I know, I know - you've been missing posts about the Book of Resolutions. We're soon getting ready for another meeting of the Book of Resolutions Task Force, and I have a couple of specific questions I'd like your feedback on.1) Who should be allowed to submit a petition to General Conference? Right now, any member of a local UMC can submit a petition directly to General Conference. I think personally that this is a great asset to the UMC - we are the only mainline denomination where members can directly petition the general church for change. As much as people complain about the General Church not representing the local members, our denomination does have a way for individual members to act and react. But, that said, this ability also sometimes enables abuse or manipulation or at least just lots of extra work when it comes to petitions to deal with at GC. Some people write petitions dealing with every single paragraph of the Book of Discipline. Still, should restrictions be put in place? What kind? Should petitions have to be approved by some other body? An administrative council? A local UMW or UMM unit?
2) Publishing and copyright issues - Right now, the United Methodist Publishing House holds the copyright for the Book of Discipline and Book of Resolutions. This can be somewhat problematic - for example, general agencies can not post relevant resolutions on their websites. GBCS, whose work directly relates to many resolutions, can only reference little chunks, but can't post whole resolutions on the website. This seems not helpful at best - it makes it harder for people to see connections between what we believe (or say we do) and the work we do. Do you have any suggestions related to publishing and copyright?
I'd appreciate your thoughts.
**Also, a reminder - tomorrow (the 31st) is the last day (I think) to cast your vote over at BroGreg's 2006 Bloggy Awards page.***
10 comments:
And the UMPH doesn't give the agencies persmission to post whole resolutions because... ???
I agree with anonymous. These documents are the intellectual property of the UMC, and minutes of general conference should be available for publishing, including the resolutions given therein.
I think we have too many resolutions, personally, and alot of useless legalism, but I do agree that allowing the Joe or Jane Churchmember to send a petition to general conference is a very helpful piece to our system (akin to the Initiative in our current US legislative system). But I do think that having the petitions approved by the annual conference at least adds one layer of approval before moving to the entire body.
I know, I know, a conflicted message. Personally I would rather see fewer rules and fewer committees at the end of the day. I think they get in the way of ministry more than aiding it. I can't even say, "While it may be a difficult system, it is the best we have."
Peace,
The UMPH refusal to give permission for Bds & Agencies to quote from the BoD is just another example of how the UMC is still mired in the 20th century. When profits from the sale of the BoD & BoR take priority over deseminating information, there's something wrong.
Amen, John.
Thanks for the reminider about the Bloggy's. They're out by the way.
But on to your post - I do agree that all people should be able to send in a petition. I'm not so sure that all should have to go before the Annual Conference though. Basically my reason my sound petty. But I think that it would take up too much time there. We already have this year being longer for the voting of General Conference members. And I believe that General Confence is where these matters should be taken up...unless it is a petition being approved and being sent in on behalf of the AC.
There may be more work for all the extra petitions that maybe even make no sense. But that is the price that has to be paid I believe.
As for the copyright issue. I think that's stupid. The Bible ain't copyrighted. Neither should the Book of Resolutions...which not near as many people will read...ha ha.
The UMC doesn't allow people, even in house, to quote its core materials because of copyright?
That gives us something in common with Scientology.
Scrap the BoR. That is my suggestion after trying to integrate UMC policy into my head. It isn't anything other than a battle field for competing ideologies by now. Warring agenda's make it and the BoD useless. Sorry to be so negative about it, but I think it would be no great loss to anyone if the BoR was done away with, or wiped clean. Maybe have a book of complaints, or a book of opinions that gives a voice to all members. At least have resolutions checked for popular conformance of opinion; that way a person might read a resolution and think "oh, only 23% of methodist support this resolution".
That the UMPH maintains a copyright without granting general permission to use and reuse without fees is the most non-christian act I can think of. Besides, such restrictions only hurt the UMPH and the UMC. Most other denominations are quite glad to have someone carry their message of faith.
i am surprised to hear that umph doesn't give bor quotations to agencies. does it do that for churches?
when i hang with folks from the upperroom their little quotation is that the ur is "the umc's gift to the greater church" it'd be nice if we shared gifts amongst each other.
1) As one who has been involved in the process of General Conference for too many years than I want to admit, I've come to the conclusion that the process should be tightened. Specifically, I think petitions should have to be approved by a Charge Conference, District Conference, or Annual Conference, or should have a certain number of signatures that suggests that the petition has some merit beyond what thy writer thinks.
I used to love the egalitarian ideal of our process, but the reality is that we have too much business to deal with, and as a result far too much bad legislation gets put in the Discipline simply because of exhaustion. Having too many petitions ensures that there is no time for adequate debate on the important issues. Thus, there needs to be a vetting process by which some representative group in the UMC reviews the petition and perfects it prior to sending it to the General Conference.
2) I agree with all that the copyright should be the property of all agencies of the General Conference (including the local church). Unfortunately, what the UMPH would say is that they then wouldn't be willing to publish the book, for they can't make any money off of it. I agree with several that part of the problem is the failure of the UMPH to move into the electronic age, and for the General Conference to recognize that the UMPH needs the church far more than the church needs the UMPH.
Ditto to John b. I submitted a petition in 2004 (http://gc2004.org/Calms/Petition.asp?mid=2886&Petition=410) for free access to the BOD and BOR online. It was summarily dismissed out of feared loss of profits, despite a substantive rationale statement citing economic studies to show that these fears are not scientifically valid. I'll be glad to share the rationale statement. Since sales of the BOR are already so slim (far, far less than even the number of clergy in the UMC), it is just a matter of time til the BOR in its current form will disappear. Once profits are no longer a part of the equation, perhaps UMPH will allow the church and world access to our own documents?
Post a Comment