Single Governance as I understand it…
First let me apologize, I will get some things wrong here. For details about this issue you can search around the UCC web page and find tons of information including the resolutions we will debate. I still think it is valuable to read how one delegate has heard this issue presented.
In 2000 the UCC national setting was reorganized to its current structure. This was a collapsing of 14 boards into the 5 that we have now. These boards are responsible for separate ministries of the national church. These boards are mad up of people in the UCC Lay and clergy from all conferences with a mix of race, age, and ability. These boards are Local Church Ministries (LCM), Wider Church Ministries (WCM), Office of General Ministries (OGM), Justice and Witness Ministries (JWM), and the executive council.
FCS connections to this structure currently include: FCS has received a grant this year and next from LCM (Thank you!), and Jason Donnelly serves on the executive council.
So all together these boards have something like 284 members. With 5 boards, and 284 members each meeting twice a year, we have seen that it is difficult to get significant strategic planning done effectively, and the expense of these meetings, with a shortage of money, has become stifling to the work of the church.
In 2003 an evaluation of this structure was conducted. Following this evaluation, the national church started looking at other ways we could organize. This process went on for the past 6 years, through 2 separate committees gathered to look at this issue. The wisdom in these committees has suggested that we condense from 5 boards to 1 executive council made up of 84-87 people, tasked with directing the work of the entire national church. So… The one board model has become known as “Single Governance”
In March one of the “Covenanted ministries” (this is what the 4 boards of ministry are called), JWM, voted against the by-law changes that would have allowed this General Synod to vote on these changes and moved us to a single governance model.
With that process ended, General Synod is now in the position to weigh in on the issue. We will consider resolutions to require again for a single governance model to be developed. The other option will be to take a “pregnant pause” in the process.
This debate and process has raised a lot of issues of race. The reason to stop the process in March is over some disagreement about the racial makeup of the proposed board. I have enjoyed, and look forward to, more conversations on race. The work we have done over the past few months at FCS is coming in very handy. I have a different understanding about race as a human construct, and my position as a straight white man. I am really looking forward to deliberations on this topic.
If you can believe it, that is the short version. More to come!