Showing posts with label Restructuring. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Restructuring. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Defining Superintending
Through this blog on the 2012 General Conference, I have referred to the refocusing of bishops from “the world” as their parish to that of their own annual conferences.
I contend that superintending needs to be defined so that the primary responsibilities that only they can fulfill will be identified. Perhaps some in general and some in district superintending should be using their gifts and graces in other jobs within the church. Such talent should never be wasted.
But unless there is a focusing of undisciplined enthusiasm, the crucial role of superintending will continue to erode.
A study like that proposed for defining ministry could be expanded or replicated to include the superintending roles. Again, representation at the table should be global.
I contend that this concern rates an extremely high priority if for no other reason than that the Council of Bishops has become a “shadow government,” a parallel organization to the United Methodist Church. On their current trajectory, they will require considerably more staffing in the future and vastly more funding to fulfill their growing number of projects.
While restructuring is worth considering, and many ideas of the bishops have real value, we may find that those with the great program ideas should not be bishops but be executive directors of restructured agencies that keep the best of the current structure and integrate the best ideas from the Council of Bishops.
But to get to that point, the Church must simplify and prioritize the tasks of superintendency and then elect those who are better suited to those tasks, letting current bishops choose which kind of ministry they are best suited to pursue.
Further, removing program responsibilities (Paragraph 424 should be deleted) and finding other accountability options than loading up the leadership of boards and agencies with bishops may be needed to narrow the range of responsibilities taking Cabinets away from their key tasks. As superintendents from all over the world complained to me, they spend too much time on the road going to meetings that have nothing to do with their role of supervising their pastors.
Defining the superintending role and then restructuring need to be considered very soon.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
JCD 1198
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1319&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1101&EN=1200
Our era has seen the rise of the bishop as CEO. In that movement, bishops have sought more authority than the Discipline actually provides. I’ve seen the officers of the conference (the administrative ones under the bishop) take over the determination of which mission projects to fund, taking it away from the annual conference (JCD 608). I’ve seen bishops press toward having the power to fire pastors without fair process (JCD 777, 784. et al). I’ve seen the Judicial Council turn back many reorganization plans which supposedly “streamlined” program and administration in various annual conferences, some of which even granted the bishop a vote in matters the Discipline does not allow (JCD 1171).
What usually occurs in these reorganization plans is that the conference cuts ties with the denominational resources outside the conference by slushing together Discipline mandated bodies into more “manageable” and less regulated groups. The result is that control of the actions within the conference is not “hindered” by obligations to entities outside the conference (JCD 1147) or even inside the conference (JCD 1150).
The Council provided guidelines for restructuring back in 1998 (JCD 835). It seems the bishops have not even wanted to let the Judicial Council interfere with their restructuring ideas. Or maybe, no one has instructed new bishops for the past 13 years about lessons to be learned from the Discipline and the Judicial Council.
This Council is amazingly patient with its explanations covering old ground again and again.
The bishops are going to have to realize there are limits to their power, that they are part of a connectional system that only works when all the parts are properly connected, and that connectionalism means more than “Obey the bishop.”
One other note about this decision. It includes the same rationale for a Council member not to have recused himself from voting on a decision that was used in JCDs 1131 and 1132. At least a reason was given for the sake of transparency.
Our era has seen the rise of the bishop as CEO. In that movement, bishops have sought more authority than the Discipline actually provides. I’ve seen the officers of the conference (the administrative ones under the bishop) take over the determination of which mission projects to fund, taking it away from the annual conference (JCD 608). I’ve seen bishops press toward having the power to fire pastors without fair process (JCD 777, 784. et al). I’ve seen the Judicial Council turn back many reorganization plans which supposedly “streamlined” program and administration in various annual conferences, some of which even granted the bishop a vote in matters the Discipline does not allow (JCD 1171).
What usually occurs in these reorganization plans is that the conference cuts ties with the denominational resources outside the conference by slushing together Discipline mandated bodies into more “manageable” and less regulated groups. The result is that control of the actions within the conference is not “hindered” by obligations to entities outside the conference (JCD 1147) or even inside the conference (JCD 1150).
The Council provided guidelines for restructuring back in 1998 (JCD 835). It seems the bishops have not even wanted to let the Judicial Council interfere with their restructuring ideas. Or maybe, no one has instructed new bishops for the past 13 years about lessons to be learned from the Discipline and the Judicial Council.
This Council is amazingly patient with its explanations covering old ground again and again.
The bishops are going to have to realize there are limits to their power, that they are part of a connectional system that only works when all the parts are properly connected, and that connectionalism means more than “Obey the bishop.”
One other note about this decision. It includes the same rationale for a Council member not to have recused himself from voting on a decision that was used in JCDs 1131 and 1132. At least a reason was given for the sake of transparency.
JCD 1204
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1325&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1204
Another conference attempted to restructure and had its plan forwarded for review by the Judicial Council. And again the Council had to point out significant flaws, remand the plan back to the annual conference, and retain jurisdiction to be sure the flaws were corrected.
Streamlining may seem like a good idea for administrative purposes and for cost effectiveness. What it usually shows is how low in priorities of key leadership are things like ministries to young people, maintaining an active mission outreach, and keeping adequate archives. What makes it worse is that certain conference leaders must have refused to respond to questions about such concerns during the decision-making process and forced the matter to be forwarded to take up time of the Judicial Council.
Another conference attempted to restructure and had its plan forwarded for review by the Judicial Council. And again the Council had to point out significant flaws, remand the plan back to the annual conference, and retain jurisdiction to be sure the flaws were corrected.
Streamlining may seem like a good idea for administrative purposes and for cost effectiveness. What it usually shows is how low in priorities of key leadership are things like ministries to young people, maintaining an active mission outreach, and keeping adequate archives. What makes it worse is that certain conference leaders must have refused to respond to questions about such concerns during the decision-making process and forced the matter to be forwarded to take up time of the Judicial Council.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)