Plenary Session Proceedings
Thursday, April 25: Morning Session

1996 United Methodist General Conference

Thursday Morning
April 25, 1996

BISHOP YEAKEL: Now will you please be seated, and as I indicated earlier, we will extend this period of time together and reach out across the miles to Nairobi where Bishop Alfred Ndoricimpa is on the line. And I've asked Bishop Solomon to lead us in that conversation with Bishop Ndoricimpa, and if some of you may wish to raise a question with the bishop, would you go to a microphone and I'll try to recognize you at the appropriate time. If we don't have time you'll understand, but at least we'd be prepared. Bishop Solomon.

BISHOP SOLOMON: Thank you Bishop Yeakel. Alfred, I'm going to take a moment to context this conversation for our delegates. To The United Methodist Church--those who are on this platform--are a council, but to those of us who are bishops, this our congregation. When we were elected bishops, our church membership was transferred from our home annual conference to the council. We left one home to enter another one. Think of your own congregation this morning where you share life and love and leadership, where you hurt and hope and do so in community. Then you will now understand when I say to Alfred, we long to be with you that our joy may be complete. Alfred, we greet you in the name of the blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and ask you now to share a word of greeting with this 1996 General Conference.

BISHOP NDORICIMPA: Thank you very much. On behalf of Burundi Annual Conference of Eastern and Central Africa, I want to express my deep appreciation for this opportunity to be able to greet the 1996 General Conference. Also, I want to take this opportunity to report on the critical condition in Burundi where the world keeps on going on. The entire country of Burundi has been affected whether it be the Hutus or the Tutsi are being forced to leave their homes and escape to the neighboring countries each day. People are leaving Burundi in great number. However, I want to express my deep appreciation to all those countries who are hosting these refugees who are hopeless. I'm most grateful to the churches in those countries where the refugees are going. It is there where there is special caring. It is my prayer that they will continue to do this.

BISHOP SOLOMON: Alfred, would you say a further word about the refugee situation as it now is?

BISHOP NDORICIMPA: It is bad, and they know that refugees leave their own place without notice. When they leave, they leave without food, no clothing, nothing, so in the places where they are going, you understand that they are suffering, no food, no clothes, no medicine. They are just suffering.

BISHOP SOLOMON: What is the church doing to address the situation of the refugees?

BISHOP NDORICIMPA: What the church is doing is exactly what I'm doing. We just keep informing brothers and sisters across the world, if they could come to the assistance of the refugees in the countries where they are. And here I want to emphasize that I'm not talking only about the Burundi refugees, but I'm talking about the refugees in general in the region.

BISHOP SOLOMON: Alfred, there are persons gathered here at this General Conference who may wish to ask you a question, and I'm going to ask Bishop Yeakel to lead us in a few moments of conversation.

BISHOP NDORICIMPA: Thank you. I am ready to answer any question.

BISHOP YEAKEL: There's a woman at microphone 8, please.

L. CECILE ADAMS (Detroit): Hello, Bishop Ndoricimpa. Cecile Adams from Detroit.

BISHOP NDORICIMPA: Hello? Nice to hear your voice.

ADAMS: It's nice to talk with you. You and I have had conversations about the refugee children and youth in Kenya. Would you talk with us a little bit about the situation with those children and youth who were refugees in Kenya?

BISHOP NDORICIMPA: The refugees children in Kenya and the young people in Kenya as well as those young students who are at the university, they are here. They are more cared because, I want to express my deep appreciation to the General Board of Global Ministries, because they have been sending money to us to assist those children, and not only those children in Kenya, but also in Burundi.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Thank you, microphone 9, please.

J. LAVON KINCAID (Pittsburgh): We were together in August of last year, and I enjoyed our time together, and our prayers are with you. My question specifically is: Is there any word from you regarding the vision and goals for the Methodist Church in Uganda to become a conference with Rev. Solomon Mawanda? Can you share with us today regarding that question?

BISHOP NDORICIMPA: Yes, I am happy to answer the question. You know, this is not a question of which is left to me. In order to become an annual conference, the Uganda District will have to come from the decision of the whole annual conference if it has fulfilled all the requirements which is required any district in the country to become first a provisional annual conference, then after becoming provisional annual conference, to become full annual conference. We have to go through the proper channels of the committees.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Thank you. Let me go to microphone 7.

HORST KERSHER (German Southwest): Dear Bishop Alfred Ndoricimpa, we are in a special relationship with your Burundi Annual Conference. Our local congregations think of the Methodist people in Burundi every Sunday in their worship. However, we want to do more for your people. Please tell us what can we do in addition to our prayers to bring relief to those who are suffering?

BISHOP NDORICIMPA: Let me express my deep appreciation to The United Methodist Church in Germany for the relationship we have several of the years and for being sister annual conference. What you can do? You can send assistance to help the children in Kenya, young people in Kenya, refugees, as well the children who are orphans, who are in Burundi or in Tanzania or in Zaire. The need is enormous.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Thank you, number 11, please.

LAMONT COX (Liberia): Thank you very much, Bishop. Good morning, Bishop.

BISHOP NDORICIMPA: Good morning.

COX: I would like to find out from you, how would you relate the problems of your country to what is happening in Liberia now, and do you feel as to whether, despite what Burundi has undergone over the last few years, is the church still alive and is it growing, and what may account for this? Thank you.

BISHOP NDORICIMPA: Thank you very much. I may have an unhappy answer to your question. Number one, the problem of Burundi, how it is related to the problem in Liberia, I want to tell you, in one way there is some kind of difference. Because Burundi problem, is mainly those people who have been in power, the minority group who is in power, particularly the military, the army who's been in power for so long, so they don't want civilians to come in power. The military in Burundi wants to keep controlling. Then the civilians want say that now enough is enough for the army to keep controlling us for 35 years. Civilians feel that they want to come in control through elections-- popular elections, democratic--popular elections of the people. But the army wants to come in power by guns. So in Liberia, I don't know exactly. It would be different issue, but what I want to tell you all these problems in Africa, if you are asking me if they are related, yes, in one way there is someone behind all these problems in Africa. Why? These people in Liberia or Burundi are not, they don't manufacture guns. Who are supplying these arms to the Liberians or Burundians? This is a question mark.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Thank you. We have one more question, and then Bishop Solomon will talk with you, Alfred. At microphone 6.

J. FAY CLEVELAND (Western New York): Bishop Ndoricimpa, sister conference to Burundi, asking you, sir, if you could give a word about the pastors and churches where we have been so interested and supportive of developing the ministry. Is there any word on the pastors and churches in Burundi?

BISHOP NDORICIMPA: Yes, I have a word on that. Thank you for I hear your voice. As you know, as I said that the war is still going on some places such as Etega or Kayero or Moreje, you know the place? Moreje is doing very well. Kayero is doing very well. Etega--not very well because the armies killing people day by day. For the last two weeks, I don't have news about my pastors in Etega, but in Kayero, Moreje the churches are doing very well. And I want to answer you this question which I even forgotten to answer. The previous person who asked me the question from Liberia. You know the church belongs to God, and God always has grace for people even if someone may want destroy the people, God is there to protect them.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Alfred, we rejoice that we have this privilege of conversation with you this morning. Two concluding comments: one, would you share a brief word as to how your family is doing.

BISHOP NDORICIMPA: The family is doing very well. The pastors who are with me in Kenya are doing very well. The lay people who are with me in Kenya are doing very well.

BISHOP SOLOMON: Alfred, an additional word, as a citizen of the United States, I want to express to you profound apology for the unwillingness of the government of the United States to give you a visa that you could be here in your congregation this morning. And I'm going to ask, not only that we pray for you, but that we do that even in this moment. And I'm going to ask those who are gathered here to take the hand of someone who is near to you, as I share this prayer for you.

Eternal God, whose grace and love know no limitations of time and space, and yet bring a hollowing to all time and space, uphold our brother Alfred and his familiy in the strength of faith and hope and love, that they may serve faithfully the calling to which you, oh God, have called them. And Alfred, we pray that the Lord will watch between you and all of us as we are physically absent one from another as we are united in the strong bonds of Jesus Christ. May God bless you richly, Alfred and your family, Amen.

BISHOP YEAKEL: And Amen. Go in peace, Alfred. Thank you very much for sharing this time together. I'm sure you would want to sing as we are led, the chorus, and have the opportunity of regathering for the work of the day.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Before we begin our work, let me say thanks to all who led us this morning in the time of worship, to our preacher Bishop Boulton, to the Christ Church of the Deaf Choir from Baltimore, Md., celebrating 100 plus years of ministry to the deaf community in that city. [applause] And it would be most appropriate that we continue in the time of discernment now. So with this experience and this worship together, let us turn to each other, seeking the answers to the questions, "What is it that God has placed upon our hearts for this day, and what is it that we believe God wants of us this day." Let us discern together. [conversation] Now let us share in our time of intercessory prayer.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Let me recognize Jim Lawson at microphone 4.

JAMES LAWSON (California-Pacific): Bishop Yeakel, I rise to make a motion of personal privilege. I move that the historic addresses of Pastor William Quick and Mrs. Hillary Clinton be published in the DCA.

BISHOP YEAKEL: I think you have a second and a vote on that, and we will so do. We turn now for the Consent Calendar. OK Gerry Reist and Sarah Miller.

FITZGERALD REIST: Good morning. The calendar has some removals this morning. They are found on page 584. And there are some changes that I would ask you to make in your copies of the DCA. There is an additional removal, 1806, it's not actually a removal, it's a move from one calendar category to another. It was incorrectly recorded as nondisciplinary which put it in B06; it should have been in A05. Sorry, correct that, it was B05 and should have been in A05. They are both consent but it is a disciplinary item. Then the Items 1900 and 1957 should have been added to A06; they were incorrectly recorded as C05. They should have been A06. They are consent items.

If you'll turn on page 543, Consent Calendar...I'm sorry. We had a late night last night and I'm afraid I have gotten myself a little confused. Consent Calendar A05 which begins on 445, has the correction of 1561, and includes the item 1806 that was on the Consent Calendar B05. Those are the only changes in Consent Calendar A05.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Thank you. Now, Sarah Miller.

SARAH MILLER: Bishop, I move the adoption of Consent Calendar A05 with the additions and changes noted.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, the motion is to adopt. Please vote when the light appears. [784 approved] And the motion is adopted, the calendar is adopted.

REIST: The only other changes to Consent Calendar B05 are those that already noted in the calendar--the inclusion of 1410 and 1582.

BISHOP YEAKEL: And that begins on page 459.

MILLER: Bishop, I move the adoption of Consent Calendar B05 as explained.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, it is before you. Vote when the light appears. [752 approved] And B05 is adopted.

REIST: Consent Calendar C05 on page 464 is before you. There are no changes.

MILLER: Bishop, I move the adoption of Consent Calendar C05.

BISHOP YEAKEL: This is properly before you. Please vote when the light appears. [794 approved] And C05 is adopted. That brings our Consent Calendar in line?

REIST: Yes. Bishop, I'm not sure if I referred the delegates to page 584 for the removals; I thought I did, but I am not quite sure that I did lift those up.

BISHOP YEAKEL: You did refer us to that page.

REIST: Thank you.

BISHOP YEAKEL: We understand that they get to be long nights and we thank all of you for the work you are doing for us to facilitate our work here. Thank you very much. [applause]

BISHOP YEAKEL: I have been asked to remind you or to tell you that there are now water stations where the refreshments are in the surrounding areas of the bar of the conference, so if you need a glass of water you will know where to get it. Now we are getting behind time in our work together. I see a number of folks who want special privilege. Microphone 10--we'll try you. Please make it quick, and if you will go over to microphone 7, I will call you in a moment and...with you.

JAMIE POTTER-MILLER (Western Pennsylvania): The headlines all over the papers this morning in Denver and other places proclaim to us that the Methodists have welcomed the First Lady and that the Methodists have taken certain actions. As the elder in the Johnstown District, privileged to share in supervising with the disciples of Jesus Christ in our part of Western Pennsylvania, I am blessed to be a part of the Wesleyan family. And, as Bishop Milhouse reminded us yesterday, I am deeply indebted to others in our lineage. In this year of the 50th anniversary of the event that was held, by the way, in historic First Church in my hometown of Johnstown--the event that created the EUB Church--let us remember that not only those who, like myself, stood when Bishop Milhouse invited us, but all of us in The United Methodist Church have spiritual roots in the family trees of Albright, Otterbein, and Boehm. I hope that many of you will come to the party that we are planning in Johnstown this next November--it's going to be some party. And I hope that you will remember that we are all United Methodists. And I trust that with that on page 521 of today's DCA we will correct the word Johannesburg, Pa., and make it Johnstown, Pa. Thank you.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Thank you. Now microphone 7.

SHARIE MORGAN (North Indiana): I move that in a spirit of honesty and openness, the Council of Bishops respond to the morale and the legislative authority of the General Conference. If I could have a second, I'll speak to the motion.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Would you be kind enough to tell me what you mean by the council respond? What is your desire of response?

MORGAN: I would like to have a response from the Council of Bishops to take home to our local churches.

BISHOP YEAKEL: I believe the council's response was printed in the DCA several days ago.

MORGAN: But we would like to have a response to the vote that was taken yesterday.

BISHOP YEAKEL: I don't understand your question. What vote are you referring to yesterday?

MORGAN: The votes that were taken yesterday during the session when we voted on the language of homosexuality in our Discipline.

BISHOP YEAKEL: I think the council is on record. I believe the word was "collectively and individually to uphold the actions of the General Conference." And I think that response is already before you.

MORGAN: Excuse me, sir, but we are receiving many phone calls from local churches. There is a great deal of confusion at home because of reports in the newspapers. We as lay delegates and perhaps some clergy delegates, we feel that we need to take a strong, concise statement from our Council of Bishops...

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, let me interrupt you. Bishop White, Woodie White, are you present?

He is not present. I believe if he came to the platform and would make a statement, it would be to say that we have given you a precise response to the question you're raising.

MORGAN: Sir, that response was a response in response to the message given by 15 bishops. Since then other things have happened.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Ma'am, I really believe that you're out of order at this time. The council is not individually accountable to this particular part of the church. If it is a question of our personal accountability, it would be to the jurisdictional conferences. As a council, we have tried to speak in regard to that particular situation and to all of the surrounding concerns that have come forth, and I think that's the only answer I can give at this time. And I believe that is the correct answer.

MORGAN: Okay, I did receive a second, I'm not real familiar...

BISHOP YEAKEL: Well, I'm ruling your motion out of order at this time. Microphone 12. Microphone 12, please. Yes, you're going to come forward to number seven?

VERGIL L. DAUGHTERY (South Georgia): As a point of personal privilege, I wish to call to the attention of the General Conference an opportunity for mission related to a motion adopted on last Monday evening. The opportunity for mission appears on page 434 of the Daily Christian Advocate in an article entitled, "United Methodist Publishing House President Responds With a Mission Opportunity." Neil Alexander, the president and publisher of the United Methodist Publishing House, is offering to give one copy of the new Spanish hymnal at no charge to the United Methodist Hispanic Ministries when a delegate to the General Conference purchases one of the new Spanish hymnals. Delegates who wish to purchase and give a new Spanish hymnal for use in the mission and ministries of the United Methodist Hispanic Ministries will have their gift matched by a free gift of a Spanish hymnal from the United Methodist Publishing House. Distribution of these gifts of hymnals will be directed by the Committee on Hispanic Ministries. I know that each of the bishops on the stage, including my own bishop, Richard Looney, will want to lead the way in giving two of these hymnals. (laughter)

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, thank you very much, I think we have the point. Will the chair of the committee, the calendar--no General and Jurisdictional Administration--we must go to business. Will you come, please, and orient us to the business at hand.

DAVID SEVERE (Oklahoma): Bishop, I believe we are to deal, are we not, with the site selection?

BISHOP YEAKEL: Yes we are.

SEVERE: All right. And, I believe the first thing is the report by Dr. Messer on the site selection committee. The delegates will note that the item was non-consented in the Legislative committee, and that appeared on the consent calendar and has now been approved by that process. But the report has not yet been made, and Dr. Messer is here to make that.

DONALD E. MESSER (Rocky Mountain): We in Denver are delighted that the weather has cooperated, and we hope you like our Rocky Mountain springtime. We hope that this will also be a day of renewal and joy for our conference as we deal with the issue which has perplexed and troubled our church for some years. God is calling us in many directions, and I can assure you that four years ago I never expected to be called to deliver this particular report. But we respond to the call of our bishops and our leaders of our church, and we do the task that is presented to us in as open and as honest and as fair and as firm a fashion as possible.

The 1988 General Conference established a task force to study the feasibility of relocating the General Board of Global Ministries. That report was presented to us at the 1992 General Conference in which that task force by a divided voted of nine to four recommended that it was feasible to relocate the General Board of Global Ministries. A key portion of that report, prepared by Price Waterhouse, suggested a relocation was feasible, and I quote, "Further study and analysis are warranted." If you will turn in your red books to page 683, you will find there a complete report from the 1996 Site Selection Task Force.

The 1992 General Conference received the report from the task force to study the feasibility of relocating the General Board of Global Ministries. Those familiar with that debate will know that it was contentious and close at many points. The report was debated in its entirety, and it was the determination of this General Conference to amend the report's recommendations in three important ways. Number one, there was a motion which passed on this floor which changed one fundamental recommendation of that report. The original recommendation was the task force would have responsibility to have completed the relocation move already by this time, or at least to have worked out all the financing and details. The 1992 General Conference determined in its wisdom, however, that this was not the proper way to proceed, and that a report should be given to this 96 General Conference giving in detail a site, plans for such a location, and all funding sources and aspects.

A second motion was made and passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 721 to 238 that three members of the task force should be representative of the central conferences. They had not been a part of that deliberation, and the location of the General Board of Global Ministries is very, very important to members of the central conferences. And, therefore, the task force was expanded to include three members of the central conferences. And finally, by motion of this body a third amendment was inserted which insured that one of the 13 persons be a youth delegate or representative.

The 1992 General Conference then, after these recommendations were amended, voted by a very close margin of 485 to 470 that they approved the conclusion that it was feasible to move the General Board of Global Ministries from its present location at 475 Riverside Drive in New York City.

Secondly, they directed that the General Board of Global Ministries headquarters be moved from New York City.

Third, they established a Site Selection Task Force which was empowered to select a new site for the General Board of Global Ministries headquarters. The membership was specified, as you will see in the report, to include three persons who previously served on the 92 task force, three persons who would be named by the General Board of Global Ministries, two persons to be named from the General Council on Finance and Administration, two persons from the General Council on Ministries, as well as the three persons from the central conferences. And, you will see that they have served faithfully from Angola, the Philippines, and Sweden.

A relocation coordinator was approved by action of this body so that we would have in detail the best analysis of all possible sites and locations and have a professional firm handling this task.

Finally, they approved, as I have said, that we are to bring to you a site plans for such location and all funding sources and aspects. The body, itself once assembled under the leadership of the Council of Bishops, elected its own officers, and you will see, they are listed. The task force held 14 meetings plus spent over two weeks in five visits to selected cities. Never has it been my privilege to work with a more dedicated group of laity and clergy anywhere. Those 14 meetings plus two weeks of intensive day and night work, had 100 percent participation at every meeting, and ultimately comes before this body with a unanimous report on the site, on the plans for such location, and all funding sources and aspects. Diverse as we were, from around the world and from all the respective agencies and previous task force, we reached a unanimous conclusion after full participation.

The budget was $400,000 plus various travel expenses which were to be paid by the agencies we represented, and contributed staff services. The costs of the study were enormous. As you can see, on page 313 in the red book, the estimated travel expenses costed out to the various agencies--General Board of Global Ministries, General Council on Finance and Administration, General Council on Ministries as of Dec. 31, 1995--was $112,000. Add that to approximately $400,000 and you can see that the cost well exceeded $520,000 thousand, and not counting the hours and days of work of the staff of the General Council of Finance and Administration, General Council on Ministries, and the General Board of Global Ministries.

The site selection committee reviewed proposals from 21 firms and interviewed four, and hired the nationally respected firm of Cushman & Wakefield which has offices throughout the United States to do the professional analysis. Critical to our work was to determine the community criteria where we would locate the General Board of Global Ministries. Our task force never considered the possibility of staying in New York City, because this body determined it was to move. But we knew we must find an inclusive cosmopolitan community affording access to a pool of competent workers who are multi-racial, multi- cultural, and international in background with a variety of language skills other than English. In selecting Reston, Va., we found such a location. Secondly, we had, as our community criteria, good affordable housing of various kinds: apartments, houses for general and executive staff, in neighborhoods that are racially and culturally inclusive and economically integrated. Our task force members visited actual homes and places that were available in the area. Reston, Va., has been an inclusive, integrated community in Virginia from its inception, a planned community.

Third, it must have a good educational system. Fairfax County in Virginia has one of the finest educational systems which can be demonstrated by many many surveys.

Fourth, it had to have an international airport with convenient accessibility to flights to a wide variety of international destinations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The value of Reston, Va., is that we got not just one international airport, but we got two international airports, Dulles, which will be just a few miles away, and Baltimore International Airport, which is in close proximity. In addition, National Airport, which serves broadly throughout the United States.

A fifth community criteria was that it must be in a place where there is a large base of United Methodist members and strong local churches. Well, Virginia is the conference with the largest United Methodist membership. There are United Methodist churches in the nearby vicinity of the proposed location, plus it has a beautiful ecumenical witness, with the Interface Center of Reston, where they work together to deal with the homeless in Reston, and to struggle with the social problems of that community.

Sixth, it must have access to consular offices, both to facilitate the securing needed travel documents and communications with governments. No place in the world better than Washington, D.C. for those purposes.

And finally, among those criteria, I lift up the need for having excellent higher educational institutions in the vicinity. And here again we are proud to have a United Methodist University, American University, pledging its cooperation with the General Board of Global Ministries if moved to Reston, Va., and the excellent services and facilities of Wesley Theological Seminary.

The site selection criteria included needed to have work space which was at least equivalent in size to present space. Our facilities in New York City are first-class quality at a low rental cost of just over $13 [per square foot]. We needed to have equivalent facilities. We do not need luxury facilities, but we do not need a warehouse. We just need equivalent first-class facilities to facilitate the mission work of our church throughout the world for Christ's sake.

Therefore, we did detailed analysis of the facilities and determined that we needed approximately 120,000 sq. ft., plus we needed space for the chapel, the cafeteria, elevator, heating, cooling systems, and library, all of which need to be moved. These had to be cost-effective facilities, whether we owned them or leased them, whether they were existing or built to suit. It had to be fully wired and capable for computer network and communication needs. It had to have parking facilities for our persons, and many other of the criteria. The Site Selection Committee began with a list composed from computer analysis and advice from our professional consultants of 23 cities. We examined those cities in detail, and reached a unanimous decision to narrow the list to five metropolitan areas: Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, and Washington D.C., speaking alphabetically. We received appeals from two cities--Kansas City and Indianapolis--and we considered those appeals but decided that these five were still our unanimous decision because they best met the criteria.

Now, I admit that my preference was for Denver, and after you have experienced this city, you will see why. But it was not the prevailing view. It was, based on the best analysis that we could make, that the best two cities to narrow the selection were Chicago and Washington D.C. That was the unanimous decision, and none of the three other cities chose to appeal. Therefore we did an intensive analysis of nearly 20 specific building sites, or buildings existing, in Washington D.C. and Chicago metropolitan areas. And then, by a unanimous decision, we decided, a build-to-suit location in Reston, Va., would best serve the Board of Global Ministries if we are moving from New York City. Unfortunately, it costs a great deal of money to relocate. That is why this General Conference ordered us to do intensive studies; because you wanted to be in a position where you are not in a predicament in the future; that you would vote with the full facts before you. Unfortunately, the estimated total cost came to nearly $42 million. You will see those major expense categories and estimated amounts: the personnel related costs, the land acquisition, the office building and parking structure, the other developers' costs, and additional tenants costs. You have seen, for example, proposals circulated that things could be done cheaper. I can assure you I have had all proposals analyzed by our professionals of Cushman & Wakefield, and I have discovered exactly where the differences are and prepared to answer those if that question should arise. It is very important that we not be excessive in our cost, but it is extremely urgent that we be realistic about the facts. No contracts have been signed, but the price of the land has been guaranteed and we have an option to buy if that should be the wish of this General Conference. You will note in that report that we said that if there were any revised estimates, we would print those in the final editing of the Daily Christian Advocate as General Conference opened. I, therefore, went to the General Council on Finance and Administration and to our professional consultants over a month ago and said, "Our estimates were as of the end of September. Would you review these figures? Is there a deviation? Is there a way to report that the costs will increase or decrease?" And they--the General Council on Finance and Administration staff, who have worked so faithfully and diligently in this task--reported that these are the best estimates that we can give you at this time.

Unfortunately, there are no funds or funding sources presently available in our great church. The General Council On Finance and Administration has explored all the financing options and could be prepared to answer questions if asked. But I can assure you that we do not have those funds. Therefore, it would be necessary to borrow at estimates based on 8 percent over 15 years. The previous task force suggested possibly 8 percent over 20 years. So it could vary. The cost of interest could go up or down. But anyway, these are the best estimates that the General Council on Finance and Administration can provide today. Therefore, we would need to borrow this $42 million. Our belief is that once relocation was completed in 1998, there would be an estimated savings of $850,000 annually. That's the good news. The bad news is that it would cost us $4,935,000 per year from apportioned general church funds over a period of 15 years. This raises the total approximate cost of moving from New York City to our new location proposed, to approximately $72 million. This would raise your apportionments approximately 4 percent annually for the next 15 years. At the conclusion of that 15 year period we would have a valuable asset which would, of course, increase in value over the years, and we would have our own facility for the General Board of Global Ministries much as we do for other agencies of the church.

Thus, the recommendations of the task force are as follows: that the General Board of Global Ministries site be on a specific parcel of land in Reston, Virginia; the General Board of Global Ministries be authorized to construct on this site according to the specifications cited in our report; that the General Conference go on record endorsing the principle of the ongoing mission work of the church to the General Board of Global Ministries be continued; and that the costs related to this headquarters relocation are not to be paid from or impact negatively funds intended to support that work; that all expenses will be paid from the apportioned General Fund receipts which you will so generously give; and that the General Board of Global Ministry be authorized to borrow the needed money. The General Board of Global Ministry will have authority for carrying out this General Conference action, but in the event of unforeseen circumstances, General Council on Finance and Administration will be authorized to grant additional amounts from appropriate funds in the church's eight general funds. This relocation process can be completed with a new building and relocation by January 1998, and the staff moved. The best recommendation of all is the final recommendation unanimously agreed to by the task force. And that is that the Site Selection Task Force would be dismissed by this General Conference. Thank you.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Thank you Dr. Messer. [applause] The chair needs to remind the body that this was a commission set up by the General Conference and therefore the report here is appropriate and proper; however, you have already acted upon this report on page 360 of the blue DCA, Calendar Item 1363, which is on the Consent Calendar indicates a unanimous vote in the committee; 88 for, zero against, that nonconcurrence with this proposal was adopted. There is, however, at least one minority report that should come to you at this time and I'll call on the chair, David Severe, to bring this to us.

DAVID SEVERE: Bishop, there was an additional motion or petition, rather, in our committee, and it was acted upon. Harriet Olson, who chaired that subcommittee, will present the majority report and then Patricia Miller and Joe Whittemore will present the minority report on that petition.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right. And the petition is on 360, I'm sorry, 481 number 1996. Is that correct?

HARRIET JANE OLSON (Northern New Jersey): That's correct, Bishop. Calendar Item 1996 appears on page 481 of the blue DCA. The Bishop has already indicated that the house has supported the committee's decision of nonconcurrence with the report of the Site Selection Committee. But as you find this item that we propose for action today, I think it's appropriate to say here what we said in our legislative committee, which is that we appreciate the degree of effort and attention that was given to this effort by the task force. You will see that one of the things that we express in this motion is appreciation for the work of the Site Selection Task Force. We are grateful for the time that they spent with us in our grappling with the report and the recommendation that's brought to you.

However once we had reached the conclusion to non concur with the Site Selection Task Force we had a selection of other petitions in front of us, and we grappled with several issues. One of them was the great concern that has been expressed throughout the church about the proposed move. Another issue is our concern about stewardship, about the financial impact that Dr. Messer has already described. We're also concerned about whether we are in a good position at the present time make decisions about what kind of a facility we need. We had already heard a presentation on the global nature of the church. You have already adopted that.

We will be looking toward multilateral resourcing for mission. Our view in the committee was that we're not sure that we currently know what kind of a facility it is that we will need by the year 2000 or by the year 2004. Finally, we struggled with being faithful to the action of the 1992 conference in expressing a desire to move from New York. And the result of that struggle is the majority report which you see before you at 1996.

The effort here is to recognize the prior work, to take into account the uncertainties about the needs for a facility that will result from the possible restructuring in the global nature of the church report. To recognize the issues raised about the New York location in 1992, and also to address the concerns we have about the expenditure of additional funds. You'll note that the majority report does not call for additional budgeting, refers the issue to a standing joint task force, and does not call for the presentation of a specific recommendation of a site from which to move in the year 2000. The majority of the committee thinks that this is a proper way to resolve this issue, and we recommend it to you today.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right thank you. Now there is a minority report.

PATRICIA MILLER (South Indiana): Bishop, brothers and sisters of General Conferences. We celebrate the wisdom of this and previous General Conferences in providing an avenue for a variety of views to be heard. Our legislative committee, as you've already heard, unanimously rejected the site selection report. It seems reasonable to ask: have we spent four years, $300,000 and produced a recommendation which apparently not one single delegate can support? We believe our church is calling for stewardship and responsibility in our decision making process. Since the site selection report has already been rejected, this conference has not been presented with a proposal that enjoys the support of any segment of the church. Without a viable alternative, this conference has not had the opportunity to make a decision. The minority report would solve this problem. The majority report would delegate the responsibility for reconsideration of this major decision to a committee thus denying the General Conference, in the year 2000, the opportunity to weigh alternatives. Our minority report on the other hand calls for the General Conference to make the final location decision after review by the standing joint committee. We are confident the best answer to this solution can only be made by General Conference itself. Without question there are enormous operating costs savings available from alternative locations thereby making more resources available for mission. We believe our minority report provides a way to evaluate the alternatives and present the best of them to the next General Conference for consideration. We think it is tremendously important for us to accept the responsibility and the opportunity that the church has given us. I would urge your favorable consideration of the minority report.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right thank you. Now you should be on page 481 of the blue book, item 1996. Since there is a majority/minority report we will need to perfect them and then you will vote on them appropriately. First of all, we will go to the majority report which is in the middle column, and to the right column you see the words minority report. We're down to that point. What is in order right now are motions to perfect the majority report and most importantly the two parts of the recommendation numbers one and two on the right hand column. Are there any motions to perfect the majority report. That's all we're doing. We're not making speeches for or against. I see no one going to a microphone. I do see a card now yes. Will you come to microphone 9? Microphone 9.

PHILLIP CONNOLLY (West Ohio): I'd like to move to amend the majority report by dropping the, deleting the words following the word "Discipline" and inserting the following in it's place. "Evaluate the East Point Georgia proposal and adopt that proposal unless proponents of some other suitable location put forth an even less expensive proposal which saves even more funds for mission. If I can have a second I'll speak to it.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Is there a second? I hear a second. You may speak.

CONNOLLY: The East Point proposal before us clearly demonstrates that there are other opportunities that we've not adequately examined. I feel that the church deserves a full opportunity to look at the other proposals. This will give us an opportunity to move ahead and not continue to deal with this matter for year after year and allow the General Board of Global Ministries to get on with their work.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right thank you. Be sure the body knows where you are. This is under point number 2 of the majority report the right hand column in the middle. if you count up the one, two three, the fourth, one, two, three, four, the fifth line from the bottom where it says review the suitability of New York. It would turn us toward the East Point situation in Georgia. Is there a speech against this particular amendment? You're speaking against the amendment. I can't see beyond..yes the.. right here on the... yes ma'am. This is a speech against this amendment? Yes.

SHARON HOWELL (Kansas East): What is the East Point proposal? It's not before us that I know about.

BISHOP YEAKEL: May we have a brief definition of the East Point proposal? If you will allow the chair, I think the Georgia people around Atlanta did make a specific proposal to the commission and it was visited, or at least it was reviewed. Dr. Messer is that not correct? Is this..This is for information the East Port proposal.

MESSER: The East Point Georgia proposal was never formally presented to the Site Selection Task Force though we visited Atlanta, Georgia and visited with the governor, business officials, and church leaders of Georgia. This proposal has been circulated in this body this week but never formally presented to the site relocation. An analysis, however, has been done by Cushman & Wakefield.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Well I think that might be argument. I think you've described the proposal and thank you for that. That answers your question. Now let me, right here in the center please. Section C which microphone is closest to you? Go to microphone 8 please. We're on the amendment only.

LUCILLE VANZANT (Oklahoma): I stand to speak against this proposal because not long ago I flew to Atlanta. I could have flown to New York City at half the price because from Oklahoma City to Dallas is one leg, and from Dallas to Atlanta was another leg. From Dallas to Atlanta, that last part of the leg, cost more than a round trip ticket to New York City. People, I stand as an example of a person in many instances who sacrifice her own money to get United Methodist meetings wherever they are. And I don't see the need of me spending my mission money trying to make our church look good for some reason never spoken, undercurrent, and never intentioned to be in mission. We can certainly use that money to put a day--care center in every city where there is a Methodist church and help our children become United Methodists for the world. Thank you.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, speech for and a speech against. In the middle over here of section D. Number 9 please.

ROBERT SWEET (New England): Bishop, it would be helpful to me, in knowing how to vote on this, if I could have the information that the consulting firm has discovered in looking at the East Point proposal. I wonder if we could ask Dr. Messer to share that information with us.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Well, the reason I stopped him when I did, was that, as I understand the amendment, it would turn this responsibility toward this particular project and make it the comparative for everything else that the committee did, so I didn't think you needed the details about what had already been done. It's whether the body wishes to identify a specific place that would be used then as the rule of thumb for all the rest of the work. I think that's the intent of the amendment; and that's why I didn't proceed in that way. Would the body support me in that, or do you want this information? If you'd support me, would you lift the hand, if not would you lift the hand. I believe I have the support of the body, and we will proceed.

I'm going to take the person off to the left there, giving me green on one side, yes, I know there are multiple cards. Number 9. We're on the amendment only. I had a speech for and a speech against. And which way will you be speaking, sir.

STEPHEN T. DECKARD (North Central New York): I'm speaking against. I believe we have addressed this when we approved the interactive study committee. In point six of that study, we adopted a way to look at this. I'm a former forestry student. And it appears to me that we are spending a lot of time looking at individual trees, when what we need to do is to consider the worldwide forest. I would encourage us to go back to the main motion, to defeat this minority motion, and to give our church a chance to work together, to look at the many options that involve the world, the world community, and what we're really about around the world. Thank you.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, I need a speech in favor of this motion. I'll take the gentlemen right here next to microphone 8.

AFONSO ZUMO (Western Angola): [translated] Thank you very much. My brothers and sisters, dear bishops, we just heard about the problems in Burundi and problems in many other parts of the world, and we consider these questions. We need to consider the conferences outside the United States. We understand that the relocation implies heavy expenses, and there is the need to help the peoples, who have needs as we have seen. Why do we consider incurring this heavy expense instead of helping the people who need our help? If there is money for the relocation, we should use that money to give help to the people who need it. Thank you very much. Those are my thoughts.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right. Thank you. I have two speeches for and two against. It's time for the break this morning. Is it possible you could decide on this amendment? We will then, in a moment, take the recess, and when we come back we'll continue to perfect the majority report. It's obvious we're not going to get it all done before the break time. If you would be willing to vote, would you lift the hand. If not would you lift the hand. You are willing to vote. If you favor this...

HARRIET J. OLSEN (Northern New Jersey): Bishop, may I speak to this?

BISHOP YEAKEL: Yes, yes you may speak. If you favor the amendment, you would vote "yes," of course, and it would be for setting this potential site in Georgia as the primary and rule of thumb point for the rest. I think, if with that, will you speak please.

OLSEN: Thank you, bishop. The committee did not have the analysis from Cushman & Wakefield. I can't tell you that they've looked at it. I have a list of questions that they've raised about the proposal, but I don't think that that would help the body. What I want to suggest, at this point, is that this amendment would make the majority report much more like the minority, That if you are asking for a specific proposal to be brought back to the conference of 2000, you have an opportunity to do that. It's not our feeling that the...we did receive information about the East Point proposal, but it did not appear to us to be one that we would recommend to you. And we would urge that you reject this amendment.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right. Thank you. We are now ready to vote. If you favor the .. What is your point of order, please? Number 7.

PAUL R. ERVIN JR (North Georgia): I believe we've had two speeches against and no speeches for.

BISHOP YEAKEL: We've had two speeches for and two speeches against, and I asked if the conference was ready to vote, and I had an almost unanimous vote on that, and so I'm moving forward on the amendment only.

ERVIN: We've had two speeches for?

BISHOP YEAKEL: Yes, sir. The original maker of the speech, and there was another speech that I noted in favor of it. That's what my tally has.

ERVIN: Who was that? I'm just asking the question. Could this person stand?

BISHOP YEAKEL: I can't...I don't have the notation on that one, Paul. I have notes here, two for and two against. What's your tally show?

ERVIN: I heard the original speaker and two against. You asked if there was one for...

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, you want another speech? Does the body wish to return and get one more speech in favor? Let me ask you to record this vote. If you wish me to open it up for one more speech, you will vote yes; if not, vote no. Please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 335; no, 606] All right, it is lost on the two--to--one vote, so we will proceed now. We've had the speech, and we're ready to vote on the amendment only. The last five lines of item number two, substituting the amendment that would make East Point the primary site unless other sites could be proven more appropriate. Is that a correct, or generally correct restatement of the amendment? Please vote when the light appears. 276 for, 672 against. The amendment is lost. When we come back after the break, we'll continue perfection. Will you give Bishop Fannin your attention, please.

BISHOP ROBERT E. FANNIN: Thank you, Bishop Yeakel. General Conference, delegates. On March the 27th, 1994, while preaching in another part of my area in North Alabama, I received a phone call telling me that a tornado had hit one of our churches in the Piedmont area. I later found out that it was the Goshen United Methodist Church. I immediately left for Goshen. When I arrived, I found myself trying to find cover, for another tornado was following the same path. Visiting the hospitals where the injured had been taken, it soon became apparent that the reports were correct. Twenty persons had lost their lives in the sanctuary of Goshen United Methodist Church. As the children were sharing their Palm Sunday pageant, seven children were to be counted among those who had been lost.

The witness of that congregation, their families, and friends caused my faith to be strengthened. At the very center of this shocking drama was the powerful, loving, pastoral witness of their pastor, the Rev. Kelly Clem. Having lost her own four year-old daughter, Hannah, Rev. Clem continued to minister in the midst of her own grief and shock to her people. Her powerful witness to the world shared with all a sign of the ultimate depth of the call of those serving in ministry in The United Methodist Church. Rev. Clem is a delegate to this General Conference. She would like a moment of special privilege to express her feelings surrounding your tremendous response to this tragedy. Because of your love from around the world, families are merging their grief and faith. The Goshen congregation and church are rebuilding. As we said that Easter morning in 1994, we are the Easter people. Rev. Kelly Clem and her husband and partner in ministry, the Rev. Dale Clem. (applause)

KELLY A. CLEM (North Alabama): Bishops, delegates, and guests, I did not ask for this personal privilege to call attention to myself or us. I simply wanted to make a few, a few words that my heart has led me to come up and say. As we've been meeting here these two weeks, several systems of tornadoes and storms have crossed the Midwest and South of the United States, have caused tremendous losses of homes, businesses, some lives, and even some United Methodist churches. I rise and stand before you in earnest plea to each of you and to your churches to respond, either directly to these communities or through the United Methodist Committee on Relief, that healing might be affected and the witness of Christ be furthered.

And I would be remiss if I passed up this opportunity to commend the United Methodist Committee on Relief, Bishop Robert Fannin, Herb Williamson, my district superintendent, individuals like you and thousands of churches--United Methodist Churches-- especially, worldwide, who offered my church, community, and family direct assistance in our time of similar loss. Thanks to you, we are on the road to healing. Our new church building should be completed next month, and it will stand proudly as a tremendous witness to your love and support, which has been, and I use the words of Mrs. Clinton yesterday to say, "in the Methodist spirit of compassion and unity. Remember our connection, and please, please keep up your vital witness to a world in need." Thank you. (applause)

BISHOP YEAKEL: Thank you so very much. We will be in recess until five of eleven.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Please assemble. Please come back.

STEPHEN KIMBROUGH: Friends, as you return to your seats, if you happen to have the little green book, Global Praise I, turn to page 43. And if you don't, you can follow the screen as the words will be projected for us in this very simple melody of praise to God from the Taiz community of Jacques Berthier in France. "Sing praises all you people, sing praises to the Lord." We'll begin with the Latin words, "Laudate omnes gentes." We'll sing it over and over until we gather. A very simple melody. Some of you may care to sing the parts as we go along. Just fall into that as you may choose.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, folks, may we be in order, please? I have a special privilege at microphone 13 that I think you'll want to hear. I'm sorry, microphone 3. Microphone 3. Will you please give us your attention as you're coming to your seats?

YOUNGSOOK C. KANG (Rocky Mountain): Bishop, I rise to my personal privilege. I'd like to make a motion that we invite First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the honorary chair of the Shared Mission Focus Team of Young People that the 1996 General Conference decided to form. If I have a second, I will speak to it.

BISHOP YEAKEL: We have a second.

KANG: Yesterday we heard the first lady's enlightening message about reaching out to young people. We heard her love and care for young people clear and loud. As a matter of fact, my 14-year-old daughter was here. I know she will do anything if she can get out of school. And if Mrs. Clinton became part of this focus on young people's team, the team will be enriched by her presence and expertise. So I think it is very appropriate to invite her to be part of this team as the honorary chair.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, the motion is to ask Mrs. Clinton to consider being the honorary chair of the Youth Emphasis in the Church. Can we proceed to vote on this by a show of hands? If you'd adopt this request, if you're in favor, will you lift the hand, please? If not, will you lift the hand? We have acted to extend this invitation. I'd like to recognize microphone 11.

D. MAX WHITFIELD (North Arkansas): Bishop, I rise to a point of special privilege. The delegation from North Arkansas and the people of Arkansas would like to express our deep appreciation for the immediate response by the General Board of Global Ministries, the United Methodist Committee on Relief to the tornadoes that struck Fort Smith and Van Buren this past Sunday. Over 2,000 families are without homes. Two churches and one parsonage were damaged. Four persons were killed. This Sunday, all the congregations in Arkansas, both in the Little Rock and North Arkansas conferences will take a special offering to assist. It's great to be a part of such a great denomination, which can and does respond to needs so quickly and appropriately. We appreciate all the prayers and expressions of concern, but especially the response that has been made by the church. Thank you.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Thank you, sir. While this is on your minds, and you have a pencil or pen in hand, the UMCOR ADVANCE Number for tornadoes: 901-670-1; the ADVANCE Number again is 901-671-1. Now, let me call on Bishop Galvan for a moment of privilege in the life of the conference.

BISHOP ELIAS GALVAN: Sisters and brothers in Christ, it is for me a privilege to be able to present to you as the chair of the Autonomous Affiliated Churches, the bishops and presidents of the Autonomous Affiliated Churches, who are here in attendance. Some of them have already left, several are seated right here with us on the platform. Others are seated with you on the floor, and others are still on break, and I don't see them. But I will read their names, and I ask them as I read their names, to please stand. I'm going to ask you to refrain from applause until I am able to read all the names. And there is a good number of them. These are those persons who I am introducing at this time:

Bishop Aldo M. Etchegoyen from the Evangelical Methodist Church of Argentina and president of the Council of Bishops of Latin America; Bishop Neftali Aravena from the Methodist Church of Chile; Bishop Francisco Gustavo Cruz Diaz from the Methodist Church of Cuba; Bishop Adriel de Souza Maia from the Methodist Church of Brazil and president of the College of Bishops in Brazil; Bishop Nelson Latey from the Methodist Church of Brazil; Bishop Paolo Lockmann from the Methodist Church of Brazil; Bishop M. Lucia Leiga de Oliveira from the Methodist Church of Brazil; Bishop Luis F. Palomo from the Evangelical Methodist Church of Costa Rica; Bishop Garcia Alvarez of the Methodist Church of Mexico, (she had to leave); Bishop of the United Church in Ecuador; the president of the Evangelical Methodist Church of Uruguay; Bishop Sundo Kim from the Korean Methodist Church; Bishop H. Doloksaribu from the Methodist Church of Indonesia; Bishop Denis Dutton from the Methodist Church in Malaysia; Bishop Ho Chee Sin from the Methodist Church of Singapore; Bishop U. Maung Than from the Methodist Church of Burma; Bishop Jacob F.S. Ching from the Methodist Church of the Republic of China; Bishop Lincoln Leung Lam-hoi, president of the Methodist Church in Hong Kong; the president of the National Methodist Church of Guatemala; Pastor Francisco Mendosa from the New Church Information in Venezuela; the pastor of the New Church Information in Colombia; Dr. William Whadty, president of the Methodist Church of the Caribbean and the Americas; Dr. Brian Beck, president of the Methodist Church in Great Britain; the Rev. James Lowe, general secretary of the Methodist Church in India; Ms. Rita Oliva, executive secretary of the Council of Evangelical Methodist Churches in Latin America (CIEMAL).

[The names of four persons introduced in the above transcription were not received by the DCA. Also, the correct spelling for 13 persons listed above were not received by the DCA.]

And last night you also greeted the president of the Evangelical Church of Spain and the General Superintendant of the West African Methodist Church Sierra Leone.

I'm going to ask also the representatives of these churches to please stand where you are. The delegates of the Autonomous Affiliated Churches who are with us. Will you please greet and receive these delegates and bishops of our sister churches? [applause]

BISHOP YEAKEL: Thank you very much. We are privileged to have you with us and sharing with us in these opportunities and responsibilities. Now, I'm required to ask you to be prepared to take a ballot. We're going to take the ballot for the Judicial Council and also for the Senate. Before we do this, I have an embarrassing statement to make and that is that it's been reported to us that at least a few of you have discovered a way to vote twice. By the use of one of the unused keypads. It feels uncomfortable to have to remind you that you are entitled to one keypad and one keypad only. We'll appreciate your cooperation.

Now, if you'll prepare when the appropriate information is on the screen. We're going to go into the laity ballot for the Judicial Council. We must, by the Discipline elect six alternates, lay alternates, and they must have a majority vote. We can't do it on a plurality vote. The names that are available are before you and their key numbers. Will you make note to yourself of the six people that you want to vote for. We will be doing it like we did yesterday. You'll vote for one. That will be tallied in. It will come back on, you'll vote for a second one. Your machine is programmed that you cannot repeat the same number that you had already used. So you need to get in your mind and thinking and probably on your note pad, the numbers of the six persons out of the 13 for whom you'll be voting.

If you have this information ready for yourself, then please, yes? This is a question? All right, go to microphone 5.

MARY VIRGINIA TAYLOR (Holston): I just wondered if you could give us the page where the biographical information was located?

BISHOP YEAKEL: Ah, yes. 194 is the page where the biographical information is located. And thank you for the help on that one. Yes? Is this a question, Ma'am? All right, come to number 3 please. I know this takes time, but it doesn't take nearly the amount of time if we were doing paper ballots and collecting and counting. You know that.

ROBBIE BEAN (Rocky Mountain): I was wondering if we could see the people in person?

BISHOP YEAKEL: No, I don't think we can produce pictures. They're not all here. I don't think that would be fair to those who were properly nominated if they're not present, to just see the others. Thank you very much. I take it you are ready to vote. Question? Yes, number 2.

TOM GRIEB (Louisville): I'm wondering if we could see the tally from the last ballot of both lay and clergy side?

BISHOP YEAKEL: It will take a little time for us to check with the folks in the booth to see whether we have the last laity ballot tally. We're trying to check on that, and you'll just have to wait. I'm sorry, that's not in the computer. We'll have to create one and we'll give it to you the next time. All right. You will vote for one, one of the numbers and you were reminded yesterday if you're in the double number, move quickly from the first key to whatever other key you are using. Vote for one when the light appears. All right, thank you. That will be going into the computer. And when you're ready in the booth if you'll put the screening up again for the second voting. You will vote for one when the light appears. Thank you. When the booth is ready. Put it on the screen. You will vote for one...when the light appears. Yes, thank you. All right this is being put into the computer. Let me remind you that according to my tally, since I'm having a hard time counting, this would be number four on your list. Good, we agree this time. Vote for one when the light appears. All right, and when you're ready in the booth. This will be your fifth ballot. Vote for one when the light appears. And it's complete. Now, one more. Vote for one. This is the sixth. All right, we'll need time to get this altogether and report it later.

We now go to the clergy side. We also need six alternates. Again, they must have a majority, and we'll have to keep doing it until we accomplish that. So whenever the booth is ready they'll give us the names eligible for election, the nominees. When you're ready, we'll have the names for the next ballot, the clergy ballot. The clergy ballot now listing is before you. There are nine names. Will you make note to yourself of the six numbers that you intend to for in this first ballot. We'll do the one at a time for six times again. Are you ready? No, I'll give you a little more time. Yes, I see a question over here. Go to microphone 6. It's not proper to interrupt the balloting, but before the balloting we're OK. Yes.

BARBARA WILLIAMS RIDDLE (Florida): My question is, is our ballot considered invalid if we vote for less than six.

BISHOP YEAKEL: I'm getting the answer, no. And according to Roberts Rules at least anything six or less is a valid ballot. They tell me the machine is set up for processing it in that fashion. All right? Do you have your 6 numbers now in hand? All right, vote for one when the light appears.[1] Thank you. Vote for one when the light appears. [2] Vote for one when the light appears. [3] This should be number four. Vote for one when the light appears. [4] Vote for one when the light appears. [5] And your final vote. Vote for one when the light appears. [6] All right, thank you. Now if you want to check on the biographies. We're going to vote for the Senate. It's pages 195 and 196.

Pardon? You gave me the wrong reference, 438. You know what it said about Moses; he leaned on his staff and died. They're loading the program--just so that's all they're loading. There are two categories here, one of CEOs and one of other than CEOs. You'll be voting for two persons in each of those categories, so we'll take two votes, and we will have the report of this. This does not require a majority, it requires a plurality. So we'll only have to go through this exercise once, and you'll have the answers of your balloting, so don't plan for any throw away votes. This will count right away.

All right. You've got the screen with the full name before you now. These are chief executive officers of United Methodist institutions. You will need to note, for yourself, two persons in this category. So if you'd write down those numbers so you don't forget them.

Now, are we going to the screen to vote on this or are we going to go to the ... We're going to show you the next, oh, I'm sorry. The signal's off, there are four more names that you should have here to consider. Do we need to go back to the first screen and then the second one? All right, look at this one, and then we'll put the first screen back on. There will be one with everybody in the last name, so that should clue you in, and I'll give you a little chance.

All right. Can you give us...? There's the comprehensive listing, last names only. You have two persons to vote for out of these nine. Are you ready? Vote for one when the light appears. Wait, we're getting a message here. The booth was concerned that you understood this would be a plurality vote. I did explain that and I think we are understanding. It will be the two highest ranking vote getters, whether it is a majority or not. Vote for one when the light appears. All right. The first choice is completed. No, wait a minute. They're allowed to vote for two persons, so there must be a second vote, and then you have to put the two tallies together and work it out. All right. What our discussion is about is that the booth understood that they only needed one tally. If you take one tally, then you really are only voting for one person, but you have the right to vote for two. So we have to reprogram like the Judicial Council one, so it can be compiled, and then you get the ranking for a plurality. At least that's my understanding, and I guess I have the chance to rule on it, don't I? So that's the way we'll do it. Otherwise, you only choose one person, or get to vote for one person. But we may, will we be late? OK. What we'll do is take, signal's off, you didn't vote for anybody. We're going to go through the exercise, this isn't so long, we'll vote again, you'll do it twice. Can we have the composite screen of all of the names? All right, now. Vote for one when the light appears. We'll do this twice. Vote for one when the light appears. [1] Now, as soon as they're ready, they'll put the screen back up and you'll vote for your second choice. All right, vote for the other one when the light appears. [2] All right, thank you. Now, when the booth is ready, they will put up the screen or screens for the nominees who are non-CEOs of United Methodist institutions, and there are to be two voted on there, so you'll want to check the list appropriately. When you're ready in the booth.

All right, I'm told this is the entire list of nominees, so there is only one screen to look at. You'll need to determine which two you wish to vote for. I take it you have your notations on your pad. We'll put up a different screen when we're ready to vote. When you change the screen we will vote. Ok, we can use this screen. Vote when the light appears. [1]

And we will take one more vote. Now all right vote when the light appears. [2] All right, the machine is working. The folks are in the presentation on the calendar item we discontinued when we broke for the recess. You were ready and we'll be going to that just as soon as this is completed.

While we're waiting for this you might want to get your blue book open to page 481 Calendar Item 1996 and in the red book page 715 the petition in the middle of the left hand column on that page number 20515 is the petition that allows us to get in this series of majority and minority reports. We're still waiting for the report on the ballot. Okay it's going to take a little longer to get that report, so what we are doing now is on page 481 we are in the process of perfecting the majority report which begins in the middle column and goes up through half of the right hand column. We had one attempt at an amendment to point number 2 that was not adopted. Are there any other amendments in perfecting the majority report? I for once do not see any cards I take it we are ready to go to perfect...oh I'm sorry over here. Microphone 1, thank you for your help.

ERNEST S. LYGHT (Northern New Jersey): Bishop I'd like to try an amendment to the majority report. It would occur in the third column under number 2 the sixth line where it says "1006.26 of the Discipline" Starting there to delete everything that follows and insert these words, "continue their regular review of all general agency locations."

BISHOP YEAKEL: Is there a second to that? This amendment would return it to the CFA and COM in their regular review, and that's the intent of it.

LYGHT: Correct. My reason for putting forth this amendment is that I have a concern about unspoken words. I would characterize that concern by suggesting a question of whether or not there are some unexpressed demons. Perhaps I could suggest a couple. Are we talking about an issue of power versus participation? Are we talking about a matter of location versus mission? I would submit that our concern ought to be around participation and mission, and in light of all that we have said and done here in this General Conference, that our participation and mission should go forth in unity. Thank you.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, that's a speech for it. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? All right do you wish to have a speech before we vote?

HARRIET J. OLSEN: (Northern New Jersey) The attempt of the committee was to try to harmonize this action with the action of the 92 conference. We did not have this particular proposal in front of us, so I don't know that we can really speak for the committee on this matter.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, I take it then we're in the proper order to vote on this one. All of our numbers are the same this time. If you will adopt you'll vote "yes" if not vote "no." It is to relate this basically to GCOM, GCFA and their regular responsibilities. If you will adopt please vote when the light appears. OK the booth's not ready. If you're in favor will you lift the hand. If not, will you lift the hand. This amendment is adopted. Now we've amended it once, are there any other amendments. Is it now perfected? I'll declare it perfected. Now if the people presenting the minority report will please come and let me ask are there any amendments to the minority report? We're perfecting the minority report. Way back there on the aisle come to number 9. Yes sir?

GREGORY D. STOVER (West Ohio): I move to amend the minority report by deletion and addition. If you'll look on blue DCA page 482 item 1b in the first column. I move that we delete the words "one or more" and insert the words "at least two" so that the beginning of item 1b would read "a recommendation of at least two relocation sites" if I have a second I will speak to it.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, is it seconded? it is seconded.

STOVER: The spirit and goal of this minority report is to give opportunity for the General Conference to make a decision among several acceptable locations for the General Board of Global Ministries. This is consistent with the spirit of the 1992 General Conference to provide a choice of an alternative location for New York City. By decisive action of the legislative section those who previously opposed the move of the board and those who previously supported a move have come together to reject the recommendation that was brought by the Site Selection Committee. Almost everyone of us understands that the proposal of the committee involves excessive costs and does not give us an acceptable alternative. As a consequence, we as a General Conference now have only one possible choice that is reasonable for the short-term future. Leave the General Board of Global Ministries in New York. I believe that this is an unfortunate turn of events, given the directive of the 1992 General Conference. I also believe there are a number of cities which would meet the criteria established by the site selection committee at a more affordable and reasonable cost. It would be unfortunate in the year 2000 to be presented with only one option outside New York City. This amendment makes certain we will be able to choose among New York City and at least two other sites at the General Conference in the year 2000. Let me close with an analogy. Not long ago our family purchased a new family car. Our old car wasn't in terrible shape, but we sensed that it had a lot of miles and that it might not meet the needs of the future as well as a new one. Now a Mercedes would have been nice, but we couldn't afford it. So we shopped around and finally settled on a beautiful, affordable, usable Dodge Caravan. The report of the Site Selection Committee and the majority report leaves us with the choice of the old family car or a Mercedes. I believe that there are many Buicks, Plymouths, Dodges, and maybe even some Cadillacs out there that we may well be able to afford. I think we ought to shop for them.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, thank you. Can I test the body? This seems to me to be a pretty clear kind of an amendment. It's either stay with what is, which says "one or more" or say that at least two so it's multiple. Could we vote on this quickly? We're taking lots of...well, OK I saw someone right over here then in number 2. Are you the person?

ANITA CRUMP (Louisiana): I'm against the amendment for the reason that we don't need to seek any other locations or areas for the movement of the General Board of Global Ministries. I concur with the majority report. Many delegates are concerned about the $520,000 which we spent for the Reston, Virginia study. How can we justify another study and a waste of our funds when we have so many people who are in need, so many groups, and we need to be concerned with missions.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, thank you. May I point out that we're on the simple amendment of substituting the words "at least two" for the words "one or more" in item "b" under point 1 of the minority report. That's all we're on right now. Over here please.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Microphone 9.

JEROME K. DEL PINO (New England): Bishop, I have a question, and the question is whether those two locations would be delimited to the continental United States?

BISHOP YEAKEL: I can't answer your question.

DEL PINO: Is it possible that the maker of the motion could indicate whether that is intended or implied?

BISHOP YEAKEL: Would the maker of the motion respond to that? Nine. Microphone 9.

GREGORY STOVER (West Ohio): There is no intention in the amendment to make a limitation.

BISHOP YEAKEL: There is no limitation. We're still on this amendment. Are you ready to vote on this? Do you want to speak to it, sir?

JOE M. WHITTEMORE (North Georgia): Thank you, Bishop. Our objective in the minority report has been to leave the comparison to the standing committee. We would be willing to accept the decision of this body either way.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, I take it you are ready to decide. If you will adopt the motion to insert "at least two" for the words "one or more," will you vote "yes;" if not, vote "no." Please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 481; no, 448] It is amended. Now the minority report as amended once is before you. Microphone 2. We're perfecting the minority report. CARL L. SCHENCK (Missouri East): Thank you, Bishop. I would move the following amendment to the minority report: that we delete the "whereas" paragraph at the bottom of page 481 on the DCA, and as it continues to the top, delete that whole paragraph. Further, in the second "whereas" paragraph on page 482, that we delete the word "strong." And finally, that we, under the "now therefore be it resolved," that we add recommendation one from the majority as follows: "The 1992 Site Selection Task Force is dismissed with apreciation," and then renumber the following paragraphs.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, there's three parts to this. Deleting the paragraph at the bottom of page 481 continuing on the top of 482; deleting the word "strong" from the second "whereas"; and inserting the number one from the majority report as number one in the minority report, making the others two, three, and four. Is that correct sir?

SCHENCK: That is correct.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Is there a second? It is seconded.

SCHENCK: Bishop?

BISHOP YEAKEL: I'm sorry.

SCHENCK: May I speak?

BISHOP YEAKEL: Yes, you may.

SCHENCK: Just briefly, I think the minority report has merit, but I believe that the deletions I am recommending and the addition make the report more charitable and more generous to those who have labored long, and less with the connotation, perhaps, of criticism of those who have labored over the site selection report.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, thank you.

WHITTEMORE: Bishop, do we have the option of accepting that as a friendly amendment?

BISHOP YEAKEL: Yes.

WHITTEMORE: We would be delighted to accept it.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, it is accepted as a friendly amendment. Now, we are perfecting the report. Are you ready? You're not ready. Yes? Here in the middle, please.

MARY H. MILLER (South Indiana): On page 482, I'd like to ask for two editorial corrections.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right.

MILLER: In the second "whereas," the third line, I believe after the word available that should be "which" rather than "with."

BISHOP YEAKEL: I think that's correct.

MILLER: In the fourth "whereas," in the last line of that paragraph, I believe the word should be "joint" and not "joined" committee.

BISHOP YEAKEL: I think that's right. We need to have "t".

MILLER: Thank you.

BISHOP YEAKEL: OK. Yes sir, what is your motion please? Number 9. We are perfecting the minority report.

FRANK L. DORSEY (Kansas East): I want to stand opposed to the amendment.

BISHOP YEAKEL: We are not debating it yet, sir. We're amending it, perfecting it. That's the point I've been trying to make. When we get all the motions, then we'll come around to debate. Is the report now perfected? Is it your agreement that..? I see someone wanting to perfect the report. Number 5, please. Microphone 5.

JIM HOLSINGER (Kentucky): If it's in order, I'd like to move that we vote on all that is before us and suspend the rule.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Suspend the rules, move that we vote on all that is before us. Well, we'll test it with the house. If you will suspend the rules and put us in the posture to go ahead with the appropriate speeches from the committee chairs, which would be a part of our rules not suspended in this, then we'll go to vote right through, will you vote when the light appears. "Yes" if you approve, "no" if you don't. It takes two-thirds. You are ready to vote on the material that's before you. Our conference rules say that we vote on the minority report first, we hear from the chair of the minority report, and then we go to the chair of the primary report. When we've heard those two persons, we will vote. That's the order we're going. So you have the speech, sir.

WHITTEMORE: Bishop, can you clarify for me that once we finish with the two closing statements, we will then be voting on the minority report.

BISHOP YEAKEL: That is correct.

WHITTEMORE: So if we want to support the minority report, we would vote "yes." Is that correct?

BISHOP YEAKEL: When we vote, if you want to support the minority report, you will vote "yes;" if you want to get to the majority report, you'll vote "no."

WHITTEMORE: We urge you to vote "yes" for the minority report. This would allow the 2000 General Conference to make an informed decision of the location of the General Board of Global Ministries. The legitimate concern being expressed by our minority report is, there has to be a better answer, and the General Conference should make that decision. We are not asking for special consideration of any site. We, the General Conference, are the servants of our beloved church, and we have been given the opportunity and the responsibility for church decisions. The majority and the minority of our committee unanimously agreed to approve legislation to prohibit the use of any program funds for relocation. Implementation of the minority report will cost no more than the majority report. However, the minority report provides the mechanics for General Conference to regain the confidence and trust of our membership on this issue. At this point in time, the New York location of General Board of Global Ministries has not been compared to any other location in this process. Clearly, adequate sites are available that would reduce annual operating costs and make those millions of dollars available for mission. Clear review and decision making with integrity never hurts. It heals, and it paves the way to collaboration, to reconciliation, and indeed to community. To take advantage of these possibilities and have General Conference make this important decision, we encourage you to vote "yes" for the minority report. Again we want to thank you for this consideration.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, thank you. Now we'll hear from the majority. The speakers and the summary are under the three minute rule. They don't have a light over there. I have one here, and you have one out there, so we'll try to be gentle.

DAVID L. SEVERE (Oklahoma): Thank you, sir. We would suggest that the minority report is flawed in a number of ways but in particular at the point at which it asks for this report to the General Conference. I would remind you that under your Discipline the joint committee that is spoken of is required to report to the General Conference. That is already a conclusion that need not be debated. It's in the Discipline, so we do not need that to be in a motion. The review that they would do in their natural way of doing all the reviews is required to be reported to the General Conference.

Secondly, I think you need to be aware of the fact that to require there to be a number, any number, of sites investigated requires an additional amount of money because the report of the committee that has been, or would be dismissed by all of our actions, has taken into account situations that you've already rejected, so we would have to have new analyses done. That is a very expensive process. If we put it into the whole process of the general church as we now see it and particularly could relate it to the Connectional Process Team and their ongoing work, we believe that we would have a far better chance of seeing the grand picture of the whole church and not be required to expend that kind of money.

I believe that we should defeat the majority report, that we should adopt the minority report, that we should adopt the majority report, and I trust that you will do that. Thank you very much.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, thank you. Let's be clear what you're voting on. What is before you is the minority report. If you vote "yes," it becomes the primary report. If you vote "no," we then go to the majority report, and we'll hear the speeches and then vote on that. Please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 400; no, 558] The minority report is lost. We are now ready to go to the majority report. Is there a final speech from the chair of the committee? There is no final speech.

Let me tell you what you're voting on. If you vote "yes," then this becomes the action of the conference. If you vote "no," there is no action, and the report of the Consent Calendar, which brought the original search to conclusion, is the action of the conference. What I'm trying to have you understand is, it's not a simple "yes" and "no" on this particular item. Voting "yes" means this will be what we do in the next quadrennium. If you vote "no," there is no further action on this particular item coming from this General Conference because you have already on the Consent Calendar set aside the report of the Messer task force, if I can refer to it that way, which has already been adopted. Please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 584; no, 354] The majority report is adopted and will be the plan and procedure for the next quadrennium. All right, I think that, hopefully, that completes this particular part of your responsibility, but you have other items. All right.

SEVERE: Would the rest of the members of my committee please make their way here quickly. We did not have enough key pads up here for everybody, so we had asked the committee members to return to their seats. We have a number of items to bring to you today that are under the General and Judicial Administration area. I want to, in the beginning, want to express appreciation for the people who have been in that committee. We have had a number of things to deal with. I would particularly like to express my appreciation to Minerva Carcaño who has been our vice chair, and she has done a wonderful job of assisting and helping and giving leadership in a number of ways in the committee. I very much appreciate her help and her leadership in all the work of the committee.

Thelma Johnson has been our secretary and has done a yeoman's task, for we have had a great number of petitions to deal with, and she has kept up with that. She has kept the chair from making major blunders, and she's just been a great help to us, so we want to express appreciation to her. I would also like to express appreciation to the subcommittee chairs, to Rex Bevins who chaired the connectional issues and GCOM legislation subcommittee; to Harriet Olson who was just here, who chaired the committee on site location and the constitutional questions that were in the petitions; to Sam Wynn who dealt with the missional studies and the special Sundays; and to Alfred Johnson who dealt with the judicial petitions that we had. My deep appreciation goes to all these people, some of whom will be on the platform during these presentations and others of which you will see a little later. At this point, Minerva Carca o will lead us in two or three items. I have forgotten, we got one of them already...two items. Thank you, Minerva.

MINERVA G. CARCAÑO (Rio Grande): The first petition deals with amenability and program accountability. You will find it on page 170 of your blue book. It is Calendar Item 433, Petition 21534. The text of the petition is found in your white DCA on page 1327. It's on the right hand column, the second paragraph. The essence of the petition is that it would limit general agencies to paying for only three persons to any non-United Methodist event. The recommendation of the committee is nonconcurrence with a vote of 84 for, 9 against and 1 abstention. And the rationale of the committee is that we believe that as general boards and agencies do their work, they are in a better position, a more informed position, to make the decision about our need for representation at events. I would move the recommendation of the committee.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Motion is for nonconcurrence. I take it you're ready? Please vote when the light appears. Shift gears. If you will support the committee will you lift the hand? If not, will you lift the hand? The committee is supported.

CARCAÑO: The second matter deals with the inclusiveness of the church. It is related to paragraph 4 of the Book of Discipline. You will find it on page 170 of the blue book. It is Calendar Item 437. It is Petition 22869, and the text of the petition is found in your white DCA on page 1324 on the right hand column, third paragraph. The petition seeks to add language on inclusiveness to the fourth paragraph of the Book of Discipline. The committee recommends nonconcurrence with a vote of 73 for, 19 opposed and 10 abstentions. The committee believes that the Discipline is clear and strong as it stands. It already states that all persons shall be eligible for membership in the United Methodist Church, and for participation in all of its programs and ministry. The paragraph also lists examples of inclusiveness, a list which is clearly not intended to be exhaustive. So we recommend nonconcurrence.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right. The recommendation is nonconcurrence. This item has to do with the Constitution of the church. I see no cards or anyone moving. I will put the question if you will adopt the committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence, will you lift the hand? If not, will you lift the hand? You do support the committee.

CARCAÑO: Thank you.

SAM WYNN (North Carolina): Call your attention to the blue book page 235, Calendar Item 762, Petition 21677 found in the Advance DCA on page 579.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Page 235 in the blue book, and what was the number again in the red book?

WYNN: 762.

BISHOP YEAKEL: What page number, please?

WYNN: Ah, page 235.

BISHOP YEAKEL: No, that's in the blue book. What's in the red book? What's the number..

WYNN: Page 579 in the red book. This petition is a petition of support for the Black Church Study.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Page 579 in the red book is not the right page reference. Well, let's see, well 579 is the Strength of the Black Church. What is your point of order, please? One of you was raising the point of order. All right.

EDDIE SELF (North Alabama): In my book it shows me that we dealt with that on the 22nd. Is that not correct?

WYNN: Bishop, this is just the petition of support and it would have to be referred to GCFA.

BISHOP YEAKEL: It has dollars with it?

WYNN: Um, well, yes it does, but it is a petition of support for the Black Church.

BISHOP YEAKEL: But the point, legal question they're asking me was didn't we adopt this the other day? And everybody says they did, so we don't need to adopt it again. Well, we don't have to refer to the petition if you adopted the calendar item. So it has been passed. You're one up, Sam.

WYNN: OK, thank you. Page 388 in the blue book. Calendar Item 1694, Petition 21678. It's found on page 599 of the Advance DCA of the red book. This is the Shared Focus of Young People. And the report has been received in the GCOM report, but this is the legislation to enable this to happen. The committee concurs with a vote of 80 for, zero against, 2 abstaining. There are dollars. It's been referred to GCFA. The rationale we believe this will be a great opportunity for the entire church to enhance and to increase the young people and the youth in involvement of the United Methodist Church.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right. This does take your action to refer it. Especially to see GCFA. I take it you're ready? All right? No you're not, I see a card over here to my right. Microphone 7.

JEFF QUICK (North Arkansas): I rise to amend what we are doing or about to do. Let me make sure I'm in the right place.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Get us all to that place. What page are you on?

QUICK: I would like to turn us to 1305 of the white DCA. I would like to amend the budget of the Shared Mission Focus in the following way.

BISHOP YEAKEL: We're on 1305. What petition are you in there?

QUICK: Petition 22747.

WYNN: Bishop, this is a different petition.

QUICK: Right, and what I would like to do is amend the Shared Mission Focus budget by adding a portion of this petition. I would like to see the budget remain at $270,000 that's listed on 603 in the red DCA and then add the following: "$230,000 which would be available to local churches in the form of grants to be used as seed money to respond to the needs and issues of young people in the church and community." And then "$2.4 million which the Shared Mission Team will oversee or coordinate, quadrennial pilot programs, in ten conferences and ten local churches." And then, finally, "$100,000 to fund a fund for the purpose of strengthening the theological education in the area of ministry with young people." If I have a second, and if that's in order, I would like to speak to that.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Well, I'm not sure that it's in order. Let's get our minds around this. We're on 1694 in the blue book which is referenced to the petition found beginning on 599 in the red book. I need help in knowing the connection between what's in the white book and the red book. Can you help me with that?

WYNN: Yes, Bishop. These are two separate petitions, and our committee has some action that we plan to bring for the second petition found in the white book. And we would oppose this simply because we feel that we have an enabling petition or action that will help accomplish some of the goals that set forth in Petition 22747.

BISHOP YEAKEL: OK. I think a motion is in order to bring part of the material on 1305 onto page 603, but not the other way around. And if I understood what you proposed, you were taking a part of 603 and putting it onto what's on 1305. You were not?

QUICK: No, sir. I would like to move part of 1305 to add that to the bottom of the 603 report.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right. Would you repeat then how you are perfecting what's on 603, which is the budget. I think that's where you were working. Is that correct?

QUICK: Right. That's correct. I'd like to leave the $270,000 total that is on page 603...

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right.

QUICK: And then, if you move to 1305, underneath. We propose a plan for implementing a focus on young people. I'd like to include the next three bullets, only changing that first bullet which would read "$230,000 will be available to local churches."

BISHOP YEAKEL: So you want 230 to go in there instead of 500,000. Take those three paragraphs and put them on page 603.

QUICK: Yes, Sir.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Is there a second? All right, I think it's a proper motion.

QUICK: I've worked with youth, both as a young person, as my local church's youth chair person of United Methodist Youth Fellowship, and also for the past seven years as a youth director of local congregations in the Arkansas area. One thing that I've noticed about young people is that they have a wonderful skill of noticing hypocrisy among people. I find that $270,000 is belittling to a focus or to a priority of the Church, especially on the denominational level. I think that that will filter back to our youth, and our words will be without action, and we will be doing little more than speaking out of the sides of our mouths. Mrs. Teddlie encouraged us early on in the week to reorder our priorities, and to accept this focus of young people. I support that 100 percent. The scriptures say, however, that where our treasure is, there our heart is. It seems to me that yesterday we adopted a plan of studying the ministry of different areas, and we adopted a $200,000 budget to go along with that study, to see what we wanted to do. Now we're ready to work. It's time for us to go, hands and feet, and dive into the ministry of youth and young people in our denomination. We're not studying it; we're deciding that this is going to be a priority and a focus for our denomination. And to do so with only $270,000, seems unfair. It seems to me that there should be more of a difference than just simply $70,000, in something that we're proposing as a study and something that we're proposing as a focus. I support both the Korean ministries of our church as well as the young people. I just think there's a difference between what we support as a study and what we say we're going to dive into and make real in the life of our denomination.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, thank you. Speaking against? You're speaking against, sir? Come to microphone 9.

JOSEPH L. HARRIS (Oklahoma): Would it be in order to table until we hear the committee's recommendation on 22747 and act on it at that time?

BISHOP YEAKEL: A motion to table would be in order.

HARRIS: So move.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Is it seconded. You cannot table it until a specific time. If you table it, you table it, and then it will have to be re-enacted at that time anew. A tabling motion is not debatable. If you will support the tabling motion, will you lift the hand? If not, will you lift the hand? It is not tabled. The motion is before us. Yes, right here. In section C, come to number 8, please. A speech against the motion would be in order.

DOUGLAS BRANTLEY (North Georgia): I'm moving to substitute the amendment to the amendment.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right.

BRANTLEY: I move that the General Conference refer this proposal for further study and development and to ask the General Council on Ministries to bring back to the 2000 General Conference for a consideration for a new plan for a bold, real focus on young people, a missional priority.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, that's your motion. You're into the speech, are you not? You're still on the motion?

BRANTLEY: ...a missional priority to reach young people for Jesus Christ, not to exceed $10 million over the next quadrennium.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, this is a motion to refer. From my information, you would refer the whole thing, not just the amendment, but the amendment and the basic text.

BRANTLEY: Correct.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right. We're debating the referal only. Yes, down here, number 3.

BRANTLEY: May I speak to that?

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, yes, you may speak. You speak first.

BRANTLEY: I appreciate the efforts that have been made to present this proposal at this time, but I agree with the person who spoke a few moments ago, that this is not a focus on youth. A focus is described as a priority, a cause of critical importance. A focus on young people is critically important at this time, but that proposal that calls for only $270,000 is not a focus. The time has come for The United Methodist Church to place young people as a real focus of the church. This proposal is only a quick glance at youth. It is time to focus on youth. I call upon the General Council on Ministries to come back in 2000 and lead The United Methodist Church in a dynamic focus on young people. It is time for that bold focus in the midst of the problems and needs of young people today. Out of a proposed budget for The United Methodist Church for the quadrennium of over $5 million, $270,000 says that we're committed, not to a focus, but a mere glance.

I call upon the General Council to come forward with a bold plan to help us to consider in the following years of 2000, a proposal to reach the more than 50 percent of the young people, and to find ways of speaking, seeking, and enabling young people to find Christ. In the 1992 General Conference in Louisville, it was declared that the church must do more to address the needs of young people, specifically the spiritual, social and emotional needs that are critical to the achievement of wholeness. It is my prayer that our great church will indeed focus on young people with a focus that is worthy of challenge that faces the church today. It is time to give further consideration for this critical issue that confronts us as a church.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Thank you. Now I presume you were speaking against it. Microphone 3. Your name and conference please.

JEANNIE TREVINO-TEDDLIE (Central Texas): I would speak against the amendment. We can't afford to postpone for four years. I served as you all saw, with GCOM that developed the proposal. We would love to have recommended much more than we did. But we wanted to take this step, in thinking of a New Testament story, where Jesus, in the midst of so many people, wanted to feed them, and asked the disciples, "What do you have? Feed them with what you have." The disciples felt like they didn't have anything, but Jesus asked them to look, and they found something. We knew the budget limitations that we're facing. We felt this was a good first step. I don't want to delay this for four years. Let's take a step with what we can do.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right, thank you. Is there a speech in favor of reference? In the C section all the way in the back. No, over -. OK, the card's down. All the way back in B, microphone 13. I take it you're speaking in support of reference. Give us your name and conference.

WILLIAM T. MCCLENDON (South Carolina): I have a point of clarification which will enable me to make up my mind about reference.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right.

MCCLENDON: The item on page 1305 in the white book, in the bullets that the gentleman shared, mention a figure of $2.4 million and a figure of $100,000. I'm not sure where that money is going to come from. And I need that answer before I would like to refer.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Will the maker of the amendment concerning the finances, yes, will you come, please, to the microphone and respond to the question? Where is it that you anticipate this particular money to come from? Obviously, it would be referred to GCFA, according to our rules, but it's an appropriate question.

QUICK: And I'm not sure exactly where that money needs to come from best either. My recommendation would be that it be referred to GCFA for their insight.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right. Thank you, Jeff. That's the best we can do, sir. All right. Now, a speech in favor of the reference would be, unless you're ready to vote. A reference question, it seems to me, is fairly simple. Are you ready to vote? Time, you know, tomorrow night at midnight is coming. You're not ready to vote on this? All right, over here. Microphone 5. And which way are you speaking?

REBECCA C. CARVER (Iowa): I am speaking against referral. This week I turned 35 years old at this General Conference.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Happy Birthday.

CARVER: Thank you. I have waited all of my life to see The United Methodist Church take youth and young adults seriously, and to be committed to us. I have watched my friends walk away from the church. I'm a campus minister. I watch students walk away from the church because they do not feel that they are taken seriously. We cannot afford to spend four more years thinking about young adults and youth. We need to be supportive and keep them, keep all of us, in the church. I urge you to vote against referral.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right. This is properly before you. Are you ready, now, to vote? You're ready to vote. All right. This is on referral only. If you vote for referral, it takes the whole thing with it. The machine is working on this one. Will you vote when the light appears? The vote to refer is not supported. [Results: yes, 142; no, 777] We're back on the original amendment which takes a portion off of page 513, adds it to the budget on page 603. That amendment is before you. I've had one speech in favor. You're speaking to this? Are you speaking against it? A speech against it would be in order. Over here, then, microphone 5.

JIM HOLSINGER (Kentucky): Bishop, I move we suspend the rules and vote on all that is before us.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right. You have a motion for suspending the rules and voting. Are you ready to receive that? Whichever way you wish to vote, do so when the light appears. [775 approved] The motion is supported. Do we have amended the document. Now, the document. I'm sorry. Thank you. I'm trying to do too many things. Thank you for your help. Now you're ready to vote. We need to hear from you, sir, before we vote.

SAMUEL WYNN (North Carolina): I would call your attention to the emphasis that GCOM as well as this General Conference is trying to enhance. We have been in depth, listening sessions, we are trying very intently to address the needs of the youth. We believe that this is a good beginning, and over the next four years I believe very positively that some things will come from this that will enhance the youth of our church.

BISHOP YEAKEL: I thank you. Now you have the amendment before you. Please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 589; no, 329] The amendment is adopted. Now the whole thing as amended is before you. There is still one last speech from the chair.

WYNN: One of the questions that was asked earlier, and that was in reference to page 305, the $2.4 million. There has been no consultation or dialogue with GCFA about where this money would come from. And I would ask you to take note of that. We are trying to address the need of the youth within our denomination, and we feel that the proposal that we have will adequately begin that process.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right. You now will vote on the item as amended with the budget information. Please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 753; no, 173] You have adopted this calendar item. And it is referred automatically to GCFA. Now, Sam, I'm going to interrupt you and do some other things at the moment.

If you will turn in your blue book to page 31, or your red book to pages 80 and 81, the Inter Jurisdictional Committee on Episcopacy needs to be elected. The nominations are appropriately before you. They come from each of the conferences so represented, and it just requires your confirmation. If you will confirm the Inter Jurisdictional Committee on Episcopacy please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 819; no, 30] It is confirmed.

Now, I want to, working with the folks wherever they are, I keep saying the booth. They're in the booth or someplace around here. The report of the University Senate election, of the CEO category. Will you please give that to us? Well, now you make me work. We have elected then, Weems and Bigham, is that correct? They are the two highest number of vote getters. The records show Weems 441, Bigham 281, and they are elected. Now the non-CEO category. Gonzales, 437; and Bing Harris, 418; and they are elected. There is no further work to be done on the University Senate.

Now will you put up the information on the Judicial Council clergy? Six persons to be elected. They must have a majority of the ballot. Needed for election is 366. Will you put up? We have elected, I believe, all six. Tews 595, Sweet 579, Brockwell 555, Collins 508, Pickens 481, and Cain 464. All have received the appropriate number of ballots needed and are elected. Now may we have the ballot for the Judicial Council of the Laity. Needed to elect will be 331, and will you give us the slate? Grey received 452,

BISHOP YEAKEL: Geis 440, and Hill 361, they are elected.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Will you make a note for yourselves, of the other persons so that when we convene this afternoon we will take another ballot for three more lay persons for the Judicial Council alternates. You need to go to the two screens, would you give us the first screen again? Beginning with Plowman, Sessums, Lett, Church, Bonney, Gordon, Panganiban, Danburam. And there's two names on the other side, Kolasa and McLane. If you can make a note for yourself for the persons, you need to consider three. We will do that voting this afternoon. We'll go to announcements at this time, then I'll survey the membership. Announcements please, madam secretary.

CAROLYN M. MARSHALL: I will have to ask your forbearance because there are several announcements. More than we have had at any one session so far during the General Conference.

The first is a request for the Philippines delegates to meet on the right hand side of the platform right after the morning session. And also a request that the three bishops from the Philippines meet with them.

One, just a comment, we've received a fly back and I'll have to thank the delegation that has sent numerous messages about lights, we'll say to you that we get requests here as far as heat, first it s too hot and then it s too cold, and we keep relaying those messages. Then lights are bright then they're not bright, and so right now we seem to have gotten them where at least the people who have been bothered by them are happy. Thank you for our word of appreciation in the various languages.

A note that there are valuable items available in the lost and found, and if you have lost something and would like to meet up with it again, there is a probability that it is at the information desk. Just a few moments ago we elected the Inter-jurisdictional Committee on Episcopacy. That committee will convene this evening in room A 209 In today's DCA, on page 537, there is a listing of schedules for the airport shuttle. If you happen to be in one of the hotels that is not listed, would you please go to room A113 to make arrangements. That is, the original is listed on page 537 in today's DCA.

And, a word to you, we have been blessed during this general conference by the music leadership of Cynthia Wilson-Felder and S. T. Kimbrough. They, as a special for this particular conference, did record spiritual songs from the American experience. There are solos by each of them as well as duets, and those are available in both CD and cassette form in the Cokesbury display.

And, then this one for our use, this comes to us from the Denver Visitors and Convention Bureau. And, I'm going to read it in its entirety: "We have been made aware of some unfortunate communications which several of you may have received from your hotels. We apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that may have been created. These are the steps that you should take to resolve any problem. For those of you who have received letters, go to the front desk of your hotel and request to extend your stay. In most cases they will be able to help you. In the event your hotel cannot extend your stay, please call this telephone number, 571-9431, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. to discuss alternatives. This number will also be posted at the information desk in lobby A. You will NOT, in caps, be put on the street. There are hotel rooms available. Please know that this problem is not, again the not is emphasized, created by the United Methodist conference office. In some cases reservation forms noted Friday check out; in other cases letters were delivered inadvertently. Again, we apologize for any inconvenience. We trust you will continue to enjoy your stay in the Mile High city.

Bishop, that completes the announcements.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Thank you. Let me call now for Mary Silva for a point of personal privilege. Is that Mary Silva at microphone 7? Thank you.

BYRD BONNER (Southwest Texas):

MARY SILVA (Rio Grande): And we move that we allow Bishop Ray Owen and the heads of the delegation from Rio Grande conference and Southwest Texas conference to make a presentation.

MINERVA G. CARCAÑO (Rio Grande)
JANICE RIGGLE K. HUIE (Southwest Texas) [spoken alternately]
On April 20th this General Conference received the gift of its first hymnal in the Spanish language, Mil Voces Para Celebrar. This body rejoiced in celebration making the Spanish language hymnal an official hymnal of the United Methodist Church. This hymnal comes at a time when the United Methodist Church is experiencing great growth in its ministry with and among Hispanics. And so as a sign of our ongoing commitment to Hispanic ministry, and our rejoicing over the new Spanish language hymnal, the Southwest Texas and the Rio Grande conferences, the San Anatonio area is pleased to be able to give each delegate of this General Conference a copy of Mil Voces Para Celebrar. We hope and pray that this gift to each of you will inspire and strengthen our United Methodist commitment to Hispanic ministry.

Bishop, we have two motions, please. We move that the rules be suspended to allow the hymnal to be placed at each delegates desk during the lunch hour. (applause)

BISHOP YEAKEL: I think you've got your motion granted.

HUIE: And we also move that you give one of these hymnals to Hillary Rodham Clinton on our behalf. (applause)

BISHOP YEAKEL: I'll be pleased to see that's taken care of.

HUIE: And now we call on Bishop Owen.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Bishop Owen, please.

BISHOP RAYMOND OWEN: This expression of our connection is only one of the many reasons I count it a high privilege to be the bishop of the San Antonio area, which consists of the Southwest Texas and Rio Grande conferences. Our cabinets and our councils are working together to explore and strategize how better, together, we can fulfill the plan of the Hispanic ministry. Rio Grande conference overlaps six annual conferences in Texas and in New Mexico. With this gift we now overlap with all of the conferences all over the world. May this hymnal, Mil Voces Para Celebrar, be a blessing to you as you connect your local church with Hispanic ministries in your own local communities. Thank you. (applause)

BISHOP YEAKEL: Thank you, very much Bishop Owen. All right. I was looking for Sandra Lackore. Is she in the back of the room or up in the front. May I suggest that the Calendar Committee and the Agenda Committee...

Our plans and our agenda for this afternoon were to deal with the fiscal matters, with the major fiscal matter of this morning. GCFA's requesting that they be delayed until tomorrow on their agenda. You'll need to consult over lunchtime, but this at least signals that possibility to you, Sarah, and to the body and if...I think the other thing that should be said is if there are any other items with dollars assigned to them that are lurking out there, that we haven't had before us, we really need to get them on as quickly as possible so that GCFA has the total package to work on. Microphone 3, please.

BECKY HAASE (California-Pacific): Just a moment of personal privilege. At the conclusion of this session, this morning's session, there will be a memorial service being held in room C105 for David Harada, who is a minister of the California-Pacific Annual Conference, and has been a past member of the General Conference. He has died during the time that we have been here, and we would just welcome anyone who would care to join our delegation in that service.

BISHOP YEAKEL: Thank you for that invitation. Now, one more from the secretary.

CAROLYN MARSHALL: During the General Conference we have been appreciating the ministry of music, which has been brought by the choirs, which are shared during worship, and which have again been sharing during the noon hour. Those, as we are now aware, have been held in the perfunctionary area near the ballrooms. Today, we make a change in location for the deaf choir, who ministered to us this morning. They will be sharing again this afternoon at 1:30; however, the location this time will be in this plenary hall.

BISHOP YEAKEL: All right. Thank you. I've asked Bishop Abel Muzorewa, retired bishop from Zimbabwe to speak for us a word of prayer and benediction as we conclude, we will meet at 2 o'clock this afternoon.

General Conference Webmaster: Susan Brumbaugh
PETS Creator: John Brawn