Plenary Session Proceedings
Thursday, April 25: Afternoon Session

1996 United Methodist General Conference

Thursday Afternoon
April 25, 1996

BISHOP WILLIAM B. ODEN: As the delegates are coming in and taking seats for the afternoon session, I want to call on S.T. Kimbrough, our song leader for a very special moment.

S.T. KIMBROUGH: Our bishops have reminded us of the importance of our service and ministry among the poor, with the program that they are developing for the church. Mrs. Clinton reminded us yesterday of the long-standing interests of Methodists in ministry to the poor. In just a moment as we gather, we're going to sing two stanzas of a hymn that we do not know by Charles Wesley. He wrote a number of hymns that have to do specifically with ministry to the poor that never made it into our hymn books, which is a rather strange commentary on our lives as Methodist Christians. You can find these on a compact disc at Cokesbury, called "Songs For the Poor."

I invite you to join me in singing two stanzas of one of these hymns. The words will be projected, the tune is extremely familiar to many of us. To some, perhaps, not. You know it as traditionally tied to the hymn "Faith of Our Fathers" the tune known as "Saint Catherine." Would you join me and stand as we sing, "The poor as Jesus' bosom friends, the poor he makes his latest care, to all his followers commends and wills us on our hands to bear"? And notice what he says in the last stanza--Charles Wesley invites us to make the poor our friends. So that when we meet them in heaven, we will know that they, indeed, are our friends who have been Jesus' bosom friends. May we sing?
[song]
The proceeds from this project go to the Bishops' Appeal for Africa. Join us in celebrating ministry to the poor in the song of our own tradition, Charles Wesley's words.

BISHOP ODEN: Thank you Mr. Kimbrough. Please be seated. I would like to call us to do our time of discernment in a bit of a different way this afternoon. While we are all together, and yet, in each of our hearts, let us ask ourselves in silence what we would like to see happen this afternoon that will be the will of God for this church. Let us do that in silence and I will close in prayer.

BISHOP WILLIAM B. ODEN: I would like to begin this afternoon by asking the house if you would be willing to move quickly into our afternoon agenda, which is very heavy, and to hold our privileged motions that you may have until the end of our session so that we might move immediately into what is before us. (applause) I would like to call on only one such motion because of the large number of red shirts to the conference's right. So I'm going to ask Betty Whitehurst to share with us a word about those red coats that have invaded us. Betty? Microphone 9.

BETTY C. WHITEHURST (Virginia): I request a moment of personal privilege to introduce a very special group of persons who are visiting us this afternoon. While we have been busy about the Lord's work in our legislative committees and plenary sessions during these two weeks, Volunteers in Mission have completed one Habitat for Humanity house here in Denver and have another house almost completed. (applause) Volunteers have also worked at six community service sites. A total of 326 volunteers from 19 states and 11 other countries have worked together on these projects. The representatives from other countries include bishops, presidents, and executive secretaries of national churches, as well as coordinators of Volunteers in Mission. A group of these volunteers is here in the bleachers in the red shirts. I would like to recognize the Rev. John Laughlin who has organized this, he coordinates Volunteers in Missions in the Rocky Mountain Conference, and thank him and all the volunteers for their work. (applause)

BISHOP ODEN: Volunteers, we send you out this afternoon to work on our behalf as well. God bless.

We're now ready for the third ballot on the alternate lay members of the Judicial Council. We would like to ask that these names might be put on the screen that we might once again see them. The names are before you, numbers 1 through 13. You will vote for three. One at a time, but vote for three. These are the lay alternates to the Judicial Council. Vote when the light appears. The voting is complete. Now, vote again when the light appears. One more time, vote when the light appears. Thank you very much. We're to wait for a report from the tabulation. We will move on into calendar items and come back to the results. The first committee to report is Global Ministries, and I call upon Carolyn Johnson.

CAROLYN E. JOHNSON (North Indiana): Thank you, Bishop. This afternoon as we progress through what I hope will be the concluding items for legislative committee group number 6, Global Ministries. The first calendar item is found on the blue book in page 171, and it's Calendar Item 439. This calendar item refers to the Interagency Task Force on AIDS on which you had a presentation early in the General Conference. There is some supporting information that's found in the Advance DCA, the red book, on page 744, and specifically this is Petition 21674.

BISHOP ODEN: Does everyone have that? Page 171 in the blue book, Calendar Item 439, Advance DCA, page 744.

JOHNSON: The recommendation of the legislative committee on its vote of 107 for, zero against, and zero not voting was to recommend concurrence, and because of the financial implications, that's why it's brought to you for reference to GCFA. And I so move, Bishop.

BISHOP ODEN: The report is before you. Is there discussion?

BISHOP ODEN: I believe we are ready to vote. All in favor of the motion before you, vote when the light appears. Opposed, vote "no." They are almost reprogrammed. Vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 685; no, 39] You have voted overwhelmingly to support the motion.

JOHNSON (North Carolina): Thank you. Yes. Our next item is also found on the same page, 171. It's Calendar Item 440. This refers to the National Committee on Deaf Ministries. There is supporting information in your red DCA; however, that entire document has been reprinted before you. So if you're on page 171, you will have all the back- up information. This refers to Petition 21346. On a vote of 107 for, zero against and 1 not voting, the committee recommends concurrence, with one amendment. And that amendment you will see at Roman numeral 2, item B. That's in the second column. In bold face you will see where the word "encourage" is recommended to be substituted for the words "adopt a policy that requires." The committee recommends concurrence as amended, with reference to GCFA. And I so move.

BISHOP ODEN: This is before us even though it was unanimous in the committee because of the referral to GCFA. I see a card. Would you go to microphone 6?

BARBARA W. RIDDLE (Florida): Just again a clarification that I think I asked for Monday or Tuesday. That is, is this already in the proposed budget that's being presented to us, or is this in addition? And we've already voted on the other one, but particularly in reference to this.

BISHOP ODEN: Will the chair respond?

CAROLYN JOHNSON: Yes, I can respond as the status of it as of the legislative committee met. If you will recall, last quadrennium when the General Conference voted on a Mission Initiatives Fund, this item was in that fund. And with our pre-mailing this year, we were told both in the Report 16 from GCFA as well as in the Multiplier Gifts book that all those items that have previously been in Mission Initiative Funds would, for the 1997-2000 quadrennium, be listed in World Service. Now as we had our consultation with Financial Administration, it was our understanding that this would be an item in the World Service budget. However, you may want someone specifically from Financial Administration or GCFA to comment on that. But it is to be a World Service line item.

BISHOP ODEN: All right. I see no more cards. We're ready to vote. Vote when the light appears. [704 approved] You have overwhelmingly supported the committee's motion.

JOHNSON: Thank you, Bishop. Our next item is found in your blue DCA on page 215. That's Calendar Item 575.

BISHOP ODEN: 575 page 215 of the blue DCA.

JOHNSON: And, again, the supporting documentation is found in your red book, page 284. This is Petition 21356, The National Comprehensive Plan For Town and Country. This item was originally placed on the Consent Calendar and was lifted from the Consent Calendar. The committee's recommendation was concurrence with amendment, and that was by the addition of the words "successor agencies." I would so move, Bishop.

BISHOP ODEN: All right. Is this a calendar item that requires referral to GCFA?

JOHNSON: No, it is not.

BISHOP ODEN: OK, thank you. I see a card to the left. Microphone 4.

ED KAIL (Iowa): Thank you, Bishop. I would like to offer an amendment, please.

BISHOP ODEN: All right. That's in order.

KAIL: In Calendar Item 575, as on page 215, in the second "whereas" paragraph after the word "whereas," insert the word "some" and change the word "ministry" to "ministries." And after the word "despair," replace the semicolon with a comma and add the following language: "while other ministries in town and country settings must deal with radical changes caused by population growth, rapid economic development, and conflicts of culture."

BISHOP ODEN: Would you repeat that one more time? The last part.

KAIL: Let me give this to the page to send up to you.

BISHOP ODEN: Fine.

KAIL: The last part would say "while other ministries in town and country settings must deal with radical changes caused by population growth, rapid economic development, and conflicts of culture."

BISHOP ODEN: All right. The Kail amendment is before you. Would anyone like to speak to it?

KAIL: May I speak?

BISHOP ODEN: Please.

KAIL: Delegates to the General Conference, on behalf of friends and colleagues in the United Methodist Rural Fellowship, I want to thank you for indulging this amendment in support of the Town and Country Ministries. I understand that this is noncontroversial. Voting against Town and Country Ministries or ruralness is like voting against motherhood and apple pie. But the issue is not your moral support. The issue is your connectional commitment. At this point, as far as I'm aware, there is only one seminary among our 13 United Methodist seminaries which has a dedicated position named for Town and Country Ministries. If I'm wrong, I sure would like to know about it.

There are three regional Rural Life Centers operating currently, but all three of those struggle year-by-year, even week-by-week for the financial support to sustain them as a real resource for rural ministry. We have one person in the office of Town and Country Ministries in the National Division, but that person has a multiple portfolio which takes her far beyond Town and Country Ministries. What we're calling for here is development of a national comprehensive plan for Town and Country Ministries.

I'd like to try just a little bit of research right now. Those clergy and lay delegates who would self-identify themselves as being from rural or town and country settings, would you please stand? It's encouraging to see so many of you sisters and brothers who actually did get elected to the General Conference. So often people in rural and town and country settings feel that it's other folks who have the majority voice in setting policy for our church. But now let's add to the district superintendents who have rural or town and country churches and ministries in their district. Would you please stand? This connectional relationship is very vitally important.

BISHOP ODEN: You have less than a minute.

KAIL: Thank you. I appreciate the warning. Do you see the potential present if a national comprehensive plan could be developed? We rejoice with the sisters and brothers of the National Urban Network in their development of their plan Holy Boldness. It's been exciting to see how that process of development has created new excitement, new passion, new energy, new commitment. We the advocates for Town and Country Ministries ask for your support and your connectional commitment in developing a similar movement for revival in rural ministries. Thank you.

BISHOP ODEN: All right, thank you. That's a speech for the amendment. Is there a speech against? I see none. Are we ready to vote on the amendment? Vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 620; no, 129] You have supported the amendment. It now becomes a part of the main motion. Calendar Item 575. Is there any discussion on that calendar item?

I see a card. Go to microphone 9.

FRANK L. DORSEY (Kansas East): I want to speak very much for this proposal because it is so terribly important to this church of ours. We still have more United Methodist churches than post offices. We are linked across this great land. But there has been a time of the devastation of community that is destructive to the life of rural community. And we must be about building community in our rural communities and in our urban communities. Jean Sindab wrote an article and shared it with me before it was published. Jean recently passed away at a great loss for the ecumenical community. She described what was happening in the core of our cities across the land by saying that what was happening to those cores was de-industrialization, disinvestment, and demonization. I told Jean that in my experience, under the current crisis that we continue to experience in rural America, that that was precisely what we were experiencing there too, the devastation of community that is so important to our total church and to this nation.

BISHOP ODEN: Thank you. Is there a speech against? I see none, which signifies we're ready to vote. So we're on Calendar Item 575 on page 215. The motion is before you, vote when the light appears. [778 approved] You have supported the calendar item.

Before we proceed, I need to let you know that there was no election for the Judicial Council lay alternates. And we will go to the next calendar item, Carolyn, but then we're also going to put those persons who are in the electronic box on notice that after that we'll come back for an election time.

JOHNSON: Thank you. If you will remain on page 215, our next calendar item is Calendar Item 576. Again, the supporting documentation is in your red book on page 796. This refers to Petition 21363, "Communities of Shalom." This petition also was originally on the Consent Calendar, and you will recall there was a note from the Calendar Office lifting it off because of its potential financial implications, which have now been discovered to be the fact that, since it is in an existing budget, we will not need to move any reference to you; but it is still before you again. So, on behalf of the committee, I would move concurrence as amended, and you will notice the amendments you will find on page 216 in the bold-faced type. And I so move.

BISHOP ODEN: Calendar Item 576 is before us. Would you like to speak to the item? Microphone 3.

STEFANIE A. GRAY (California-Pacific): I'd like to propose an amendment.

BISHOP ODEN: That is in order.

GRAY: The amendment would follow the sentence, the sixth paragraph down, where it says, "The committee shall be composed of 12 members and two ex officio members...There shall be six...The general secretary of the General Board of..." OK. So right before "The general secretary of the General Board," I'd like to insert the words "at least one of these members will be a young person under the age of 30 that resides in a Community of Shalom."

BISHOP ODEN: The amendment is before you. Make sure the secretary has a copy of that. Carolyn, I assume we'll need to go on then to floor discussion.

JOHNSON: Yes, I think so.

BISHOP ODEN: Would you like to speak to your amendment?

GRAY: Well, I think that the Communities of Shalom I've witnessed in my city, in Los Angeles, are a very vital part of the renewal of cities and of people's morale, and I also believe strongly that young people within those communities can take a great part in the uplifting of those Communities of Shalom, and so that's why I would propose this amendment.

BISHOP ODEN: OK. The amendment is before you. Is there someone who would like to oppose the amendment, who would like to speak against it? I do not see a card, so we're ready for the amendment that is before us. Vote when the light appears. [726 approved] It does prevail, so the Gray amendment is now part of the calendar item. Are we ready to vote on the calendar item or does anyone wish to speak to it. I see no cards. Vote when the light appears. [818 approved] It does prevail.

JOHNSON: Bishop?

BISHOP ODEN: Yes?

JOHNSON: After the period of balloting, our vice chair will bring the next items.

BISHOP ODEN: Thank you, Carolyn. We now would like to ask that the results of the Judicial Council lay alternatives be put on the screen that we might see them and proceed with that voting. I don't believe I need to read those to you. (Plowman, 285; Sessums, 247; Church, 237; Lett, 231; Bonney, 215; Gordon, 163; Panganiban, 120; Danburam, 92; Kolasa, 86; McClain, 84; Gray, 5) There is no election. Now we're ready to vote, and we ask that the names might once again appear on the screen. And we will vote three times, one time for each person. Vote when the light appears. Vote again when the light appears. Vote again when the light appears. Thank you. Now we're ready to proceed with the calendar item.

HOWARD DAUGHENBAUGH (Central Illinois): Bishop, I would like to address our attention, if we could please, to page 174 in the blue book. Calendar Item 445. In the white book, page 1370, is the supporting material. The petition printed there is Petition 22661. It's in the lower left-hand column, on page 1370. The legislative committee recommends concurrence by a vote of: 108 for, zero against, and zero abstaining. And a referral to GCFA because of the financial implications. I move the adoption of the item.

BISHOP ODEN: The motion is before you to adopt Calendar Item 445. Is there discussion? I see none, which means we're ready to vote. I'm sorry, halfway back on my right. Go to microphone 6.

BARBARA W. RIDDLE (Florida): I am really embarrassed to have to ask this again, but could we, sir, have definition when we're referring for financial implications, so those of us that are needing to vote will know whether this is within the proposed budget, or is this being referred as additional. I would appreciate that, sir.

BISHOP ODEN: I think that's a legitimate request, and would ask the committee to so indicate.

DAUGHENBAUGH: It is my understanding in this case that this is additional. It has been referred to GCFA, and if someone from the council would like to speak to that, that's fine. It will come back to us, it is my understanding, from having talked to one of them, tomorrow, in their presentation.

BISHOP ODEN: All right, far back, go to microphone 13.

EWING WERLEIN (Texas): I would like to ask the presenter what the anticipated financial implications are on this petition number. In hastily reading it, I have been unable to find how much money, how much additional money, is being requested.

DAUGHENBAUGH: That has been a puzzle to us, as well. We do not have the answer to that.

BISHOP ODEN: Does anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Microphone 14. I saw a card waving toward the back. Microphone 9.

JAMES L. BRANSCOME (Virginia): I don't appreciate having to vote on something that has financial implications without knowing what those implications are. I think we should do something with this to find out if we need to defer it or something. But we need to know how much money we're voting on before we vote.

BISHOP ODEN: It's a speech against the motion. Is there a speech for the motion? Yes.

KAIL: Do I understand correctly, we're dealing with Petition 22661 on the white DCA 1370?

BISHOP ODEN: That's my understanding.

KAIL: Thank you. This petition rose out of the experience of over 400 people who gathered in Louisville, Ky., this last November for the fourth National Consultation on Cooperative Ministries. Out of that experience and the enthusiasm that came from the urban, and suburban, and rural people who were there exploring new models for ministry, this team of two people were delegated to generate this legislation.

I think, it is our belief, that a good amount of what is being asked for here can be done through the existing channels of the church and general agencies that are there. I'm sorry that I don't have a sense of what dollar figure might be involved in carrying on this kind of development, study, and discussion. But I hope that concern about the dollars will not keep use from affirming the principle. The cooperative ministry--whether it is in a cooperative parish, or many of the other forms that are emerging in the church--I hope that we will want to affirm that development. And if there are portions of this that do seem to call for the investing of new money through other channels than existing agencies, we should be open to deleting those particular references. But the emergence of cooperative ministry is a movement and trend in our church which I think now is really on a roll, and needs to be respected, and now given the guidance of the church. So I ask you to affirm and support this petition.

BISHOP ODEN: Thank you. That's a speech for the motion. Is there a speech against? To the left, microphone 5.

JIM HOLSINGER (Kentucky): I'd like to ask a quick question. Is it in order to amend this document in order to preclude the use of apportioned funds?

BISHOP ODEN: I see no reason why that motion, or that amendment, would be out of order.

HOLSINGER: Then I would move that we amend the base petition to authorize the use of no apportioned funds so that we can go ahead and approve the petition.

BISHOP ODEN: So there is an amendment. The Holsinger amendment calls for no apportioned funds to accompany this calendar item. Would someone like to speak for or against the amendment that is before us? Far, the middle one here, to microphone 9, white coat.

ARNOLD RHODES (Western Pennsylvania): I rise to speak against the motion, because the resolution that is before us is asking the General Council on Ministry to incorporate into its work the policy of cooperative parish ministry. If you take note, a number of those things that are being recommended are already in place and can be added to the portfolio of the General Council on Ministries.

BISHOP ODEN: All right, that is a speech against the Holsinger amendment. Is there a speech for? Yes. Microphone 1.

PORTER J. WOMELDORFF (Central Illinois): I would like to offer a friendly amendment if Jim Holsinger will accept it, and otherwise, less than friendly amendment. (laughter) That is that we add the word, "additional" ahead of "apportioned," and if there's a second, I'll speak to it. Or if he accepts it, I'll speak to it.

BISHOP ODEN: Is there a second? It is seconded? Mr. Holsinger, will you, do you accept that? Microphone 5.

JIM HOLSINGER (Kentucky): I will be happy to accept my friend Porter Womeldorff's friendly amendment. It's what I had in mind.

BISHOP ODEN: All right. So there is no amendment to the amendment because the amendment to the amendment was friendly. We're now back on the Holsinger amendment, and we have had one speech against. Is there a speech for? Yes. Microphone 4.

KAIL: A question, Bishop. Does this matter of apportioned funds, does that preclude the involvement of the General Council on Ministries?

HOWARD DAUGHENBAUGH JR. (Central Illinois): You'll have to ask the presenter. I would think not.

BISHOP ODEN: OK, that is a question. We still need a speech in favor of the Holsinger amendment. Far back, go to microphone 7.

E. MALONE DODSON (North Georgia): I speak in favor of the amendment. That makes two. (laughter)

BISHOP ODEN: Is there a speech opposing the amendment? The person far back, standing.

JAMES H. RUSH (South Georgia): Sir, I make a motion that we table this whole paragraph and petition until the financial business can be worked out for the entire conference.

BISHOP ODEN: Well, the motion to table is in order. It is not debatable. Is there a second? It has been seconded. If you favor tabling the motion, vote when the light appears. And you do not vote to table.[Results: yes, 247; no, 634]

DAUGHENBAUGH: Bishop. Here. Is it in order for me to say that, since this is a friendly amendment, to be friendly and to accept that as a part of the report?

BISHOP ODEN: Well, I believe so.

DAUGHENBAUGH: All right, we'll do that then.

BISHOP ODEN: All right, so the Holsinger amendment is now a part of your report. Is that correct?

DAUGHENBAUGH: That's correct.

BISHOP ODEN: As amended. And now we're ready to vote, I believe. I see no cards. If you would favor-- Yes, far back, section C, go to microphone 13, I believe.

EWING WERLEIN JR. (Texas): I want to make sure that I understand the Holsinger amendment that has been accepted. As I understand it, it is an amendment that no additional apportioned funds would be used for this matter. Since we have not apportioned any funds yet, I infer that the amendment must mean no additional apportioned funds other than the $503,500,000 proposed in the GCFA budget on page 285 of the Advance DCA. I would like clarification on that to make sure that we understand what no additional apportioned funds means.

DAUGHENBAUGH: My response to that is-. Mr. Holsinger has his card up over there, but my response to that is that, that would mean that it would be in the GCOM funding amounts available to them currently.

BISHOP ODEN: Does that answer your question? All right. Are we ready to vote, then? We will, we're now voting. Would you vote when the light appears? [797 approved]

You have voted affirmative on the calendar item. Thank you. Before we continue with the other calendar items, the vote is now ready on the Judicial Council. We have had two elections, we're going to show the screen and then we're going to continue our voting until the election is completed. So will the Judicial Council lay alternate election results please show on the screen? You have elected Plowman and Sessums.

Now let's see the list once more. Vote for one when the light appears. [vote] There is no election. Vote for one when the light appears. There's the list and the light. [vote] You have elected Church. [Church 352]

That completes the total election of the Judicial Council, clergy and lay.

We're now back to calendar items that are before us.

DAUGHENBAUGH: The next one I would like to direct your attention to is on page 255 of the blue book. It is Calendar Item 767, Committee on Audit and Review. The supporting material for it is found on page 752 of your red book. It is Petition 20080, beginning in the lower left hand column of page 752 and continuing into the upper right hand column. The committee recommends nonconcurrence by a vote of 88 for nonconcurrence, 8 against, 4 abstaining. You can tell that the essence of the petition is to amend paragraph 1407 of the Discipline by calling for a new paragraph 1407.2 which would provide for a Committee on Audit and Review in the General Board of Global Ministries and elected by the General Board of Global Ministries. The committee's rationale for recommending nonconcurrence was based on the fact that we felt there was no need to create another level of auditing responsibility in addition to that which already exists, because the current process is working well and meets the standards recommended by Price Waterhouse, the auditing firm for the General Board. And, so the committee recommends nonconcurrence. And I move that action at this point.

BISHOP ODEN: The recommendation of the committee is nonconcurrence. And, it is before you. We are on Calendar Item 767. Does anyone wish to speak to this calendar item? I see no hands, which means we're ready to vote. Vote when the light appears. I'm sorry. Thank you, go to microphone 2.

JACK SCOTT (Louisville): I speak from the perspective of many years experience in banking and business. Eight years as a BGM director in finance investments have made me very appreciative of sound audit and control systems. I stand for nonconcurrence. The committee structure at GCFA and GBGM is presently effective and meets recommended audit standards noted by auditor Price Waterhouse and the accounting profession. This issue has been reviewed in detail by GBGM directors and has been voted down on two separate occasions. An oversight committee would simply add directors to an already effective structure. Requiring such a committee for all boards and agencies just adds one more structure. Thank you.

BISHOP ODEN: So that is a speech supporting the committee's recommendation. Is there a speech opposing the committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence? I see none. We are ready to vote, voted when the light appears. You have supported the committees recommendation of nonconcurrence. [801 approved] Please continue.

DAUGHENBAUGH: The next item is on page 255 of the blue book, just continuing down that right hand column on that page to Calendar Item 768, subject of which is reaffirmation of the bishops' working group on mission. The supporting material is found on page 754 in your red book. It is Petition 20220. The committee recommends nonconcurrence by a vote of 93 for nonconcurrence, 8 against, 2 abstaining. This petition, as you can tell, proposes an amendment to paragraph 1411.3 to the Discipline by adding a new paragraph 1411.3d. It calls for the GBOGM to place the highest priority - oh, I used an abbreviation!--General Board of Global Ministries--place the highest priority on providing full support for our missionaries from World Service apportionments. Committee's rationale for recommending nonconcurrence is based on the fact that, in our judgment, approval of this petition would tend to reduce the local church's participation in providing financial support of our missionaries through such arrangements as the covenantal relationships and support of Advance Specials. So we recommend nonconcurrence and I move that action.

BISHOP ODEN: Thank you, Mr. Daughenbaugh. The recommendation of nonconcurrence is before the house. Does anyone wish to speak to it? I see no cards. Vote when the light appears. [791 approved] You have supported the committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence. Please continue.

DAUGHENBAUGH: The next item is Calendar Item 769, also on page 255 of the blue book. And the supporting material, is on page 771 of the red book. It is Petition 21342. This is the Special Program on Substance Abuse and Related Violence. I think I may have gotten the wrong...771, I'm sorry.

BISHOP ODEN: Page 771, lower left hand side.

DAUGHENBAUGH: That's correct. Petition 21342. Special Program on Substance Abuse and Related Violence. The legislative committee recommends concurrence by a vote of 106 for concurrence, zero against and 1 abstaining. This petition also contains a dollar figure, as you can see on the right hand column of 771 and it has been referred to GCFA.

The essence of the petition calls for a continuation of the Interagency Task Force on the Special Program on Substance Abuse and Related Violence, which was created by the '92 General Conference. It is the judgment of our committee that given our continuing societal problems in these areas, it is extremely important for the church to continue its involvement and ministry in these areas of human need. So we recommend concurrence. Now, I do not believe in this case that there is any new money involved. This would be a portion of the World Service dollars that would be made available for use in this program.

BISHOP ODEN: All right. Thank you very much. I see a card on microphone 6. Yes?

JAMES HARNISH (Florida): Let me just be clear. You're telling us that this $1,400,000 is included in the proposed budget that GCFA presented to us prior to the General Conference?

DAUGHENBAUGH: That's my understanding.

HARNISH: Because my understanding as we're running, our running total is that we have already added over $8 million on top of the proposed budget that GCFA had sent to us before General Conference. But this is already in there?

DAUGHENBAUGH: That's my understanding.

BISHOP ODEN: If this does pass, it will be referred immediately to GCFA. I see a card, please go to microphone 10.

ROLF LINDELL (Sweden): Bishop, I move an amendment by addition to this petition, and I would like the conference to look at page 771 in the red book. The text of the amendment should be inserted as a new bulleted paragraph following the second bulleted paragraph on page 771 of the Advance DCA. The text goes like this: "Confronting the acute drug and alcohol abuse crisis in northern Europe, the Baltic nations, and the Russian Federation, the General Conference ensures funding of no less than $127,500 per year for the quadrennium, so United Methodist conferences and congregations can undertake a multi- faceted initiative modeled after the special program. This initiative is a direct result of United Methodist training conferences in Sweden, Estonia, and Russia during this past quadrennium. It will focus on equipping local congregations..."

BISHOP ODEN: Just a moment, Rolf. Before you continue. You have finished your motion? Am I now correct that you're entering into a time of speaking on behalf of it?

LINDELL: No.

BISHOP ODEN: You're still continuing the amendment?

LINDELL: I am still reading the amendment.

BISHOP ODEN: Excuse me.

LINDELL: Let me repeat the last sentence. "This initiative is a direct result of United Methodist training conferences in Sweden, Estonia, Russia during this past quadrennium. It will focus on equipping local congregations to educate young people on the spiritual, physical, and sociological benefits of drug and alcohol- free lives, and assisting addicted persons into lives of recovery and deliverance."

BISHOP ODEN: Thank you. Now is there a second to Rolf's motion? It has been seconded. Do you wish to speak to it?

LINDELL: Bishop, I would like the chair to give the floor to one of the Russian delegates, Andrei Kim. And due to the need of interpretation, perhaps extend his time a little. And also give Bishop Minor, from Moscow, some time for information in this issue.

BISHOP ODEN: All right. Since this does include a non-delegate, we will have to have the floor's permission. Do you grant the request that has just been made? If so, raise your hand. If opposed, the same sign. It is granted.

LINDELL: Thank you.

BISHOP ODEN: Bishop Minor and...all right. You may proceed. This is a speech in favor of the amendment.

ANDREI KIM (translation from Russian): My dear brothers and sisters, I thank you for the possibility to speak about the problems of my church that are indeed the problems of the whole country of Russia. To which end alcoholism is leading, I would like to illustrate with an example that has been really frightening.

It happened to one of our sisters in Christ. She is a handicapped person. Her legs are paralyzed. One day as her son was at work she was sleeping in her chair and woke up because of her husband, who was stone drunk, was pouring kerosene over her and just about to set her ablaze. She only saved her life because she succeeded to take her crutches and to lash out at him. As she called the police, she was told that they would not deal with drunk persons except if he had beaten or slain her. There are no official government measures to fight these problems nowadays. However, I repeat again that this is an illness and grief of many Russians.

I'm grateful to the Lord and to those people who have been close to these problems, they organized a seminar on alcoholism and drug abuse in St. Petersburg. Because of this initiative, my church has begun a program that helps alcoholics and their family members. We are doing this together with AA and AL-ANON in the Baptist church. For the sake of time I'm not able to talk more explicitly, however, I will be glad to talk to any of you and to answer your questions if we meet in the break time later. Finally, I would like to say that the spiritual rebirth of our country depends on the way we will resolve this problem of alcoholism. Thank you.

BISHOP ODEN: Thank you Mr. Kim and Bishop Minor for translating.

BISHOP RUEDIGER MINOR: May I have a few words, bishop?

BISHOP ODEN: I think that would be in order because of the granting of the request of the body.

BISHOP MINOR: Thank you so much. There is probably no other country in the world where alcohol and the addiction to it are playing such a prominent role in the daily life as it is in Russia. And as we heard yesterday, it even suspended the iron rules of "Lemonade Lucy" in the White House. Therefore, we need to develop a special strategy to address this as the special program for this country has developed such a strategy. Imported strategies forced on the people have failed already. The sighing and longing is great throughout the country and the churches.

First results have already been produced, but we need to continue. As for the budget figures, I know this question will come. They need to be referred to GCFA and conversations have already been underway about increasing the budget. I do not talk about this lightly because I feel torn between my support for this important program and the concern that it might hurt other programs in case that we only redistribute funds. Help us to help our Russian brothers and sisters. As we pray, help us to help each other, Lord.

BISHOP ODEN: Bishop Minor, do you have an approximate figure of those budget estimates.

BISHOP MINOR: As it is in the amendment, $127,500 per year.

BISHOP ODEN: Thank you very much. Now I think it's important that we see where we are. We are on Calendar Item 769 on page 255. We have the Lindell amendment before us, and we have had one speech for the amendment. Before we continue I wonder if the secretary would read the amendment once more so we will have it firmly fixed in our minds. We are still waiting for it.

The amendment calls for a northern Europe initiative in drug and alcohol concerns, especially a Russian initiative, is the essence of the amendment. Now we have had a speech for the amendment. We're ready for a speech against the amendment. Yes sir. Microphone 9.

RONALD SALYER (North Central New York): I have a question, specifically are we adding additionally another $508,000 to the $1,440,000 that's on the budget page?

BISHOP ODEN: We'll let the presenter answer that?

DAUGHENBAUGH: Yes.

BISHOP ODEN: OK, to the right, about half way back. Microphone 7. I'm sorry, 6. Try 6.

JAMES HARNISH (Florida): I'd like to try an amendment, bishop. I move that we amend to include this amount in the $1,400,000 budget amount that is in the petition. And if there is a second, I'll speak to it.

BISHOP ODEN: OK that is an amendment to the amendment. Which is to include the funding for the Lindell Amendment in the $1,440,000 being requested. Is that correct?

HARNISH: Yes, sir.

BISHOP ODEN: Is there a second? It is seconded. So the Harnish amendment to the amendment is before us. Would someone like to speak to the amendment to the amendment?

HARNISH: May I speak to it? As many of you do, I have two young adult daughters, both of whom received credit cards in college, and my name was also on the credit card. And I discovered that my daughters found a multitude of wonderful things that they were able to use and to enjoy and to appreciate. But the bills all came to my address. And I sense that we are walking down that same path.

There's no question that we are committed to young adult and youth ministries. I come from a church in which the largest single item in our program budget is ministry for young adults and for children. We are committed to rural churches, we are committed to an effective drug and alcohol program, we are committed to the global concern for drug and alcohol abuse. But brothers and sisters, we have already increased the proposed budget by over $8 million in requests that will go to GCFA. I'm a little concerned about the process. The GCFA worked very diligently prior to the conference to recommend to us something of a reasonable goal for our commitments for the quadrennium ahead, and we continue to add to those, and somewhere, the credit card bill comes due and has to be taken home.

And as much as we're committed to the ministries, we also have to be responsible to the whole funding of the whole ministry of the church for the quadrennium. So I would urge you to be committed to this ministry, but to include it in the already proposed funds.

BISHOP ODEN: All right, that is a speech in favor of the Harnish amendment. Far back, standing up. Yes, sir. Microphone 13.

STEPHEN E. DRACHLER (Central Pennsylvania): I would like to offer a substitute for the Harnish amendment, please.

BISHOP ODEN: You're offering a substitute for the amendment to the amendment?

DRACHLER: Yes sir.

BISHOP ODEN: That is in order. Proceed.

DRACHLER: I would move that the funding for the amendment for the Northern Europe Conference's drug initiative be provided, if at all possible, from the contingency fund for the General Board of Global Ministries. If I have a second, I'll speak to it.

BISHOP ODEN: It is seconded. You may speak.

DRACHLER: My rationale is very simple on this. During the past quadrennium, in the Mission Initiatives Fund, which provided the funding for the special program on alcohol, drugs, and related violence, $1.8 million was provided for that special program. The proposal before you, offered by the committee, was $1.44 million. I believe that the full $1.8 million will show up during the upcoming quadrennium and is budgeted in the General Board of Global Ministries budget for that quadrennium. While it may mean that the full $510,000 may not get funded, I think it's only a matter of justice and fairness and of love and mercy for our brothers and sisters across the ocean that we approve this substitute. Thank you.

BISHOP ODEN: All right. The substitute is before us, by Drachler, and we also have had a speech for the substitute. This is a substitute for the Harnish amendment to the amendment. Microphone 3.

PAT STROMAN (Central Texas): Bishop, I move that we suspend the rules in order that we might vote on all that is before the house, because John Miles is not here. [laughter]

BISHOP ODEN: All right. It seems like we have a lot of fish to fry out there, anyway. We first need to vote on the motion to suspend the rules. This takes a two-thirds vote. Vote when the light appears. [786 approved] You have overwhelmingly voted to suspend the rules, and that means we're now ready to vote on what is before us, and we're just going to...I want to get our train on the track; all going the same way and the right way. Yes. Microphone 9.

SUSAN DAVIES (Nebraska): I have a question. Many have been standing up and talking about $8 million being added to the budget. That doesn't compute with some things that I have been writing down that have been talked about in terms of being referred to GCFA. Could we have someone clarify that so that we don't just operate under the assumption that that's just growing by leaps and bounds?

BISHOP ODEN: All right. I'm not sure who can answer that. Mr....Yes, microphone 9. Do you have an answer to that question?

TRACY MERRICK (Western Pennsylvania): I'm a member of GCFA. I've been meeting, as many of us have, on GCFA the last day or so. I don't know that I can give you a specific total because it seems to be changing rapidly. We'll be prepared to report on this tomorrow. The preliminary numbers are not $8 million, but I'd be a little reluctant to tell you right now what it is unless we have a little further material in front of us.

BISHOP ODEN: OK, thank you. Now, nothing is before us except to vote on all that is before us. So unless you have a question or a point of order, then you are out of order. Yes, ma'am? Microphone 4.

MAREYJOYCE GREEN (East Ohio): A question. Does what we're voting on now maintain the intent of the original amendment that was made by the person from Sweden?

BISHOP ODEN: We will simply have to take our motions in order. We will begin with the Drachler substitute. If that prevails, then that will replace the Harnish amendment to the amendment. If it does not, we will be on the Harnish amendment to the amendment. We will vote on it, and then, if it prevails, it will be amended to the Lindell amendment. Yes? Microphone 4.

GREEN: Question. Does this, if we, suppose we say yes to what we are voting on now, does that retain the spirit and intent of the prior amendment?

BISHOP ODEN: Yes, I think so. And in what way it does that will depend on our voting. We're now ready to vote. Question or a parliamentary inquiry or point of order is all that's in order. Yes? Microphone 7.

SUSAN HASSINGER (Eastern Pennsylvania): A question for information on the substitute. What would be the impact on General Board of Global Ministries if this were done?

BISHOP ODEN: Was it--repeat your question.

HASSINGER: Well, if I heard the substitute correctly, the request was for the funds to be taken from the total GBGM budget, and I'm not sure what proportion, what impact that would have on GBGM?

BISHOP ODEN: It's my understanding that the funds were, according to the substitute, to come from the contingency fund of GBGM, General Board of Global Ministries.

HASSINGER: And is there any sense of what percentage of the contingency that would be?

BISHOP ODEN: I'm not certain who could answer that question. I don't...there's a card. Can you answer the question directly, sir? No? I don't think we have an answer to that question. I think we are going to have to go ahead and vote. Question or parliamentary inquiry or point of order. Microphone 4.

LEON L. PALAGANAS (Central Luzon): Bishop, I just want to present a clarification on the proposed budget because in my computation here I am only adding $105,101, and the total budget here on sub-budget is $205,000. I just want to know whether the grant is $100 or $100,000.

BISHOP ODEN: I'm sorry, what was the question?

PALAGANAS: Should I repeat, Bishop?

BISHOP ODEN: We're working on it.

PALAGANAS: On page 771 and the proposed budget, the total amount here on sub-total is $205,000, but the amount of grant here is $100. Does it mean...?

BISHOP ODEN: $100,000.

DAUGHENBAUGH: I think, yes, $100,000.

PALAGANAS: Oh, this is $100,000.

BISHOP ODEN: Yes. OK, we're ready to vote? Microphone 9.

RON BRETSCH (North Central New York): Thank you, Bishop. Point of parliamentary inquiry. Under the rules on the previous question, does Mr. Daughenbaugh, now at the podium, have an opportunity to address?

BISHOP ODEN: Yes, he does. I'm going to clear the floor and then turn to our presenter. Unless there is a point of order or a question. Microphone 14. Yes, microphone 9.

ZEDNA HAVERSTOCK (Central Pennsylvania): I was a member of the legislative committee that dealt with this, Bishop, and one of the actions that we took was to, in our...

BISHOP ODEN: OK, do you have a question or a parliamentary inquiry?

HAVERSTOCK: I'm hoping it's a point of clarification on the funding.

ODEN: I believe we are ready to vote. OK, now, let me see if, I believe that we first vote on the substitute, and then we'll go from there, and then before we vote on the main motion, then you will have a chance to speak. OK. Sir, you will be able to speak on each point as we move.

DAUGHENBAUGH: All right.

BISHOP ODEN: If you so desire. We're now ready to vote for the substitute. So if you favor the Drachler substitute, you will vote "yes;" if not, you will vote "no." Vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 457; no, 423] OK, the Drachler substitute does prevail and replaces the Harnish amendment to the amendment. So the substitute now becomes the amendment to the Lindell amendment.

Now, we're ready to vote on the Lindell amendment. I wonder if it should be read first. We're going to ask the secretary to read it.

CAROLYN MARSHALL: "Confronting the acute drug and alcohol abuse crisis in northern Europe, the Baltic nations, and the Russian Federation, the General Conference insures funding of no less than $127,500 per year for the quadrennium, so United Methodist conferences and congregations can undertake a multi-faceted initiative modeled after the special program. This initiative is a direct result of the United Methodist training conferences in Sweden, Estonia, and Russia during this past quadrennium. It will focus on equipping local congregations to educate young people on the spiritual, physical, and sociological benefits of drug- and alcohol-free lives, and assisting addicted persons into lives of recovery and deliverance."

BISHOP ODEN: Now could you read the substitute which is now a part of that amendment?

MARSHALL: That is to direct the General Board of Global Ministries to provide funding for northern European drug initiative from the General Board of Global Ministries contingency funds.

BISHOP ODEN: Now I believe that the presenter does have a right to speak to this, but from the floor, no one has the right of floor access. If this is a parliamentary inquiry or point of order, it is in order.

BECKY HAASE (California-Pacific): Point of order, that the substitute was voted. But I believe, don't we still have to vote whether that would amend the original amendment?

BISHOP ODEN: Let's do that to make sure. If you favor the substitute, to amend the first amendment, will you raise your hand? If you oppose it? It passes. Now we're ready for Mr. Daughenbaugh.

HOWARD L. DAUGHENBAUGH JR (Central Illinois): I first have a question, if I might ask it. And the question is, I thought in the amendment that we passed, there were the words, "if possible" included in that.

BISHOP ODEN: Will the secretary respond?

MARSHALL: They're not on this sheet.

BISHOP ODEN: They're not on the sheet.

DAUGHENBAUGH: All right. I thought I heard the maker of that motion include those words in it, that's why I wanted to ask. This particular item has not been before the legislative committee, so it's impossible for me to speak for the committee in reference to it. I think it may be safe to say that the jist of the amendment would be something that we would have great support for; the financing of it is another question. And I think that approval of this would simply motivate us to do that much better with our World Service apportionments, and also, if the Mission Initiatives Fund is continued, where these monies were available last year, then that would be yet another source of funding for it.

BISHOP ODEN: All right, we're ready now to vote on the Lindell amendment as amended by substitute. If you would favor this amendment, vote "yes" when the light appears; if not, vote "no." [653 approved] You do favor it. It passes by 72 percent.

We now have the Lindell amendment, which is attached to Calendar Item 769 on page 255. And we are under orders of the house to now vote on Calendar Item 769. Vote when the light appears. [812 approved] It passes by 88.6 percent. You have endorsed, you have voted Calendar Item 769. I believe you deserve a recess. It is time. Be back in 15 minutes.

Thank you, S.T. [Kimbrough] Please be seated. Will the delegates take their seats. We are ready to begin the second part of the afternoon. We had a very busy early afternoon and have a hard hour ahead of us, with a lot of legislation. I remind you that by midnight tomorrow, we clear out. And we have a lot of things to do before then. So if we can have the cooperation of the house, we will be able to move ahead. There's so much that's before us. I'm going to start by doing a little bit of clean up. We need to call on Steve Drachler. Microphone 13. Steve.

STEVE DRACHLER (Central Pennsylvania): Thank you, Bishop. I'd like to make a correction for the record on the nomenclature that I used to describe the fund. It should be, sir, the World Service Fund. Thank you. Sir, it should be the contingency fund of the World Service Fund administered by GCOM.

BISHOP ODEN: I've just been informed that it's the World Service Contingency Fund administered by GCOM. Now, what I'd like to do is to see if the house would allow that correction by consensus. If you will so allow, please raise your hand. If you would not. It is allowed. Now, we're going to call on Mr. Daughenbaugh for a continuation of the calendar items.

HOWARD L. DAUGHENBAUGH JR (Central Illinois): Thank you. I have only one more to present. That is on pages 255 and 256 of your blue book. It is Calendar Item 770. The supporting information is found on page 763 of your red book. It is Petition 20219, title of which is "Teens at Risk." The legislative committee recommends concurrence as amended, and those amendments are noted on page 256 of your blue book. And the vote of the committee was 96 for, 10 against, and 1 abstention. I move support of the action of the committee.

BISHOP ODEN: All right. Calendar Item 770 is before us and is now on the floor. Yes. Microphone 2.

RICHARD S. PARKER (New York): Bishop, it's my understanding that the other day we voted that all calendar items with no more than 10 dissenting votes be moved to the Consent Calendar. And I believe that was to have taken place today. If that is the case, then this calendar item and others that we've acted on today could indeed be moved to the Consent Calendar. And if that's not clear, I'll make that motion.

BISHOP ODEN: OK. To be clear, why don't you just go ahead and make the motion.

PARKER: I do so move, Bishop.

BISHOP ODEN: Does everyone understand the motion? Repeat it. Just a moment. I'm not sure that's in order. We have a motion on the floor. Give me a moment. OK. I think we're clear. First, your motion is not in order. Second, that motion has previously been made but it was not made before this matter appeared, so we're going to have to go ahead and take it as presented. Thank you very much. Microphone 2.

JASON A. PAULSMEYER (Missouri East): Bishop, I would like to propose an amendment, quite possibly a friendly amendment, to this petition that we would change the word 'teen' everywhere it appears to...change it to the word 'youth.' And if I can have a second, I'll speak to it.

BISHOP ODEN: Is there a second. You may speak.

PAULSMEYER: It's pretty simple. It's an editorial change to make the language in this petition more consistent with the Book of Discipline and other resolutions.

DAUGHENBAUGH: We would accept that readily.

BISHOP ODEN: It is accepted as a friendly amendment. Now the motion is before us; does anyone wish to speak to it. All right. Microphone 2.

KELLY A. CLEM (North Alabama): This may also be a proposal for a friendly amendment. The second paragraph, beginning with "whereas, an individual," I would just amend that we change the word, delete the word 'homosexual' and replace that with 'sexual.'

BISHOP ODEN: I'm sorry, replace it with..'sexual?'

CLEM: Delete the word 'homosexual' and replace that with 'sexual.'

DAUGHENBAUGH: We would accept that as well.

BISHOP ODEN: Thank you. Say, we're perking. I see no more cards. We're ready to vote. If you favor this amendment, vote "yes" when the light comes on; if not, vote "no." [645 approved] You passed the Calendar Item 770. Thank you very much, Mr. Daughenbaugh. Carolyn?

CAROLYN E. JOHNSON (North Indiana): Yes, the next calendar item is found in your blue book on page 205. This is Calendar Item 490. And the supporting documentation is in the red edition of the Advance DCA, page 756. This is Petition 21331. This was one of several restructuring petitions related to the 1400 paragraph in the Book of Discipline, and there was a unanimous vote by the legislative committee to concur as amended. However, this was lifted from the Consent Calendar, and that's why it's before you. So I would move concurrence with the amendment that you see on page 205.

BISHOP ODEN: OK, this was passed unanimously by committee but was called from the Consent Calendar. We're on 490. Does anyone wish to speak to it? Yes? Microphone 5.

AL GWINN (Kentucky): Thank you, Bishop. I'm moving by addition to paragraph 413, number 6, item "g." It's found on page 758.

BISHOP ODEN: Just a moment. We're now in the red DCA? Page 758. Is that correct?

GWINN: Yes. Numerical number 6, item "g." It will include the following words: "Insuring that there exist no inequalities in compensation packages beyond placement consideration for commissioned long-term missionaries." So that the entire sentence of item "g" would read: "To administer a diverse program of renmueration and benefits for personnel service, insuring that there exist no inequalities in compensation packages beyond placement consideration for commissioned long-term missionaries."

BISHOP ODEN: All right.

GWINN: And if I could receive a second, I'll speak to it.

BISHOP ODEN: Is there a second? There is, you may speak.

GWINN: I want to certainly affirm our insight that we are no longer a geographical section of communities, but we are one global community. We will no longer speak of "national" and "foreign" missions, or of "home" and "overseas" missions, but will speak of one mission, our mission, the global mission.

In this new day we'll see not only missionaries being sent, but missionaries being received by us all. And I strongly commend our Board of Global Ministries staff and directors for their vision and for their leadership in leading us in this way. But since under the old structure of a National Division and a World Division commissioned long-term missionaries receive different salaries and different benefit packages, it would seem that our new vision and structure would call for a new equality for all of those who serve our church as missionaries in this new global community. Thank you.

BISHOP ODEN: Thank you very much. The Gwinn amendment is before us on Calendar Item 490. We have had one speech for. Is there a speech against? Yes? Microphone 4.

MARION MUTHIAH (Dakotas): While I am surely supportive of the intent of this, I think that those who are not closely related to how many different salary scales and so on we do have for different personnel in different places within the outreach ministry of our church, I just don't want this to be limiting. And so I'm reluctant. I do not want to support something that locks us into a salary scheme that we must abide by. There are many that are willing to go as volunteers even though they're long-term missionaries, after a certain period of time. There are so many ramifications these days that, while I am in favor of the essence of it, I would oppose it because I don't want to lock us into something very restrictive.

BISHOP ODEN: Thank you. Is there a speech for the amendment? Microphone 8.

JIM W. MORRIS (Red Bird Missionary): There are, at the present, some significant and long-standing inequities in relation to compensation and benefits issues between the World and the National Divisions. And those things need to be addressed. I would favor the Gwinn amendment because it would give us the opportunity to address those items.

BISHOP ODEN: OK, thank you very much. Is there a speech against? Yes?

NANCY CUCKLER (East Ohio): Bishop, compensation for missionaries has a long history, and at this moment I would like to move that the subject of compensation for missionaries be referred to the General Board of Global Ministries. That subject, in reality, is not the responsibility of the General Conference.

BISHOP ODEN: All right, the motion is for reference to the General Board of Global Ministries; is it seconded? This is debatable. So if there is anyone who would like to speak to it. Yes, sir; microphone 9.

RONALD BRETSCH (North Central New York): Thank you, Bishop. I speak in favor of the motion to refer. While there are differences, some of those differences are also based on years of service or longevity, which certainly we would want to take into account. There are differences in costs of living around the world; some of those differences in costs of living are acute, are very extreme. And as the General Board of Global Ministries moves into a new structure, the historic differences, which may have caused some hardships between the World and National Divisions, will be ameliorated by our new structure, where the two divisions will have been combined. I think the motion to refer is very much appropriate in order to deal with the several variables in a new structure.

BISHOP ODEN: Thank you. Is there a speech against referral? Yes? Microphone 8.

EMERY A. PERCELL (Northern Illinois): To refer would refer the whole document, and so I speak against the referral.

BISHOP ODEN: Let me check with the maker of the motion. Was the motion to refer only the item on 6.g. or the entire document? Microphone 3.

NANCY CUCKLER (East Ohio): The attempt of the motion was to refer only the subject of compensation for missionaries.

BISHOP ODEN: I believe that is in order, and that was the understanding of the chair. So we're now ready to vote on reference, if you would vote for or against, vote when the light comes on. [631 approved] You did vote reference to the item of missionary compensation that returns the regular 6.g. to the document that is now before us. We're on Calendar Item 490 and it...the motion to support the calendar item is before us. Yes.

VICTOR GOLDSCHMIDT (North Indiana): A very simple amendment to bring Christ into the document in two different locations. Line four, left column page 756; that is line four, on the bold print, adding "Christian" prior to mission. So it reads, "United Methodists in Christian mission" And jumping to 757, line one, left column, adding "Christian" again, "which the church is called to Christian ministry."

BISHOP ODEN: All right.

CAROLYN JOHNSON: That's fine. Yeah, that's fine, we can accept that.

BISHOP ODEN: You accept?

JOHNSON: Yes.

BISHOP ODEN: Thank you, Mr. Goldschmidt. Those friendly amendments have also been friendly to our chair. So they are accepted. Microphone 9.

ALFRED C. RHONEMUS (West Ohio): This is probably just a friendly amendment. In the first, number one on page 756, I would like to substitute the word, "congregational development" rather than "church growth." Both there and at the end of that paragraph. I move, so move.

BISHOP ODEN: All right, we're on page 756, number one, "the responsibilities of evangelism and congregation development" instead of "church growth." Now where's the second?

RHONEMUS: At the bottom of that, where it says, "the responsibilities of evangelization and church growth" would read "congregational development." Substituting those words.

BISHOP ODEN: Right, so in the title and in the last sentence of the paragraph. Is there is a second? It has been seconded. Discussion?

JOHNSON: Bishop, the only concern I would raise is that we do have phraseology currently about congregational development that is of a little different nature substantively. And I would be concerned that there might be a confusion for those people who think of congregational development, particularly as new building of churches and those kind of things. Other than that, there would be no problem. So it would be...

BISHOP ODEN: All right, the amendment is before us, it's been seconded. If anyone would like to speak for or against it, they may. Otherwise, we'll just vote on it and see where we are. Didn't work. [laughter] Yes. Microphone 2.

REBECCA C. YOUNGBLOOD (Mississippi): No it didn't work. We discussed this in the full committee, and my argument for retaining the words "church growth" is that church growth does refer to more than simply the development of congregations, and especially in the global context and the opportunity to develop faith communities etc. I would argue to retain those words.

BISHOP ODEN : This is a speech against the Rhonemus amendment. Is there one for? I see none. We're ready to vote. Vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 222; no, 657] You do not concur with the Rhonemus amendment.

We're back on the main motion of Calendar Item 490. Are we ready to vote? I see no cards. If you would favor Calendar Item 490, vote "yes" when the light appears; if not, vote "no." [874 approved] And it prevails. Carolyn, thank you very much.

JOHNSON: Our next item is found in your blue DCA on page 256, and this is Calendar Item 771. "Membership of the Conference Board of Global Ministry." It refers to page 750 in your red book, and is Petition 20453. This is a recommended change to the Book of Discipline in the 731 paragraphs.

I would, before I move it, I would like to give a little background. The committee operated, as do most of the committees, and on topics that were similar subjects, perfected one item and then voted non concurrence on the others...tried to blend the items as best they could. So this is one of those items for which the motion was nonconcurrence. And at the time it was moved, we were still under the five limit restriction for the Consent Calendar. So that's why it's not on the Consent Calendar. So with that background, I would move nonconcurrence on Calendar Item 771.

BISHOP ODEN: The motion of nonconcurrence for 771 on page 256 is before us. Vote when the light appears. If you vote "yes," you're voting for nonconcurrence with the committee. [858 approved] And you support the committee.

JOHNSON: Bishop, this does conclude our report, but, I would like to thank all of the chairpersons and the recorders and the sub-committee chairpersons, and particularly to thank all those people who sent petitions. Because even though they made our hours long and gave us lots of paper, it really was a nice, celebrative witness that people are concerned, and they care, and they are committed to the witness of mission for our church. And I thank you and the General Conference.

BISHOP ODEN: Thank you Carolyn. [applause] We now turn to independent commissions. Judge Carl Stewart.

CARL E. STEWART (Louisiana): Thank you Bishop Oden. I'd like for you to turn your attention to Calendar Item 778 found on page 257 of the Daily Christian Advocate, and it will pertain to Petition 21380.

That petition is found on page 927. The petition comes to us from United Methodist Communications. The petition is entitled, "A Call for Truth, Fairness, and Accuracy." The petition addresses a strong concern that the reporting of information about The United Methodist Church and its policies and actions be truthful, fair, and accurate. Recognizing that criticism of the church from within and without is a part of our reality, the petition encourages constructive criticism that is spiritually driven and intended to be reconciling. The committee amended the language in the petition about criticism in order to phrase it in a less judgmental way yet retain the intent of the authors. With that explanation, the committtee would recommend concurrence as amended.

BISHOP ODEN: It is before you, Calendar Item 778 on page 257. Does anyone wish to speak to the motion? I see no cards. It is before us. Vote when the light appears. [856 approved] You affirm the committee.

STEWART: Thank you. We will...

BISHOP ODEN: Before you continue, Judge, I see a card in the back. We're on calendar items. Nothing else is in order unless you wish to speak to a calendar item. Go to...

MARY ALICE MASSEY (Florida): Bishop, would a motion, an enabling motion be in order?

BISHOP ODEN: Try it.

MASSEY: I move to set aside the standing rules in order to limit debate to two speeches for, two against, with a two minute time limit on the remainder of the calendar items, except for the ones dealing with the General Council on Finance and Administration items. If I have a second, I'll speak to it.

BISHOP ODEN: Second? There is.

MASSEY: It is a great concern of mine that we have approximately 100 items on the calendar still to deal with. In order to be fair, so that all these items may at least get some amount of attention, we need to limit our debate. And so I hope that you will favor this motion.

BISHOP ODEN: All right. We now have before us a motion to suspend the rules, and it was seconded. Yes. This motion takes a simple majority, as rule 90 calls for. Yes.

JAMES M. LAWSON (California-Pacific): I'd like to amend the amendment by deleting the word "except" and the words that follow it.

BISHOP ODEN: As I understand it, the exception of GCFA called for in the motion is what you are asking be deleted. All right, let's put the question. First, if you would favor...Wait a minute. Yes, I think we can proceed. If you would, if you would vote, if you favor the Lawson amendment to, not to except GCFA in the motion, would you vote "yes" when the light appears? If not, vote "no." [Results: yes,448; no,447]

Now we're ready for the main motion to suspend, and it is before us. It requires a simple majority. If you favor the motion as amended, vote "yes" when the light appears; if not, vote "no." We are now under house rule of two speeches for each motion, or each amendment, and two minutes per speech. Yes. Proceed. Microphone 8. No, I'm sorry. The person, the person--no. There was a person in front of you that I called on first. I guess not. Go ahead to the microphone. Microphone 8.

LUCILLE V. VANZANT (Oklahoma): Bishop, I, too, feel the squeeze of time on all that is before us. Therefore, I also ask for a suspension of the rules, so that we may take up 30 minutes early this evening and go 30 minutes later in tonight's session. Thank you.

BISHOP ODEN: You have heard the motion to extend the time 30 minutes past five o'clock adjournment and begin 30 minutes early. If you would favor that, raise your hand. If not, raise your hand. It does not carry. Now to the podium and continue with Judge Stewart.

STEWART: Thank you. We will next consider Calendar Item 783. It is found on page 258 of your Daily Christian Advocate.

BISHOP ODEN: Just a moment. I got the motion wrong. I'm going to assume the house still sustains the chair. Let's move on.

STEWART: All right. We will consider Calendar Item 783. It's found on page 258 of the Daily Christian Advocate, and it pertains to Petition 20637, which is found on page 908 in your red book. The petition is entitled "Amenability of General Commission on Communications." The petition would amend the second sentence of paragraph 1904 of the Discipline, which is found on pages 621 and 622. The petition as proposed would change the accountability on program matters for the General Commission on Communications from the General Council on Ministries to the Council of Bishops. The committee amended the petition to provide for the dual accountability on program matters of the General Council on Ministries and the Council of Bishops. With regard to the rationale of the committee, I would call on Stan England, who was the secretary of the sub-committee, and ask him to share that with you.

BISHOP ODEN: All right. Stan?

STAN B. ENGLAND (North Georgia): As the committee met and discussed this, we felt that the Council of Bishops should take an active role in the evaluation of the General Commission on Communication. The commission has an awesome responsibility working with the general agencies to speak and publicize for the church. We realize that the bishops have representation on the General Commission on Communication, but we know that for action to take place there must be a clear line of works and words. The evaluation process does not mean spending more money or taking control of, but to call our Council of Bishops in with the accountability process with the council along with the Council on Ministries. That was the rationale of the committee.

BISHOP ODEN: The motion is before you. And we have had a speech for. Is there a speech against? I see none. Oh, I'm sorry. To the left, house left. Microphone 3.

SAMUEL WYNN (North Carolina): I would oppose this motion for several reasons, one being that we are in the process of trying to hold all agencies accountable. And secondly, does the Council of Bishops have in place an evaluation process to carry something like this out?

BISHOP ODEN: Are you asking?

WYNN: Yes.

BISHOP ODEN: Yes. I do not believe we have in place such a procedure.

SAMUEL WYNN (North Carolina): And, if we pass this motion, what would the council have to do to put something of that nature in place?

BISHOP ODEN: I cannot answer that, I'm sorry.

WYNN: I would move that we not approve this amendment for those reasons.

BISHOP ODEN: All right. Microphone 9.

STEPHEN C. MOTT (New England): I oppose this motion. I think it is...

BISHOP ODEN: Just a moment. We just had a speech against. I need to call for a speech in favor before you proceed. Is there a speech in favor of this motion? I see none. You may proceed.

MOTT: I'd urge a vote against this motion. I think it upsets the very important balance of power between the bishops and the General Conference. I don't think the Council of Bishops should be evaluating the General Commission of the General Conference.

BISHOP ODEN: Thank you. I want to ask again for a speech that favors the motion. Yes. We have two speeches against, and this will be the second speech for. All right. That's in order.

JAMES M. LAWSON JR. (California-Pacific): I'd like to...I move an amendment to page 759, the top of the left hand column. And that would be to delete the words "and Council of Bishops." The four words "and Council of Bishops" would be deleted from that second sentence.

BISHOP ODEN: Sir, do you mean page 259?

LAWSON: Yes, 259.

BISHOP ODEN: And again, your motion is?

LAWSON: To amend the second sentence of paragraph 1904 by deleting the following words: "and Council of Bishops." So that the sentence would read, "The General Council on Ministries in program matters."

BISHOP ODEN: All right. Is there a second? It has been seconded. Would you like to speak to it?

LAWSON: Yes, very quickly. I think that the General Council of Bishops, the General Council needs to understand that one of the ways in which the Council of Bishops does, indeed, carry on its work of evaluation of accountability and oversight is because, on every board and agency of the church, a group of bishops are assigned.

BISHOP ODEN: Excuse me just a moment. If we do remove "and Council of Bishops," does not that return the language to its present disciplinary form?

LAWSON: Yes, it does, it does.

BISHOP ODEN: Then, I think, if you vote "no," I believe that amendment is out of order. If you vote "no" it accomplishes the same thing.

LAWSON: Good. Thank you.

BISHOP ODEN: All right. To the microphone 4.

ZANE SCOTT (Holston): I'd like to speak for the committee's recommendation. I was a member of that committee. The words "Council of Bishops" appeared in the context of a number of the petitions that we have before us, always in a substituting mode, as they did originally in this petition, substituting them for the General Council on Ministries. In every instance, we struck, as a committee, struck that out and down, in favor of review by the General Council of Ministries.

It saved this one, and we saved this one because we felt in the matters of communication and speaking for the church in those particularly delicate matters, we felt that the Council of Bishops could bring to us expertise and a valuable contribution in evaluation. So, in this one instance, we added the language rather than substituting the language.

BISHOP ODEN: All right, we now have two speeches for the motion and two speeches against. And we'll call on Judge Stewart for the final word, and then we'll vote.

CARL E. STEWART (Louisiana): Bishop, under the rules, I opted to have the chair designate someone else to speak to it under the provision that is in the rules, and that is why I have designated someone.

BISHOP ODEN: Fine.

STAN B. ENGLAND (North Georgia): I think that the point has been taken. We have not concurred on some of the others to enhance some of the petitions that came to us asking that the Council of Bishops be included. And there has been much consideration towards doing away with the Council on Ministries. We felt that this would be a good process to make sure that there was something in place. And, secondarily, that it would be a good way for the communications to be able to enhance itself by working with these two bodies.

BISHOP ODEN: The motion is before us. We are on Calendar Item 783. Is there a question? Microphone 4.

DON MENDENHALL (Iowa): The question is, will this apply to the annual conference level in terms of evaluating communication offices within an annual conference?

STEWART: The petition is addressed to the general commission, not to the annual conference commission.

MENDENHALL: What will be the spin back into the annual conference from your estimation?

STEWART: Well, the middle language of the paragraph addresses only the general level of the church, and that is all.

BISHOP ODEN: Now, we're ready to vote? Vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 404; no, 478] You do not favor the motion. It is not concurred. It fails.

STEWART: All right, we will next consider Calendar 784 found on page 259 of the Daily Christian Advocate, and it is Petition 20551, found on page 910 in the red book. This petition pertains to the organization of the General Commission on Christian Unity and Inter- Religious Concerns. The petition would amend the first sentence of paragraph 2005.6 of the Discipline found on page 631 of the Discipline.

The current language provides for the commission to nominate its general secretary, who then is elected by the General Commission on Ministries. The General Council of Ministries, I'm sorry. The amendment would allow the commission to nominate and elect its own general secretary. The committee deems the amendment to be unnecessary. Paragraph 813 of the Discipline provides the general secretaries of program agencies to be elected by the General Council on Ministries. This method has not only proven to be workable, but it allows for accountability of the general secretaries to the whole church, and for that reason the committee recommends nonconcurrence.

BISHOP ODEN: All right. the motion is before us, and we record one speech in favor of it by the chair. Is there a speech opposing the motion? I think we're ready to vote. If you would vote, vote now when the light appears. [816 approved] You favor the motion; it is sustained. Judge Stewart.

CARL STEWART (Louisiana): Next, consider Calendar 1695, found on page 388 of the Daily Christian Advocate, and it's Petition 23076. And that petition is before you on the same page in the DCA. Petition 23076 is a substitute for two petitions that were referred to the committee on the same subject. Those petitions are Petition 22035 found on page 1394 of your white book, and Petition 21015 found on page 1390 of the white book.

Both of those petitions call for the creation of a general commission on alcohol and drugs. The committee nonconcurred with 22035 and 21015, and that nonconcurrence was ratified on the Consent Calendar numbers 704 and 705, found on page 229. The committee recognized the serious health, safety, and human welfare issues related to the subject of use and misuse of alcohol and drugs. Nonetheless, the committee did not conclude that creating a new commission related solely to those issues was warranted.

Petition 23076, which is before you, strongly urges the General Board of Church and Society to create a standing committee on alcohol and drugs. The committee rationale is that while creating a new general church level commission is not warranted, a more intentional approach towards addressing the concerns of the petitions that were submitted is warranted, due to the continued escalation of drug and alcohol use and abuse throughout the world. The creation of a standing committee within an existing general board, which has already accepted the responsibility to advocate and educate in this area, will be in the best interest of the church.

Creation of this standing committee will insure that the vital health, safety, and spirituality concerns regarding drugs and alcohol will always be given the church's greatest attention and action. The petition as amended does not contemplate the expenditure of any funds beyond those already appropriated to the General Board of Church and Society. With that, I would move the adoption of the committee's recommendation, which is a deletion of the two whole petitions and a substitution of the one before you.

BISHOP ODEN: Calendar Item 1695 is before you. Does anyone wish to speak to it? I see no cards; we're ready to vote. Vote when the light appears. [865 approved] The calendar item passes by 96 percent.

STEWART: Thank you. We're now considering Calendar Item 710. This was a calendar item that was earlier on the Consent Calendar and was pulled from the Consent Calendar; that's why it's before you. It's to be found on page 230 of the Daily Christian Advocate, and it's Petition 20895, found on page 920 of the red book, and Petition 22427, found on page 1395 of the white book.

The petitions read concerning names demeaning to Native Americans. The committee voted nonconcurrence on 20895 and 22427 in favor of Petition 20030, which says, in pertinent part, that it is demeaning to Native Americans and other members of our society to depict Native Americans as violent and aggressive people. Because you have approved Calendar Item 590 on page 219 of the Daily Christian Advocate Consent Calendar, the committee recommends nonconcurrence on Calendar Item 710. Bishop, I would move the adoption of the committee recommendation.

BISHOP ODEN: Thank you, Judge. That seems clear enough. Anyone desire to speak to it? I see no cards. If you favor the committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence, vote when the light appears. And you do concur. Thank you very much, Judge Stewart.

STEWART: Thank you, Bishop. That's it for me.

BISHOP ODEN: All right. Are we ready to move on now to Church and Society? [applause] Don Pike, chair of the Committee on Church and Society.

DON M. PIKE (Central Texas): Bishop Oden, we have a very easy subject to deal with at this time: that of abortion. [laughter] And as I look at the time remaining, we're going to try to finesse this thing. I'm beginning to feel like a man in a desert with a cup of water. I want to preserve every minute that we possibly have. In order to help the conference to understand the process that we used in the committee, I'd like to call on Beth Capen, who is the chairperson of the sub-committee, to share with you the process that we used. And then we'll try to deal with the petitions that I think we can deal with rather easily. And then we can deal with the heavier and heavier ones as we get to the calendar.

BISHOP ODEN: Don, hold just a moment. The floor is not open for business, only for matters of...if you have a point of order or point of inquiry or information. Yes. Microphone 14.

MARY ANN GALLOWAY (West Ohio): I'd just like to ask that when they present the petitions, they would present which book they're talking about, then the numbers, the page number, and then the petition number, in that order. That really helps. I can't compute backwards.

BISHOP ODEN: Thank you. We will ask the committee chairs to so respond. Blue book first, and then the Advance DCA, and then calendar item.

BETH CAPEN (New York): Hello, I was the chairperson of the sub- committee that dealt with the issues that will be before us this afternoon. Specifically, our sub-committee dealt with a variety of things, but about half of our petitions dealt with issues of abortion or related to abortion. We recognize, both in the sub-committee and in the larger committee, that we are at very different places in our opinions, in our beliefs, really went across the spectrum. We recognized that it was very important to hear each other and for us to express what it was that we believed.

To that end, we had a process whereby after reviewing the preface to the Social Principles, in the introductory paragraph to "The Nurturing Community," which is where these issues are addressed in the Social Principles. We then, at that point, went around and each one of us, in turn, explained our beliefs and our feelings regarding abortion, the issues related to abortion, and specifically, we also discussed the language as it currently appears in the Social Principles.

This was done with a lot of prayer, with a lot of consideration, and most importantly, with a very deep appreciation for where each one of us comes from and what we believe. It was within that context, and with those prayers, that we then made the decisions that's come before you, and that Don Pike will now be bringing our attention to.

ODEN: Thank you very much, Beth.

DON M. PIKE (Central Texas): All right, you'll have to be patient with me. I have mine organized in a different way, so let me try to convert this thing. If you'd first turn in your white DCA to page 1226 at the very top of the left hand column, you'll see Petition 22585, entitled, "Rights of the Unborn."

Now if you will turn in your blue DCA to page 386, Calendar Item 1679, left hand column, middle of the page leading with Petition 22585. The committee voted 61 to 18, 11 not voting, for nonconcurrence. And, I would urge you as a conference to support that action, because we have another petition on exactly the same subject that we'll be dealing with later that has both a majority and a minority report. So Bishop, we would hope the conference would sustain us as we can deal with it later.

BISHOP ODEN: OK, thank you. So Calendar Item 1679 is before us, and is there discussion? Way in the back. Microphone 13.

MORRIS MATTHIS (Texas): Would it be possible for us to look at the majority/minority report and deal with that first, and then return to the one that is before us now?

PIKE: If you want to take that procedure, I need to pull back on it, because there is no time for us to really debate this given the time remaining. I was just trying to clean off a calendar item that's going to be given more opportunity for debate later. You'll find the majority/minority report calendar 1982, on page 477 and 478. If you want to look, you'll see it's exactly the same thing, "Rights of the Unborn," and there is a majority and a minority report.

BISHOP ODEN: So we have before us 1679, which the committee is recommending nonconcurrence in order to clear this calendar item and move on to the other two petitions that will be before us later. Is there further discussion? I see none. So, if you favor the committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence, vote "yes," if not vote "no." Vote when the light appears. [809 approved] You agree with the committee.

PIKE: In your white DCA, if you will turn to page 1236, Petition 22587. That is on page 478, Calendar Item 1983. The committee recommends by a vote of 62 to 20 for nonconcurrence, for basically the same reason, we have it all in the other paragraph.

BISHOP ODEN: I think everyone has it, but it is a bit complicated. Don, once more, repeat those pages and calendar items.

PIKE: All right. In the white DCA, page 1236, Petition 22587. You see it's submitted by the administrative board, Saint Paul UMC, Gulf Breeze, Fla. Calendar Item 1983, Petition 22587 on page 478, by a vote of 62 to 23, the committee votes nonconcurrence.

BISHOP ODEN: All right, this is before us, is there discussion? Vote when the light appears. [800 approved] You have supported the committee by 87 percent. Don.

PIKE: All right, in your red DCA on page 123, Petition 20923, right hand column, very top of the page. In your blue book, page 478 Calendar Item 1984, left hand column, very bottom of the page. Titled, "The Social Community." By a vote of 49 to 30, with 6 not voting, the committee recommends nonconcurrence.

BISHOP ODEN: Calendar Item 1984 is before you with the committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence. In the back. Microphone 6.

BARBARA W. RIDDLE (Florida): It's not that I don't support the committee. It's not that I don't trust the committee's work. I continue to be uncomfortable with dealing with business and items before we've dealt with the substance of the entire concern that's before us. And I know time is of the essence, but I would have to vote nonconcurrence. I would not support the committee's vote of nonconcurrence, because we really haven't had the opportunity to fully hear what the committee's going to be presenting to us today on this very important matter. And so because of integrity here, I would not support the committee's nonconcurrence.

BISHOP ODEN: That's a vote against the committee's recommendation. Is there a speech for the committee's recommendation? I see none. I'm assuming we're ready to vote. So vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 697; no, 222] You do support the committee.

DON PIKE (Central Texas): Thank you, Bishop Oden. I guess the prudent thing would be to begin the discussion, and let me direct our attention to the petition that is entitled, "Rights of the Unborn." Look in your white DCA.

BISHOP ODEN: I would like to make a suggestion, that we find the petitions and pages and then hold the debate until the beginning of the evening session. And we do have some announcements, but let's take time and get the pages and calendar items in mind that will be before us tonight. So, go ahead, Don, with the pages and calendar items.

PIKE: Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood you. You simply want what we're going to be dealing with first. All right. Tonight, we'll start off with, in your white DCA, page 1226, petition entitled, "Rights of the Unborn." It's Petition 22584. You'll find that petition in the left hand column, middle of the page. You see the text there. All right.

Then turn in your blue DCA, if you'll look on page 477, Calendar Item 1982, at the very bottom of the right hand column,"Rights of the Unborn." You'll notice that the committee voted 50 to 35 against concurrence. There is a minority report on page 478. That, in turn, will be the subject of our discussion. Now, bishop, am I understanding that this is where you want me to stop?

BISHOP ODEN: That is correct. Thank you very much. We'll pick up there at the evening session's beginning. We do have just a few minutes for announcements and there are...let's just see where we go here, if we can move up to the time of adjournment. I see a card in the back. Go to microphone 6. I'm sorry, the person in the blue jacket. It looks blue from here, without a lot of hair.

CHARLES "DENNY" WHITE (Western North Carolina): It appears, sir, that in this matter, we are back where we have been before with a minority report in response to a committee proposal of nonconcurrence. In view of that, I have a procedural motion.

BISHOP ODEN: I'm sorry. I'm going to ask you to bring that up at the beginning of the evening session.

WHITE: It doesn't relate to this specifically. It's actually your request to the Rules Committee for the 2000 Conference to do something to help us out.

BISHOP ODEN: All right. Let's try it.

WHITE: Bishop, I move that in its preparation for the 2000 General Conference, the Committee on Plan of Organization and Rules be directed to propose such revisions and amplifications of our rules as may be necessary to clarify, in print, the circumstances in which a minority report may be filed; and in particular, whether the filing and printing of a minority report to a legislative committee recommendation of nonconcurrence is to be permitted.

BISHOP ODEN: All right, that's a motion to refer to the Rules Committee for the General Conference of 2000. If you would support that motion of referral, raise your hand. If not. It is supported. All right. The person standing. In the tan jacket. Full head of hair. [laughter]

CHARLES W. COURTOY (Florida): I thank you. I also have a matter related to the General Conference for the year 2000. I move that all general agencies be prohibited from spending apportionment funds on favors such as buttons, calendars, clocks, and the promotional materials for distribution to the delegates to the General Conference for the year 2000. They shall be limited to distribution of interpretative materials, which address issues and subjects assigned to their areas of responsibility. If I get a second, I'd like to speak to it.

I have been amazed at the escalation of the amount of promotional materials that has come at this General Conference. It seems to me that there are more materials than we've ever had in the way of buttons and promotional materials. The crowning promotional packet came this afternoon entitled, "The National Hispanic Ministries Challenge Fund," in which there was a clock and other materials. I, for one, object to using our ministry and World Service funds in order to try to influence this kind of vote for a particular plan. So I urge us to instruct, tonight, the General Conference of the year 2000 to prohibit this kind of materials.

BISHOP ODEN: Sir, that is a matter of reference to the Commission on the General Conference. Is that what we're about?

COURTOY: That would be OK.

BISHOP ODEN: All right. The motion of reference is before you. If you would favor it, raise your hand. If you oppose, raise your hand. It is referred. Now we're at the point of having time for announcements. And we call on our secretary.

CAROLYN MARSHALL: The first announcement has to do with airport shuttles for those of you planning to utilize those in order to get to the airport. Another announcement saying that people who need to, will need to sign up for those. Sign up is at the information booth. If you want a shuttle from your hotel, this will enable the committee to have enough shuttles available.

Also, all chairs of legislative committees are asked to meet with Sarah Miller in the front of the platform immediately upon adjournment.

And then a clarification of the meeting this evening of the Inter-Jurisdictional Committee on Episcopacy. It will meet after adjournment of the evening session in room A209. The question also has come as to who is on that committee. Those are the persons whom we elected this morning. They are, for the most part, those who are listed on pages 80 and 81 in the red book, the Advance DCA, and on page 31 in the blue book, as well a correction on page 289 in the blue book.

BISHOP ODEN: All right. As we close out, I need to confess I am in deep trouble. I've been requested for a personal privilege from the lay chair of the Louisiana delegation. We simply do not have time for it. She is requesting that the bishops consider changing the phrase, "children in poverty" to "children in need." And Anita Crump, I will see that this gets to the bishops. I now would like to call on a very favorite "Louisiana-type bishop" to give our benediction, Bishop W.T. Handy. Let us stand.

General Conference Webmaster: Susan Brumbaugh
PETS Creator: John Brawn