Kruse Kronicle

GAC September 23. Sipping From a Fire Hose.

—

by

mwkruse
in ,

The only metaphor I can think of for today is "sipping from a fire hose." This morning we heard three presentations about best practices for boards. The first presentation educated us a little about the Sarbanes Oxley Act and what it means for the PCUSA. The other two challenged us to understand our board role better and give effective oversight.

This afternoon we heard from the Governance Task Force, Mission Funding Task Force, and the Mission Work Plan Task Force. These are all very much works in progress. Here are links to the material we looked at:

Governance

Governance Options Grid (Gives two options for reconfiguration.)
Governance Options Rationale

Mission Funding

Mission Funding Values Statement
Mission Funding Proposed Framework

Mission Work Plan

Nothing to present to you online.

I am not going to recap what these proposals suggest. I will tell you a lot of hours and much effort has gone into them. Nevertheless, my personal take is that we are not being bold enough. Steve Martin of the Board of Pensions emphasized the importance of asking bold questions that take us out of groupthink. I am on the Mission Work Plan task force and can press my issues there. To the other two task forces, I would put one question:

Why do we need an Office of the General Assembly AND a General Assembly Council funded by two different revenue streams?

If these questions have not been dealt with first, then all the rest seems pointless. I can't think of any other organization where I give through two funding streams. The people in our pews experience their giving as "giving to the church," not as per capita and mission. This is part of the reason it is so difficult to interpret mission to the church.

The deeper question is, why do we have OGA and GAC instead of one board that oversees the work of the church? This makes flexibility and efficiency in decision-making nearly impossible. I would like answers to these questions before all else.

This evening we had division dinners and a book discussion on Eugene March's "Wide, Wide Circle of Divine Love." We did not return from dinner until after 9:00, so I missed that. Time to read papers and wrap it up on Saturday.

Comments

5 responses to “GAC September 23. Sipping From a Fire Hose.”

  1. will spotts Avatar
    will spotts

    I’m very curious what you thought of the new models for GAC.
    Off the cuff — which means I haven’t formed a set opinion — I like the idea of streamlining and efficiency, and I agree with the assessment that the GAC is supposed to be executive rather than policy determining, I’m a little loathe to move to a less representative structure.
    Several reasons for this, but the largest is that I’d want to see mechanisms in place to limit what policy determining could actually be done by this body. A bureaucracy making decisions often manages to set policy with our without the authority to do so. (No offense, but this is a problem with the staff and OGA as well. There is a climate of distrust at the moment that would need to be overcome for us to benefit from efficiency.)
    I agree that OGA and GAC should likely not be separate entities.

    Reply
  2. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    I lean toward the smaller structure. I got the full details of this the same day you did so I too am still processing. I am not thrilled about the idea of electicing GAC members from past General Assemblies. I think the idea is to create a better link between the GA and the GAC. That limits the potential candidates for GAC service and I think the aim should be to find the most gifted visionary leaders possible. I will be curious to see what feedback is generated from the process.
    I don’t think a controlling bureaucracy is the central problem. I think it is mass confusion because of ineffective GAC guidance. I am not being critical of individuals here. There are people in leadership that giving the best leadership they can but the structure makes it nearly impossible to be effective.

    Reply
  3. Larry Avatar
    Larry

    You are correct to ask the big questions like why do we still have an OGA and a GAC.
    Will others ask the same questions? Doubtful. We have a negative leadership in this denomination who wrings their hands over why are we losing all of these members. These leaders have caused the near demise of this denomination. To expect them to implement a self-imposed turnaround in the way they have running this organization is doubtful.

    Reply
  4. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    Actually, Larry, I am discovering that several “at the top” are asking these questions. Action has already been taken on a number of levels and staff has actually made some innovative changes toward much better management practices. I sense that the major systemic issue has been a paralysis among the elected leadership. This is not a criticism of the efforts being made. The problems are complex and far reaching. Elected GAC members are busy people with busy lives trying to tackle time consuming and difficult issues. The context for mission has changed radically and will continue to do so. Many institutions are in this type of culture shock paralysis.
    In our Presbyterian pollity, we are not run by a group of bishops but by leaders from our various governing bodies. So if the leaders have failed us, who sent the leaders? We are all in this together.
    I agree that a self-imposed turnaround is unlikely. But a Spirit led one can never be discounted. That is why we need your prayers.

    Reply
  5. will spotts Avatar
    will spotts

    I’ll give you that — I’m aware that many are trying make good faith efforts to address the issues. I’m aware that they are busy and have much to do. I’m aware that it’s something of a thankless task. I’m also aware that some of the problems are indeed systemic.
    But there are other problems as well: most critically, some people and groups are much better able to make use of bureaucratic systems than others are. It tends toward disproportionate representation of some ideas. It also tends to bring some ludicrous things to the forefront while more significant problems are avoided.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Michael KruseCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading