes count as "voting" not abstentions.

Retaking vote on calling the previous question.

Y: 82%
N: 18%

Vote on the amendment is called.

Vote on amendment re: budgets

Y: 70
N: 51
A: 6

Amendment becomes part of the main.

Returning to point of order: Stated Clerk should have a right to say if he wishes to refer this significant change to PC&As for their advice

Against point of order: this isn't a point of order.

Rephrasing point of order to a motion to inquire with CCB on this matter.

Point of order: what is the point of inquiry to the CCB?

Mover: whether the PC&A should have a right to speak to the issue.

For point of order: we are quibbling about our rules because we've already done an end run around rules by doing something new and calling it amendment.

Vote on motion to request CCB advice.

Y: 72
N: 53
A: 2

Inquiry for constitutional advice sent to CCB.

Motion to defer discussion of O9 until after CCB meets.

Against motion: this really needs to be sent back to the Presbytery for more work, not discussed more later.

Against motion: intention of mover was to hear from PC&A and how can that happen at this Assembly?

Clarification of motion to defer: CCB inquiry wasn't whether this was a substantial change but whether we need to hear from PC&A

Motion defeated by voice vote. Division called.

Vote on motion:

Y: 43
N: 76
A: 6

Point of order: we already voted to refer to CCB but we defeated the motion to postpone so where does that leave us?

Chairman: Point well taken, we've decided to refer to CCB but have decided not to wait for their response.

Advice from commissioner: we didn't vote to refer O9 to CCB, we voted to make a constitutional inquiry.

Point of order: if CCB comes back and says it should have gone to PC&A what would happen?
Chairman: it is only advice to the OC

Amendment to O9: strike "For avoidance of doubt" (intention of original author that this be removed). Sustained without objection.

Motion to reconsider constitutional inquiry to CCB: we've decided not to hold off on debating, should we just remove that request?

Motion to reconsider asking CCB for advice fails by voice vote.

Motion to reconsider:

Y: 66
N: 47
A: 5

Matter is back on the floor to reconsider.

Against motion to seek advice from CCB: plurality of CCB is present at OC but wouldn't be appropriate to call a meeting without allowing other members of CCB to participate.

Should this be a mechanism used to stand in the way of amendments by referring them all back to PC&As?

Motion to call the question (ask CCB for advice) passes by voice vote.

Motion to ask CCB for advice as to whether the language of the amendment out to be referred to PC&As fails by voice vote.

Motion to call the question passes by voice vote.

Substitute motion to answer O9 in the negative.

Y: 52
N: 76
A: 1

Substitute fails.

Substitute motion to refer back to Presbytery.

Against substitute: we just defeated substitute to answer in the negative. Referring back is also an answer in the negative.

Point of order: we can't vote on substitute before we settle the question of the amendment.

Chairman notes that amendment has already been settled.

For substitute: no, referring back is not the same as answering in the negative; it hasn't been "carefully crafted with oversight" since we've just spent two hours debating. We cannot know the intentions ...

... behind the Overture, but we can know the impact: a dramatic consolidation of power and control in the AC. Centralized with a much more easily electable body of men. AC committee elections could become a contentious power struggle.

For the substitute (refer back): it's clear there's lots of disagreement. It needs more work. We should refer it back.

Motion to give privilege of the floor to rep from MTW CoC passed by voice vote.

MTW CoC rep: our committee asked that O9 be answered in the positive.

Inquiry to rep: did the MTW CoC consider the amendment (re: budgets) also? Rep says no.

Against substitute (refer back): [I missed it. Sorry.]

For substitute: men on CoC don't necessarily serve because they have any particular experience in work but because they have desire to learn about it. Should they be deciding about the budget? Piecemeal advice ...

... from PC&As and CoCs shows that we really need to send this back and consider better next year.

Move the question (motion to refer back):

Y: 87%
N: 13%

Substitute (refer back) for main:

Y: 71
N: 52
A: 2

Substitute becomes the main.

Vote on motion to refer back

Y: 75
N: 51
A: 1

Notice of minority report on O9.

Meeting adjourned until 1:15 pm.

Summary of what was accomplished in Tuesday morning OC:

Summary of what's left to do (😬):

@threadreaderapp unroll, please