Plenary Session Proceedings
Monday, April 22: Evening Session

1996 United Methodist General Conference

Monday Evening
Session
April 22, 1996

BISHOP THOMAS STOCKTON: And now, as we begin each of our sessions with a few moments where we share with each other, please turn to perhaps someone that you have not shared with yet, someone a few spaces from you, in front of you or behind you. And we'll take just a few moments to share with you. What do you want to happen tonight and what does God want to happen tonight? May we have your attention, please, as we share with each other for just a few moments and then we will have prayer.

Now having shared, would you please join with each other in prayer?

Now we have a personal privilege. Dr. Lee Sheaffer, would you come to microphone number 9, please.

LEE B. SHEAFFER (Virginia): I thank you for this personal privilege.

BISHOP STOCKTON: May we come to order, please. (laughter)

SHEAFFER: The Society of St. Andrew is a ministry in the Virginia Annual Conference working to alleviate hunger. This ministry is well known internationally for its Potato Project. In preparation for General Conference, the Society of St. Andrew promoted a "Penny Blizzard," encouraging congregations to raise a mile of pennies or $850. Twenty-one annual conferences and 147 churches have responded by giving $85,000 toward alleviating hunger in the United States. This represents 4 1/2 million servings of food.

We thank these churches and annual conferences for their support. We salute and thank the Rev. Ray Buchanan and the Rev. Jeff Allen for their outstanding leadership and vision to help address the hunger problems in our world. The Rev. Buchanan and Rev. Allen are up to my right. As you can see, their Society of St. Andrew donated $85,000 to help with the hunger problem of our nation. Thank you very much. [applause]

BISHOP STOCKTON: Let's express appreciation for that ministry. [applause] Pete Weaver, Pennsylvania, wanted to make an inquiry. Where are you? Microphone 9.

PETER D. WEAVER (Western Pennsylvania): I know time flies when you are having fun, and it seems like we've only been here a day. [laughter] But the fact of the matter is, we've been here almost a week. And on the first day of our proceedings, if you will refer in the Daily Proceedings on page 54 and 55, you will remember that Susan Hassinger proposed an amendment to Rule 36. And as a body, we referred that Rule 36 to the Committee on Plan of Organization and Rule of Order.

And if you will look at the dialogue that occurred between Bishop Sano and Robert Stevens, you will note that the implication was that we would hear back on that referral the next day. It is now the next day plus, and so I rise to inquire what has happened to that referral, and based upon the answer, I may have an motion.

BISHOP STOCKTON: It's my understanding that Robert Stevens had to leave the site of the conference. And I am not sure whether there is someone else that can answer that question. Is there a member of the Rules Committee that can speak to this issue? Jerome Del Pino? Jerome, would you go to number nine, please.

JEROME K. DEL PINO (New England Conference): Bishop, the Rules Committee did, in fact, receive the proposal that had been submitted by Susan Hassinger. And it was given due consideration in the meeting of the committee as it formed and elected its new officers. It was determined in that meeting that while, as my colleague, Pete, has indicated, it was implied that it would be returned. There was not the understanding that that was mandatory, given the scope of the study that the committee felt would need to be done in order to act responsibly regarding the parameters of that motion.

That is to say that we believe that it has implications for a paradigm change for the General Conference. We were very open to being able to hear back from the process that was utilized by the ministry study group, and we would be informed by that. I have made the commitment to Susan that the first meeting of the Rules Committee for the General Conference, I, as chairperson, would ensure that she would be invited to be with us, so that we could deliberate about this together, and be able to bring an informed decision to the General Conference of the year 2000.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, that is the answer to the question. Thank you from the Rules Committee.

WEAVER: May I make a motion then to follow that?

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. Microphone 9.

WEAVER: I'd like to move that the Committee on Plan of Organization and Rules of Order report back to the Tuesday morning session concerning the Hassinger amendment to Rule 36. And if I have second, I would like to say just another word.

BISHOP STOCKTON: Now, you are speaking about tomorrow?

WEAVER: That's correct.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, it's a second. You may speak.

WEAVER: This is indeed a time of shifting paradigms, to use Jerome's phrase. Many of us feel that the winds of the Spirit are moving in ways as the bishops have led us to pray and be in times of discernment. The amendment to Rule 36 proposed that we put that in a formal way into our rules, so that if the body by a two-thirds vote, decided that it would want to move into a time of discernment and consensus finding around some of the divisive issues that are facing us, that we might do so.

As we prepare to sail into some of those heavy waters, I believe that it is important for us to allow God to give us this tool in our Rules of Order so that we may, by a two-thirds vote, if we feel moved by the Spirit, move into a time of discernment concerning the issues that are facing this General Conference.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, the motion is before us. The original motion is on page 54 of the blue book. The motion that has just been made is before us by Pete Weaver. Is there discussion? All right, will you then vote when the light appears, yes or no, on the motion by Pete Weaver, affirming the motion on page 54 to refer to the Plan of Organization? [Results: 450 yes, 273 no; 35 abstained]

Yes, we will refer that to the Plan of Organization. I am hopeful that the chair of the Plan of Organization is here and listening and can deal with that, and bring it back to us tomorrow. All right, Jerome, will you work on that and come back tomorrow? Thank you. Mary Silva, from Rio Grande Conference. Where are you? Microphone 8.

MARY SILVA (Rio Grande): Last Saturday we rejoiced and gratefully accepted the report from the Hispanic hymnal. I would like to request that the United Methodist Publishing House provide a copy of the Hispanic hymnal, Mil Voces Para Celebrar, to every delegate to the 1996 General Conference just as it was done with the United Methodist Hymnal at the 1992 General Conference. Gracias.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. You are asking the Publishing House to do this. Are you asking the General Conference to ask the Publishing...

SILVA: Right.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, that motion is before us. Is there discussion? Please vote then when the light appears. I don't see anyone that wants to speak. Oh, All right. Come to microphone 9. Excuse me, we will redo the vote, because his hand was up before I called for the vote and I did not see it.

JACK PLOWMAN (Western Pennsylvania): Bishop, I commend the maker of this motion. However, this church has experienced some financial difficulties. I think before this is voted upon, I think this General Conference should have some indication as to what it would cost to fulfill the motion.

BISHOP STOCKTON: I'm not sure that we have someone here who could give that indication. Microphone 9? Is there anyone? All right. Over here. Go to microphone 6. Microphone 6?

SKIP KEELS (Baltimore Washington): While I may not know the cost of this, I think there are some things in life which cost should be irrelevant. If we truly are going to celebrate the somebodyness of everybody in this connection of ours, our Hispanic sisters and brothers indeed have given us a rich legacy and treasure which all of us can live and grow and live up even a greater person than before. For that reason, I would affirm it with all my heart and soul.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. That's one for and one against. Back here? Number, go to number 12. Well, microphone 7, then.

V.L.DAUGHTERY (South Georgia): I wish to offer a substitute motion.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right.

DAUGHTERY: I move that the Publishing House make available forms for delegates of the General Conference to purchase and to send a hymnal to a Hispanic congregation somewhere within the denomination.

BISHOP STOCKTON: Say that again.

DAUGHTERY: I would like for Cokesbury to make available some kind of form where the delegates of this General Conference could purchase a hymnal, a Spanish hymnal, and send it as a gift somewhere to a Hispanic congregation.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. The substitute motion is before us. Is there discussion on the substitute motion? All right, back here. Yes, come to microphone 9, out to your right.

CHARLOTTE ABRAM (Nebraska): While the amendment is in order that we should indeed purchase and send hymnals to our brothers and sisters in Hispanic ministries all around our world, I would also note that the Hispanic hymnal has relevance and worth in all of our congregations. And I believe that the Publishing House can provide to us at least at cost, a cost less than $10, and hopefully that will go a long way towards us using those hymnals in the communities where we serve and engender good will, and also inspire others to order hymnals from the Publishing House.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, that's a vote against the substitute. I see no other hands. If you, as we vote on the substitute...yes, you may speak, microphone 8.

SILVA: May I clarify that there are 64 conferences who have Hispanic ministries already in place that could use the hymnal.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. When the light appears please vote on the substitute motion. [Results: yes, 467; no 383; abstained, 25] The substitute does prevail. All right, the substitute becomes the main motion now. If you favor this would you please, well, if you favor or don't favor. When the light appears, please vote. [Results: yes, 542; no, 330; abstained, zero] That is affirmed. Thank you. Now we come to the order of the day; the Advance. We turn to Bishop Woodie White to lead us in this deeply significant aspect in the life of our church. Bishop White.

BISHOP WOODIE WHITE: Delegates and friends of the General Conference, it is my honor as the chairperson of the Advance Committee to bring this report to you. Perhaps there is no program more exciting, no program that touches more places in the world on behalf of United Methodism, than the Advance. Tonight the theme of our report is "Being in Mission, Being a Missionary." We celebrate the thousands of missionaries all across the world who are in service, in mission in significant ways. Indeed you might be surprised to see the variety of ways in which missionaries serve. We hope that as you view the video that we are about to share with you, that you will be inspired and challenged to find ways though the Advance to support in full the services of a missionary. To help you see the scope, we shall take both a historical look and we'll also be able to look at missionaries from these very halls of our General Conference. First, however, we go back to 1984 for a quick video clip of a wonderful young person named Laura Bucher. In this film, "Born to Give," Laura is asking her grandfather about being a missionary.

BISHOP WHITE: Amen! We thank you delegates and we thank Laura as well for being witnesses to God's mission in the church. Now we'll have an opportunity to see other witnesses. Indeed you'll have a chance to see a brand new video. In fact, you're part of a world premiere of a new video, "Whom Shall I Send?" These are scenes that go all across the world showing persons in mission. We hope that as you view this video that you'll ponder the question, "How will I answer the question, Whom shall I send?"

CYNTHIA WILSON-FELDER: And now, let's wave all those flags we were given earlier, because you see, these are the flags that represent our missionaries and our mission work all around the world!

STEVEN KIMBROUGH: And let's sing our answer, "Here I am Lord! Send us to work for the Advance, to work for your church!"

WILSON-FELDER: Let me ask those among us who have been in mission service, to please, at this time, stand as we sing the chorus. "Here I Am, Lord."

BISHOP WHITE: On behalf of the Advance for Christ and His Church, we thank you for your prayers and for your support. This concludes our report. (applause)

BISHOP STOCKTON: On the video, we heard the district superintendent who said that 85 percent of the charges on his district are involved in the Advance. And he said that this brings vitality to the life of the church, and it brings vitality to the lives of each one of us. Thank you, Bishop Woodie White, for challenging us and lifting us and informing us. Now we can move to some calendar items. All right, back in the back, would you go to microphone 14?

WILLIAM HINES (West Ohio): If it's in order, Bishop, I'd like to make a motion of request.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right.

HINES: Is that in order, sir?

BISHOP STOCKTON: Go ahead.

HINES: I would like to move that the 1996 General Conference go on record tonight, April 22nd, as requesting the Council of Bishops to inform us when they plan to issue a statement concerning the news release issued by fifteen of our bishops last Friday. And if I have a second, I'd like to speak briefly.

BISHOP STOCKTON: Let me ask the President of the Council of Bishops to respond to that, please. Bishop Woodie White.

BISHOP WHITE: The Council of Bishops has been in prayer and in meeting for the last few years, few days, (it seems like years!) (laughter)..not in response to any action taken by this General Conference, but rather, in response to what we felt the need of the Council and of the church seems to be. And so tomorrow morning, in your DCA, you will find there a statement from your council.

BISHOP STOCKTON: Thank you, Bishop White. All right. Let's move to calendar items. Would you come to microphone 4, please.

ED KAIL (Iowa): Bishop, we discovered an error in the transmission of text from the local church legislative committee to the secretary's desk, and didn't catch it until after the consent calendar had been adopted this morning. So I'd like to offer an amendment to suspend the rules in order to reconsider a particular item just to correct the record.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. You want to suspend the rules.

KAIL: Yes, sir.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, this takes two-thirds majority. If you would, you will vote now whether or not to suspend the rules. When the light comes on, would you please vote? [814 approved] All right, the rules are suspended. Will you bring to the body the correction?

KAIL: Yes, sir, in the blue DCA, page 141, Calendar Item 200.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right.

KAIL: As this petition was processed through the local church committee, it was the intention of the committee that sub-paragraph two be deleted.

BISHOP STOCKTON: Do you chair that committee?

KAIL: I was the secretary of the sub-committee that worked on this, sir. It was that the proposed amendments to sub-section two that are part of this petition not prevail, and that the Discipline in that section remain in tact. The effect of this petition was to mandate the creation of a conference staff position in every annual conference. We didn't think that was a good idea.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. Thank you. That correction will be made. We will vote. Let's vote on the motion that that correction be made. When the light appears, will you please vote to make or not to make that correction? That vote is positive; we will make that correction. [871 approved] Microphone 14. Just one of those who's raising the hand. Microphone 15.

SUL A. NAWEJ (Southern Zaire): (interpreted from French) His excellency, the Bishop, and members of the conference, I don't want the missionary action throughout the world to pass silently. We must congratulate those who have the courage to do missionary work throughout the world. I have the case of my country, Zaire. They are willing to stay in spite of all the great insecurity which reigns there, even though the United States has not made them safe. And if we take the case of Mrs. Glenn, the wife our general treasurer, who has begun to feed the children who have (unintelligible), and the abandoned children. We must acclaim the glory of God and be grateful for the missionary work throughout the world. Thank you. (applause)

BISHOP STOCKTON: I don't know how many of us here have really suffered for our faith. How many of us have been at a point of facing death for our faith? I haven't. But we have people in various parts of the world who are in that situation. And I'd like for us in some way to say thank you for who they are and what they're doing for the glory of God. Again. (applause)

BISHOP STOCKTON: Those of you who are here from countries where there is intense suffering, please carry back to them our love and our gratitude for who they are and what they do for the glory of God. All right, General Judicial Administration, David Severe. Do you have calendar items to present?

DAVID SEVERE (Oklahoma): Yes, sir, we do. Thank you. The Calendar Item 438. In the DCA number 2, page 1324.

BISHOP STOCKTON: Say that again, please.

SEVERE: All right. In Calendar Item 438, DCA number 2, the white volume, and it's on page 1324. It is Petition 21003. You'll find it in the left column in about the middle of the page.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. In the blue book, that's number 438 on 171.

SEVERE: Yes, sir, on 171 in the blue book in today's DCA. Or, yesterday's. The gist of this is that it would add language regarding sexual orientation to this section of the Discipline. And the action of the legislative committee was to vote nonconcurrence: 67 for nonconcurrence, 22 against and no abstentions. Our rationale was that we believe the present language should be retained in this section of the Discipline.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, this is before us. The committee recommends nonconcurrence. Is there discussion? I see none. When the light appears, will you please vote? The recommendation is nonconcurrence. [yes, 695] The committee is affirmed.

SEVERE: Calendar Item 434. Again, in the DCA, page 2. This is on page 170 of today's paper, or of today's, I'm sorry, April 20th. You'll find the petition on page 1338 of that DCA number 2, the white volume. It is Petition 22660. It's the left hand column about the middle of the page.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. This is a resolution that is before us. The committee recommends concurrence. Is there discussion? I see no requests, so when the light appears, will you please vote? The committee recommends concurrence. The vote is for concurrence.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. Is there discussion? I see no requests for no discussion. The committee recommends nonconcurrence. Will you please vote when the light appears? [849 approved] The committee is affirmed for nonconcurrence.

SEVERE: Calendar Item, I believe I did that one. I think that that finishes us for right now. Thank you, sir.

BISHOP STOCKTON: That's yours for now. Thank you. Higher Education and Chaplaincy, Allen Norris.

J. ALLEN NORRIS (North Carolina): Bishop Stockton, for our first item this evening, we are in the blue book page 174, Calendar Item 446. The petition is in the white book, page 1382, top left, and the Petition 22275. A resolution entitled "Funding Seminary Education." The legislative committee moves concurrence as amended. The amendments following the "therefore be it resolved" clause in the paragraph numbered 1, delete the words "increase the amount of funding to" and replace them with the words "encourage increased funding for." And in paragraph numbered 2, insert after the word "develop," "and evaluate the feasibility of." Bishop, the rationale for this amendment: this resolution is a direction to the Board of Higher Education and Ministry with the intent to increase funding for seminary students. The legislative committee concurs with this intent, but does not choose to prescribe to the Board of Higher Education and Ministry that it must increase funding, realizing, of course, that there are budget constraints. The text that is included as the amendment would ask the board to become more proactive in encouraging the development of sources for funding and in evaluating alternative means of loan repayments. With those amendments, we recommend concurrence.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right this is before you as amended. This goes to Finance and Administration because it has financial implications. Is there discussion? The committee recommends concurrence as amended. Yes. Would you go to microphone number 2?

JARED A. NEWMAN (Rocky Mountain Conference): I have a question as to where the financial implications are. When we were in legislative committee, one of the things that we did in making these amendments was remove the direct financial implications out of it.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, if they have been removed...

NORRIS: Yes, sir, they have been removed. It's encouragement to the board to find these sources and to also ask the board to evaluate a plan whereby the loans might be repayed by some kind of years of service type principal.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. It is before you as amended. Will you vote when the light appears? [891 approved]

ALLEN NORRIS: Our next item is in the blue book page 175. Calendar Item 453. The petition is found in the white book on page 1382, bottom right. And the Petition 22277. The title is, "Consistency In Language" in the Discipline, regarding clergy members. This was a petition pertaining to quite a number of paragraphs in the Discipline, some of which were applicable to our legislative committee. The committee recommends nonconcurrence by a vote of 71 to 8 with 1 abstention, believing that the terminology currently in the Discipline is appropriate, and that with the petition addressing so many paragraphs in the Discipline, that we felt that our committee certainly did not have jurisdiction over some of those. And therefore we recommend nonconcurrence.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right this is before you on page 1382 of the white book toward the top. Is there discussion? The committee recommends nonconcurrence. Will you please vote when the light appears? [804 approved] Nonconcurrence is affirmed.

NORRIS: Also in the blue book on page 175, Calendar Item 452. It is found in the red book on page 826 in the middle of the right hand column, page 826 in the red book. The Petition 21280 titled, "The Black College Fund." The legislative committee recommends concurrence with a goal of $46,708,480 for the 1997 to 2000 quadrennium for the Black College Fund.

The committee wanted this body and GCFA to know it affirms fully the historically Black institutions affiliated with The United Methodist Church and the support given through the Black College Fund. Bishop, we realize that if this is passed that it must, of course, be referred to GCFA. But recommend concurrence.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, number 452 in the blue book referring to 826 in the red book. Committee recommends concurrence. Is there discussion? Yes, microphone 9.

LOVETT WEEMS (Missouri West): What are the implications of passing this and GCFA and the Financial Administration Committee coming in with a figure other than that figure? Because I believe that's not a figure that's in any of the budgets that we've been working with at this point.

NORRIS: Bishop and delegates, the committee was aware of a compromise discussion and situation that had been worked out. However, they still wanted to go on record to this body and GCFA favoring the larger amount. I would assume that if this body recommends that it go to GCFA, that GCFA must come back to this body with it's recommendation. And that we would then proceed to look at it from that point of view when we have that recommendation.

WEEMS: So is it correct to say that if this is passed, this is not necessarily a mandate of this conference that that figure must be at that amount?

BISHOP STOCKTON: That is correct.

NORRIS: That would be my assumption. I would defer to someone from GCFA.

BISHOP STOCKTON: GCFA will have to bring that total budget back. And this will be a part of that total budget. All right, back at the back of section C. Go to microphone 13.

RUTH PALMER (Texas): Could you tell us how much was raised during this current quadrennium? Thank you.

BISHOP STOCKTON: I would defer to someone from GCFA. Do you have an answer to this? Would you come to microphone 3?

PAT STROMAN (Central Texas): I'm not on the GCFA. I am on the Higher Education and Chaplaincy Committee, and did some research, and found that only 31 million out of the 41 million apportionment was given over this past quadrennium. My comment to the committee was, if you want to make a statement, go home and raise the money.

BISHOP STOCKTON: So $31 million is the answer to your question. All right, this is before us. All right, back at the back, yes, microphone 13.

EWING WERLEIN 20JR (Texas): I'm a member of the Financial Administration Legislative Committee; and that committee has been dealing with this particular issue. While we would all like to have this larger sum available for Black colleges, as well as larger sums for many other ministries, we find that the church cannot support, in the aggregate, all of what is being requested.

In this particular instance, the request is being made for some $3 million more than what the GCFA has recommended. At that, our own committee will recommend a slight increase over and above what the GCFA recommended. I would urge the conference not to begin making budget considerations at this time, before hearing GCFA and the Financial Administration Committee. We, therefore, urge that this be voted down.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, that's a vote against. Yes, come to microphone 2.

PHILIP R. GRANGER (North Indiana): Bishop, I move direct reference to GCFA.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, there is a motion that this be referred to GCFA. I heard a second. All right, if you would, yes, microphone 4.

MAREYJOYCE GREEN (East Ohio): If it's passed as it is, will it not be referred to the finance committee anyway? I think that is a routine thing if, in fact, it has financial implications.

BISHOP STOCKTON: Yes, the motion was to refer the whole petition to GCFA without taking a vote on it here. That's the motion.

GREEN: Is it possible to pass the substance of the motion with referring the financial part of it to GCFA? Or does it have to be all at once?

BISHOP STOCKTON: Would you want to amend the amendment to that effect?

GREEN: Yes I would. I would move that we vote upon the substance of the amendment with the financial part of it ....

We vote upon the substance of the amendment with the financial part of it being referred to GCFA.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. You move that we consider the substance of the motion and then refer the financial figures to GCFA.

MAREYJOYCE GREEN: Yes, bishop.

BISHOP STOCKTON: My consultants say that the best way to handle this is if you would like to do that then you vote against the amendment and then we're back. All right. Come to microphone 7. We're on the amendment to refer. We're on the motion to refer.

JOHN D. KEATON (Northern Illinois): Wondering if a point of clarification is in order.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right.

KEATON: Early on, one of my fellow delegates said about the Black College Fund that the committee should go home and raise the money. It is my understanding that the Black College Fund is a ministry of the whole church and so for me if there's any going home, that's the going home for all of us not just the committee.

STOCKTON: Oh yes, that's right. All right. If you would refer, All right, come to microphone 2. Come on to number two.

BRADLEY WATKINS (Central Illinois): I'd like to try an amendment. I move that we separate the substance of this motion from the financial part of it and vote on them separately.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. That's properly before us. We do have the motion to refer. It's proper to separate the motion. Is there any objection to separating the motion? Come to microphone 3.

BERT TALBOT (South Indiana): Isn't a motion to refer a higher ranking motion than a motion to amend or substitute?

BISHOP STOCKTON: Yes, we have the motion to refer, but the question of separation can be done. So, if you would separate the finances from the substance of the petition, let's vote on that. Vote on whether you would separate the question--finances from the substance. Vote when the light appears. All right, it is separated. The motion to refer is before us. Who made the motion to refer? Just a minute, All right, you made the motion to refer. We have separated the two aspects of the question. (Question from the body about whether this pertains to the financial aspect). This pertains to the financial aspect. We will refer this to GCFA regardless, whether this is passed or not, but what you're saying is refer it without voting on it? Number seven.

PHIL GRANGER (North Indiana): Bishop, the issue was not to be working as a committee of the whole this early on budget and to refer that item so GCFA can give us some advice.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. The question is separated, the motion is to refer the financial aspect of this petition. Are you ready? When the light appears, will you vote. Wait a minute, don't vote. Whoa. Stop the machinery please. All right. Come to microphone 9. We're discussing the motion to refer the financial aspect of this.

GABRIELLE G. MALLORY (West Ohio): As a student at Bennett College, one of the eleven historically Black colleges related to the United Methodist Church, I urge you to make a decision based on faith and support the funding of the Black colleges.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. I see no other requests. When the light appears, will you vote on reference for the financial part of it, to refer the financial aspect of this petition. All right, it is referred. We're back to the substance of the petition and that is before us. The committee recommends concurrence. When the light appears, will you please vote. [850 approved]

That is confirmed. All right, Allen.

ALLEN NORRIS: Thank you, bishop. Our next item is in the blue book on page 175.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, what is it? Number 10, microphone 10.

ROLF LINDELL (Sweden): In order to make the presentation more understandable to all delegates, I would like for those who present the petitions or those debating to refrain from the use of abbreviations. We do have on page 83 a list of the abbreviations, but it's sometimes a little bit hard to have the thumb there all the time.

BISHOP STOCKTON: Good point, thank you. All right.

NORRIS: The blue book, page 175, Calendar Item 454 can be found in the white book on page 1381, bottom right. The Petition 22523 and the title is "Schools of Theology and Small Membership Churches." The committee recommends nonconcurrence by a vote of [Results: yes, 69; no, 8; abstained, zero]. And the rationale is that we should not try to spell out in paragraph 1531 a list of special content concerns. We therefore recommend nonconcurrence.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. This is before you. Number 454 in the blue book. Would you like to speak? Microphone 4.

ED KAIL (Iowa): In appointment beyond the local church at Saint Paul School of Theology in the area of town and country ministries. We recognize very well that 67 percent of the churches within our denomination are small membership churches and think that that proportion of churches should deserve some special attention in theological education. We do that at our seminary. I know the other seminaries do that. But it's very helpful, we believe, for the whole denomination to realize the important significance of that type of church within our denomination. I would like to see that spelled out.

BISHOP STOCKTON: So you're speaking against nonconcurrence.

KAIL: That's correct.

BISHOP STOCKTON: Is there someone speaking for concurrence? Or nonconcurrence? Anyone to speak on either side of the issue. Chair, do you want to speak?

NORRIS: We still would support the principle that we do not believe as a committee--a majority of the committee--that is that we should start having a list of special emphases in the Discipline pertaining to content of courses.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, this is before you. When the light appears will you please vote. [Results: yes, 640; no, 286; abstained, 6]. The committee in affirmed for nonconcurrence. All right.

NORRIS: The next item is in the blue book on page...

BISHOP STOCKTON: Wait, back at the back. Go to microphone number 12.

CHARLES JOHNSON (South Carolina): I rise to ask a question about Calendar Item 454. We referred the financial implications to GCFA, but we did not take action on the other part of that calendar item, did we?

BISHOP STOCKTON: Yes. Yes, we did. We voted on the other aspect of that. On the substance and not on the financial aspect. All right.

NORRIS: Right, blue book, page 174, Calendar Item 447. This can be found in the red book page 824 in the middle of the right-hand column. The Petition 20724. The title is "Purposes and Objectives of the University Senate." The committee recommends nonconcurrence by a vote of 71 to six with three abstentions on this petition. Rationale: That the senate itself should continue to develop the criteria by which all United Methodist institutions and seminaries are to be evaluated and not delineate in the Discipline the detail of these criteria. Therefore we recommend nonconcurrence.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, this is before you, no. 447 in the blue book, 1518 in the red book. Is there discussion? The committee recommmends nonconcurrence. Will you please vote when the light appears.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. The committee has sustained 81.6 percent, 17.7 percent opposed. [764 approved]

ALLEN NORRIS: Bishop, having taken that action, there are three other calender items that are very similar to 447. These are also on pages 174 and 175, Calender Items 449, 450, and then on 175, 455. All of these petitions can be found in the white book on page 1381. They deal with exactly the same subject matter that we voted on in 447, and therefore, the committee would recommend nonconcurrence on all three calender items. And, bishop, we leave to you, sir, whether you want to take them as a group or individually.

BISHOP STOCKTON: Let's take each one separately.

NORRIS: All right, Calender Item 449, Petition 22568. And we recommend nonconcurrence.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. Is there discussion? Yes, microphone number 2.

DONALD R. AVERY (Louisiana): I would like to move that we vote on these three in toto.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, that motion is before us. Vote on all three at one time. Is there discussion? There is a second. All right, the motion . . . Yes, microphone 7.

RILEY CASE (North Indiana): I think that these petitions are sufficiently different, that they should be considered separately. I have one that I would like to speak to. I don't care about the other two. [laughter]

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. That's a speech against including all three together. The motion is that we vote on 449, 450 and 455 together. Will you please vote when the light appears whether or not to take all three together? Vote; the motion is that we take all three together. Please vote when the light appears. Sixty seven percent to 31 percent that we take them all three together. So, you may speak. We are taking 449, 450 and 455 together. Microphone number 7.

CASE: Bishop and members of the conference, I would speak against the committee recommendation and for Calender Item 455. Many United Methodists and local churches are under the impression that to be called a United Methodist college or university or seminary means that there is some connection with United Methodist values. They're surprised to learn that for many such institutions, questions about connections with United Methodist beliefs or practices or values are never asked.

Our University Senate, the body responsible for credentialing schools as officially United Methodist affiliated, asks about institutional integrity, well-structured programs, sound management, a clearly defined church relationship and, sometimes, they ask about appropriate diversity, but never about consistency with United Methodist values or doctrines. They would like to set their own criteria. I think that this General Conference could ask them to include some more criteria. This proposed petition would begin to address this lack.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, that's a speech against nonconcurrence. Do we have a speech in favor of nonconcurrence. All right. Come to microphone 3 please.

MARY ELIZABETH MOORE (California-Pacific): I plead to vote with the committee on this recommendation, because to be faithful to United Methodist theology is to be open to questions and ideas that are not in our Discipline; to explore the traditions of other religions; to explore traditions that have not yet been explored. I beg you to leave the freedom of exploration and academic integrity with schools of theology. [applause]

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. Are there others? Yes, come to microphone 2.

JASON A. PAULSMEYER (Missouri East): As a student of a United Methodist school, I feel that it would be very appropriate to teach our doctrine, not exclusively. We wouldn't necessarily have to exclude other teachings. This petition doesn't say we have to exclude other teachings. But, I do think it is important to stress our heritage as United Methodists and our doctrine in our teachings of institutions. [applause]

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. That's a speech against nonconcurrence. Is there a speech for nonconcurrence. All right. Come to microphone 14 please.

E. EUGENE FRAZER (West Ohio): Bishop and members of the conference, I am also privileged to be the clergy chair of the Board of Trustees of Ohio Northern University, a United Methodist-related school within the bounds of the West Ohio Conference. I believe that I speak for our president, for our board of trustees, for the majority of our faculty, and especially for the majority of our student body, when I assure this conference that we are proud to be fully associated with the United Methodist Church in matters of the mission and the philosophy of our church within the total Christian community. I would trust that you would vote accordingly as you cast your ballot on this matter and only can regret that the three issues have been grouped together. Thank you.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. We have had two for and two against. Back at the back, microphone 13.

EWING WERLEIN JR. (Texas): I served for 16 years on the board of trustees of Southern Methodist University. And, thus on the Board of Perkins School of Theology. I observe, when the budget comes to us from GCFA, that there is going to be an asking of the churches during the next quadrennium of somewhere in the neighborhood of $108 or $109 million. Three-fourths of that is proposed to go to the seminaries of The United Methodist Church to be distributed to the theological schools on a formula. Now, when a church such as ours is asked to give in the tens of millions, yea, up towards $100 million, it seems a modest enough request that we ask the theological seminaries, recognized by the senate as affiliated with our church, simply to teach faithfully the doctrine and the heritage of The United Methodist Church. I would urge our support of this resolution. [applause]

BISHOP STOCKTON: You are speaking against nonconcurrence, am I right? All right. Right here.

WERLEIN: That is correct. I would speak against nonconcurrence in order to favor the resolution that was under consideration.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. Microphone 3.

DONALD E. MESSER (Rocky Mountain): I speak in favor of nonconcurrence. I speak in favor of what the legislative committee has recommended, which is nonconcurrence. The reason is that the United Methodist theological schools, of which I have served as president in the past, do faithfully teach the doctrine and heritage of The United Methodist Church. We are required to teach the history, doctrine and polity of the church. We submit our regular courses to Nashville [Tenn.] to the division.

We do so proudly and effectively teach. We have currently at our own school, the Iliff School of Theology, over 30 some students studying the General Conference and attending every session. This is a part of the life of the church. This is a part of the integral life of the curriculum of our 13 United Methodist schools, and therefore, I urge you to vote nonconcurrence.

BISHOP STOCKTON. All right. We've had three and three, so the question will be put.

NORRIS: Bishop, may I have one concluding statement?

BISHOP STOCKTON: Yes. We are voting on 449, 450 and 455.

NORRIS: All right, the committee, the legislative committee, is assured that the criteria of the University Senate adequately cover this matter. And that, therefore, we should not begin to spell it out in the Discipline. That is the rational for nonconcurrence.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. When the light appears, will you please vote? [Results: yes, 650; no, 299]

BISHOP STOCKTON: The committee is affirmed, 68 percent to 31 percent. Your point of order, please. Come to microphone 8.

JUNE D. MCCULLOUGH (Southern New Jersey): Bishop, we all like applause when we make our statement, pro or con. However, it has been the custom for the presiding officer to remind us that applause is not appropriate. I wonder if the chair would take that under consideration?

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, thank you. That is correct. In a loving situation in which we're in, we do not put down or affirm people. [laughter and applause] Do you object to that applause? [laughter] All right, will you please continue?

ALLEN NORRIS: We're in the blue book again on page 174, the Calendar Item is 448. The petition is in the white book on page 1380, page 1380, and the Petition 22271, dealing with membership of the University Senate. The legislative committee recommends nonconcurrence with this petition by a vote of 73 to 7, with zero abstentions.

Our rationale is that the proposal would change the senate membership by limiting the number of members who are professionally affiliated with a United Methodist-related educational institution. By a large majority, however, the legislative committee has affirmed the current disciplinary provision for membership based on the widely accepted premise and practice of peer review, both in education at all levels, and in the church. Therefore, we would recommend nonconcurrence.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, 448 is before you, 1380, number 1517 in the white book. Is there discussion? I see no requests. Will you please vote when the light appears? The recommendation is nonconcurrence. [860 approved] The committee is affirmed 86 percent to 12 percent for nonconcurrence. All right.

NORRIS: Bishop Stockton, for our last item on page 175 in the blue book, Calendar Item 451. That is in the red book, page 824, Petition 20723, also titled, "Membership of the University Senate." And this petition is quite similar to the one we just voted on in Calendar Item 448. Therefore, the committee would again recommend nonconcurrence.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, we're on 451 in the blue book, 1517 in the red book. Is there discussion? All right. Come to microphone 2.

VICTOR W. GOLDSCHMIDT (North Indiana): I'd like to move an amendment that the proviso that they be United Methodist members, that want to be included in the petition, and not the others. The wording, I need your help, Norris, on this. You know where I'm heading. The first lines includes, I'm sorry, the four line of the petition on page 824, "shall be members of The United Methodist Church," will be the parts I would like the amendment to include, but no other parts. So from there after, the words "United Methodist Church," it would stop, and it would return to the wording in the Discipline.

So the purpose is only to add the requirement that is not in the Discipline now, that they be members of The United Methodist Church.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. This is an amendment to 1517 in the red book. You will amend it by a period after "United Methodist Church."

GOLDSCHMIDT: Not really a period, but continuing with the wording in the Discipline, which is not before us, but it is in the Discipline. So the only change in the present disciplinary language would be the requirement that they be United Church members.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. That amendment is before us. When the light appears, will you vote on the amendment? Yes? Yes. It has been now. [Bishop Stockton had a request from the floor for a second.] Would you please vote when the light appears, on the amendment. [Results: yes, 495; no, 413; abstained, 28]

BISHOP STOCKTON: The amendment passes 52.9 to 44.1. So the amendment is part of the Petition 1517. That is before us. All right, number 451 is before us. The recommendation is for nonconcurrence. Allen, do you have a final word?

NORRIS: You have amended it. In terms of the statement as it is, I believe the amendment, Victor, if I understand it, is that it would be the Senate shall be composed of 25 voting members who, at the time of their election, shall be members of The United Methodist Church, and then pick up the language as it is in the Discipline, now. Is that correct?

BISHOP STOCKTON: That was the amendment.

NORRIS: All right. I have no further statement then to that, bishop.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, number 451 is before us? Yes. Come to microphone 3.

BECKY HAASE (California-Pacific): Just a point of clarification. The motion is nonconcurrence. Is the motion still nonconcurrence or was that basically a substitute for the original motion?

BISHOP STOCKTON: That was an amendment, and the recommendation of the committee is still nonconcurrence.

HAASE: So a yes vote would still be nonconcurrence?

BISHOP STOCKTON: That's right.

HAASE: Thank you.

BISHOP STOCKTON: Is that clear? A "yes" vote would be nonconcurrence. A "no" vote would be for concurrence. All right, will you please vote when the light appears? [Results: yes, 533; no, 404; abstained, 12] Nonconcurrence is affirmed.

NORRIS: Bishop, that completes our items for the evening. I would like to introduce at this time, the vice-chair and the secretary of the Higher Education and Chaplaincy Committee. If they would come forward, LaVon Wilson, the vice-chair from Central Illinois, and Janet Stephenson from the Iowa Conference as the secretary. They have worked hard, and you may be hearing from one or both of them tomorrow, or whenever we bring additional items. And I wanted the body to see them. [applause]

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. Thank you. This does not mean that you are through with all of your petitions?

NORRIS: We are not through, sir. I wish we were, for the good of the body. I do have an announcement. We have approved, on the Consent Calendar, the study, "Education, the Gift of Hope." And we have recommended it to the church for study. We have been advised that some delegates did not receive their copy in the mail before they came to General Conference. I would like to announce that there are limited number of these available from the DCA desk near Cokesbury. And of course they will not cost you anything. And so we do urge you to pick up a copy if you do not have one of this very interesting and important book.

BISHOP STOCKTON: Yes. Come to microphone 2, please.

CHRISTIAN T. RICKS (Missouri East): Bishop, besides having to fight the lights up here, overnight some trees have grown, next to the podium. We were wondering if we could get those moved, so we can see the bottom of the screen and know what we are voting on all the time?

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, we'll make that request. [laughter] Thank you. You may want to know what causes them to grow so quickly. All right, Carl Stewart, Independent Commissions, Carl Stewart. Wait. Yes. Microphone 6.

BARBARA W. RIDDLE (Florida): I want to move in between the presenters, and I appreciate you recognizing me. I move that persons presenting business to the conference which is not a part of the proposed budget of the General Council of Finance and Administration, inform delegates of the additional funding requested. And, if I have a second, I'll speak to it.

BISHOP STOCKTON: There is a second. Please speak.

RIDDLE: We have so much before us that it really is almost impossible to keep one's finger in the report from General Council on Finance and Administration. And in recognition of the covenant that we have with each other, this would be another way that our presenters might inform the delegates about the business that's before us, so that we can make informed decisions.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. You're saying that if there is, if there are financial requirements that are not in the Finance and Administration report, that that needs to come before, needs to be clearly delineated for the body?

RIDDLE: That's right. And the amount that will be requested.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, there is a second. Is there a discussion? Will you please vote when the light appears? [753 approved] It is approved. 82 percent to 15.5 percent. So we'll keep that in mind, please. All right, Carl Stewart.

CARL E. STEWART (Louisiana): Thank you, Bishop. I will present to you five petitions. We will first consider Calendar Item 456, found on page 175 of the Daily Christian Advocate. And Petition 20507, found on page 901 in the Advanced Edition 1, the red book.

BISHOP STOCKTON: 9201?

STEWART: 901. The petition concerns the Conference Commission on Archives and History. The petition would amend paragraph 738 of the Discipline. Currently, each annual conference is required to have a Commission on Archives and History. The proposed amendment would allow for the responsibilities of Archives and History to be handled by another annual conference organization if the annual conference elected to do so.

The committee recommends nonconcurrence on this petition based on the rationale that the change is unnecessary. The committee feels that the current disciplinary provision is quite workable at the annual conference level and provides for a needed continuity within our connectional system. Bishop, I would move the adoption of the committee recommendation of nonconcurrence.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, 456 in the blue book.

STEWART: Of the red book?

BISHOP STOCKTON: 738 in the red book. And the recommendation is nonconcurrence. Is there discussion? Please vote when the light appears. [776 approved]

BISHOP STOCKTON: Nonconcurrence is affirmed. 84.5 percent to 14.5 percent.

STEWART: Thank you. We will next consider Calendar Item 457, also found on page 175 of the Daily Christian Advocate. This is Petition 20635, and it is found page 906 in the Advanced Edition 1, the red book.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, 906.

STEWART: This petition pertains to the accountability of the General Commission on Archives and History. The petition would amend paragraph 1803.2 of the Discipline by making the General Commission on Archives and History accountable to the Council of Bishops, rather than its current accountability to the General Council on Ministries. The committee recommends nonconcurrence. The rationale of the committee for nonconcurrence is that the proposed change is unnecessary. The amendment would shift additional oversight responsibilities to the Council of Bishops, which are not warranted. The current language should be maintained. And I move the adoption of the committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, this is before you, 457 in the blue book, 1803 in the red book. Is there discussion? Will you please vote when the light appears? [875 approved] Nonconcurrence is affirmed. 94.5 percent to 4.5 percent. Nonconcurrence. All right?

STEWART: Thank you. The next petition is Calendar Item 458. It's also found on page number 175 of the Daily Christian Advocate, and it's Petition 20240, found on page 901 in the red book. The petition also pertains to the Commission on Archives and History. It would add a new sub-paragraph after paragraph 738.4 in the Discipline. The proposed language would require the Commission on Archives and History to consult with the Conference Commission on Communication on matters needing communication expertise.

The committee recommends nonconcurrence. The proposed amendment is deemed to be unnecessary. Currently, the Commission on Archives and History can avail itself of the resources of the Communications Commission and other resources as the need arises. I would move the adoption of the recommendation of nonconcurrence.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. This is 458 in the blue book, 738 in the red book. Is there discussion? Will you please vote when the light appears? [894 approved] Nonconcurrence is affirmed by 96 percent to 3 percent.

STEWART: Thank you. We will next consider Calendar Item 459, also found on page 175 of the Daily Christian Advocate, and it's Petition 20772. It will be found on page 920 of the Advanced Edition, your red book. Here we'll have a subject matter shift. The petition calls for the establishment of a new commission: The General Commission on Inclusiveness of Persons With Handicapping Conditions.

The committee emphatically embraces the premise of the petition that The United Methodist Church must be vigilant in respecting the rights of persons with handicapping conditions, and, indeed, insuring their full participation in all areas of the church. The committee believe, however, that church members have been and continue to be made aware of the need to accept, to include, and to respond with Christian love through the special needs of persons with handicapping conditions without the creation of a new commission.

We commend the petitioners for raising our consciousness about this vital concern and we affirm the work in this area already existing through such boards and agencies as Global Ministries and Discipleship. I move adoption of the committee recommendation of nonconcurrence.

STEWART: All right, my final Calendar Item is 460. This is also found on page 175 of the Daily Christian Advocate, and it's Petition 20758. It'll be found on page 907 of hte Advanced Edition of your red book. This petition takes us back to the subject matter of the Archives and History, and involved specifically the historical society.

CONARD: That clarifies the relationship between the General Commission and the Historical Society and relieves any doubts that is a financial obligation, since the Historical Society is self-supporting.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, the amendment is before us.

CARL STEWART: Bishop, may I speak to this?

BISHOP STOCKTON: Let's see if there is other discussion. Is there other discussion on this amendment? I see none. Please speak.

STEWART: Bishop, I would only state that the committee, I believe, would embrace the amendment being sought. Within the subcommittee there was varying discussions about language in order not to implicate some financial undertaking. And so I don't view that the subcommittee would be adverse to the proposed amendment.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, so you think the committee will affirm this?

STEWART: Yes.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. That is accepted by the committee then. So the wording becomes "shall endorse and encourage." All right? As accepted, the amendment is part of the petition now. The petition is before us. Is there discussion? Will you please vote as the light appears? [896 approved] That is affirmed, 94 1/2 to 4 1/2.

STEWART: Thank you, Bishop.

BISHOP STOCKTON: Thank you. All right, I think, George Hunter, do you have those that have been taken off the Consent Calendar, and do you have others?

GEORGE G. HUNTER III (Florida): Yes, Bishop, two items that were voted on a very large majority, less than five negative votes. There are four that were put on the Consent Calendar have been called off the calendar and will be before us this week, one of them tonight. It is Item Number 2 on the Consent Calendar. I think you need not refer to that. However, instead, turn in the red book to page number 175.

BISHOP STOCKTON: 175 in the red book.

HUNTER: It is Petition 21053. This is the gist of it historically.

BISHOP STOCKTON: Which one is it?

HUNTER: 21053. And it requires a bit of historical explanation. Traditionally, ...

BISHOP STOCKTON: Hold it a minute. Let's be sure we get it. It is on page 1075 of the red book?

HUNTER: No, 175. Sorry. Basically, it has to do with the fact that we send delegates to the Annual Conference of the British Methodist Church. And they send delegates to our General Conference. The pattern has been for us to send them four people every year. And for them to send four people to us every quadrennium. The petition has proposed that we adjust that some: send them two people every year, and they send us four people every quadrennium. This is, colleagues, a very important relationship, and we have invited a distinguished member of our committee, the Rev. Brian Beck, the Secretary of the Conference of the British Methodist Church, to fill us in on the importance and the emerging shape of this relationship.

BISHOP STOCKTON: If you would welcome Brian to our, to speak today, would you give him some applause? From the British Methodist Church. (applause)

BRIAN E. BECK (British Methodist Conference): Bishop, and colleagues in the conference, I bring you greetings of the British Conference. This arrangement is a feature of the concordat between our two conferences, which has been going since 1968. As you have heard, under the arrangement, we exchange delegates, and up to this point, the arrangement has been for four delegates going in each direction, and in both cases, to have both voice and vote within the conference.

The petition before you is the fruit of conversations which have been going on between representatives of the British Conference of the Council of Bishops, and of the General Council on Christian Unity and Inter-religious Concerns for more than four years now. It's essentially just to renegotiate the terms of the concordat; and there are two principal reasons why it is being proposed: The first is that in terms of size, four representatives of the British Conference, in a conference of this size, I think we have found over the years to be helpful to come with such a contingent.

The British Conference, on the other hand, currently numbers 576 and is contemplating reducing that size to about 400. We have 12 related conferences who send representatives to us, and reducing the size of our conference, considerably, is going to affect the size of all those delegations. If we were to retain four voting representatives from the United Methodist Church within a reduced British Conference, the proportion would be significantly changed in a way that we could not offer for the other autonomous conferences voting with us. We do, of course, value this particular link.

I am conscious of the fact that I and the others from Britain, here, represent the only concordat church which has voting rights within this conference, and we wish to continue to offer those voting rights to those whom you send to Britain. We make that exception because we recognize the United Methodist Church as a global church, and not just as a national conference. We also wish to preserve the link because you have generously referred to us in your Discipline as the Mother Church of Methodism. We, for our part, regard you as our first break-away conference. (laughter)

The other and subsidiary reason why the change is being proposed is because, clearly, when each conference bears the cost of sending its own delegation to the other conference, the cost on The United Methodist Church sending four every year, is much greater than the cost for the British to come once every four years. And in practice, you have been sending only two delegates in recent years.

I think it has been agreed between those who have held the conversation, that this proposal is acceptable and will work. The British Conference has already resolved that it will adopt the change if this conference also agrees to do so. And I hope, therefore, that you will support the committee in voting for concurrence on this item. Thank you sir.

BISHOP STOCKTON: Thank you, Dr. Beck. This is a constitutional amendment, I understand, George, and it's on the consent calendar in the blue book, page 93, Calendar Item 2. And so you recommend concurrence?

GEORGE HUNTER: We do, sir.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right, is there any discussion? Will you please vote as the light appears. [907 approved] It is affirmed by 98 percent. Thank you.

HUNTER: Bishop, one other item has been lifted from the consent calendar, number 49, but we will take that up later in a package with other petitions.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. Thank you. All right, we're at the point where, I think, another one of the committees has to meet tonight, so we will adjourn after a few moments, and allow that committee to meet with hope that they'll have some sleep sometime tonight.

Let me report on Bishop Bill Cannon's surgery today on his broken hip. The surgery went very well, and the doctor said the bishop will be up and walking some tomorrow, and may be able to go home Friday. (applause) Committee on Presiding Officers, Rex Bevins.

REX C. BEVINS (Nebraska): The presiding officers for Tuesday, April 23, are as follows: Tuesday morning, Bishop Robert Morgan of the Louisville area; Tuesday afternoon, Bishop David Lawson of the Illinois area; Tuesday evening, Bishop Clay Lee of the Holston area.

BISHOP STOCKTON: They will sleep well tonight. Committee on Agenda and Calendar reports, Sarah Miller?

SARAH S. MILLER (Wyoming): Thank you, bishop. We've got a big, good day for tomorrow. We're going to hear the Africa University choir, (applause), yes sir! We're going to be visited by a great array of ecumenical leaders, and we've got important business to do: the consultation on church union covenant communion proposal, the connectional issues study report, the global nature of the church report, the General Board of Global Ministries site location. Now, because it's going to be a busy day, I know you hate to miss any of your lunch or dinner time, but since we've had such a generous time for those two things, we're proposing that we cut the lunch hour to an hour and a half (take a half hour off of it), so that we come back a half hour early, and we're proposing that we cut the dinner time from two and a half hours to two hours.

BISHOP STOCKTON: Give us the time. 12:30 til 2?

MILLER: 12:30 til 2 and 5 to 7 to eat.

BISHOP STOCKTON: All right. If you will approve those or not approve them, vote when the light appears. [723 approved] All right, that is affirmed by almost 80 percent. Thank you. Announcements, Carolyn Marshall?

CAROLYN M. MARSHALL (South Indiana): There are three announcements this evening. The General and Judicial Administrative/ Legislative Committee..

BISHOP STOCKTON: Can you hear:

MARSHALL: It's not on. The General and Judicial Legislative Committee will meet briefly in the space between the front platform and the bleachers at the front. We're presuming that this means over here, stage left, basically near the press area.

Bishop Nacpil would like to meet with the Manila Episcopal Area delegation in room A112 soon after the adjournment this evening.

And the Plan of Organization and Rules of Order Committee will meet in room A210, ten minutes after adjournment.

BISHOP STOCKTON: Thank you. And I'd like to express appreciation to Bishop Jack Tuell and Bishop Kern Eutsler for seeking to keep me straight here, by backing me up. Now as we adjourn, we will ask Bishop Ann Sherer to come and pray us out. Bishop Sherer.

BISHOP SHERER: (prayer)

BISHOP STOCKTON: We are adjourned until 8:15 tomorrow.

General Conference Webmaster: Susan Brumbaugh
PETS Creator: John Brawn