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

Wednesday, August 7, 2002 ‚ Cincinnati, Ohio

            On Day Three of the meetings, the Council dealt with issues arising from its committees – the Ethics/Roles and Rules Committee, the Media and Communications Committee, and a discussion on the evolving role of its committees. They concluded the day’s business in executive session, discussing international personnel issues and Council committee personnel issues.

Ethics/Roles and Rules

            Gary Antion led the Council through the material from the Ethics/Roles and Rules Committee. Several topics comprised the committee’s business.

            The Council first reviewed two possible amendments to the Church’s Bylaws. Section 7.1 deals with the annual meeting of the ministry (the General Conference of Elders); the Council unanimously approved recommending an amendment that clarifies the nomination process leading up to the meeting (all twelve members present).

            Section 9.1 of the Bylaws deals with Officers of the Church (which are defined as the president, secretary, and treasurer). To date, the practice of the Church has been to allow the president to serve on the Council if he so chose, but the Bylaw as written implies that the secretary and treasurer may not serve on the Council. This amendment would simply state that no officer could serve as a member of the Council, except as provided in Section 9.5 of the Bylaws (which allows the chairman of the Council to serve temporarily as president under certain circumstances). After some discussion on this, Mario Seiglie asked why there was a need to have such an amendment put forward at this time. Leon Walker echoed that sentiment, pointing out that the Church has experienced both patterns (president on Council and president not on the Council), but has only experienced the latter (president not on the Council) for the three months of Mr. Holladay’s term. He suggested waiting until next year to put the amendment forward, when the comparison would be more meaningful, with more experience of both patterns. Mr. Antion asked for a straw poll of the rest of the Council members’ opinions on the suggestion, stating that he had no preference. Ten Council members preferred to wait, with Victor Kubik indicating a desire to file the amendment now. The Council will wait until next year and review the amendment at that time.

            The Council next discussed the Member Appeal Form and made a minor modification, approving the result unanimously. In a related matter, they agreed to create two separate committees to review member appeals and expelled elders’ appeals – the Expelled Elders Appeal Committee has been functioning in both categories. The suggested names will be brought forward at a later date.

The Council discussed possible additions to the Amendment Committee, since it is short one member, following the hiring of Joe Horchak (members of the Amendment Committee are chosen from non-salaried elders of the Church). Seven elders were discussed by the Council as possible replacements; the names of two (a committee member and an alternate) will be released once the individuals are contacted and agree to serve.

Media and Communications

            Mr. Kubik updated the entire Council on this committee’s operations. He handed out a chart showing the progressive increase in the amount budgeted for public proclamation of the gospel – from just over $2.05 million (representing 14.87% of the budget) in fiscal 1999-2000 to $3.18 million (17.44% of the budget) in this fiscal year, 2002-2003. That’s an increase of 55%, while the entire budget has increased by just over 32%. So not only the actual dollar amount, but also the percentage of the budget devoted to this area of the Church’s work has increased steadily.

            He reviewed the Council’s resolution of this past March that called for the hiring or subcontracting of a Managing Editor of the Church’s Internet presence.  We wish to greatly enhance our various web sites, now reaching a growing number of people who search for and rely on this avenue for spiritual knowledge. We plan Web-based e-learning modules for the general public, and wish to have our web sites collectively be a voice of the Church through which immediate updates, releases and announcements will be made.

Mr. Kubik spoke about the work of the Integrated Media/Evangelism Oversight Committee.  The goals of this committee have been to create an integrated structure for evangelism that would include the church’s leadership, media (electronic and print), ministerial evangelism, and the care of local congregations.  Furthermore, its aim is to preach the gospel in a focused, prayerful and collaborative effort that is guided, inspired, and blessed by God.  At our January 2003 Cincinnati meeting, our focus will be to discuss how the ministry’s role in evangelism can be expanded as we work with our traditional media methods. 

Then he spoke about the Editorial Board, a part of the Media Committee that helps determine content for our publications. Eugene and Roseburg, Oregon pastor Randy Stiver has gleaned preliminary input that will prove helpful, through seminars with young adults in the Church in Cincinnati and Eugene. They suggested having a body of literature that would be designated “First Contact literature.” Their consensus was that the writing needs to be concise, direct, factual, goal-focused and interesting, and what people their age would read. Literature covers, they said, need to be realistic and hot issue oriented (as do all our literature covers). Distribution needs to be possible via several avenues, especially including on the Web. All First Contact literature needs to be high energy in presentation – from cover to conclusion.           

Roles of the Committees

            Robert Dick introduced what promises to be the beginning of a careful evaluation of how certain crucial components of the United Church of God’s governance operate – the committees of the Council itself.

            Mr. Dick pointed out that this has been an ongoing topic since the founding of the UCG.  It preceded the ratification of the governing documents (Constitution and Bylaws) in December 1995, was raised again in Council meetings beginning in April 1996, and continues off and on up to the present. Questions about whether the Council, through its committees, has at times been actually involved in operations that are more properly considered administrative have arisen from time to time – words like “micromanaging” have been voiced by some at various points.

            Why? Mr. Dick asked Mr. Kubik to elaborate, based on his early research as one of the original members of the Transitional Board (May-December 1995) of the Church. Our experience has not been unique, as Mr. Kubik explained. Typically, when a non-profit structure of any kind (including a church) is formed, “the founding Board of Directors is all there is – there is no administration yet,” he said. He recalled the earliest meetings regarding how to set up the Church, when that was literally true. As a result, a process of evolution of the function of the Board (which, for the United Church of God, we came to call the “Council of Elders” after December 1995) is natural. Stage One has already been described – when there is only the Board. Stage Two happens when the process evolves to the point where the Board is both a governing and a managing Board. In this stage, according to the experience of many non-profits, “the Board tends to ‘grab things’ when it feels like things are not going as they should,” he stated. The final level of evolution is best described as an institutional Board. By this point, most policies of the organization are written and in place, and an administrative function is operating. The organization has matured. Mr. Kubik stated his conclusion that the United Church of God is in the last stages of the governing, managing Board (“Stage Two”), moving toward the institutional Board (“Stage Three”). As he stressed, “this is a documented, natural evolution of Boards.”

            Mr. Dick stated that he personally agreed with the assessment that we are in the last vestiges of Stage Two, moving toward Stage Three, of Board development. (Mr. Dick was also a member of the Transitional Board. Like Mr. Kubik, he has served on the Council of Elders since its inception at Cincinnati in December 1995, and was chairman of the Council from that date until July 1, 2000.)

            Mr. Dick then introduced Jim Franks, who has recently rejoined the Council after an absence of three years. Mr. Franks was also a member of the Transitional Board, and was very closely involved with the “start-up phase” of the United Church of God. This helped to establish the intent of the early work on the Constitution and Bylaws – Mr. Franks was heavily involved in crafting the very earliest drafts of the documents. “Much of what was done in those days was a reaction to what had happened to us,” he stated. In the governing documents, the Council was given extraordinary power right from the start, in large part to prevent an Administration from ever again unilaterally altering the very direction and basic tenets of faith of the Church. It was intended to be a body within the Church that would protect the brethren and protect the Church itself. A church member from San Antonio pointed out to Mr. Franks that his first draft contained the Constitution and Bylaws in one document, and suggested that they be separated into two, since the Church would function as both a spiritual organism and a physical organization. This suggestion was incorporated. The General Conference of Elders (composed of all the ministers) was given the prerogative to interpret the Constitution (containing the spiritual structure, including the Fundamentals of Belief of the Church). The Council of Elders was entrusted with interpreting the Bylaws (which contained the description of the manner in which the physical organization would operate). One of the safeguards in the structure was to “hardwire” a requirement into the governing documents that the Council of Elders meet face-to-face at least four times per year – to avoid having its function so wither as to have it lapse into nothing more than a rubber-stamp Board for some future administration – a process that has happened to some corporations. It helps the Council not to become separated from the administration, but to have the two remain partners in overseeing the operations of the Church.

            As Mr. Franks put it, “If you have competent and converted administrators, who report to the Board regularly, the Council shouldn’t intervene to do its [the administration’s] job for it. But if it [the Council] needs to intervene, it can and should.” One crisis in the Church’s history arose some time ago when a lack of reporting forced the Council to intervene to receive the information it believed it needed to do its job.

            Mr. Dick pulled the threads of the presentation together by stating that today’s discussion is intended to outline what the subject is, and point the way to a complete evaluation of where we are in the actual function of the Council, through its committees. Some of those committees, he said, have “moved into administrative roles on multiple fronts.” He recommended the establishment of a task force “for the Council of Elders to undertake a comprehensive review of its role and its committees’ roles with key questions in mind:

·        What do the governing documents say regarding our role?

·        What was the intent of the Transitional Board when it created the governing documents?

·        What do the auxiliary documents say that specifically relates to the role of the Council?

·        In actual practice, what are the committees of the Council doing?

·        Within committees, are the committees functioning according to parliamentary norms, and to what degree should they be expected to do so?

·        Would greater adherence to parliamentary norms help the Council to do its business more effectively?”

The magnitude of work involved led to his suggestion that a task force be set up to deal with the job. The Council members generally agreed with the concept. Mr. Kilough, Mr. Holladay, Mr. Dick, and Council Secretary Gerald Seelig met separately to establish specifics, and emerged with the following resolution:

“Whereas, the Council of Elders desires to ensure and improve consistency in approach and procedure between the administration and the Council and all the committees of the Council,

“Now therefore, it is hereby resolved, that a ‘Council of Elders/Committee Standards and Practices Task Force’ is formed, chaired by Robert Dick and consisting of the chairman from each of the standing committees of the Council (excluding the Executive Committee), president and the operation managers, to provide a report to the Council of Elders, on or before the end of January 2003 for discussion with the Council of Elders at its February 2003 meeting, with an analysis of the current practices of committees, plus recommendations for improving and standardizing norms that will help both the Council and administration understand and perform the business of the Church in the best manner possible.”

The ballot in favor of adoption of the resolution was unanimous.

            The Council completed its work for the day in executive session.

            NOTE: By way of further explanation, the time the Council devoted on Tuesday, August 6 to executive session was to discuss a member appeal to the Council, ordinations, and credentialings.

Doug Johnson

© 2002 United Church of God, an International Association