LIFT-Abolishing Program Committees

There were two blocks of time during the Plenary session this morning devoted to LIFT: one for the LIFT recommendations and one for proposed LIFT Constitutional changes. At a certain point while we were debating proposed amendments to the recommendations, it came time on the schedule to discuss constitutional changes, so we shifted to that. I was initially surprised to hear that no amendments were on offer to the sections related to Program committees (I did a thumbnail sketch of that issue in a previous post). In brief, Program committees were church structures provided for in legislation as a guarantee that concerns in certain areas would be heard, e.g. Multicultural Ministries. The surprise didn't last though; unless someone wanted to change the recommendation to abolishing only some of the committees, the issue was a pretty clear up-or-down vote.

Bishop Boerger of the Northwest Washington Synod spoke first, in favor of abolishing the committees. He explained that it might seem odd, as he's the first to tell you that the west coast of the church needs more of a voice, but that no elected west coast representatives have reported back from meetings, and that the special designation does not work to effect advocacy (I think here he was speaking about the quota slots on the Church Council).

There were some objections, making the point that this is a change in structure, and that the structure helps define our priorities. One person suggested deferring a decision on this till 2013; after being told that that was out of order under the rules, he seemed to say that he realized that the Program committees weren't working as intended, but wondered whether the church had a strong enough cord tethering it to the priorities embodied in the committees to hold to them without those structures.

Speaking on behalf of the LIFT committee (here, and in the Hearing I mentioned previously) was my hero for the day, Linda Bobbitt. In the previous discussions about additions to LIFT recommendations, she was able to explain where in the report clergy support (for example) was discussed, and she was able to clearly articulate the principles behind the recommendations: The intention is not to abandon the work now delegated to the Program committees, but to do the tasks in a different way, not "isolated, hidden under bushels". When I found her in worship and thanked her for her clear and persuasive explanations of the proposals, she said she was often called upon as the most "plain-spoken" of the committee. I'd just call it eloquence. She has a clear mastery of the proposal, and has a gift for making the issues understandable in a few words.

When the question was finally called, we voted 890-69 to abolish the Program committees. I was at that moment very very impressed with what had been accomplished. This 1025-member legislative body presiding over a sizable bureaucracy had affirmed that:

These bureaucratic structures created for advocacy were means created for certain ends, not ends in themselves.

These bureaucratic structures aren't successful in achieving those ends.

Therefore, we should get rid of those structures, AND

We're going to wait at least till 2013 for alternative means to develop organically before even considering new legislative means to work toward the intended ends.

This was an amazing place to arrive, overcoming the institutional biases of expanding the institution and considering only solutions using the tools immediately available to this institution (i.e., writing new laws and creating new offices/committees). The entire process, from the formation of the LIFT Task Force, to their report and the Assembly's vote in favor of abolishing the committees, makes this as heroic an act as could be attributed to a legislative body/bureaucracy, in that it betrays its very nature in service to higher values. Honestly assessing whether the solutions we, "the highest legislative body of the ELCA," can immediately provide are equal to protecting the values we hold, and then when we find that they are not, to delegate the protection of those interests to those best able to do so, without restrictive instructions, requires great amounts of foresight, restraint, wisdom, and will from so many people, especially the LIFT task force, the officers of the church, and those with a nominal interest in the Program committees (but a greater interest in protecting the interests those committees nominally represent). I'm proud of the small part I played in putting the stamp of approval on this part of it after LIFT did the heavy work in pulling off a small bureaucratic miracle.

I hope that the rest of the LIFT recommendations/constitutional changes are put through, and that organic, bottom-up growth does happen in the space these bureaucratic entities previously occupied.

I have other things to write about, but I really should sleep too; I think this night would have been my best shot at a decent night's sleep, and it looks like I've failed in that respect. I'll have to think about how to do the rest of this report while keeping it timely and not losing the essentials.

One funny note on the proceedings: the Executive Director at some point in the discussion was touting the "Glocal" events they put on. I had to make sure I'd heard properly, and as it turns out, that was what I heard. What I thought was a parody of management-speak invented in the movie "Up in the Air" to perfectly straddle the line between plausible and laughable is actually a real made-up word, that people (even in the ELCA) use. It still sounds a little silly though, right?