A reclaiming of General Conference as a gathering of delegates, not representatives, challenges the ability of the majority culture to silence the minority voices at critical votes.
Keep Record of Individual Votes at GC?
In the United Methodist Church, every four years we send 800-1000 delegates to General Conference to vote on changes to the polity and doctrine of the UMC. The General Conference is similar to the United States Congress with one big exception: the individual votes and roll-calls of the members of Congress are public knowledge, whereas we have no idea how individual members of General Conference. Only the final vote tallies are recorded.
I used to be an advocate for having the voting records of General Conference delegates made public. After all, they were our representatives and I wanted to know how they voted so I would know whether or not to vote for them next time around. It would be more transparent and with more accountability to have their voting records public. It’s called democracy, right?
I decided that I was wrong.
Delegates Or Representatives?
Back in 2011, a very elder clergyperson in the Oklahoma Annual Conference was speaking with a younger person who had just been elected as a delegate. That delegate said that “it was an honor to represent our Annual Conference.” Firmly, the elder pastor said to them:
You are not representing our conference. You are a delegate. That means we have delegated our collective authority to you. You vote your conscience as a delegate and pay no heed to “representing” your state. Authority has been delegated to you: take it and vote as a United Methodist who loves their church.
That is a great distinction:
- A representative represents their constituency. So one would expect a representative to vote how their constituency would want them to.
- A delegate has had authority delegated to them. They have been elected on their own character and bring only the good of the Church Universal to the table at General Conference.
So asking for voting records is not appropriate: they are delegates and not accountable to their annual conference, but accountable to God and one another.
But there’s more to this than voting records.
There’s the conflict over the soul of General Conference itself.
The Hegemony of “vote in a bloc”
The “delegates, not representatives” sentiment is not universally appreciated, especially by those who represent the majority powers in the United Methodist Church.
In the days prior to General Conference 2012, delegates from Africa stopped in Atlanta and were hosted by one of the caucus groups that is dedicated to retaining the anti-LGBT doctrine in The United Methodist Church. While little is known of the private gathering, one of the presentations given to the delegates included the encouragement to “vote as a bloc” in order to “represent Africa’s interests.”
A similar gathering is being planned (see Rev. Lambrecht’s comments) for the days prior to General Conference 2016. You can bet that the encouragement to “vote as a bloc” will be presented again.
“Voting as a bloc” matters because when it is a visible vote, then there are repercussions to those who do not vote with the majority of their delegation. In 2004, a member of the Florida Annual Conference delegation was witnessed being physically removed from the floor and berated for not voting with the rest of the delegation on a sensitive issue. So that person was not able to vote as a delegate because their delegation treated them like a representative.
We see that misrepresenting the elected body’s role is a tactical decision: if people see themselves as representing their sponsoring conferences and voting in lockstep with their delegation, then the pressure is for them to listen more to their advocates than to the Holy Spirit. That works in the advocacy groups’ favor and their list of hoped-for legislative achievements, but not in the favor of the United Methodist Church overall.
A Proposed Solution
What can be done to help ease the pressure on delegates to conform to their area’s interests? Thankfully, there’s a significant change in store for 2016 that will help correct this calculated misrepresentation of the role of the delegates. From Heather Hahn’s UMNS report:
For the first time, delegates will use handheld electronic devices to log their votes in legislative committees, just as they do during plenary sessions of the full General Conference. Essentially, the move means delegates will have secret ballots in both locations…
The United Methodist Commission on the Status and Role of Women requested the change after the agency’s monitors reported that delegates faced pressure from observers during the 2012 General Conference legislative sessions…
Steve Furr, a veteran delegate from Alabama-West Florida Conference, [said] that the change might help delegates more comfortably vote on topics their cultures consider too taboo to discuss openly. The Rev. David Dodge, a Florida Conference delegate, expects the change also will encourage delegates to prepare better to vote rather than simply following the lead of others.
By allowing for electronic voting in both plenary and legislative sections, along with holding presiding bishops accountable for calling for standing votes, delegates will be better able to vote their conscience and their communion with the Holy Spirit.
To the General Conference Delegates:
While it isn’t appropriate to ask you to represent the interests of the annual conference, what is appropriate is to ask that you remember that you are delegates.
- It doesn’t matter what caucus or special interest or big shiny gold star got you into General Conference.
- It doesn’t matter who buys you phones and texts you their desires, or who buys you breakfast, or who gives you rainbow stoles.
You are not representative of the UMC. Rather, you are delegated the authority as the United Methodist Church for two weeks. Vote how your heart and head and experience and reason and tradition would vote, not who elected you wants you to vote. Vote to discern God’s dream for your Church, not make the hometown happy.
On our part, we will pray for you, be of good counsel to you, and for two weeks know that you are not there representing our state but are part of the worldwide church struggling together to listen to the reality of our world and the hope of the Holy Spirit and find the thin places where the twain meet.
Thoughts?
Note: portions of this post were originally published here.
Thank you for this timely reminder, Jeremy. Important for everyone to understand.
Thanks for this post Jeremy. I wanted to know more about how things work and this helps.
I too believe in the intention of being a ‘delegate’. What I want are delegates who listen to their relationship to God. As people of God what would happen when we lived by that instead of the false relationship to others? I want delegates who know how to discern what is called for no matter how hard. I want them to pray and listen to each other with openness before voting. I want them to care about the greater good and how to know what that is. I want them to be courageous. When I trust people to care for more than their own self-interests then I trust the outcome.
I’m a GC Delegate from Indiana. Jeremy and I don’t often agree. But I do agree that the distinction between a delegate and a representative is a good one. Bishop Coyner has always been very clear about the distinction when when commissioning the delegation at Annual Conference with prayer.
One reason we delegate authority to GC Delegates is that there are a lot of moving pieces and parts at General Conference. Petitions are amended/changed and small wording changes make a big difference in whether or not someone can support them. (Many people forget that not all votes are related to “hot button” theological issues. A lot of them have to do with processes and more mundane business issues.)
Ultimately every delegate must vote his or her conscience and be held accountable to God. Having said that, I do not see the use of electronic keypads in Legislative Groups changing the voting patterns in any major way. The idea that people are only voting to maintain the current stance on hot button issues based on peer pressure is silly.
One more thought–if people are lying about how they would vote on issues (or more subtly misrepresenting themselves during the GC election process) that is deplorable. I have always believed in being WYSYWG. Integrity matters.
Unfortunately, the wise older clergy person to whom you refer is wrong.
There are two forms of representative government. One is a representative delegate, the other is a representative trustee. Delegates are expected to vote the wishes of those who delegated their votes to them. Trustees, on the other hand, are given autonomy to act in the best interest of the common good. This is a long-historied disntinction in political science, going back at least as far as John Stuart Mill (in “Representative Government,” 1861) and Edmund Burke (mid 1700s), both of whom happen to argue that a trustee model of representation is superior. But to the point of your argument, in a delegate representative model–which is the UMC model–the terms representative and delegate are inter-changable, both implying a responsibility to represent the delegates constituency.
So while your argument may make people feel better about doing whatever they want with no moral compulsion to think about the people who elected them, the argument is incorrect.
Hi Michael, thanks for reading. I’m surprised at your inclusion of Edmund Burke as not agreeing with the distinction between being delegated conscience and representing a region. Burke’s speech to Bristol (which then he was not re-elected afterward since the people rejected it) follows the line of thought above very closely. Can you take a read and help me understand how I misread it?
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html
Mike and I don’t agree on everything, but in this instance, I think he’s right on. Paragraph 15 of our Constitution says, “The General Conference shall fix the ratio of representation in the General, jurisdictional, and central conferences from the annual conferences, missionary conferences, and the provisional annual conferences…” Further, Paragraph 34 says, concerning the status of delegates to General Conference, “The persons first elected up to the number determined by the ratio for representation in the General Conference shall be representatives in that body.” Jeremy, I’m afraid your Church politics has swayed your interpretation of Church law, which I’m afraid we’re all prone to do as part of being human.
Thanks Lonnie. I believe if you scroll down to Dave Werner’s comment, you’ll see the Judicial Council has weighed in multiple times that delegates are not to have any voting restrictions, including expectations of representation.
https://www.hackingchristianity.net/2016/02/we-elected-delegates-not-representatives-to-general-conference.html/comment-page-1#comment-2436438
While I do not agree with distinctions made between delegates and representatives, I do agree that delegates should ultimately vote their conscience on all issues. That is true of representatives in Congress and delegates to General Conference. Otherwise, there would be no need to send representatives. One could just let the popular votes decide every issue.
I think a delegate / representative should take into account the wishes of those he/she represents. However, conscience should be the deciding factor.
I disagree with the article’s position on transparency totally, Without transparency there is no trust. Without trust the whole system would fall apart. I personally do not trust the Committee on General Conference. It is clear that they have an agenda. The people who sent you do have the right to know how you voted, in my opinion. And they have right not to send you back if they disagree with your conscience.
If a delegate doesn’t have the courage to stand up to those who would pressure them, that delegate should just go home. It is part of the job.
While I’m not a fan, would a listing of the votes after General Conference be acceptable? That would solve concerns about coercion during Conference alongside transparency for accountability after Conference.
I think our system, though still working, is week and therefore needed to be strengthened by being transparent. Our people are looking for more transparencies in our actions and decisions. I don’t know why the leadership of our denomination would deny this legitimate concern. Nobody wants to grope in the dark. Let our light shine even in casting our votes. The voices of our delegates should be accounted for. They have been elected to represent and articulate the conscience of their annual conference. Unfortunately, some delegates wear two faces. During election to the GC they promised to represent their annual conference but during the GC session their color suddenly change. If their votes at the GC will be made public they can no longer wear two faces.
I agree with the concern that there be transparency in the process, leading to (hopefully) increased trust.
I am curious where in the Book of Discipline does it outline that delegates are not representatives? (Other than to use the word delegate, rather than representative.) I’ve heard that distinction made between being “members” of annual conference, versus representing the local congregation (for laity). Given that the UMC preserves the representative democracy model inaugurated by the USA founders, I find this difference difficult to accept as historically accurate.
Of course, representatives need to have flexibility to vote on changing circumstances and petitions. But they do so as representing the people who elected them, not as independent agents.
Thanks for your comment, Tom. Unhelpfully, the Discipline (and nowhere I can find in the Resolutions–though I may have missed it) doesn’t outline the thought processes or expectations of those elected to GC. It only gives qualifications needed of those who serve. It also uses the terms “delegates” and “representatives” interchangeably.
So the above is an attempt to show that when we venerate “representation” above “delegation of authority” then we fall into some troublesome areas that lead to coercion of vote at General Conference, which is troubling regardless of ideology.
Therefore, reminding folks that they are delegates who are sent as a representative body from their annual conference reminds them of their spirit-led autonomy in the face of the local cultures who would want conformity.
“…local cultures who would want conformity…” Ah, Jeremy you crack me up. I’m sure by that phrase you were referring to places in the Western Jurisdiction which expect all of their delegates to vote in favor of overturning our stance on same sex marriages/gay ordination. Because I’m sure you wouldn’t possibly engage in ethnocentricity against those from other cultural backgrounds.
Come, Holy Spirit! Give all of our GC delegates wisdom from on high and the courage to do your will!
Ha! Remember I’m from Oklahoma. I would want the best people elected from Oklahoma, which has a relatively diverse delegation. And I wouldn’t want a good person who votes moderate 90% of the time to be maligned for one issue they are progressive on.
Also, in Oregon, it’s not like we have a lot of slots for diversity. One clergy, one lay.
I should get to know your Oregon-Idaho delegates well. If I’m reading the chart in the ADCA correctly we will be sitting at table 58 together with delegates from Alaska. (Row 4. I’m last elected INUMC.)
In the FWIW category, I offer this response I received from Info-Serv after I asked my question about “delegate” vs. “representative.” (Hope it’s OK to share the Info-Serv answer…):
The Judicial Council has ruled on similar questions several times. Decision 592, regarding submitting a record of voting, says in part,
“The Judicial Council dealt with a case similar in nature in Decision 109. … The Bishop ruled: In conformity with the generally accepted principle that delegated members of a Church Council shall be free to make decisions in the light of facts and discussions concerning issues that are considered by such body, the Discipline of The Methodist Church does not authorize an Official Board or a Quarterly Conference to order and instruct its Lay Member, or Reserve Lay Members of the Annual Conference to vote in any specified manner on matters coming before the Annual Conference. The Judicial Council affirmed that decision.
… In The United Methodist Church delegates to General and Jurisdictional Conferences are historically and traditionally elected without instruction. All requirements for qualifications, elections and service that are contained in the Discipline are powers reserved to the General Conference. We find no language in the Constitution or Discipline, nor has any been called to our attention giving authority to the Annual Conference to require that delegates report their votes; and they need not do so. Delegates to General Conference, just as members of an Annual Conference, are bound to do as their conscience dictates what is good for the Church of Jesus Christ, The United Methodist Church in particular, and that only.†…
Read the full text of Decision 592: http://www.umc.org/decisions/41486
Decision 109: http://www.umc.org/decisions/41063
Decision 1083, regarding whether candidates for election as delegates to General/jurisdictional conferences can be compelled to disclose their views on issues, is available here: http://www.umc.org/decisions/42007
Info-Serv bolded this sentence from Decision 592: “Delegates to General Conference, just as members of an Annual Conference, are bound to do as their conscience dictates what is good for the Church of Jesus Christ, The United Methodist Church in particular, and that only.”
I’ve always liked Info-Serv!
This is incredibly helpful. Thanks for the extra effort, Dave. I really appreciate it.