Plenary Session Proceedings
Friday, April 26: Evening Session

1996 United Methodist General Conference

Friday Evening
April 26, 1996

BISHOP J. WOODROW HEARN: The delegates will please find their seats. The hour has come for us to begin this evening's session. If you will please be in order and find your places.

STEVE KIMBOUGH: If you were in a church or Methodist Church in the Caribbean tonight, you might be singing, "Halle, Halle, Halleluia." If you will join Cynthia and me on this, when we sing the "Halleluia."

BISHOP HEARN: If you will be in order, please. I am going to call on Carolyn Marshall to make an announcement that needs to be made at this time before the house. If you'll give attention, please to Carolyn.

CAROLYN MARSHALL: David Severe, who is the chair of General and Judicial Administration Legislative Committee needs to meet with that legislative committee to the right of the platform immediately.

BISHOP HEARN: All right, if you will respond to that announcement. If everyone, now, will get in your seats, please. We need order in the house so that people can pay attention to the business. If all delegates will immediately make yourselves available to your seat, it will help everyone. As quickly as you can, now, if you will get in your seats, please. Now, if we can have silence in the hall, please so we can begin the business. Thank you.

This is the evening we've all been looking forward to for two weeks. So with your cooperation, and help, we'll make this a fine and joyful evening for our United Methodist Church. I want first of all to recognize Bernard "Skip" Keels for a matter concerning Liberia. Please, Skip. Where is Skip? Microphone 6.

BERNARD "SKIP" KEELS (Baltimore-Washington): Bishop Hearn and members of the 1996 General Conference, in the spirit of holy conferencing I bless the Lord with all my soul, my heart, my mind and my strength. We commend the General Conference for adopting Petition 21066 and the April 20th, 1996 edition of the Daily Christian Advocate, Calendar Number 248, page 153, subject Liberia. Based on the historical relationship between Liberia and the United States, and realizing the Liberian civil war has reached a point where resolution of the crisis within seems extremely difficult, I move, one: that the 1996 General Conference of The United Methodist Church call on the President of the United States and his national community to urge international arms embargo on the sale and delivery of arms to Liberia.

Two: ask the United Nations to expand the capabilities of the economic community of West Africa's State Monitoring Group: with a) the necessary resources to carry out the tasks entrusted to it by the August 1995 Abuja Peace Accord, especially the disarmament and demobilization of the warring factions; b) additional peace-keeping forces from other countries outside of the continent of Africa.

And three: that this statement be carried by the General Conference delegation headed by Bishop Woodie White, president of the Council of Bishops, who will meet at the White House next week. I move the adoption of this.

BISHOP HEARN: Is there a second to this resolution? It's been moved and seconded. The resolution is before you. If you will adopt the resolution, you will vote when the light appears. [529 approved] The resolution passes.

There is one other matter before we get to the calendar items. I would like to recognize Mr. John Thomas, on behalf on the Commission on the Conference. Microphone 8.

JOHN THOMAS (South Indiana): Bishop and members of the conference, this afternoon, Carolyn Marshall introduced her staff, and we gave them proper recognition. Also, Roger Kruse introduced his staff, and we gave them proper recognition. I think that we need to give proper recognition here, now, to our pleasure with first of all, Carolyn Marshall as our secretary. (applause) ...and to Roger Kruse. I'm not sure whether he's here on the floor or down in his office, but anyhow, he has worked hard and diligently to be our director. And I say this on behalf of the Commission on General Conference.

BISHOP HEARN: Thank you very much for that announcement. Now I want to recognize the fact that we are under a motion that was passed a few days ago, that we will proceed with the calendar items that are put before us by the Agenda Committee. And any special privileges or other motions that you want to make will be cared for after these items have been taken care of. So we will proceed with hearing from the chairs of the various legislative committees and all of those items. Then if there is time left for any special privileges or other items, we will take care of those at that time. I now want to recognize Cashar Evans who is with Financial Administration. Cashar.

CASHAR W. EVANS JR. (North Carolina): I call your attention to page 387 of the blue DCA, Calendar Item 1687. And in the white book on page 1322, the right column, a third of the way down, is Petition 22640. It has to do with monetary assistance to the promotion or acceptance of homosexuality. The committee's recommendation is nonconcurrence. That was by a vote of 54 for, 27 against, and zero abstentions. I ruled, and I certainly could have been in error, I ruled a substitute out of order. And hence, I have a minority report. So, Bishop, do you want to take the minority report first?

BISHOP HEARN: Yes. We'll need to have it presented.

DALE JONES (Kentucky): These lights are bright, aren't they? This is a rather unusual minority report in that our Financial Administration Legislative Committee passed by a 59 to 25 vote majority an amendment to this petition saying to add to paragraph 707 a new subsection 7: "No conference council, commission, board, agency, or committee shall give monetary or other assistance to the promotion or endorsement of homosexual practice."

Having passed that, we then discovered that paragraph 707 was not within the prerogative of the Financial Administration Committee to amend. And our chair very correctly, I think, ruled the amendment or the substitute, out of order. At this point, it was late at night, and we had mountains of important matters yet to consider. So rather than consuming additional committee time with reconsiderations and further amendments and that type of thing, we decided to address the committee's wishes as expressed in that initial substitute through this minority report. I suppose, had we known that it would be coming here at 7 p.m. on the last day, maybe we would have taken a little bit more time in the committee that night after all, to have saved a few minutes here in the plenary. But that's how the minority report came to be.

There is an editorial correction that should be made there in the first line under the word, "minority report." Insert new paragraph that should read, "710.16 and renumber." The paragraph 710.16 deals with the responsibilities of the Conference Council on Finance and Administration, and just insert this as the next to the last item in that section and would be essentially parallel with the language that is already in paragraph 906 regarding the General Council on Finance and Administration. Thank you.

BISHOP HEARN: Thank you. The majority report in this case is a nonconcurrence on this item. So the matter is now before the house. Yes, over here. Microphone 7.

J. PHILIP WOGAMAN (Baltimore-Washington): Fellow delegates, we've had quite enough on this subject, have we not? I can think of no useful purpose for this, whatsoever, unless maybe to stifle honest debate within the life of our church and the expression of alternative points of view under the sponsorship of programs of the church. Nobody is using church funds to promote homosexuality. I think this is just one step too far.

BISHOP HEARN: A substitute is before you, which is the minority report. If you want to adopt the substitute, you will vote for it first, and then we will go to the main motion. If you are ready to vote on the minority report, a "yes" vote would sustain the minority report; a "no" vote would be against the minority report. Cast your vote when the light appears. The minority report is not adopted. [Results: yes, 307; no, 443]

The majority report is before us, which was for nonconcurrence from the committee. If you will act on the nonconcurrence item, you will vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 548; no, 201] You've agreed with the committee's recommendation. Mr. Evans?

EVANS: Now we come to Discipleship. Mr. Ervin.

PAUL ERVIN, JR. (North Georgia): We have another matter in Discipleship. Calendar Item 1987 on page 478.

BISHOP HEARN: If you'll give the page number first, it will help the delegates.

ERVIN: Page 478, Calendar Item 1987. [unintelligible] Minnesota Conference. There is a minority report but, Bishop, we're suggesting it be handled as an amendment.

BISHOP HEARN: All right.

AILEEN L. WILLIAMS (Minnesota): Bishop, this, as Paul has said, is on page 478 in your blue book; Calendar Item 1987, Petition 20496.

You'll find that in your red DCA on page 243 in the right hand column. In our committee, the structure subcommittee received over 20 petitions dealing with bringing flexibility into the annual conference, and this was dealt with prior to our passing the connectional issue study by the General Council of Ministries. We were looking for flexible language, and this language in this petition dealt with how to have the functions of the Youth Council possibly put into another structure--that there be an equivalent structure. So the committee accepted this language around flexibility prior to the work we've done in plenary about giving flexibility. After the concurrence, the minority report was filed which we would like to have presented to you as an amendment to the report, and Debra Wilcox will present the minority report.

BISHOP HEARN: And we are treating the minority report as simply an amendment to the material that's found in the Advance DCA.

DEBORAH WILCOCK (Eastern Pennsylvania): There is a misprint in the Advance DCA, which may lead to some confusion as to how the amendment would read. Let me attempt to clarify that. The phrase that we're inserting is the phrase that says "which follows the same membership requirements." That would make the petition read as follows: "In each annual conference there shall be a Conference Council on Youth Ministries, or the responsibilities outlined below may be assigned to such other organization which follows the same membership requirements as the annual conference provides pursuant to" and continuing. If I have a second then I'll explain the rational.

BISHOP HEARN: Is there a second to this amendment? It's before us.

WILCOCK: We believe that this would ensure that the vibrant joint ministry between youth and adults would remain intact. Basically there was some confusion in the committee as to whether or not some other structure that would be assigned the responsibility of the Conference Council on Youth Ministries would follow the same balance of youth and adults within the structure. This does still allow for flexibility in the name of the organization and the accountability of the organization. It ensures that youth ministry will continue to be a joint venture of youth and adults.

BISHOP HEARN: Would you point out the specific words, which you are adding.

WILCOCK: After the word "organization" in the petition as it reads in the Advance DCA, we're inserting a comma, and then the words "which follows the same membership requirements," a second comma, and then it continues.

BISHOP HEARN: This is the amendment to the original petition which the committee is recommending concurrence for. If you will adopt this amendment, or if you will vote on this amendment, you will do so when the light appears.

The amendment has been added and now the whole matter is before us, which is recommended concurrence, and then it has been amended. If you will vote on this matter, you will do so when the light appears. And it has been adopted.

WILCOCK: Thank you.

BISHOP HEARN: We'll go now to the ministry.

SANDRA W. LUTZ (Chair, Ordained, Diaconal Ministry): We have several items we need to reconsider, because the committee recommendation recorded in the blue DCA is incorrect, and does not record the actual vote of our legislative committee. I believe we need to work through these one at a time. I would first move reconsideration of Calendar Item 1580, blue DCA, page 377.

BISHOP HEARN: I would like to ask again that the chairpersons please give the page number first so the delegates can be looking up the number.

LUTZ: Page 377.

BISHOP HEARN: Thank you.

SANDRA W. LUTZ (East Ohio): Its Calendar Item 1580. The true vote, I believe we have to vote reconsideration first, Bishop. Is that correct?

BISHOP HEARN: Is this an item that has already been acted upon by the house?

LUTZ: It was accepted on a Consent Calendar, and it was incorrectly accepted as nonconcurrence and it really should have been concurrence.

BISHOP HEARN: All right, we do need to reconsider it then. If you will reconsider this item, you will indicate voting when the light appears. [776 approved] You have agreed to reconsider. Please present it to us.

LUTZ: All right. I would move that we accept the committee's recommendation of concurrence, which was 72, 0, 0.

BISHOP HEARN: If you will agree with the committee for concurrence on this item, or if you will vote on what you want to do with this item, you will do so when the light appears. [773 approved] Your action has now been changed to concurrence.

LUTZ: Thank you. Second, I would move reconsideration in the blue DCA, page 555, Calendar Item 2125. The true vote of the committee--I'm sorry, I need to move reconsideration first, Bishop.

BISHOP HEARN: How many of these items do you have?

LUTZ: This is the second and I have a third.

BISHOP HEARN: If you will authorize the reconsideration of both of these items, she'll get the other one in a moment. Let's do it all at one time. Will you vote as to whether or not you will reconsider both of these items she is going to present in one vote? Please vote when the light appears. [813 approved] You've authorized both of them to be presented to the house.

LUTZ: Thank you. All right. This one, the true vote of the committee was nonconcurrence--85, zero, zero. That's Calendar Item 2125.

BISHOP HEARN: So this would be changing from concurrence to nonconcurrence?

LUTZ: That's correct.

BISHOP HEARN: Off of the Consent Calendar. If you will make your decision concerning this item, please vote when the light appears. [815 approved] You have now taken nonconcurrence action.

LUTZ: All right. The final item in this group deals--in the blue DCA, page 375. Calendar Item 1555. This references paragraph 38 and is therefore a constitutional amendment. The true vote of the committee was for concurrence by a vote of 94, zero, zero.

BISHOP HEARN: The matter is now before the house again.

LUTZ: Does the house want some discussion of that or not?

BISHOP HEARN: Would you like any more explanation than you have? I do not hear any call for it. The recommendation of the committee is for concurrence. If you will concur with them or not concur with them, you will indicate by voting when the light appears. This will take a two- thirds vote. [764 approved] It has received more than the two-thirds required for concurrence.

LUTZ: That's all I have at this time, Bishop.

BISHOP HEARN: Thank you. We go now to Conferences. Mr. Hunter.

GEORGE G. HUNTER III (Florida): We have a couple of priority items before we take some of our other items later in the evening.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. If you will present them to us.

HUNTER: Yes. The first of these has to do with a mistake in the 1992 Discipline which, if left uncorrected, would give the Western Jurisdiction only one bishop, or something to that effect. Flo Sapp Martin will explain it.

BISHOP HEARN: Well, well, well. [laughter]

FLO SAPP MARTIN (South Georgia): I don't think that's entirely true, Western Jurisdiction, so do not panic. But if you will turn with me in your blue DCA to page 445, you'll see Calendar Item 1702, Petition 21720. And you will find this item in the red Advance DCA on page 178 in the top of the left-hand column. We lifted this item from the Consent Calendar to report an error in the line numbers that was made in the printing. And I understand that there are lots of people beside me and behind me on this platform that want to make sure that this gets corrected.

So, if you will look in your blue DCA on page 445 where it says line 3, it should read line 5; where it says line 6, it should read line 8. And where it says line 6 the second time, it should read line 12. And that's referring to the line numbers in the red DCA on page 178. We voted concurrence. This just allows the number of bishops in each jurisdiction to remain the same. It corrects the error in the 1992 Discipline and makes sure that all the folks up here have a place to go when July and August come.

BISHOP HEARN: OK. This matter of a correction of the '92 Discipline is before you. You will vote when the light appears. [810 approved] You have corrected the Discipline.

GEORGE G. HUNTER III (Florida): Bishop, another thing came up as we were going to supper, and I have not had time to get all of the pages related to this. But I simply want to correct a mistake that our committee made in good faith. Calendar Item 409.

BISHOP HEARN: Page number please.

HUNTER: I was given that, but it turned out to be incorrect. I only know that it is Calendar Item 409. This is the gist of it.

BISHOP HEARN: I'm going to ask you to step back for a minute and have the opportunity to find that page number 168. OK.

HUNTER: And the gist of the problem is this. We responded concurrence to a petition that came in, in essence, asking that the Advance DCA all be done in one volume and be done much earlier. Acting on the data that we had, Bishop, we concurred with that without a great deal of discussion. The staff simply tells us that they experience that petition as something like cruel and unusual punishment. And we love our staff. All we're asking them is to do what is humanly possible, to get the Advance DCA out to all of the people as early as possible. I would like to, therefore, propose reconsideration, and invite the house to vote nonconcurrence.

BISHOP HEARN: If you will reconsider this item, or you will take your action on reconsideration of this item when the light appears. [739 approved]

You have agreed to the reconsideration. Your motion then is that this be for nonconcurrence on this petition.

HUNTER: For nonconcurrence to that petition.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. Yes. Microphone 8.

WILLIAM B. THIELKING (Southern New Jersey): I don't care if the volumes come out in two volumes or three volumes or ten volumes. What I am concerned about is that we get all petitions at the same time. We were given weeks to look at the recommendations that came from the boards and agencies and hours to read the recommendations that have come from local churches. And would voting nonconcurrence mean that we'd go back to the way it was done this year?

BISHOP HEARN: We'll ask the chair to respond.

HUNTER: We haven't had time to discuss that or any other contingencies. But I think that desire could be accurately communicated to the staff.

THIELKING: Well, I'm for--never mind. (laughter)

HUNTER: I know the feeling.

BISHOP HEARN: The delegate who is standing by microphone 8 is out of order because you left your seat and went to the microphone. I'm sorry. Down here.

Microphone 3.

CAROL A. SMITH (Missouri East): I'm a secretary, and I know that you can't publish something until you have it. So, perhaps we're looking at deadlines that are impossible unless there's a way you can extend deadlines or make them earlier. But I appreciate the staff and what they have to do, because my faculty members sometimes ask me to do the impossible also.

HUNTER: Yes. Bishop, if I could, one of our delegates, Jack Stone, is in a position to interpret this for us. Could we call on him?

BISHOP HEARN: Be very happy to. Please. Now he's got to walk back to microphone 8. As the sleepiness of the evening continues, he'll be glad for this exercise. (laughter) Give us some information that will be helpful.

JACK VAN STONE (South Indiana): I would move that, after we've reconsidered it now, that we amend the petition to have the time limit of 150 instead of 120 days, and that's for consultation with the secretary and the staff, and that will give ample opportunity to get all the petitions at one time.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. There is a motion that it be...Well, actually, we have a concurrence before us, and this would be amending it to 150 days where it's 120 days.

VAN STONE: That's correct. Yes.

HUNTER: We would accept that, Bishop.

BISHOP HEARN: Very good. Then this matter is before us with the changing of those numbers. All right, I see you back in the back here. Yes, microphone 13.

ANTHONY ALEXANDER (Central Pennsylvania): While we're talking about the Advance DCA, I have a concern.

BISHOP HEARN: OK. I need to tell you that we have an amendment before us that we change the original petition to 150 days from 120 days. That's the matter that's before the house.

ALEXANDER: Yes sir. But I'm concerned about our central conference delegates and the languages. I'm wondering while we're working on that if we could also ask the Bishops to confer with the central conferences so that they can get a language that they can understand, so that they could also have it in advance. Is that appropriate, sir?

BISHOP HEARN: If you wish to make an amendment to this amendment, it would be appropriate.

ALEXANDER: I so move that the Commission on the General Conference be required to consider the following steps for the central conferences for the year 2000: consult with the bishops from the central conferences to determine language needs of delegates to the General Conference; the central conference bishops should be asked to provide a list of recommended languages for translation; and to explore ways in which non-English speaking delegates can be provided written translations of the Advance Daily Christian Advocate, as well as daily summary of the Daily Christian Advocates.

BISHOP HEARN: Is there a second to this? This is an amendment to the amendment. It seems to me to be a rather simple straightforward thing. Would you like to vote on this now? If you will get ready to cast your vote on this recommendation here that will be passed on to the Commission of the General Conference concerning language needs of our persons from outside the United States. If you will get ready to vote on that when the light appears. Yes? Your point of order? Microphone 7.

CHUCK HEFLEY (North Indiana): Could we please check and make sure we're on the right petition? I don't think we are.

BISHOP HEARN: All right, we'll ask the chair of the presenting committee. He referred us to page 168.

GEORGE HUNTER III: Sir, I do not have my red DCA with me, let me fetch it.

BISHOP HEARN: Yes.

HUNTER: Has someone else found it? I think our colleagues have over to the left, sir.

BISHOP HEARN: I'm going to ask that this whole matter be put on hold, and then I ask the chair of this committee to take the time necessary to get the proper information to put this before the house. Don't you think this is the way we need to handle it so that we can have that information before us? So we'll ask Mr. Hunter if he please will do that, and I'll go now to presentation by David Severe to give you time, Dr. Hunter, to do that.

HUNTER: Thank you.

DAVID L. SEVERE (Oklahoma): Thank you. Our committee was reconvened for a moment because of a matter that we would like to bring back to you with our concerns. If you would please turn to your DCA, page 204, the right-hand column.

BISHOP HEARN: Blue book, 204?

SEVERE: Yes, sir.

BISHOP HEARN: OK.

SEVERE: The Calendar Item 480. Now if you want to see this where it came originally, the Petition 20548, and it is on, in the red book, page 701, the right-hand column in the middle of the page, Petition 20548. This was one of the early petitions that was passed out of our committee. It calls for a reversal of our position on the way general secretaries are elected. This appears in a number of places, but this is a specific area that we were concerned about. The way we have done that is that the general secretaries are nominated by their various agencies, and the General Council on Ministries elects. It is a process which provides a certain amount of creative tension; it also is a safety-valve for our general secretaries to have some back-up, from time to time.

Unfortunately, it slipped through without a great deal of discussion in the full committee; and so we met a moment ago, and we have reversed our position on that in a unanimous vote of those who were present, which was not everybody, I would admit. But we would like to move non-concurrence with this, because we believe that for this next four years, at least, we ought to leave these matters pretty much the way they are and let that process move forward through the Connectional Process Team and see what that needs to look like in the future. So we would move nonconcurrence.

BISHOP HEARN: So the vote of the committee on 480, on page 204, is now non-concurrence.

SEVERE: Yes, sir.

BISHOP HEARN: OK. Yes? Microphone number 7.

RUTH A. DAUGHERTY (Eastern Pennsylvania): Bishop, was this taken off of the Consent Calendar?

SEVERE: Yes, it was.

DAUGHERTY: OK, thank you.

BISHOP HEARN: Thank you for that inquiry, Ruth. The recommendation of the committee is for nonconcurrence. Prepare to vote when the light appears. You have agreed with the committee. [768 approved]

SEVERE: We have one other item and that is--as we have operated with the process moving along, you will recall that we set a number for the number of people who would be on general agencies as directors and members. That had been done prior to our establishing the Methodist Men's Commission. That has necessitated us revisiting some of these matters so that we can correct the numbers. And so we would like to move reconsideration of that, and I've asked Jim Holsinger if he would please come and lead us through that.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. Good. Dr. Holsinger, if you will tell us where we are first of all, then we'll take the matter of the reconsideration before us.

JIM HOLSINGER (Kentucky): Yes, Bishop, members of the conference. We have a situation, as you well know, where by an 80 percent to 20 percent vote we concurred with the formation of a General Commission on United Methodist Men with 43 members. You also recall that we concurred in the number of 640 as the maximum number of individuals to serve on general boards, agencies of the church by a vote of 70 percent to 30 percent.

With those two overwhelming votes, our legislative committee went back to work to see what we would need to do to conform the legislation that we have, that we have passed. Two of the pieces of material have passed. One was the legislation to create the General Commission on United Methodist Men. Another one that we have already approved on the Consent Calendar that would be affected is the size of the General Board of Discipleship. And we have had lifted from the Consent Calendar some days ago paragraph 805, which is the implementing legislation that would include the 640 member board--640 members of the general agencies. What I'd like to do is to walk us through the process by moving to open the item on page 386 in the blue DCA, and we will do everything that we need to do tonight in the blue DCA. Page 386, Calendar Item 1681 is the...

BISHOP HEARN: Let me interrupt just a minute, Jim. What he is presenting relates to action that has already been taken to the house. The committee is asking to come back to correct that, the correction being made necessary for other items that the house has also passed. So if you will vote reconsideration upon this so that it may be presented to you, you will vote when the light appears. We are technically in order for the reconsideration, so please proceed.

HOLSINGER: Thank you, Bishop. Our legislative committee met to try and see how we could reconcile these two very different numbers, and we have been able to come up with the process of being able to create a General Commission on United Methodist Men with 23 members, and at the same time, because of some internal shifting that would go on between the Board of Discipleship and the United Methodist Men's general commission and some slack that we had in the system, we can do that with an increase of only ten members to 650 from 640. What we'll do is walk our way through that series of items it would take to do that, and you're on page 386, Calendar Item 1681, the bottom right-hand column.

In this particular item, we would have to amend this new paragraph for the General Commission on United Methodist Men, which will probably be numbered in the 2300 series and is the paragraph entitled, "Membership;" and you will see it in the lower portion of the left-hand corner of that particular page, at the very bottom of page 386...

At the very bottom of page 386 we would need to substitute the first sentence of this paragraph to read as follows: "The commission shall consist of 23 voting members as defined in paragraph 805.2 in the general provisions and paragraph 635 for the 1997 to 2000 quadrennium." If there's a second to the motion, then I would just...

BISHOP HEARN: Does this come from the committee?

HOLSINGER: This does come from the committee, so we can move ahead.

BISHOP HEARN: It comes from the committee, so its properly before us.

HOLSINGER: This would allow us to set that level at 23, and it would allow us to move on then beyond the year 2000 quadrennium after we have finished the connectional process teamwork and have gone though this interim quadrennium to develop the size of this agency at whatever would come to us in 2000 General Conference from the CPT, or Connectional Process Team. Also, as part of this would be a requirement to amend, at the top of the next page, where it says, "The Council of Bishops: six members," would read instead "two members."

BISHOP HEARN: This item now is before us, starting on page 386 and going over to 387. Back in the back, microphone 14.

GILBERT HANKE (Texas): United Methodist Men concur with this action.

BISHOP HEARN: Thank you very much, Gil. The matter is now before you for these two changes in the numbers. Prepare to express yourself when the light appears. [821 approved] All right, you have concurred with the recommendation which has come from the committee.

HOLSINGER: If you will turn to page 452, Calendar Item 1754, middle left-hand column. This particular legislation deals with the organization of the General Board of Discipleship. In order to conform this legislation to the size of the United Methodist Men's general commission, we would need to do the following things. We would need to amend paragraph 1204.1 to read as follows: "The Board shall consist of 58 members" instead of 63. And if you will go to the top of the next column, we would need to amend paragraph 1204.1a to read, and these are numbers: "North Central, 6," instead of 7, "Northeastern, 7," instead of 8, "South Central, 9" instead of 10, "Southeastern, 12 instead of 13, and "Western, 2" instead of 3. Follow the "3" of Western with a period and strike the remainder of the paragraph. What this effectively does is to move the five jurisdictional presidents of the United Methodist Men from the Board of Discipleship to the United Methodist Men's--General Commission on United Methodist Men, which is a part of their legislation to have them included in that general commission.

BISHOP HEARN: This amendment is before us. Yes, over here. Microphone 1.

HARRIET OLSON (Northern New Jersey): I'd like to try a substitute, if I may.

BISHOP HEARN: Please.

OLSON: Leaving the beginning of 1204.1 as it is so that it would remain 64 members, I would propose to make--that is leaving it the way it is in the DCA. I propose to make an amendment in 1204.1a, and the amendment would be after "Western, 3," to place a period and delete the rest of the paragraph.

BISHOP HEARN: The amendment is before us. Is there a second? There is a second.

OLSON: The purpose of the amendment is to retain the board size of 63 members. I recognize that this would mean that the total number of board members in paragraph 805 would have to be raised to 655, but I think that we would benefit from having the additional members, that we would lose if we consider, if we were of the view that the jurisdictional men's presidents had not been full participants in the board. That's not how the board has functioned in the past quadrennium. We have a lot of program work, as you know, and we've been referred some very important items like the ministry of the laity, and following up on the bishops' work in that area, and I think that the representation would be very helpful to us. So that's why I would make the substitution.

BISHOP HEARN: The amendment is before us. Jim, do you wish to speak to that?

HOLSINGER: Harriet's motion simply would result in the action in petition 1754, simply the deletion of the five United Methodist Men's jurisdictional presidents. The rest of the size of the General Board of Discipleship would remain the same, and we would simply, when we get to the next item which it 805, we would amend the 640 to 655 instead of the 650.

BISHOP HEARN: OK. The amendment calls for raising the number proposed by the committee from 58 members to 63 members on the Board of Discipleship. Express yourself when the light appears. [Results: yes, 380; no, 502] The number remains at the recommendation of the committee at this time. If you are now ready to vote on the recommendation of the committee for the changes in the numbers, you will express yourself when the light appears. [Results: yes, 823; no, 63] That recommendation of the committee is concurred.

HOLSINGER: Bishop, recommendation number is done in order to conform paragraph 805 to meet the needs of the creation of the General Commission on United Methodist Men. You will find it on page 310 of the blue DCA. It's Calendar Item 856 at the bottom of the right-hand column. You will find just the title at that point, and then it runs on into the next page.

This item has been lifted from the Consent Calendar. It is my understanding that the individuals that lifted it from the Consent Calendar may be satisfied with the reasons for which they wish to lift that paragraph, Bishop, so I don't know if there is anything else we need to do other than to confirm it at this time. And perhaps whoever lifted it would want to say whether they are satisfied or not.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. What change is being recommended by the committee?

HOLSINGER: Recommendations by the committee are as follows. If you will look at paragraph 805.1a. By addition--you are looking at the top of the middle column on page 311. You will find the list of the 13 general agencies of the church. Following the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women would be a comma and the General Commission on United Methodist Men. And you would authorize that the Committee on Correlation and Editorial Review to conform all lists of general agencies in the Book of Discipline to this paragraph.

If you will go over to the right-hand column on page 311, come down two-thirds of the way almost to the bottom of the page, you will see paragraph 805.2e, which reads "a total of 119 at-large members for inclusiveness in experience," and that number would change to 124. Paragraph 805.2f dealing with 51 episcopal leaders would go from 51 to 53. Paragraph 805.2g would be changed from 640 to 650. And if you would go to the following page, following item j in the middle of the left-hand column of page 312, we would need to add an additional paragraph 805.2k as follows: "A total of 16 persons, at least one of whom shall be a Central Conference member, will be elected in accordance with the legislation creating the General Commission on United Methodist Men." I think that that would be changed, once we know the exact paragraph number, to read in accordance with whatever the paragraph is. But it's the way in which the individuals have been listed to be elected by the United Methodist Men in their legislation.

BISHOP HEARN: This is the recommendation of the committee to bring this legislation in conformity with legislation, which you have already adopted. So the matter is now before us. Yes? Back here. Microphone 7.

BYRD L. BONNER (Southwest Texas): I have a point of clarification. It relates to the 16 members in subparagraph 2k that you just added, Jim. Referring back to blue DCA, page 387, I want to make sure that it's clear we have changed the number 3 on the top line of the left-hand column to 2, correct?

HOLSINGER: Six to two.

BONNER: Sorry, six to two?

HOLSINGER: That's correct.

BONNER: So now it reads, "two members elected by each jurisdictional conference upon nomination by the Jurisdictional Committee on United Methodist Men, which will include at least one clergy, one woman, ethnic representation, and the jurisdictional president of the United Methodist Men"?

HOLSINGER: Correct. That is the 15 in that 16, and it includes the five presidents that we have moved from the General Board of Discipleship, plus the one individual, one elected president of National Organization of United Methodist Men of a Central Conference or conferences, which is on down in the paragraph. That is the 16. We reduced this from 43 to 23, and those are the four members out of that six times five jurisdictions at the top of the page.

BONNER: Well, I just want to make sure when we get to jurisdictional conference and do this process we know what we're doing. Because two members from each jurisdictional conference that includes at least one clergy, at least one woman, and the jurisdictional president of the United Methodist Men may present a problem.

HOLSINGER: Well, but you go on, and there are five representatives of National Association Conference Presidents, including the national president. That's the five plus ten is fifteen. Then you have five members-at-large, one central conference member, and two bishops....

BONNER: Well, I understand that, but can you explain to me how two people elected at each jurisdictional conference to include at least one woman, at least one clergy, and the jurisdictional president of United Methodist Men works.

HOLSINGER: Yes. I can. There are two times five and, makes ten, plus the five in the middle of the page where it says five representatives of the National Association of Conference Presidents, including the national president. Those individuals might be presumed to be males.

BONNER: Well, I can understand that, but the five representatives of the National Association of Conference Presidents of United Methodist Men would not necessarily be the jurisdictional president of the United Methodist Men.

HOLSINGER: It might not be, but I would anticipate that that's what the United Methodist Men have in mind.

BONNER: Am I reading this wrong or does this present a conflict, that we've got two representatives elected in July at each jurisdictional conference that are anticipated to be divided three ways?

HOLSINGER: Well, I'll try it again. There are 15 individuals plus one from the Central Conference. That's the 16 in paragraph 2k. That includes the five jurisdictional presidents of United Methodist Men, plus one clergy, and one woman. I don't know how else to lay it out any clearer than that. We're trying to amend their numbers from 43 to 23 in a way that leaves their electoral process approximately intact. We could go back in and really try to revise that whole piece, but we're going into a quadrennium where we are going to be looking at a transitional quadrennium, and that's why we built into their paragraph the quadrennium 1997- 2000 for this number, because we would anticipate that, as we go through the transitional quadrennium, the Connectional Process Team will be looking at all general agencies to determine exactly how they will be structured and how their membership will be assigned.

BISHOP HEARN: OK. In the back. Microphone 12.

JEFF QUICK (North Arkansas): Point of clarification. It's my understanding that General Commissions must have youth and young adult representatives. If that is the case, has that been cared for?

HOLSINGER: Yes. You will find in their paragraph that it includes two. Where they also will be--and since they are working under the same 10 percent rule that we'd announced when we talked about this earlier in the week, which is in this particular implementing legislation, 10 percent of 23 is roughly two. So that number seems to fall pretty well.

BISHOP HEARN: These matters have been presented to you by the committee. Are you ready to vote on this matter now? If you then will prepare your decision on Calendar Item 856 and vote when the light appears. You have approved that calendar item. [827 approved]

HOLSINGER: Thank you my friends. I can go home.

BISHOP HEARN: Dr. Jim, thank you.

DAVID SEVERE: I want to express appreciation, not only to Jim Holsinger but to Elaine Stanovsky and Anna Workman, and Byrd who has raised questions, but he's also worked late into the night. And Merl Griffith who has given us a lot of advice. We appreciate them very much.

BISHOP HEARN: Thank you David. Good. Thank you. (applause) I want to come back....

BISHOP HEARN: I want to come back after the conferences, Dr. Hunter.

GEORGE G. HUNTER (Florida): Yes, Bishop. Thanks for your patience. I think at last we are ready. If you will turn in your blue to page 130. You will find Item 98 had been placed on the Consent Calendar.

It is Petition 22168. In that version of the petition you will find it in your white book. The petition itself page 1263, and it's at the bottom left of that page. Petition 22168, this regards the schedule for the printing of petitions.

Our original for the publishing of the DCA...our original petition asks that it be published 120 days in advance. What we have worked out, that in fact confirms to the amendment that was offered, is for the office to receive petition from agencies and others 150 days before General Conference. It takes 60 days to do the editing, 30 days to do the printing, and that would permit them then to get it out 60 days ahead of General Conference for all of the delegates. And so we would support the amendment as a friendly amendment, bishop.

BISHOP HEARN: All right, if the house will allow then, we would just incorporate the 150 days, which was one of the amendments that we had before the house when we recessed this matter. Is there any objection in the body for the change of that to 150 days? I hear no objections. All right, if you will go on with your other matters.

All right what is your point of order? We also have another amendment that was resting on this matter concerning language that was there. Are you having the point of order back here? Microphone...to the gentleman coming across there toward microphone 6 is the one I am recognizing.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (through translation) We delegates from the Central Conferences. We are so grateful to this General Conference for the translation in Swahili. We thank you very much our brothers and sisters who accepted to do this translation so we may participate into this big event. And we look forward to the day that we will receive this material ahead of time into languages that we can understand. Thank you very much.

BISHOP HEARN: Thank you. I would like to clarify where we are. We need now to take time to be sure that Dr. Hunter has had the opportunity to put before us the matter that has come from the committee. And then we have another amendment, which will be on the matter after Dr. Hunter has explained it. So you just hold just a minute until we are sure what we have before the house. Dr. Hunter, any other remarks you need to make?

HUNTER: Yes, Bishop, in a nut shell, we are proposing an amendment with our colleague in the audience that the goal of having petitions and that the petition secretary 120 days prior to the opening session of General Conference be changed to 150 days. And the staff concurs that will be the main, and we commend it.

BISHOP HEARN: This is the main motion then that we change the 120 of the action that you took earlier to the 150. Now I want to remind you that we have another motion that is on the floor that goes with this, which is that the Commission on the General Conference be asked to pay attention to the possibility of providing the material in languages for the delegates. Now we have those...that is the amendment that is before us. OK, only the discussion of the amendment now until we have taken care of it. I recognize way back in the corner over here on this side, please. Microphone 10.

LINDA BALES (West Ohio): It's my understanding that if we change the time to 150 days that...

BISHOP HEARN: OK, that's not the matter that's before us now. It is the matter of the language that's before us now. Linda you come back and try again later.

Let's see I'll go here in the middle this time. Please, microphone 8.

THEODORE SMITH (Virginia): I want to ask Dr. Hunter if we just can't accept this as a friendly amendment?

BISHOP HEARN: The matter of the language? Dr. Hunter, what your response?

HUNTER: I cannot presume to speak for what is possible for the staff in that regard. I would suggest that the matter be proposed to the General Conference Commission. It's probably the right thing to do.

BISHOP HEARN: It's my understanding that the maker of the motion, that was his intention, that it be a matter that would be referred to the General Conference Commission. If that is his motion, are you willing to accept that?

HUNTER: Yes

BISHOP HEARN: Is there any objections to the house for that amendment to be accepted as a part of the motion that's before us? I hear no objections. So the matter that before us now is that the changing of the 150 days and also the matter concerning the language. OK, Linda. Microphone 10.

BALES: Bishop, it's my understanding that if we change that to 150 days that may be very problematic for at least two of the general agencies GCOM and GCFA in terms of their annual meetings getting their petitions in on time.

BISHOP HEARN: Someone wish to respond to this inquiry? Yes. Microphone 2

CARL SCHENCK (Missouri East): Bishop, in light of our complicated parliamentary position and in light of the fact we do not have sufficient information to understand all the implications, I move that we refer all that is before us to the Commission on the General Conference, which shall be instructed to bring a report and any recommended legislation on the subject to the General Conference in 2000.

BISHOP HEARN: Is this a motion for the referral for the matter that is before us. The only proper discussion now is whether or not to refer. Alright, back to your own dial.

REX BEVINS (Nebraska): I would like to speak against the motion to refer, that only delays it simply another four years. I believe it can be done now.

BISHOP HEARN: All right.

PHIL GRANGER (North Indiana): Bishop, I move to suspend the rules and vote on all that is before us.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. If you will suspend the rules and vote on the matter which is before us, which would be first of all the matter of referral, if you will suspend the rules, indicate whether you will or not as your light appears. Takes two-thirds vote, of course. [833 approved] You obviously are ready to vote.

If you will refer this matter to the Commission on General Conference, you will make your decision, either "yes" or "no." Vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 292; no, 605] The matter is not referred, so it is before us. We will now proceed to vote, and the major things that you're voting on has to do with the question concerning the language, and the 150 days. Prepare to make your decisions and vote when the light appears. [838 approved] And it has been approved.

GEORGE HUNTER (Florida): Bishop, the Rev. Paul Extrum-Fernandez from California-Nevada will present one other priority petition.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. We've changed identities, I believe, at the podium. Bishop Dew.

BISHOP DEW: Yes, let me explain. The General Council on Ministries is entitled to make presentations to the General Conference. There are two bodies that have that privilege. The other is the General Council on Finance and Administration. So I ask you to turn in the Advance DCA to page 196. You will notice on page 196, Petition 21618. It is dealing with paragraph 726 in the current Discipline.

BISHOP HEARN: All right, Bishop Dew.

BISHOP DEW: This matter was referred by the conference to the Legislative Committee on Conferences. The General Council on Ministries has presented to you a way they would like to see this chapter amended. The General Council on Ministries is very much in agreement with the goal of providing flexibility in the structuring in the local church in the annual conferences. However, sometimes in the interest of brevity and reduction of descriptive language, we may act too hastily.

We believe we're moving into a transition time in this quadrennium between 1996 and the year 2000. We are concerned that if certain matters become reduced for brevity's sake that they may not serve us well. The Committee on Conferences will share with you in a minute what they have recommended to you, and we want you to know what we as the General Council on Ministries are recommending in this matter on page 196. It lays out very carefully ways to care for flexibility. In other words, each annual conference will decide whether it wants to continue with a Council on Ministries or other structures to provide for the functions of the council and provide the connectional relationships. I will stop at this point and then after the committee presents to you their recommendation, I will have a further word.

PAUL EXTRUM-FERNANDEZ (California-Nevada): Thank you Bishop Dew. Some of you may not know this, but my dad serves as one of the district superintendents in the Oregon-Idaho Conference where Bishop Dew serves as the episcopal leader. So dad, if you're out there--he's one of the reserve delegates--I want you to know that after this minority report you can still come home to California. OK?

I want to direct your attention to page 543 in the blue DCA. Calendar Item 2001--kind of appropriate for the next century. That effectively there, the calendar item, is, I guess you could say the minority report. It is what the Legislative Committee is presenting to the body here. We voted for it 63, 7 against. I want to describe a little about the committee process that we utilized in the subcommittee. There was a open exchange of dialogue about the future of ministry for the annual conference. Members on the subcommittee included three Council on Ministry directors, other conference staff, at least two CCOM chairs, and representatives from each of the jurisdictions. It's interesting, members of the subcommittee didn't start debate on this item in the same place, but we reached consensus on the proposal before you today.

Janice Huie helped us this afternoon when she talked about mission, flexibility, and connection. Well, those were major themes that we discussed and that emerged in our discussion. Again mission, flexibility, and connection. The legislative committee proposal before you today is an offering to the church of an opportunity to organize missional structures that are appropriate for their regions. At the same time we wanted to ensure consistency in the relational and functional aspects of those missional structures. Our legislation identifies specific functions that need to be implemented at every annual conference. That is, administration and evaluation; advocacy; maintaining connectional relationships; organizing, developing, and strengthening ethnic ministries and ethnic local church concerns; and finally, coordination and support of ministries of nurture, outreach, and witness.

It is our position that the strength of connectualism is found in our common understanding of mission. The fundamental difference between the GCOM's proposal and the legislative committee's proposal is that the GCOM's proposal, although allowing for some equivalent structures, still maintains language related to a Council of Ministries that clearly defines the organization structure that body shall maintain. OK?

This is not the kind of flexibility that has been explored and expressed in previous actions of this general conference. The legislative committee proposal offers flexibility to an annual conference to develop organizational units to meet their unique needs. At the same time, we are keeping functional consistency throughout the denomination. Also, if an annual conference wants to maintain a Conference Council on Ministries, it can continue that form of structure. It is clear that one of the tasks of the General Council on Ministries, as a result of this legislation, would be to work directly with annual conferences in designing specific regional structures. We feel this would not only strengthen our conferences but would strengthen the connection between annual conferences and the General Council on Ministries.

BISHOP HEARN: All right, what we have here is the matter of the material on page 196 in the Advance DCA, being presented by the Council on Ministries, which is properly before us according to the rules. And then the matter in the blue DCA on page 543, being submitted by the legislative committee as an amendment to the report which has been presented by the Council on Ministries.

So this is the way we will proceed to deal with this matter, which is to consider the material on page 196 as the main motion that is before us and then the legislative committee has proposed that this material be amended with the material that they're presenting on page 543. Is this agreed? All right. We have then before us the amendment, which is the material on page 543, which is the recommendation of the committee. Right over here. Microphone number 4.

CHARLIE DUNDAS (Minnesota): As a member of the subcommittee and the legislative committee I want to say that Paul has done an excellent job in describing the process and the lengthy discussion that we had relative to this action brought by the committee. And I want to speak against the amendment. It was said that, or given the impression, that the primary motivation for this action is brevity. I want to assure you, friends, that that is not the primary motivation. The motivation for this is for the sake of flexibility and creativity. And it rests on trust and the commitment and the talent of the annual conference leadership in every annual conference. It in no way precludes what is in place now in any annual conference.

BISHOP HEARN: You have less than a minute left.

DUNDAS: And I just want to say that when I look out at this General Conference, and I reflect on our own conference, I'm confident that there is the talent in this church to make this kind of flexibility and creativity workable. And I trust we will vote for the committee's recommendation.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. That is one speech for the amendment that's before us. I'll come over here to this side. My backups tell me I've been ignoring this corner. So I'm going to try to make that up.

DAVID WILSON (Little Rock): I move we suspend the rules and vote on all that's before the house.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. If you will suspend the rules, you need to get ready to make your decision. All right. Let's have the point of verification and then I'll take the vote. You're going to have to go to a microphone. I can hear you but there are other people in the house that cannot. It's about the page numbers.

LARRY HODGES (Oklahoma): You told us it was on page 196 in the red. They showed and told us 193. Which page is it?

PAUL EXTRUM-FERNANDEZ (California-Nevada): The committee report and recommendation is Calendar Item 2001 on page 543 of the blue DCA, 543 of the blue DCA, is the committee report which is effectively the amendment to GCOM's petition which is on page 196 of the red DCA.

BISHOP HEARN: The 193 is wrong as it's printed in the blue book.

EXTRUM-FERNANDEZ: If you want to know the Calendar Item that GCOM is, it's Calendar Item...well let me say the page number first. Page 343, and it's Calendar Item 1151.

BISHOP HEARN: We have a motion that we suspend the rules and proceed to vote. You'll make your decision on that, please, when the light appears. [786 approved] You have indicated that you're ready to vote. The matter which is before us now is in the blue book on page 543, Calendar Item number 2001, which is a substitute for the matter which is on page 196 in the red book. All right, what is your question? Microphone 8.

WILLIAM THIELKING (Southern New Jersey): May we have a synopsis of exactly what we're going to be voting on, cause it's very confusing at the present moment?

BISHOP HEARN: All right. Let me see if I can help. If you will turn in your blue DCA to page 543 and look in the bottom of the left hand corner of that page. What you are going to be voting on now is printed in the bold-faced type. This is the recommendation that is coming from the committee, which is an amendment to the larger block of material on page 196 in the red book that has been presented by the General Council on Ministries. All right, we are now in the process of voting.

THIELKING: Do I get a final comment?

BISHOP HEARN: You can have one. If you do not have a point of order or inquiry, you'll be out of order when you get to the microphone. The house has all ready indicated by a big block of vote that it is ready to vote. So, All right, your point of order please. In the back, back there.

ROBERT T. CASEY (Virginia): Bishop, the petition on which we are voting is not on the page that was called. It's on page 193 rather than 196, according to the item here.

BISHOP HEARN: We'll ask the two chairpersons to clear this up for us.

EXTRUM-FERNANDEZ: Bob, what you're referring to is the original petition, but that was subsequently amended and the amended petition effectively appears on page 543 of the blue DCA. OK? That's what you're voting on, not that petition.

BISHOP HEARN: The matter which the committee has put before us is in the bottom of the column on page 543. Prepare yourselves to vote when the light appears. Oh, I'm sorry. Hold on just a minute. The chair has the opportunity to make a final word before you vote. Bishop Dew.

Bishop Dew.

BISHOP DEW: I think both what I have to say and what Paul has to say are very similar. Flexibility is provided. What we are concerned about is that in the next year or two each annual conference having conference council directors and staff need some time to move into new structures, and the flexibility is provided under this petition on page 196. If you vote the other report, you really eliminate paragraphs about the committee on Hispanic Ministry Plan and other matters that we think need to be looked at before we move to that very brief statement that minimizes a lot of concerns that the conference councils deal with. So we urge you to take a very careful look at this action that you are now about to decide.

BISHOP HEARN: Thank you. We will hear now from the chair of the committee, and then we will proceed immediately to vote.

PAUL EXTRUM-FERNANDEZ: I'll be brief. When the light appears, vote "yes." (laughter)

BISHOP HEARN: Cast your ballot when you see the light. The amendment which was proposed by the committee has been adopted [Results: yes, 623; no, 293] We now need to vote upon this amendment as the main motion, because it was actually replacing all of the material that was in the other report, as I understand it. So if you will now make this amendment the main motion, you will indicate by--no you won't. You just vote when the light appears. [750 approved] It has passed.

GEORGE HUNTER: (Florida) And Bishop, to complete our priority items, Beth Cook brings a matter that would require a constitutional amendment. And Don Avery brings a matter that would reconcile our proposal on an item with earlier legislation.

BISHOP HEARN: Good, Dr. Hunter.

BETH COOK (North Georgia): If you would turn in your blue DCA to page 477, Calendar Item 1979.

BISHOP HEARN: Would you give the page number again please?

COOK: Page 477.

BISHOP HEARN: Thank you.

COOK: You saw this earlier in the week as Calendar Item 416. But after some discussion here, it was referred back to our legislative committee, and now it returns to you with our recommendation to concur as amended. You'll find the supporting information on page 1259 in the white DCA. And the action that this petition would bring would simply bring the constitution into alignment with the disciplinary provision in paragraph 1418 that allows a deaconess to be a member of the annual conference. And our committee's vote was 66 for and none opposing.

BISHOP HEARN: It is bringing a nonconcurrence on this item. It is now before us.

CAROLYN MARSHALL: Concurrence.

BISHOP HEARN: Concurrence. I was just testing to see if you were awake. Microphone 6.

DENNY WHITE: This is the second time I've spoken on this matter, and I apologize for that. But I would like to propose an amendment, or an additional amendment, to the one offered by the committee, that following the words "under episcopal appointment" there be inserted the words " within the bounds of the annual conference." And, if I can have a second, I'll explain why I want to try to do that.

BISHOP HEARN: Is there a second? It's seconded.

WHITE: Bishop and members, deaconesses do not relate to annual conferences exactly in the same way that diaconal ministers or other persons do. They don't, in fact, except by this provision, hold membership in the annual conference. I feel we need some specificity to indicate precisely to which annual conference each active deaconess belongs.

BETH L. COOK (North Georgia): Bishop, we would accept that amendment.

BISHOP HEARN: The committee is indicating that they would accept this. Is there any objection from the house that that be done? If there is no objection, then that is accepted by the committee and the matter is before us. You'll vote when the light appears. This will, of course, require two-thirds vote because it is a constitutional amendment. [805 approved] And it has passed by the sufficient number of votes. Dr. Hunter, is there another matter? Don Avery.

DONALD R. AVERY (Louisiana): To clear up two matters on similar Disciplinary paragraphs that ended up being reported out of two committees. The first is found on page 303 in the blue DCA, reported as Calendar Item 800. The full text of the petition is there. However, on Discipline paragraph 702, there was also a petition reported by the Committee on Ordained Ministry, and that petition was acted upon on the Consent Calendar earlier, and it deals with all of part one.

So if you would turn the page to 304, what we would like to do at this time is to delete all of the information from the bottom of the previous page down to, you see, add a new number two. The language there should be to renumber as follows and then to present before the General Conference that information which would deal with the lay membership of the annual conference and would be consistent with prior action that had already been taken by this General Conference. The prior calendar item taken up by the Ordained Ministry was Calendar Item 948, which is found on page 322 in the blue DCA, with the full text being in the red book on page 1021.

This deals with the matter of composition and character of annual conference. And we feel that we're in agreement with what has already been passed by this conference as proposed by the Ordained Ministry Committee. So in fact what we would be doing, is we would be voting for all of the information on page 304, beginning with the lay membership of the annual conference down to the middle and the top far right of that page. We place it before you requesting concurrence.

BISHOP HEARN: Don, when you start where it says, "lay membership of the annual conference" at the bottom of the first column on page 304, and then how far down on the middle column do you proceed with the material that you're putting before the conference?

AVERY: You go through the complete...all the way up to the top "representatives from other denominations" the only changes there are in the bold from the present Discipline and also those areas where it was struck. But this was also in conjunction with the recommendations from the Ordained Ministry Committee, that lay persons on the Board of Ordained Ministry would be able to vote on matters of ordination and character.

BISHOP HEARN: The matter is before you with concurrence with the committee. Please prepare yourselves to vote for this matter that has been put before you by the committee. Excuse me, there's a question down here.

DAVID RICHARDSON (California-Pacific): I have a question. Sorry, in my denseness at this time of night. With this change now from what we're doing is it that lay members on the Board of Ordained Ministry cannot vote?

AVERY: No, they will be able to vote.

BISHOP HEARN: All right, I see way in the back, back there. Please hurry to microphone 15 or 14.

SHARON HAUSMAN (West Ohio): I'm probably making a major mistake here. Because ...well...anyhow, I would like to amend...actually I think I'd like to sit down. (laughter)

BISHOP HEARN: You've got an inquiry up here somewhere. Yes? Thank you for your honesty back there at microphone 14.

DAVID WILSON (Little Rock): Have we already voted to recommend that the Constitution be amended to allow lay members to vote on character of pastors?

BISHOP HEARN: Will the committee respond to that?

AVERY: If my memory is correct that was handled by the Ministry Committee report. And in long conversations with representatives from that committee, we talked about this at length; and the information that was passed on to us was that this was in compliance with the material that they had acted upon.

WILSON: OK, sir.

BISHOP HEARN: All right it's my understanding now that this is material which we need to pass in order to have...so that it'll be in line with material, which you've already passed. Are you prepared to vote on this matter? Back here in the back. Over here.

CHARLES "DENNY" WHITE (Western North Carolina): Again at this hour I may just be expressing my own stupidity, but in the middle column on page 304 in the first full paragraph, which begins "each charge served by more than one clergy under appointment." I simply have a question for the committee representative. In the current discipline the wording is "each charge served by more than one clergy member under appointment shall be entitled to as many lay members as there are clergy members under appointment." And I wonder if the omission of the word "member" in two instances is intentional?

AVERY: No, and we'll be more than happy to add that for clarity. The intent was to reprint the Discipline as it presently is.

WHITE: So you do agree to the insertion of those...the word "members" in those two places.

AVERY: I'll agree.

BISHOP HEARN: If no objection to the house, the word "members" will be included in that section. Are you ready to vote now? If you will prepare yourselves for voting, and I believe that there's some material in here that probably relates to the Constitution, although it's not printed that way; and so we will look to see if it gets two-thirds majority. If you will prepare to vote and vote when the light appears. Let it be noted that it passed by 95 percent of the votes. [844 approved]

AVERY: The other item that we have that we would like to withdraw, is found on page 477 in the blue DCA, Calendar Item 1978. It deals with Constitution, paragraph 38 and by prior action...in fact, this evening on page 375 when we dealt with Calendar Item 1555. And so we're just wanting to make it clear that this matter is withdrawn in order to be in compliance and to be clear with the action that was previously taken this earlier evening.

BISHOP HEARN: If you will make your decision. If you will agree with the committee on the withdrawal of this item, prepare to vote when the light appears. [850 approved] You have agreed with the committee.

AVERY: Thank you, bishop. I've just been told by one of my fellow committee members that we have one more constitutional amendment.

BISHOP HEARN: All right.

JUDITH SIABA (Northern Illinois): I'll go at the beginning instead of the middle. If you would turn to your blue book page 384. Please look at Calendar Item 1671. This calls for a change in the Constitution. We voted, lay members voting on the Board of Ordained Ministry, we voted 66 for, zero against. And we...I move concurrence as amended, and you see the amendment right there before you.

BISHOP HEARN: The matter is before us from the committee with a recommendation of concurrence. Be prepared to make your decision when the light appears. You have supported the committee's recommendation.

SIABA: Thank you, Bishop.

BISHOP HEARN: Janice Huie, if you will come also to the platform to be prepared to present a matter. Go ahead. All right in the back. Microphone 9.

GREGORY STOVER (West Ohio): I have a question of parliamentary inquiry which refers to the blue DCA, the second page 38, rule number 21, "Tabling of Related Motions." According to this rule, no motion, which adheres to another motion or has another motion adhering to it, can be laid on the table itself. Such motions, if laid on the table, carry with them the motions to which they adhere or which adhere to them. Last night when we were discussing...

BISHOP HEARN: I'm going to ask you to hold this matter. The items that are on the ... coming from the legislative committees at this point have priority and we'll get back to you for later discussion of that.

STOVER: You'll call on me?

BISHOP HEARN: If I recognize you, I will.

PAUL EXTRUM-FERNANDEZ (California-Nevada): Thank you, Bishop. I have two items, two constitutional items to bring before you tonight. One we have already acted on and will need reconsideration. The other was deferred until this evening. Both of them deal, in some part, to General Conference delegate composition. In order...today you acted on several items in the Consent Calendar related to paragraph 602 in the Discipline; 602 describes the formula that is used to compute delegates for annual conferences to General Conference.

We, as a body, referred all of those petitions to the General Council on Ministries Connectional Issues Study. I imagine that becomes the CPT team now. In subsequent conversation in the legislative committee and among the legislative committee executive officers, and also with about 25 different delegations on the floor tonight, we are prepared to offer a possible solution for dealing with some of the inequity that is currently present because of the way the formula is applied. To do that I would need to move reconsideration of Calendar Item 34, which is found on page 96 of the blue DCA. It is on the bottom left-hand corner. You will notice that it says, as it's titled, "Effective Bishops as Members of General Conference." That will not be the intent of the amendment that I will suggest.

BISHOP HEARN: What is the number item?

PAUL EXTRUM-FERNANDEZ (California-Nevada): OK, the Calendar Item 34, and that was found again in your blue DCA on page 96. We have already acted on this Consent Calendar, I believe it was last Saturday.

BISHOP HEARN: If you will reconsider this, you will need to make your decision whether or not you will reconsider it and vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 602; no, 267] It is reconsidered.

EXTRUM-FERNANDEZ: OK, if you will turn to page 175 in your red DCA. You will notice Petition 20556, it's the top left-hand corner, it's related to paragraph 12, says "effective Bishops as members of General Conference." I'm going to attempt something here now. The amendment that we are suggesting would read: "The General Conference shall be composed of" and then delete the words "the effective bishops of The United Methodist Church" and delete those bolded words. Continuing, "not less that 600 nor more than 1,125 additional delegates." I'm sorry, "delegates, one-half of whom shall be clergy and one-half lay members," and then so on. So again, the amendment would read, "The General Conference shall be composed of not less than 600 nor more than 1,125 delegates, one half of whom shall be clergy and one-half lay members." If I get a second I'll speak to it.

BISHOP HEARN: Please speak.

EXTRUM-FERNANDEZ: OK. One of the issues that was raised in discussion of this item, specifically in paragraph 602, was the inequity that was created when we had a 1,000-member delegate limit. What happens is, roughly 48 annual conferences, because of the 1,000-member delegate limit, are essentially reduced in their delegate count. The formula that is currently in 602, which relates to paragraph 12 and paragraph 14, is not able to be utilized to its fullest extent in those 48 annual conferences. This motion would rectify that to some extent. We understand that we need to look carefully at the complexity of issues related to equity. This is only attempting to address one issue of equity. There are several issues of equity that are important.

Let me, I'm sure there are some questions about what are the financial implications of this. I spoke with Gary Bowen of General Council on Finance and Administration. The approximate cost per delegate is approximately 1,750 bucks. You multiply that, and by the formula that Bob Casey from Virginia and a couple of other members of the legislative committee worked out, it looked like this provision, and if we were to actually allow the fullest extent of the legislation to take place, would add about 100 folks to General Conference. Well, if you multiply 100 folks times 1,750 bucks--thank you--would be $175,000. That would need to be found in the current General Conference operation. Now there are a number of ways of addressing that. One would be, obviously, looking at the per diem. There are other economies that might be implemented by the Commission on the General Conference. But anyway, that's before you.

BISHOP HEARN: OK, the matter of changing these numbers, and this is a constitutional matter that would take two-thirds vote. All right, down close to the aisle here. Microphone 8.

WILLIAM QUICK (Detroit): I'd like to ask Paul, that will be 562 clergy, 562 laity. How are you going to divide up that 25th person?

EXTRUM-HERNANDEZ: Good point. How about at 1,120 then. I'll make an amendment on my motion.

BISHOP HEARN: OK, over here, close to microphone 7.

T. TERRELL SESSUMS (Florida): Bishop, members of the conference, I would speak in support of the action proposed by the committee after consultation with many delegations. The number is a limit. We don't fully reach our present limit. When the calculations are actually made, we may very easily, and probably will, accommodate the problem so there will be no need to divide any delegate. Earlier today, by the action of this General Conference, you gave the Florida Conference the privilege of paying the largest apportionment of any conference in The United Methodist Church. And we are pleased to have an opportunity to play a major role in our connectional church. We hope that you would permit this action to go forward so that we might be full partners along with some 47 other conferences in the deliberations. You will provide for a much more inclusive General Conference. You will bring equity and legitimacy to our decisions. And I would suggest to you that that increased feeling of partnership will energize many conferences so that you will more than make up any cost by the increased giving and payment of our apportionments. So we would encourage you to make all of our conferences equal partners in this endeavor and to vote yes for the committee proposal.

BISHOP HEARN: This is a speech for the committee's proposal...

BISHOP HEARN: This is a speech for the committee's proposal. Would you be willing to have one speech against and then proceed to vote on this matter? OK. Are you speaking against it, way back here in this corner? Only a speech against it is in order. Microphone 10.

GLENN B. KOHLHEPP (Western Pennsylvania): Bishop, I'd like to ask when the committee met and considered this and what the vote of the committee was?

BISHOP HEARN: Could we have the committee respond to that?

PAUL EXTRUM-FERNANDEZ (California-Nevada): It was really a discussion among the executive committee officers. It was not a legislative committee item.

BISHOP HEARN: Is there someone who wishes to speak against the proposal? I think that the chair made it clear, at the time that the matter was presented to the house, the origin of it. And that's the reason why he asked if there was a second on the house, did not consider it as a report from the committee. All right, over here on this corner. Microphone 4.

DON MENDENHALL (Iowa): I would really like to see this on paper, have a lot more discussion on it. I think this is too major of a decision to come this quickly. So I really would vote against this.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. We've had one speech for, one speak against. Are you ready to vote now? If you will prepare your decision and vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 483; no, 407] It does not pass. It would require a two-thirds majority.

EXTRUM-FERNANDEZ: OK, if you'll turn to page 167 in the blue DCA, to Calendar Item 408.

BISHOP HEARN: Paul, I need to ask, is this from the committee?

EXTRUM-FERNANDEZ: Yes, it is. Actually, I may be wrong on this one here.

BISHOP HEARN: All right, would you step away from the podium then until you find it?

EXTRUM-FERNDANDEZ: No, it's right here. It's page 167, the bottom of 408, Calendar Item 408 there, "Ratio of Representatives in Central, General, Jurisdictional conferences," etc., and it continues on to the next page. The committee recommended concurrence as amended. The petition there, now, because of the referrals that we made on paragraph 602, we are not--we made the referrals after we took action on this particular item and realized that when we made those referrals that we no longer had a formula that would be in compliance with this particular paragraph. So the committee, in this case, did act to refer this item as it did paragraph 602. And it did so at the same count. If you look at pages 340 in the blue DCA, you'll see a number of petitions beginning with 1111, and continuing on through 1120. All of those items were recommended for referral to GCOMs Connectional Issues Study.

BISHOP HEARN: OK, so what are you putting before us now?

EXTRUM-FERNANDEZ: Well, we're recommending referral rather than concurrence at this point.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. You're recommending referral, then, of Item Number 408 to whom? Paul?

EXTRUM-FERNANDEZ: Yes, that's right, to GCOM, CPT team.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. The matter is before us then, not concurrence as printed in the DCA, but a referral item. If you will refer this item, you'll make your decision on referral when the light appears. [771 approved] It is referred. Dr. Huie has another item from the legislative committee that she represents.

JANICE HUIE (Southwest Texas): Several of us have researched this important question, which Porter Womeldorff raised at the close of the Local Church report regarding the role of the pastor in membership in The United Methodist Church. I believe we need to move reconsideration, and Bishop, I move that. If there's a second, I'll speak to it, and give the Calendar Item.

BISHOP HEARN: OK. OK. Are you willing to, if you are, want to make your decision on the referral, on the reconsideration, you will vote when the light appears, if you will reconsider this item.

HUIE: It's Calendar Item 194 on page 140 in the blue book.

BISHOP HEARN: It's reconsidered. [Results: yes, 576]

HUIE: Thank you. Bishop, I move to amend paragraph 245. It will be the third column. Paragraph 245 in the petition is located in the third column. If you'll read down, we need to add a new number three, a new number three. And the new number three will read as follows, and the section I'm going to read you is the current concluding paragraph in paragraph 255 in the Discipline. This is the closing paragraph of 255 in the Discipline. It will now be in number three, and it reads as follows: "Members of the church council or other similar body, shall be persons of genuine Christian character who love the church, are morally disciplined, are committed to the mandate of inclusiveness in the life of the church, are loyal to the ethical standards of The United Methodist Church set forth in the Social Principles, and are competent to administer its affairs. It shall include youth members chosen according to the same standards as adults. All shall be members of the local church, except where Central Conference legislation provides otherwise. The pastor shall be the administrative officer and, as such, shall be an ex officio member of all conferences, boards, councils, commissions, committees, and task forces, unless otherwise restricted by the Discipline." I move this amendment.

BISHOP HEARN: It's been moved and seconded. It is before you.

HUIE: It's an important item that was inadvertently omitted, and it's before you for your vote.

BISHOP HEARN: If you will consider your vote, and vote when the light appears. [833 approved] It passes. David Severe.

DAVID L. SEVERE (Oklahoma): Bishop, we have discovered two items. One is an error that needs to be corrected. The other is an item that we really feel we need to bring up tonight. It has to do with the judiciary.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. If you will present those to the house.

SEVERE: Patricia Farris will present the first item.

PATRICIA FARRIS (California-Pacific): I appreciate the opportunity to bring before you a minor clerical correction. If you'll turn to page 473 of the blue DCA.

BISHOP HEARN: Would you give the page number again, please?

FARRIS: Page 473, bottom left hand column, Calendar Item 1929. It's reported as the committee recommending nonconcurrence. In point of fact, the committee recommended concurrence with the same vote count.

BISHOP HEARN: This item is before you from the committee. If you will get your decision ready and vote when the light appears. [821 approved] Recommendation of the committee is approved. All right, we'll have the other item.

DONALD AVERY (Louisiana): Bishop Hearn and members of the General Conference, I call your attention to Calendar Item 854 in the blue DCA, page 310, Petition 21732, submitted by the Council of Bishops entitled, "Chargeable Offenses." The text can be found in the red DCA, page 1093. Dealing with paragraph 2623.1.

Bishop Hearn, this passed our legislative section 69 for, zero against, and zero abstention, and actually has been passed by the Consent Calendar. However, on page 483 of the April 24th record, it was removed from the Consent Calendar, and I've been in consultation with the person who would like to make an addition. Our legislative committee met in session, and we have agreed to the addition, and so to save the body a little time, I can either add that now, bishop, or move for reconsideration for an addition.

BISHOP HEARN: Are you willing for this to be reconsidered for this addition? If so, lift your hands. Thank you. Those opposed? It is done. Present it to us, please.

AVERY: Thank you. This is a friendly amendment, and it will add to 2623 the word "sexual misconduct," where it currently is listed as "sexual harassment or abuse." The new language, then, would read "sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, or sexual abuse." And, again, it's simply adding the word sexual misconduct to the Book of Discipline. We encourage you to support this action.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. If you will prepare your decision and when the light appears, if you will vote please. You have approved this recommendation. I want to call now for the Consent Calendar. Come forward to present the items which they need to present to us.

FITZGERALD REIST: Special Consent Calendar A08, B08, and C08 are all on the handout that was distributed this afternoon. There have been no deletions. If you adopt these calendars, we will have approximately 100 items left.

BISHOP HEARN: Consent Calendars are before you. If you will approve these Consent Calendars, or if you will make your decision, you will vote when the light appears on these Consent Items. [804 approved] You have approved that Consent Calendar.

SARA MILLER (Wyoming): Bishop, the committee chairs have agreed to present first, the Calendar Items that had more than 20 dissenting votes in the legislative committees for the remainder of our business. I have two motions that I'd like to present to facilitate our work tonight.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. Let's try those motions.

MILLER: I move that at the close of this session of the General Conference, we support the recommendation of the legislative committees for all remaining items. Now that's those that we haven't completed by the time of adjournment.

BISHOP HEARN: Yes? What is your point of order?

EUGENE WOOLRIDGE (Virginia): Last night we tabled Item 1668, and I move that we take from the table Item 1668 for consideration.

BISHOP HEARN: All right, I'll have to come back to that item because we are under direction that we are following the agenda as set before us. And we'll come back to that item when we come to that part in the agenda.

WOOLRIDGE: Thank you for your promise. (laughter)

MILLER: I did move it? We didn't vote yet.

BISHOP HEARN: State it before the house again, so they'll know what's before them.

MILLER: Sure. I move that at the close of this session of the General Conference, we support the recommendation of the legislative committees for all remaining items.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. Do you understand this motion? Question over here?

PHILIP GRANGER (North Indiana): Can you give us a handle how many of these are amendments to the Discipline and how many of these are non-Discipline petitions?

MILLER: We've tried to make the disciplinary ones priority, and I believe most of those have already been covered, but I'm not positive that they all have.

BISHOP HEARN: We would instruct the committee chairs that if they are Disciplinary; you're talking about Discipline or constitution?

GRANGER: Both, bishop. Before we move onto the non-Discipline or non-constitution items.

BISHOP HEARN: OK, we will ask the chairs that if they are constitutional items that they remove those and present them to us individually. Can we do that with the chairs?

GRANGER: Then, bishop, would it be proper for an amendment to this motion?

BISHOP HEARN: Yes, it is.

GRANGER: My amendment...I move that the non-disciplinary and non- constitutional items be referred to the General Conference in 2000.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. Is there a second to the motion? Motion is before you. The amendment is before us.

GRANGER: Bishop, I'd like to speak to that. Bishop, the items that do not affect our Discipline and do not affect our constitution quite frequently are items of Book of Resolutions, social conscious, etc., that there are always strong feelings on the floor. I feel it would be inappropriate to pass these by blanket motion without due consideration. Since the body will not have time to do that, the next time we meet is year 2000.

BISHOP HEARN: You have the motion that is before you. We've had one speech for it. Is there someone who would like to speak against it? All right, in the center back here. Microphone number 8.

REX BEVINS (Nebraska): A point of parliamentary information: Is this motion in order?

BISHOP HEARN: It would be in order by two-thirds vote, but it would require two-thirds vote, I believe. Are you talking about the amendment or the motion itself, Dr. Bevins?

BEVINS: No, I'm talking about the amendment.

BISHOP HEARN: Yes.

JAMES LAWSON (California-Pacific): I would like to amend the amendment. That would delete reference to the General Conference of the year 2000, and instead, the words, "that they will be sent to the appropriate boards and agencies of the church."

BISHOP HEARN: All right. Is there a second to this? This is an amendment to the amendment. So this is the one that is before us at the present time. Would send these matters to the appropriate general agencies of the church. Will you get your decision ready and vote, when the light appears, on this amendment? [Results: yes, 620; no, 249] It passes, so the amendment now is before us. The motion is before us as amended. Yes, over here?

CHRISTIAN RICKS (Missouri East): Bishop, I rise to ask a question about what the implications are if we do not get to a disciplinary item tonight. Does that mean it becomes disciplinary because of the action?

BISHOP HEARN: We will have those items that...

RICKS: I guess my point being...my point, bishop, is that we're going to take the items above 20; but there are at least two items that I'm very concerned about and some local churches concerned about that only had one negative vote. They were pulled from the Consent Calendar by five people, and we're not going to vote on those, but they're disciplinary. And I think this seems extremely unfair to the people back home who spent time to send this in, that we would debate things that had more than 20 negative, and throw away things that had one negative.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. All of them, of course, have received consideration in the legislative committees, and the motion that is before us now has to do with those that had...are you saying 20, or up to 20?

SARAH MILLER (Wyoming): That had more than 20.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. More than 20. All right. The motion is now before us as it has been amended. If you will prepare to cast your ballot when the light appears. [Results: yes, 658; no, 201] And it is approved.

MILLER: I have one more.

BISHOP HEARN: All right, we're going to have one more item, and then we're going to take a 15 minute break. I'll let you vote on whether you want to take a break or not. OK, go ahead.

MILLER: OK, in keeping with practices, I move that any unfinished business of the 1996 General Conference be referred to the Council of Bishops, the General Council on Ministries, and the General Council on Finance and Administration. That would be other than Calendar Items.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. Is there a second to this? Prepare to make your decision when the light appears. And this motion passes.

I want to consult with the house now. We have approximately 100 legislative items that are left. Following the action upon those, we will need then, to have the worship service that is scheduled. We, of course, are aiming to get out of this building by 10 o'clock. We're probably going to be a little after 10:00, but we can't be too much after 10:00. Do you want to take a 15 minute break, or do you want to continue in session? All right, those who would like to take a 15 minute break, you will vote "yes" when the light appears; those that do not, vote "no" when the light appears. We got a...Yes? Over here?

While this gentleman is coming to the microphone, I would like to ask the chairs of the legislative committees that still have items to present to us, if they will come up onto the platform and be ready as we come to this place.

PORTER J. WOMELDORFF (Central Illinois): I apologize, bishop, but we had an amendment to the amendment, an amendment and a motion made from the podium. We voted twice and I think we never approved the amended motion to refer to the appropriate boards.

BISHOP HEARN: It was the chair's understanding that the amendment to refer to the boards was attached to the main motion. Is that the memory of the house? All right, thank you. Now if the... David Severe, do you have additional items that need to be presented?

DAVID SEVERE (Oklahoma): Yes sir, we do. We have one. DCA, page 255, middle column, toward the bottom of the page...

SEVERE: DCA page 255, middle column toward the bottom of the page. It is Calendar Item 765. You will turn to the white book, page 1328, right hand column, top of the page, Petition 22767. This defines types of boards at the general level. It is informational now, due to what we have already passed. And, therefore we voted to refer it to the GCOM by a vote of 57, 25, and 5. This is a process that needs to be passed along to the connectional process team for their consideration. We move concurrence for referral. Or rather, I'm sorry, we move for referral only.

BISHOP HEARN: The motion is for referral. Please vote when the light appears. It passes. [778 approved]

DAVID SEVERE: Bishop, this completes the work of the General and Judicial Legislative Committee. I again want to thank all of those who have helped us. This completes our work for this General Conference. Thank you very much. (applause)

BISHOP HEARN: Now I call on Judge Carl Stewart. Isn't it nice to see a judge have to run? (laughter)

CARL E. STEWART (Louisiana): Thank you, bishop. On page 257 of the blue DCA, it's Calendar Item 779, on page 1386 of the white DCA, is Petition 22020. The petition is entitled, "Small Membership Church Commission." It would amend paragraph 742 of the Discipline to require a small membership commission in every annual conference.

Now we took this same topic up before on Consent Calendar Item 15, page 94 of the blue DCA. In the Consent Item, we approved the mandate of the small membership commission in each annual conference. However, that mandate contained the flexible language allowing the annual conference to discharge those responsibilities through an alternate structure. Petition 22020, which is before you now, was originally nonconcurred by the legislative committee. But upon a vote of reconsideration, the committee voted 31 to 27 to concur on the mandate which does not allow the alternative structure.

So what is before you is Petition 22020 which the committee recommends concurrence. I would remind you that if you vote concurrence on this petition then that action would supersede the earlier action on the Consent Calendar. Bishop, I move that the adoption of the committee recommendation.

BISHOP HEARN: Recommendation is for concurrence. Microphone 8.

SUSAN RUACH (South Indiana): I have a question. We just passed a very flexible structure for the annual conference. And, would this then supersede that action?

STEWART: The matter simply before the body to vote up or down. The two items are, one has flexibility, the other does not. And it is simply a matter of the General Conference deciding what its preference is.

RUACH: So that if we vote in favor of this, we do in fact mandate a structure for the annual conference? Is that correct?

CARL STEWART: That's correct. It would obviate the alternate structure, which was already on the Consent Calendar. All right?

RUACH: Thank you.

BISHOP HEARN: If you will prepare your decision on this matter and vote when the light appears. Matter is not adopted.

STEWART: Thank you, bishop, as is my final item. I would just like to take the opportunity to thank Vice Chair Ressie Mae Bass of Florida, Secretary Betty Anderson, and all the legislative chairs who made my first General Conference a pleasurable experience. (applause)

BISHOP HEARN: We turn now to the Committee on the Ministry.

SANDRA LUTZ (East Ohio): Our first item is in the blue DCA, page 583, Calendar Item 2406, which refers to paragraph 533.5. It references material in the red DCA, page 1084, paragraph 533.5, Petition 21286. The committee recommended concurrence 63 for, 23 against, 2 abstained. And Ruth Daugherty will bring that to you.

BISHOP HEARN: All right.

RUTH A. DAUGHERTY (Eastern Pennsylvania): Bishop and delegates, if you would look in your DCA, the red one, for the material, page 1084, Petition 20118, the left hand column, first item on that page. You will need that in order to understand what the reference is to the item on page 583 in the blue DCA, number 2406. As was indicated, this was voted concurrence with 63 for, 23 against. Basically, this deals with the appointment process dealing with the consultative process, and spells out in detail what should be included.

BISHOP HEARN: The committee is recommending concurrence. Prepare to vote when the light appears. You have approved. [Results: yes, 668]

SANDRA W. LUTZ (East Ohio): Our next item is found in the blue DCA, page 482. It is Calendar Item 1999 referencing paragraph 1527.2. The original material appears in the white DCA, page 1484, paragraph 1527.2, petition 22098. And the committee recommended nonconcurrence, 70, 30, zero. And Bill Crouch will bring that to you.

WILLIAM CROUCH (North Texas): If you have the reference, then you will know that paragraph 1527 is related to the responsibilities of the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry. The other evening we had a similar petition which was directed toward the annual conference Board of Ordained Ministry, and it also requested us to include persons with disabilities. The rationale for our nonconcurrence in the legislative committee in this instance is the same as that, namely that we believe that this is a paragraph that should not be exhaustive of all the persons who should be included under the responsibility of the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry. And we recommend nonconcurrence.

BISHOP HEARN: The recommendation is before you. Prepare to vote when the light appears. [755 approved] You have supported the recommendation.

SANDRA LUTZ: All right. The next one is blue DCA, page 483. It's Calendar Item 2000, and it references paragraph 441. What did I do?

BISHOP HEARN: The page number is 480.

LUTZ: 482, I'm sorry. But it is paragraph 441? Thank you. The red DCA, page 1059, Petition 20298. The commmittee recommends concurrence, 44, 31, 2. And Earl Bledsoe will bring that to you.

BISHOP HEARN: All right.

W. EARL BLEDSOE (Texas): You will notice in this particular petition, and the committee did concur, that it had to do with equalization of salary compensation for pastors, and the committee felt that that decision should be left up to each annual conference. It is permissive legislation. And we'd ask that you would concur with the committee.

BISHOP HEARN: The committee is recommending concurrence. Yes, back here. Close to microphone 8.

JERRY SMITH (Southwest Texas): Bishop, it seems to me that I have a question that we turn down basic salary permissive legislation that came from, that was proposed first in the Financial Administration sub-committee, and then we voted nonconcurrence on it on the same issue. And I wanted to ask if that was not the case?

BISHOP HEARN: We'll ask the committee to respond.

BLEDSOE: Yes, that was the case.

BISHOP HEARN: Recommendation of the committee on this item is concurrence. Prepare to vote when the light appears. You have approved this idea.

LUTZ: Our final item, Bishop, is the item that was tabled last night, and I'm wondering if I can explain to the house where we are with that. Would that be all right?

BISHOP HEARN: OK. The first thing we have to do is ask the house if they wish to bring it off of the table. All right. So you'll make your decision as to whether or not you bring this item off of the table and make your choice known when the light appears. It's off the table. Proceed. [586 approved]

LUTZ: Thank you. Blue DCA, page 384, Calendar Item 1668, which deals with paragraph 402.2. It refers to DCA page 1048, paragraph 402.2, petition 21158. My question, I believe, is whether or not it's appropriate to bring it, because it really doesn't fit within that guideline that we established as a house. This item was voted nonconcurrence by the committee and was brought off the Consent Calendar, which I would presume was with less than 20 votes. We already have concurred in another paragraph for the language for that particular disciplinary paragraph. And that has been accepted on the Consent Calendar.

BISHOP HEARN: And your vote in the committee was what?

LUTZ: It was 95, zero, zero for nonconcurrence.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. The chair would have to rule that this item comes under the adoption of the material which you--the decision that you have already made.

LUTZ: Thank you.

BISHOP HEARN: Point of order. Yes, what is your point of order?

JOY J. MOORE (West Michigan): I was a part of the legislative committee, and I speak to this conference still dazed from last night. But in the midst of last night, I believe many of us were confused as we attempted to hear why this legislation was removed. We began to speak of it in relationship to three different paragraphs. What was intended was simply that Calendar Item 1668 would be lifted from Consent, and in order that the words may be included "or proven by clear and convincing evidence to be." This request was made as we made the footnote. We were then told that the footnote meant nothing without the line we are now asking to be included. We were thoroughly confused last night, but I do believe an amendment was made to include those words, but we were never allowed to vote on that amendment. We did vote to include the words, but we did not vote on the amendment.

BISHOP HEARN: Where we are, parliamentarally at the present time, is that the house has indicated that items with the number 20 votes would be on the Consent Calendar. The only way that this item can be brought back to the house now is to set aside those rules. And that's a decision which the house would need to make. Yes, over here. Microphone 9.

STEPHEN C. MOTT (New England): I believe, Bishop, that this matter was tabled last night and, therefore, is in a different category than what we're talking about, since it's already on the table of the conference.

BISHOP HEARN: The chair is going to stick by the ruling that if you want to consider this item you need to set aside the action which you previously took. That'll be required for it to be on the floor tonight. OK. Here.

ROBERT L. HUCKABY JR (North Carolina): I move that we suspend the rules to consider this item.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. If you will make your decision concerning the suspension of the rules to consider this item, be prepared to vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 496; no, 366] It takes a two- thirds vote to set aside the rules. So this item is not before us.

LUTZ: Then that completes our business, and I want to express deep appreciation to our committee and sub-chairs and to this house for their graciousness on all these issues. Thank you. (applause)

BISHOP HEARN: I recognize the Legislative Committee on Church and Society. Don.

DON PIKE (Central Texas): Thank you, Bishop. We only have one disciplinary item, and it's a little bit tricky. It's a kind of a double-barrel thing. Let me begin with you in your red DCA on page 117. I hope I'm getting this correct. I may have outfoxed myself; 117, Petition 20921. It's entitled, "Science and Technology," right-hand column. This first appeared as a matter of our business in the blue DCA on page 234.

It is Calendar Item 752. You will remember that what seems like an eon ago we were about to discuss this. Jeremy Vetter from Nebraska offered an amendment, or a substitute, and the text of his motion you will find on page 444 in your blue DCA. Now, Bishop, I may can help you if the point of order is about the vote, the next Calendar Item that really addresses this particular matter has a vote of 37, 23, 1, so it would fall within the purview of the previous action.

BISHOP HEARN: OK.

PIKE: Now if you'll turn to page 583 in your blue DCA, Calendar Item 2404. Now the unusual circumstance the committee found itself in was that we have two items before us. The first Calelndar Item, 752, we had already concurred with it. Jeremy's motion that exists on 444 was assigned a petition number, which meant that we had to deal with it. When we read his text, we kinda liked it, but we couldn't concur with his text because we had already concurred with another, so we very carefully crafted our vote to nonconcur so that it could not appear on the Consent Calendar. And we simply suggest to this body that you look at the text on page 444, and you look at the text that was originally printed, and we vote one up and one down.

BISHOP HEARN: We would like for you to put one before us so that we'll have a specific item.

PIKE: All right, I believe I can speak for the committee when they would suggest that we prefer the text in 2404, and we recommend concurrence as printed in the text on page 444, Jeremy's substitute. Calendar Item 2404. The committee recommends nonconcurrence, but we only did that because we couldn't concur with two petitions. So if you would support the committee in that regard, you would not support us on 2404 in nonconcurrence. I know that's complicated, but that's the only way we could figure to get at it.

BISHOP HEARN: All right, Calendar Item 2404 is before us. Do I understand the committee is recommending nonconcurrence and then hoping that you won't vote that way. Is that what you said?

PIKE: That's right. If you'll vote no, you'll be in good shape.

BISHOP HEARN: I wasn't sure I was hearing right. Prepare yourselves to vote when the light appears.

PIKE: It is peculiar.

BISHOP HEARN: That calendar item is defeated. [Results: yes, 96; no, 755;]

PIKE: Now, Bishop, can I assume since we've approved the text in 2404 that automatically negates Calendar Item 752?

BISHOP HEARN: How do they tie together?

PIKE: We voted concurrence on that, and so you'd want to vote no in order that we favor 2404, if you want to vote on 752.

BISHOP HEARN: All right, so which one are you putting before us now?

PIKE: Well the piece that's remaining is 752. We really could take it out of the loop, because it has less than 20 negative votes. We could just drop it out.

BISHOP HEARN: All right, it's out of the loop.

PIKE: Right. Very quickly, Bishop, if we might deal with two quick things of personal privilege, and I'd ask Bill Barney to go to microphone 13 while I share with you quickly an item which we have, a matter of a petition or rather a resolution. We were very fortunate to have representatives from Mexico in our conference. They have prepared a resolution they would like for you to consider. And they've asked me to present it to you so we don't go through translation.

"'When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you should not do him wrong. The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as a native among you, and you shall love him as yourself for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.' Our Book of Resolutions states that we are called to ensure protection of the basic human rights of immigrants, both documented and undocumented, present or transient, refugees or immigrants. Events covered by the media continue to remind us of the brutality that our Latino brothers and sisters constantly suffer at the hands of persons whose sworn purpose is to protect and defend the human rights of every human being. Most recently we have seen a group of undocumented Mexicans brutally beaten by members of the California police force. These undocumented Mexicans were completely defenseless during the beating, and worse yet, one was a woman. This incident clearly depicts the violence of racism in which those in our society still live. This event in California is only one of the many examples where abuse as perpetrated against undocumented persons, especially those of Latino origin, is seen. Be it resolved that a letter from the 1996 General Conference of The United Methodist Church gathered in Denver, Colorado, be sent to the President of the United States, the governor of California, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, and the Mexican Consulate in California, expressing our sadness and disbelief for the unwarranted brutality perpetrated by some members of the California police force. Be it further resolved that the General Conference urges the government of the United States and all its institutions to respect, defend, and protect the basic human rights of all people, regardless of their civil status." And I would move that we approve this.

BISHOP HEARN: The motion is before you is there a second for it? It's been moved and seconded. If you...yes. Over here. Microphone number 5.

CHRISTIAN ALSTED (Denmark): It is simply unfair for us from...with a different language to understand this was presented.

BISHOP HEARN: We appreciate that observation which we all identify with, with sensitivity. The resolution is before us. Prepare to cast your vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 625] The resolution is passed. Don.

DON PIKE: All right. Bill Barney on mike 13, if Bishop, he could give you a quick resolution on behalf of Cuba. Pastors for Peace.

BISHOP HEARN: All right, microphone 13.

BILL BARNEY (Troy): Here's a resolution that will actually save some lives. Whereas, over two months ago Pastors for Peace attempted to transport over 200 computers to Cuba. Programs were used by the churches of Cuba to establish a health information network throughout Cuba in order to assist in tracking and utilizing medicines and medical support. Whereas, on the United States-Mexican border, Pastors for Peace were halted and their cargo was confiscated forcibly by the United States Treasury agents; and whereas, five Pastors for Peace constructed a 12 by 12 tent they called "the Wayside Chapel" and commenced to fast; and whereas, today the Wayside Chapel is now set up on land of the United Methodist building in Washington, D.C. across from the United States capitol. Four Pastors for Peace are now in their sixty-sixth day of fasting.

Therefore, be it resolved, that the General Conference send a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury calling for the release of the shipment of the medical computers and supplies for delivery to Cuba by Pastors for Peace as a humanitarian gesture; and that we send a letter to the four Pastors for Peace now fasting in their sixty-sixth day, to extend our prayers, greetings, thanksgiving for their witness, courage, and faith. And finally, that we urge President Clinton to immediately commence open and formal diplomatic negotiations with Cuba in the spirit of the General Conference Consent Calendar Item 581, page 217, previously adopted.

BISHOP HEARN: This resolution is before you. Prepare to vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 610; no, 194] Thank you. The resolution passes. I understand that these are all the items from Church and Society.

DON PIKE: Yes, the only remaining things we have, Bishop, are non- disciplinary. All passed with less than 20 negative votes. I'd like to thank Joe Harris, for vice chair; Terri Chattin, our secretary; William Scott; Dale Weatherspoon, Claudia Bloem, and Beth Capen for sub-chairing. Bishop, I read recently where a man said that his grandmother, at the age of 60, started walking five miles a day. She's now 96 years old. They don't have any idea where she is. We know where we are. We're through. (laughter)

BISHOP HEARN: We're not too sure where we are, but we're sure on our way. Cashar Evans is the next person to be recognized. Committee on Financial Administration.

CASHAR EVANS (North Carolina): I'd like to ask Grady Knowles to present a pensions item.

GRADY KNOWLES (California-Nevada): This one more disciplinary item that needs to come before you for a vote because it has been lifted from a Consent Calendar. In your blue book, please turn to page 307. The right column at the bottom. It is item number 834. The text of the petition is in the red book. It is on page 374. On page 374, it's in the left column at the bottom. It is Petition 21482. This is one of several paragraphs of the Discipline governing the General Board of Pension and Health Benefits, which is being re-written in order to restate the language and update it. This petition comes to the General Conference from the General Board of Pension and Health Benefits. It streamlines their committee structure, it allows the possibility of a board member to serve a third term; and in keeping with the overall goal of reducing the size of boards and agencies, the general board brought the petition with a reduction in the number of board members elected from jurisdictional conferences.

In the Financial Administration committee, this petition was amended in two ways. Additional words were added to strengthen the language calling on the board to be inclusive in its membership. Those new words appear in the blue book on page 308 at the top left corner. And the second and more significant amendment, and I am guessing the reason this has been pulled from the Consent Calendar, is that the legislative subcommittee and committee also redistributed the way that the jurisdictionally elected members of the General Board of Pensions come from jurisdictions. In the current Discipline there are four board members elected by each jurisdiction. The General Board of Pensions brought this petition, reducing that to three.

In committee a paragraph was taken from a different petition from the Western North Carolina Conference, which distributes the jurisdictionally elected members according to the lay and clergy membership of the jurisdictions. A jurisdiction which has a higher membership has a higher number of members on the board. A jurisdiction which has a lower membership has lower membership on the board. The committee calculated, using the current memberships of the five jurisdictions, how these would change. And instead of having currently four from each jurisdiction, or the recommendation of the general board for three, this amended language, which appears in the blue book, would distribute 16 jurisdictionally elected delegates this way. The Southeast Jurisdiction, five; South Central, Northeast, and North Central, 3; West Jurisdiction, 2. Bishop it's before you.

BISHOP HEARN: The committee recommends concurrence. Yes?

JOEL E. HUFFMAN (Desert Southwest): I would move to amend, at the very bottom of the page, "fewer than two," I would change the word "two" to "three." By making this change we would make...If I get a second I'll speak to it.

BISHOP HEARN: Is there is a second? There is a second.

HUFFMAN: By making this change we would make more equitable the representation of the five jurisdictions. The equality of jurisdictional representation is deeply embedded in our history and set in our United Methodist standard of fairness, and when it comes to representation on our general boards and agencies. This will not increase the size of the General Board of Pension and Health Benefits but more equitably distribute that membership through the jurisdictions. Ethnic representation on the board has historically best been served from the West with its rich diversity of membership. This change increases the membership of the Southeast but not at the expense of the Western Jurisdiction. I request your support in this amendment.

BISHOP HEARN: The amendment is before you. Yes, in the back. Way in the back. Microphone 12.

DELOS CORDERMAN (South Carolina): I rise to speak against this amendment and in favor of the committee's action. The legislative committee's action reduces the size of the Board of Pension and Health Benefits. It includes two bishops elected by the Council of Bishops, as is now the case in paragraph 1602.1; six members limited to no more than two per jurisdiction, elected by the General Conference on the nomination of the College of Bishops, as is now the case; eight additional members with special knowledge or background nominated by the General Board of Pensions and Health Benefits; and only 16 members from the jurisdictions.

This is a modified proportional basis. It would give five persons from the jurisdictional pools to the Southeastern Jurisdiction, three to the North Central, three to the Northeast, three to the South Central, two to the Western Jurisdiction. However, if you look, if you combine the populations within the jurisdiction, the Western Jurisdiction would have six percent of the membership and two members; South Central would have 21 percent and three members; Northeastern, 19 percent and three members; North Central, 20 percent and three members; Southeastern, 34 percent and only five members. I hope you will support the recommendation of the legislative committee. It's fair.

BISHOP HEARN: We've had one speech for, one speech against. Are you ready to vote? All right. We're on the amendment now, which would change the two to three. Make your decision concerning that. Vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 373; no, 505] The matter as presented by concurrence from the committee is now before us. If you'll prepare your decision on that and vote when the light appears. You have concurred with the committee.

GRADY KNOWLES (California-Nevada): Thank you.

BISHOP HEARN: Next item, Cashar?

CASHAR EVANS (North Carolina): Page 387 in the blue DCA. It's Calendar Item 1686, and it refers to page 358 of the red book, Petition 20718. It's in the right column at the top. And the subject is "Separation of World Service and Conference Benevolence." The committee's recommendation is nonconcurrence. The vote was 59 for, 35 against with 3 abstentions. It is before you.

BISHOP HEARN: All right, the recommendation is for nonconcurrence. Please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 679; no, 200] You have agreed with the committee.

EVANS: There are three other items that are very similar to this in that you have concurred with the committee here. You can vote nonconcurrence on these three items can clear them up. The first one, page 388 of the blue DCA, Calendar Item 1689, page 359 of the red book, the second column, third one down, Petition 20589, the subject, "Annual Conference Apportionment Procedures." Committee recommendation was nonconcurrence. The vote was 59 for, 28 against with 4 abstentions. You want us take all three at one time, Bishop?

BISHOP HEARN: Is there objection from the house that we take all three at once? See no objection, please proceed.

EVANS: Page 388 of the blue book, Calendar Item 1690, refers to page 358 of the red book, Petition 20412, found in the left column at the bottom. Subject again is "World Service and Conference Benevolence." The committee recommendation is nonconcurrence; the vote is 54 for, 32 against, 4 abstentions.

The third item, again on page 388 of the blue DCA, Calendar Item 1691, found on page 357 of the red book. It refers to Petition 20588 in the right column. Subject again is "Annual Conference Budgeting Procedures." Committee recommends nonconcurrence, vote 61 for, 32 against, 4 abstentions. Bishop, I move the three items.

BISHOP HEARN: These three items for nonconcurrence on the recommendation from the committee. If you'll prepare to vote, vote when the light appears, on all three items. [770 approved] You have concurred with the committee.

EVANS: Page 388 of the blue DCA, Calendar Item 1688, and it refers to page 362 of the red book. That's Petition 20591, found in the top of the left column. The committee recommendation is nonconcurrence by a vote of 48 for, 45 against, one abstention. The committee felt that it would eliminate the minimum salary and also was concerned about how the missional support would be defined. I move the item.

BISHOP HEARN: The committee is recommending nonconcurrence. Yes? Microphone number 7.

LOUISE R. OTT (Detroit): I would ask that you would vote against the committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence. I believe we can define this in our annual conferences. I have served small churches and presently serve a large downtown church as a member and now as the chair of the Conference Commission on Equitable Compensation. I have become concerned that we are forgetting our missional calling in Jesus Christ to make disciples in all the world. We must recognize the importance of pastoral leadership in small-membership churches, in both urban and rural settings.

We United Methodists are creatively faithful laity and clergy. We can find ways to provide pastoral leadership wherever it is needed, but let's be mission-minded with our financial and human resources. Let's serve the small church, the large church, wherever congregations are missionally focused. Let's grow new congregations and, most of all, make new disciples of Jesus Christ in the city, in the country and around the globe. Let's put the hand of mission in the hand of good stewardship. If you are mission-minded stewards, you will vote "no", against the legislative committee recommendation of nonconcurrence.

BISHOP HEARN: All right, that's a speech against. I see over here in this corner; if you'll go to microphone, 6 or 7, whichever one is closest. This will need to be a speech in favor of the recommendation of nonconcurrence. Changed his mind. Ready to vote? All right, the committee is recommending nonconcurrence; you'll prepare your decision and vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 523; no, 361] You have agreed with the committee.

EVANS: Page 387 of the blue DCA, Calendar Item 1684, refers to page 373 of the red book.

CASHAR EVANS: Refers to page 373 of the red book, Petition 20374, and can be found in the first column, third from the top. The subject is to specify spiritual growth among the purposes of the MEF. Committee's recommendation is 74 for, 16 against, zero abstentions. Again, nonconcurrence. I move the item.

BISHOP HEARN: Vote when your light appears. [748 approved] You have agreed with the committee.

EVANS: Page 387 of the blue DCA. Calendar Item 1685, refers to page 1314 of the white book.

BISHOP HEARN: What is your point of order in the back? Microphone 8.

ALYS RICHARDS (North Texas): I thought we had just passed that any proposal that had less than 20 against would not be brought.

BISHOP HEARN: Lets ask the committee why they are bringing these.

EVANS: It was my understanding, sir, that we were dealing with disciplinary paragraphs. I'd be happy to sit down. (laughter)

RICHARDS: Thank you.

BISHOP HEARN: I almost said "all in favor," but that wouldn't have been fair. (laughter) Cashar, go ahead.

EVANS: Let's start that again. Page 387 of the blue DCA. Calendar Item 1685, deals in the white book on page 1314 with Petition 22244, found in the second column, the second petition. Subject again is MEF. The committee's recommendation is nonconcurrence. The vote was 73 for, 13 against, and 1 abstention. I move the item.

BISHOP HEARN: Vote when the light appears. [777 approved] You have agreed with the committee.

EVANS: Calendar Item 306, found on page 159 of the blue book. And that refers to page 383 of the red book. The subject, "Trustees of Church Institutions." The committee votes nonconcurrence by a vote of 93 for, 4 against, zero abstentions. And I need to tell you that it is already provided for in the Discipline, and that was the rationale. I move the item.

BISHOP HEARN: Vote when your light appears. [844 approved] You have agreed with the committee. Microphone 2.

RICHARD PARKER (New York): Bishop, I realize these are disciplinary paragraphs that we're voting on, but they are all nonconcurrence items and many of them with a small negative vote in the committee. Could I try a motion?

BISHOP HEARN: You certainly may.

PARKER: I move that we accept the committee's actions of nonconcurrence, period.

BISHOP HEARN: Is there second to the motion? It is seconded. It's before us. If you agree to the motion, to accept the decision of the committee on these items that are being presented, you'll make your decision and you'll vote when the light appears. [822 approved] I was an optimist. I was packing up.

EVANS: I would like to take the opportunity to thank my vice-chair, Mollie Stewart; the secretary Zedna Haverstock; Grady Knowles, who presented with me frequently, and the two other committee chairs, Lee Sheaffer and Jeannie Trevino-Teddlie, and of course the entire committee of this body and the presiding officer. Thanks. (applause)

BISHOP HEARN: We call on Discipleship, Mr. Irving. Yes what's your inquiry?

BISHOP HEARN: We'll call on Discipleship, Mr. Ervin? Yes, what's your inquiry? Microphone 4.

CHARLES LIPPSE (Holston): Bishop, I really want to make an appeal to the house for a Judicial Council decision on an action we took a few minutes ago.

BISHOP HEARN: All right.

LIPPSE: It's in regard to the action we took on the Equal Salary Task Force. In reference to paragraphs 248.13 and paragraph 702, those two paragraphs delegate to the charge conference the authority to set the salary. At the last General Conference, I made an appeal when the General Conference delegated to the annual conference or, excuse me, to the Board of Pensions to set the benefits for pastors; the similar issue. I think we're taking away from the local church the authority to set the salary. Therefore, I would like to ask the house to support me in appealing this decision to the Judicial Council.

BISHOP HEARN: Is there a second to this request? It has been seconded, it's before us. Will you cast your vote concerning this decision when the light appears. [566 approved] You have asked for the Judicial Council to rule on that. Mr. Ervin?

PAUL ERVIN (North Georgia): Bishop, we have three matters. The first is on page 306 of the blue book. It will be presented by Christian Ricks, Missouri East Conference.

JIM RUSH (South Georgia): Bishop, the item we bring to you is on 306 in your blue DCA. It's Calendar Item 812. It has been brought off the Consent Calendar, and it is disciplinary. And I believe that your ruling said that we should bring it to you. This is Calendar Item 812, it can be found in the white book, page 1,280, Petition 22403. The subject is "Lay-Preacher, United Methodist Rural Fellowship." This item refers to the Discipline paragraph of 282. It is our understanding that the ministry study did not deal with 282, and that's why it's being brought forward. It's about lay-preachers.

This item was brought forth by United Methodist Rural Fellowship four years ago. It was passed by General Conference and was ruled unconstitutional because of the word "appoint" that was in it. United Methodist Rural Fellowship has brought that back to our committee. It passed our subcommittee, and passed the legislative committee, 100 for, 1 against. We bring it to you.

BISHOP HEARN: The matter is before us...Yes, in the back, back here? Microphone 8.

ROCKY EUBANK (Southwest Texas): I believe that the paragraph describing "lay-preacher" was deleted from by the Consent Calendar. It's a previous action.

BISHOP HEARN: Could the committee respond to that, please?

RUSH: When we asked about it, we were told it was not affected by the ministry study. It did not come from our committee to be deleted, it had to come from somewhere else.

BISHOP HEARN: Can someone else help us with that inquiry? You have an answer for the inquiry? Microphone 9.

DEBORAH L. PRITTS (North Central New York): Subcommittee in the Ordained Ministry Legislative Committee that dealt with this matter. If you were to turn in your blue DCA to page 555, Calendar Item 2117, Petition 21980 from the Ministry Study of the Council of Bishops, you'll see that this paragraph was deleted by a vote of 88 to nothing; and that it was approved on the Consent Calendar a few days ago.

BISHOP HEARN: So you're telling us that this paragraph has already been deleted? So the action that's being recommended here, is in opposition to the action that was taken earlier by the house? Is this correct? All right.

RUSH: Bishop, I'm not real sure where we are parliamentarily, but our legislative committee voted 100 to 1 for this.

BISHOP HEARN: OK, the chair would rule that this is out of order unless the house wishes to vote reconsideration of the item.

RUSH: I would move reconsideration.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. If you wish to reconsider, you'll need to make that decision. And you make your decision and vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 408; no, 447] You have voted not to reconsider, so this item is not before us.

RUSH: Bishop, our other item was also in 282, reference "lay- preachers" and I would assume that we get the same results, so I won't bother you with it.

BISHOP HEARN: All right, thank you. Very considerate.

ERVIN: Aileen Williams of Missouri Conference will make another presentation.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. Welcome.

AILEEN WILLIAMS (Minnesota): I'm from Minnesota. (laughter) This is a non-disciplinary item, but it had 22 votes against it.

BISHOP HEARN: Would you tell us the page and the item please?

WILLIAMS: Yes, I will. It is in your blue DCA, page 478, Calendar Item 1986; you'll find it in the middle column. It's Petition 22557, and you'll find it in your white DCA on page 1,302 in the left-hand column. The title is, "Evangelism as a Missional Priority of The United Methodist Church for the Next Quadrennium."

In our committee, we discovered that this same language is in the 1992 Discipline; it passed in 1992 for the quadrennium. And as we discussed evangelism in our mission statement, we felt that the concept of it being a missional priority was much more than a missional priority. And so we felt that this language was not helpful in terms of the Book of Resolutions. And so we voted against it. We did, in a further action to make emphasis on the importance of evangelism, work on a paragraph in the Discipline, which is paragraph 1211; and you will find that information in your red DCA on page 250. What we did is we added a sentence to that paragraph indicating evangelism is central to the mission of the church.

BISHOP HEARN: Yes, what is your point of order? Microphone 8.

ROBERT COLEMAN (South Indiana): Did we not just pass, by Joe Parker's motion, that any nonconcurrence that's non- disciplinary would be approved?

WILLIAMS: That's right. That was my understanding, but we checked, and it, and they said, they said to present it. So...

BISHOP HEARN: OK, is nonconcurrence recommendation here? Can the chair just ask the house: If you support the committee and their nonconcurrence on this item, if you'll vote when your light appears and we'll clear the house of this matter. Thank you for that inquiry. We're in the process of voting.

BISHOP HEARN: Thank you for that inquiry. We are the process of voting. [810 approved] You have supported the committee.

ERVIN: Bishop I want to thank the greatest legislative committee at this General Conference, Discipleship. That's all we had, sir. Thank you very much. (applause)

BISHOP HEARN: Recognize George Hunter.

GEORGE HUNTER (Florida): Colleagues, when the dust settles, and we see all of the legislation we passed in these two weeks, we'll discover that much what took place through the Committee on Conferences is consistent with what happened in the Committee on Local Churches. And thus, we'll discover throughout our structure the word "shall" is found much less often. The word "may" is found much more often; and we have achieved much greater flexibility for the sake of our mission in a lot of different contacts. Many of our petitions will go on through now because they received less than 20 negative votes, but four need your consideration. Three of those will be presented by Bruce Ough from the Iowa Conference, and one by Judith Siaba from the Northern Illinois Conference.

BISHOP HEARN: All right, if they will come forward, please. Yes what is your point of order? Microphone 5.

OYVIND HELLIESEN (Norway): A minute ago we deleted paragraph 282. That means that we don't have any more lay preachers in the church. Is that right? I think that was something that we do...because ministers do it, that we have none. I think we have to reconsider this.

BISHOP HEARN: Let's get an answer to your question. Someone representing...all right, who can answer this for us? In the far back. Microphone 7.

WILLIAM CROUCH (North Texas): I am not an expert on this, but I am wondering if the question has to do with the distinction between lay preachers and local pastors. We certainly have local pastors, and a part of the reason that some of us believe that we should not have lay preachers was because we believe very strongly in local pastors, full- time, part-time and especially those who are serving as bi-vocational local pastors.

BISHOP HEARN: All right, this is an answer to the inquiry. We'll come back now to the legislative committee.

HELLIESEN: Bishop?

BISHOP HEARN: Yes.

HELLIESEN: I don't think this is answered, because I was in that legislative group. And I can't see that it has answered our meaning to not have the lay preachers in the church anymore. Local pastor are licensed, and they are something else. I think this is wrong.

BISHOP HEARN: Can we have further clarification?

CROUCH: One more comment, bishop. We have not had lay preachers because of the decision of the Judicial Council on paragraph 282. We have not had lay preachers.

BISHOP HEARN: All right, we are going to come back to the legislative committee now. If you want to pursue this matter, it can be done after we finish the legislative committees. Go ahead.

BRUCE R. OUGH (Iowa): Bishop and fellow delegates, I have three items that deal with the topic of Criminal Justice and Mercy Ministries. If you would turn in your blue DCA to page 233. The Calendar Item is 748. The text of the petition is found in the white DCA, volume two, on page 1271. It's Petition 22188. The committee recommends concurrence as amended. The amendments are as follows. On line one, delete "shall" and insert "is encouraged to." Also delete the second to the last sentence, which reads, "minimum of three lay and three clergy persons shall compose the committee." And finally, add a new last sentence which reads, "the results of the work in this area will be reported to annual conference."

The effect of this petition is to permit, not require, the formation of a Committee on Criminal Justice and Mercy Ministries within the annual conference. The majority of the committee felt that is a severely neglected area of Christ's ministry within The United Methodist Church, and that we need to lift it up to our people. The dissenting votes in the committee expressed concern over suggesting any new annual conference structures. The committee concurence, because the amendments allow for a great flexibility in forming this committee. I think it's fair to remind the body of your earlier action regarding the Conference Council on Ministries and its structures. Bishop, the committee moves concurs as amended.

BISHOP HEARN: Recommendation is before you. Vote when your light appears. [737 approved] You have agreed with the committee. Next item please.

OUGH: The next item is also on page 233 of the blue DCA. It's item 749. The text of the petition is also on page 1271 of the white DCA. It's the second item in the right hand column. The committee recommends concurrence with a vote of 49 for, and 24 against, with 4 abstentions.

The effect of this petition is to permit, again, not mandate, that a district coordinator of Criminal Justice and Mercy Ministries, if there is such a position, be a member of the District Council of Ministries. Bishop, the committee moves concurrence.

BISHOP HEARN: Recommendation is before you. Vote when your light appears. [720 approved] You have agreed with the committee.

OUGH: The final item related to this topic is also on page 233 of the blue DCA, Calendar Item 750. The text of the petition is again on page 1271 of the white DCA. It's Petition 22191. It's the last item in the right hand column, top of the page. And also it carries over the top of the page 234. The committee recommends concurrence as amended. The amendment is to change "shall" in the bold line, to "may."

The effect of this petition is to identify Criminal Justice and Mercy Ministries as a program responsibility of the District Council of Ministries. The committee wanted this to be permissive rather than mandatory, recognizing some annual conferences do not have district councils on ministries and that DCOMs are structured very differently in the various annual conferences. The committee voted 47 for, 25 against, and 5 abstentions. The committee moves concurrence, Bishop.

BISHOP HEARN: Recommendation is before you. Vote when your light appears. [759 approved] You have agreed with the committee. I now yield to Judith Siaba.

JUDITH E. SIABA (Northern Illinois): I just have two items.

BISHOP HEARN: Thank you.

SIABA: If you would look in your blue book, page 384. Petition 1669. Petition 20560 in the red book, on page 182. It's entitled, "Eliminate Jurisdictional Council on Ministries." And the committee recommends non-concurrence, 36 for and 28 against.

BISHOP HEARN: Recommendation is before you. Yes, back here? Microphone 7.

STEPHEN P. WENDE (Southwest Texas): I was a member of the committee, and it was actually later Saturday night when this came to us than it is now. And a number of us mispoke ourselves on this petition; I was one of them. Since then many of us have talked about it. I'm bringing a plea to the conference, to the body, to clean-up what we have so well begun at the local church and annual conference level. This petition allows the jurisdictional groups to design and use the administrative groups they think best, without wedging them into categories that may or may not fit. Most of our jurisdictions have Council on Ministries. Most of those look absolutely nothing like each other. One of them meets once every two years and gives out money for good causes. That's great, but that's not really a COM. Let's honor our lay leaders and our pastors, and let's go ahead and let folks design the structures they need, and not run the risk of thinking they're all doing the same thing when they're using that name, when in fact they're not. I urge you to vote nonconcurrence on this one petition before the committee.

BISHOP HEARN: All right. Committee is recommending nonconcurrence with this item. Vote when your light appears. [Results: yes, 46; no, 357] You have agreed with the committee. Next item please.

SIABA: The next item is on the same page, 384. Calendar Item 1672, relates to, in the white book, page 1,268, Petition 22647.

BISHOP HEARN: Yes? Microphone 13.

SCOTT JONES (North Texas): Bishop, I'm confused about where we are. It was my understanding that earlier in the evening we voted that all committee actions would be supported on those petitions where the negative vote was fewer than 20. The chair of the committee, Dr. Hunter, referred to that as he opened up this set of petitions. It would seem to me that this petition, as well as all others with a vote fewer than 20, have already been dealt with by way of supporting the committee. Is that correct?

BISHOP HEARN: We'll ask the chair of the committee to respond.

GEORGE HUNTER III: Yes, that is correct, Bishop.

BISHOP HEARN: OK, do you want to put these on that list then? OK. You have this item. Actually, this item has already been presented to the house, so if you will agree with the recommendation of the committee, which on this item is for concurrence with the deletion of a sentence, you will vote when your light appears. You have agreed with the committee. [769 approved] Now we turn back to the committee.

HUNTER: Bishop, that's all of our petitions. I take this moment (applause) to thank all of those people in our committees, our committee and others, who led legislative committees and subcommittees and worked hard on legislation in this historic General Conference. I join those who were privileged to head legislative committees this month in saying, in the words of the English poet, "I can no other answer make, but thanks, thanks, and ever thanks." (applause)

BISHOP HEARN: This clears the legislative committee's agenda. (applause) Let the chair observe that we are a few minutes from the time that we will need to vacate this hall. We have run over our adjournment time by just a little bit; but if we proceed almost immediately to our worship closing this General Conference, we will be in good order. And so the chair would like to recommend to you that at this time I declare that the business of this General Conference is completed and that we proceed to (applause) and that we proceed then to the worship. If you will agree with the chair for this ruling, that our business has been completed, you will vote "yes" on your machine and "no" if you want to do some more business. (laughter) As you see the light, you will vote. [730 approved] Hallelujah! All right, we need to make some announcements and then we're going to move immediately to the worship. I call on the conference secretary for those announcements that need to be made. If you'll be in order, please. We have worship that is coming up to officially close our conference.

CAROLYN MARSHALL: There are several announcements which do need to come before us. One, if you're terribly anxious about helping to vacate this room, if you would please peel that white label that talks about General Conference and all that sort of thing off your voting box, you will save our help a great deal of time.

BISHOP HEARN: You can take that home as a souvenir.

MARSHALL: Right. And if you don't want to take it home for a souvenir, there are barrels, receptacles, at the end of each aisle, supposed to be at the back there. Please, if you would help us by clearing off your tables, including any souvenirs that you don't want to take with you.

We do want to express appreciation to Mr. William Dunbar of the Advent Organs in Omaha, Neb. who has graciously provided a custom-built Advent Organ for the entire General Conference. (applause) This was a generous gift for this two-week period. And also wanted to remind you that if, at this hour or any other, you are interested in any information on Advent Organs, they are available.

This afternoon, we had thought that there would be an opportunity to introduce the Committee on Correlation and Editorial Revision; those are the persons who have been sitting on the opposite side of the platform and have diligently been working with the legislation which we have been voting. Earl Riddle chairs that committee, Clelia Hendricks, Naomi Bartle, and Richard Evans, (applause) and ex- officio, the editor of the Discipline, Michael Lawrence from the Publishing House. (applause)

For the record, I would also like to add the fact that Gary Graves, a member of the secretarial staff, gave hours and hours of time, but in order to make another commitment had to leave prior to the introduction of the staff, and his name was not announced. But we certainly owe him a debt of gratitude.

The DCA sales booth is closed. Persons who have not turned in their form for sending final copies of the DCA should take these forms to the DCA editorial office in Ballroom "B."

Those of you who will be utilizing "DASH" in order to get from your hotel to the airport, are reminded that there is a special rate of $12 for those of you identifying yourselves as having been participants in the General Conference. It has come to our attention that several persons have called and have been told that the regular rate is $15. However, management has informed us to be sure to remind whomever is there that you are from The United Methodist General Conference and there is a rate of $12. If you pay any more than that, it is money that's being pocketed instead of going to the company.

We have been blessed throughout these two weeks with refreshment breaks. And if you're wondering about what is going to happen to all the leftover cookies --I'd no idea there were that many leftover cookies till I saw the boxes this evening--but I think you would be interested in knowing that they are being distributed to Warren Village Child Care, an inner-city after-school program; The Gathering Place, which is a day center for homeless women and children; and Safe at Saint Paul, a shelter for homeless teens.

This announcement came to me early this morning, and I was waiting for an appropriate time. I'm not sure that this one is any more appropriate than some others, but it really needs to be made fairly soon or it's going to be past a significant day. Many of you have celebrated birthdays or special days in your lives while we have been at General Conference, but today we particularly wanted to recognize Mrs. Mujinga Kayinda from Southern Zaire, who is celebrating her birthday with us today, a delegate from Southern Zaire. (applause)

And then two matters of interest to all of us, and concern for persons whom we will want to be remembering in our prayers. This is an update on the condition of Bishop William R. Cannon, who remains in intensive care at Presbyterian Saint Luke's Hospital here in Denver, following successful hip surgery a week ago. Several organic systems began to malfunction and his condition was critical until this morning. The situation has stabilized and the prognosis is more hopeful. Mr. and Mrs. Dudley Metters, cousins of the bishop, are here with him. They express their deep gratitude for the loving care that has come from friends and colleagues during these days of General Conference and ask for your continuing prayers.

And the last message for us is also one of concern. And that is that we extend our greetings and best wishes to Bishop and Mrs. L. Scott Allen who could not attend the 1996 General Conference due to Bishop Allen's illness. Bishop Hearn, that concludes the announcements.

BISHOP HEARN: Thank you. One other thing needs to be said. Grateful appreciation to all of you for the way in which you have participated in this conference, both in spoken word and by the spirit that you've had in these deliberations. We'll turn now, for the closing worship.

BISHOP WOODIE WHITE: You have been remarkably patient and rather well behaved, General Conference. I will not test your patience. I've been through enough General Conferences to know that one does not attempt to preach at 10:30 p.m. Yes, you may applaud. (applause)

The Grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you,

And with you.

In all that we've said, approved, prayed, sung, and celebrated,

May God have been praised.

As we prepare to close this General Conference session and depart for our homes, We pray that God will continue to be our hope and that we will follow boldly as God leads us.

Hymn No. 545 "The Church's One Foundation"

BISHOP WHITE: You may be seated. And now hear the words of challenge from St. Paul.

"This is the ministry which God and God's mercy has given us, and nothing shall daunt us. We have set our faces against all shameful, secret practices. We use no clever tricks, no manipulation of the Word of God. We speak the plain truth and so commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. If our gospel is veiled, the veil must be in the minds of those who are spiritually dying. The God of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe and prevents them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, the image of God, from shining on them. For it is Christ Jesus as Lord whom we preach, not ourselves. God who first ordered light to shine in darkness has flooded our hearts with his light so that we can enlighten others with the knowledge of the glory of God as we see it in the face of Christ."

This priceless treasure we hold, so to speak, in an earthenware jar to show that the splendid power of it belongs to God and not to us.

We are hard-pressed on all sides, but we are never totally frustrated. We are puzzled, but we are never totally in despair. We are persecuted, but we are never deserted. We may be knocked down, but we are never knocked out. Every day we experience something of the death of Jesus so that we may also show the power of the life of Jesus in these bodies of ours. Yes, we who are living are always being exposed to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus may be plainly seen in our mortal lives. We are always facing physical death so that you may know spiritual life. Our faith is like that mentioned in the Scripture, "I believed, and therefore did I speak." For we, too, speak because we believe and know for certain that those who raised the Lord Jesus Christ from death shall also raise us with Jesus. We shall all stand together. We shall all stand together before God.

Ben Wattenberg has written a book with the intriguing title "The Good News Is The Bad News Is Wrong." Our task as the people of God is to go back to those communities from which we've come, those cities, those towns, those villages, those suburbs and tell the people that the good news is that the bad news is wrong. The bad news of brokenness and fear and hopelessness, the bad news that we must live in our socialized worlds of prejudice and racism and sexism and hates. The good news is the bad news is wrong.

Harry Nouwen reminded us that the illusion of leadership is that people can be lead out of the desert by someone who has never been there. Now there is something about you that I know about you that you don't know I know about you. And that is that somewhere in life's journey you have been in a desert. And I don't know what that desert was, but you got out of that desert. And that desert may have been fear, loneliness, cynicism, hate. I don't know what the desert was, but you were in the desert. Despite how secure you look, despite how you place an image of security, you've been in this desert.

And your task and my task, the task of our church is to go back and find those people in the desert and tell them how you got out of the desert. That's what the resolutions are all about, that's what the budget was all about, that's what all of the caucusing was all about. If that was not what it was all about, then we wasted two weeks. It is about bringing people out of the desert and introducing them to the one who brought you out of the desert and gave you life, an abundant life.

We have labored here, you have labored two weeks, and we have made great strides for our church. But the work begins when we leave, when we go back to those places from whence we've come and find the lonely and hurt and the ostracized, find those who have given up on the church and religion, go to those who have lost the way and bring them out of the desert.

I'm proud of our church, I'm proud of what you have done these past two weeks. But I hope you won't go back home and just be bearers of bad news. Your people know enough bad news. They see it on the television, they hear it on the radio, they read it in the weekly magazines, they read it every morning. They don't need you, the people of good news, bringing them bad news.

If there was anything bad here this week, why don't you just leave it here? Something happened here you didn't like, why don't you just leave it here? But if you found some good news, I pray that you will share that good news that people might see the vision that we have captured during these weeks together.

The good news is that the bad news is wrong. I trust that in your days, in your moments of challenge and of ministry, that you will share the good news with those you meet, the good news with those with whom you work, the good news with those with whom you socialize on a daily basis, the good news.

In a world so broken as ours, good news is sorely needed. May God bless what we have attempted to do here, but may you bless others as you share the good news of Christ with all those you meet. Let us pray.

Blessed are you, God of all creation. You have drawn your church together for a great work. In this place we have labored long and passionately to do your will.

Lord, have mercy.

We came because we believe that Christ has the power to transform the world and to reform the church for the sake of the world. We confess that we have so focused on the church that we have forgotten the continents and islands and all the simple, ordinary people who long for love and hope, food and shelter, dignity and justice, God and neighbor.

Lord, have mercy.

Now you turn us homeward. Do not send us away weary at heart and numb in spirit. Restore to us the joy of your salvation. Send us in the power of your Spirit. Make love our controlling affection. Dare us to believe anew that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the power to change lives, the power to redeem the whole world, the power to sing and dance for the hope that is in us.

Lord, speak the word, and we shall be healed.

Triumphant Lord, your dominion has no end. You are champion of the despised and friend of the poor. You make the cross your throne, and wear a crown of thorns. You call us your friends. Send us now to take up our cross, to rejoin that company of disciples whose everyday life is humble service to mission in the world.

Lord, pour out your Spirit upon all the baptized and unleash your Church.

God, grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, the courage to change the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference. In all things, help us to pray, to watch, to attend to the means of grace, and to find you sufficient for all that is ahead.

Lord, in your mercy.

With all who have become children of the gospel, we join in yielding ourselves to you afresh, daring to pray:

Let me be your servant under your command. I will no longer be my own. I will give up myself to your will in all things. Lord, make me what you will. I put myself fully into your hands. Put me to doing, put me to suffering, let me be employed for you, or laid aside for you, let me be full, let me be empty, let me have all things, let me have nothing. I freely and with a willing heart give it all to your pleasure and disposal. O mighty God, the Lord Omnipotent, holy and blessed Trinity, you have become my Covenant Friend. And I, through your infinite grace, have become your covenant servant. So be it. And let this covenant I have made on earth be ratified in heaven.

BISHOP WHITE: And now, may the Lord torment you, may the Lord keep before you the faces of the hungry and the lonely and the rejected and the despised, and may the Lord give you courage and strength and compassion to make ours a better world, to make your community a better community, to make your church a better church. And may you do your very best to make it so. And after you have done your best, may the Lord grant you peace.

I declare the 1996 General Conference of The United Methodist Church to be adjourned.

General Conference Webmaster: Susan Brumbaugh
PETS Creator: John Brawn