LoginNB. This is archived material from Assembly 2004
Home » What's Presbyterian? » Church governance structure » General Assembly 06 » Reports from Assembly 2004 » Council of Assembly » E5: Nominating Review Task Group
Nominating Review Task Group
<typohead type="2">Report
</typohead>
<typohead type="3">1. Nominating Process Review Task Group Members </typohead>
Chris Auchinvole (Convener), Chris Elliot, John Falconer, John Good, David Gordon, John Hallett, Emma Keown, Ken Linscott, Janet Sim-Elder, Elaine Scurr, Millie Te Kawa, Saumalu Tuitama and Neil Walker (Consultant).
<typohead type="3">2. Synopsis </typohead>
2.1 The Task Group has conducted a thorough and rigorous review of present and past systems of nominating people to positions in the Presbyterian Church. Taking account of all the criteria involved, and carefully matching the needs of the Church with modern communication opportunities, the Task Group is pleased to present detailed recommendations that will enhance, streamline, and give clarity to the way the Presbyterian Church is operated. The process is designed to provide full information about the opportunities for personal involvement within Church Policy and Work and Reference Groups and to facilitate a means of response from the widest possible selection of informed people within the Church.
<typohead type="3">3. Issues under Consideration </typohead>
3.1 Election of Moderator Designate
The Task Group proposes changes to the process that will allow:
(a) Parishes to nominate names to Presbyteries (as now).
(b) Presbyteries to vote on names – first round (as now).
(c) Four leading names to be selected from combined Presbytery votes.
(d) The four names to be submitted to all Parishes for voting on.
(e) Election packs containing personal statement, CV and photograph to be sent out.
(f) Parishes to use a preferential voting system over all candidates.
(g) Large parishes (33% of total parishes) are given two votes.
(h) Candidate with largest vote to be confirmed by Nominating Committee/Assembly.
A detailed explanation of the process is contained in the report.
3.2 Reforming the Nomination Process
Solutions to identified procedural concerns and problems are recommended as follows:
(a) Computerise the entire system of Nomination and operate on-line.
(b) Establish a web site specifically for nominations (can describe positions available).
(c) Parishes able to nominate direct to Nominating Committee Convener Presbyteries/UDC´s can affirm choice.
(d) After checks that candidates CVs are appropriate, the Nominating Committee Convener sends all names to the Nominating Committee members for consideration.
3.3 Other Issues Considered
(a) Appointment of Nominating Committee members.
(b) Balancing the Committee – need to have diversity – induction for new members.
(c) Assembly involvement – publish provisional nominations early in Assembly. Conveners of major Policy/Work/Reference Groups to speak before Assembly to become identified with their positions.
<typohead type="3">4. Introduction </typohead>
"And they cast their lots and the lot fell to Mathias and he was numbered with the eleven apostles." Act I: 26
4.1 From the very earliest times it has been customary for the Church to make appointments to positions using a blend of discernment from the Holy Spirit and the casting of some form of lot. For example, in the choosing of Elders the procedure allows for a careful discernment being exercised by the Session, supported by a congregational vote, and on the other hand there can be a vote at the Annual Meeting of names discerned by members of the congregation. A church is a very different organisation to purely secular ones, and procedures of appointment need to be scrupulously fair with appointees reflecting a spiritual call rather than a partisan position.
4.2 Naturally enough there can be times of divided opinion on spiritual and other matters within the body of the church. The procedures available to the Nominating Committee need to allow for maintenance of conciliation and understanding between a range of views within the organisational structure of the national church, avoiding dominance of a singular expression of view. At the same time, those aspects of church life, which define the expression of our Presbyterian Polity, need to be safeguarded through the appointment procedure system. The nominating procedures need to achieve an outcome of having appropriate appointees who can fulfil the tasks required of them.
4.3 In the case of the current nominating procedures, the divided nature of Assemblies during the 90´s resulted in dissatisfaction being expressed over the Nominating Procedures from the floor of the Assemblies. There is a view that the procedures of nomination were not always understood by a proportion of new members to the Nominating Committee many of whom were attending Assembly for the first time. They had little opportunity to become familiar with requirements of the various Committees and Work Groups, and could not be expected to know the majority of nominees, their skills or attributes. The pressure to make a discerned selection within the tight time frame of an Assembly meeting did little to assist, and added to the need for a review of procedures.
4.4 At the 2000 General Assembly, when the list of nominations for appointment for 2000-2002 was brought before the Assembly it was rejected by 178 to 154 votes. The requirement for a 60% majority prevented a full rejection. If the nominations made by the Nominating Committee had been rejected "in toto" it would have left the Church in a very difficult position. General Assembly 2000 also received four Overtures from different parts of the Church all expressing different concerns about the Appointments system. These gave rise to Notice of Motion No. 00-128 that sought a general review of Appointments procedures. Notice of Motion 128 read as follows:
1. That Assembly be mindful of concerns raised, commit this church to work for increasing transparency, fairness and accountability in its selection of people to serve on work Groups, Reference Groups, Commissions, Council of Assembly, Nominating Committee and other bodies.
2. That Council of Assembly appoint a Task Group with the following terms of reference:
(a) To review and consider the Church´s process of nomination with special reference to:
(i) Opening a fair election of the Nominating Committee by Presbyteries and United District Councils.
(ii) The time frame necessary for the Nominating Committee to do its work.
(iii) The selection of the widest possible range of able people.
(iv) The provision and circulation to the Nominating Committee of accurate written information on prospective appointees to the above group.
(v) Whether or not the Council of Assembly should have the discretion to overrule the Nominating Committee.
(vi) The process of consultation between the Nominating Committee, Presbyteries and United District Councils to ensure they are effective.
(vii) The possible distribution to Assembly the draft lists early in Assembly and the provision for Assembly Commissioners to have input.
(b) To consult widely.
(c) To send the draft report to Presbyteries and United District Councils for comment.
(d) To submit its recommendation to the Council of Assembly by September 2001.
This was agreed without debate.
The Council of Assembly established the Nominating Process Review Task Group and appointed Chris Auchinvole as Convener."
4.5 The resulting report advocated a wide number of useful reforms that were accepted by the Council of Assembly, and were included in the 2002 Assembly Nomination procedures. These reforms sought to deal with many of the matters in Notice of Motion 128. (Unfortunately due to an oversight the Task Group´s report was not circulated to the wider Church according to parts (b) to (d) and as a result it was thought by people interested in the issue that no action had been taken. Accordingly Memorial 2 was put forward by Taranaki Presbytery to ensure the issue would be discussed at the 2002 Assembly.)
4.6 The Task Group had not, however, been discharged, and the Council asked for further work to be done in establishing "Best Practice" procedures at Presbytery level.
4.7 From discussion with all members of the 2002 Nominating Committee it became clear that the changes proposed by the 2000 Review Task Group, although definitely improving the fairness of the operation, could be improved by further refinement.
4.8 In addition to the earlier issues new items were included on the agenda. The issue of the fairest way to elect the Moderator Designate had also been raised, and the Group was tasked through Notice of Motion 02.177 to bring forward a recommendation (see Section 1 below).
4.9 Problems identified in terms of "Best Practice" include obtaining suitable people to fill roles, a lack of enthusiasm by some Presbyteries/UDC´s in responding to requests for nominations and in meeting deadline dates. Increasing paper work involved in receiving nominations and supporting information rendered the process unworkable without a very heavy personal commitment from the Nominating Committee co-conveners. Accordingly the discussion generated among Nominating Committee members resulted in a decision to seek to extend the life of the Nominating Process Review Task Group. Memorial 2 was used to bring forward Notices of Motion O2 -186.
4.10 [02.186] replaces [02.106]
"That the Assembly request the Council of Assembly to remandate its already convened Task Group set up in 2001 to consider a complete review of the whole appointment making system of the Presbyterian Church.
The committee:
<typolist>
Be expanded to include others to bring an added perspective to the debate.
Include (and consult with) people experienced in Human Resources procedures and Electoral systems.
Re-address the concerns expressed in the 2000 Assembly notice of motion [02.128] as printed in Memorial 2.
Complete the audit of the problems with the existing system and recommend solutions
Send it for discussion to all Presbyteries/District Council/Churches for study and comment by 1 September 2003.
That a report including comments from Churches/Presbyteries/Union District Councils, and recommendations be brought back to the 2004 Assembly."
</typolist>
4.11 The effect of the motion was to re-establish the "Nominating Procedures Review Task Group" with additional appointments being made to provide specialist knowledge and wider representation. Neil Walker offered his services as a consultant to the Group and Chris Auchinvole continued as Convener. The Committee has since sought opinions and advice from a number of sources within the Church, has held a series of telephone meetings, and has had numerous e-mail exchanges and the various issues have been discussed widely.
4.12 This report is to be widely circulated for comment and then, along with appropriate enhancements from Parishes, Presbyteries and UDC´s, will be put into practice in 2004 according to Notice of Motion 02-186.
<typohead type="3">5. Section 1 : The Election of the Moderator-Designate </typohead>
5.1 [02.177]
"That the Nominating Process Review Task Group be instructed to examine the procedure for the election of the Moderator Designate of the General Assembly in order to clarify the possible uncertainty as to the weighting (if any) of votes between Presbyteries/ UDC´s/Sessions /Parish Councils in clause 2 Appendix D8 of the Book of Order and to properly reflect the intention of the Commission for Diversity as agreed by General Assembly."
5.2 This issue arises from a change in the process for election of the Moderator-Designate as recommended by the Commission on Diversity (Ref. C-27 General Assembly Reports 1999) This has meant that for the first time all Presbyteries/UDC´s and all Parishes that voted were accorded 1 vote each. Presbytery votes therefore become a much less significant part of the total. The process was brought into question. One argument is that Presbyteries/UDC´s represent a large number of parishes and should therefore have a greater say. On the other hand Presbyteries/UDC´s are often very divided in their voting. If they have a pre-eminent role with a winner-takes all approach (even if a candidate wins by only 1 vote), this could lead to further charges of unfairness, to politicking and divisiveness.
5.3 A strictly ?first past the post´ system could see a candidate with definite minority support being elected.
The Task Group considered all these points and concluded:
(a) Parishes should not lose their right to vote for the Moderator-Designate.
(b) The system should give a clear and indisputable winning candidate.
A new system is proposed as follows:
5.4. First Round
5.4.1 Presbyteries/UDC´s nominate candidates as at present.
Note: At present this includes parishes being asked to submit names to their Presbytery/UDC).
5.4.2 The Nominating Committee seeks the candidates´ acceptance of their nomination and asks that they each prepare a 150 word statement that can be posted on the Presbyterian Church Web-Site.
5.4.3 Once all candidates are known Presbyteries/UDC´s vote and recommend one person.
(Presbyteries/UDC´s are in a position to know nominees and the personal attributes and skills they would bring to the task of Moderator of the General Assembly.)
5.5 Second Round
5.5.1 The names of the top four candidates as selected by Presbyteries/UDC´s are then submitted to Parishes to vote upon. Preferential voting will be used to facilitate this.
5.5.2 At the same time an election pack is sent to each Session and Parish Council, containing candidates, biographical details, personal statements, photograph and other appropriate details. The length and the format of the details to be established by the Nominating Committee Executive in consultation with the Council of Assembly Administration and Finance Policy Group.
5.5.3 Parishes to be strongly encouraged to vote and a reminder sent. A time of six weeks to be allowed. Parishes to be able to take an interest in the election and be able to approach candidates if they wish.
5.5.4 Parishes to vote by preferential voting. The Task Group has no recommendation on voting procedures within a Parish, be it by the Session/Parish Council or by the congregation.
5.5.5 It is recommended that the top 33% of parishes by numerical size (as determined by the previous year´s Church statistics) should have 2 votes.
The criteria for this to be based on active participation i.e. on Members and Adherents, or in the new language Members and Associate Members.
5.5.6 The results to be assembled by professional staff in Wellington overseen by a Justice of the Peace and for results to be advised to the Nominating Committee which will confirm the nomination and ask the Nominating Committee Convenor to advise Assembly.
5.5.7 A further issue was discussed; that of encouraging nomination of lay people and increasing the likelihood of a lay person being appointed Moderator on a more regular basis. A further clause was suggested, "That if a lay person was nominated by Presbyteries/UDC´s one at least of the four names to be sent to Parishes must be a lay person".
Where possible this would place the name of a lay person before the Church without creating a strong bias in favour of a lay person. Any candidate has to be voted into office.
5.6 This matter caused some differing views. Some thought it a positive move, but others were strongly opposed saying that equally powerful arguments could be made in regard to gender, cultural or ethnic concerns.
5.7 Task Group members worked in consensus so have no recommendation on this aspect of the process other than to report that consideration of the matter was given. The Task Group also acknowledges that Council of Assembly has asked that further work be done on identifying why there have not been more nominations of lay people as Moderator-Designate.
5.8 Notes to the Proposal in Section 5.5 (above)
No.1 In the case of a tie for 4th place either a fifth candidate could be included; or an acceptable formula established, based on the size of the nominating Presbyteries/UDC´s.
No.2 The Task Group was concerned to recommend a system whereby candidates´ resumes would be standardised (this was in place in 2002).
No.3 Parishes need to be encouraged to vote. This might stimulate a greater interest in the National Church at Parish level.
No.4 It is desirable for the person receiving the final nomination to have at least 50% of the vote, and at the end of the process the successful candidate will have received the votes of 50%.
No5. It is thought to be clearly unfair to have Parishes with memberships of 30 having a similar vote to Parishes with 300 members. On the other hand the Task Group felt that to weight in favour of these very large Parishes would see them dominate the rest. Accordingly it was decided that a moderate advantage should be given to the largest Parishes. The Assembly Executive Secretary´s staff could calculate the cut-off point for two votes and all Parishes be advised. When the votes are counted about one third of Parishes could be assigned 2 votes while the remainder receive one.
5.9 An exhaustive survey was conducted by the Task Group Consultant. It was found that working on the 2001 figures the upper third of Parishes had 135 or more full members. Examination of possible consequences found:
5.9.1 No particular region gained dramatically.
5.9.2 Minorities (Pacific Island and Korean Churches for example) would gain slightly.
5.9.3 There was a concentration of larger Churches in the Christchurch–Dunedin area but this is considered unlikely to tip the balance significantly.
5.10 There was unanimous agreement amongst Task Group members that points 1-9 of the proposal are the preferred choices of procedure.
5.11 The Task Group therefore recommends the adoption of points 1-9 in this section of its Report to the Council of Assembly for the Council´s consideration and forwarding to the Book of Order and Judicial Reference Group, recommending this be the adopted process for Moderator-Designate Election in 2004.
<typohead type="3">6. Section 2 : Reforming the Nomination Process </typohead>
6.1 The Task Group endeavoured to address the administrative and logistical difficulties in the nominating process, consulting with people experienced in Human Resources procedures and electoral systems (02.186 clause 2).
6.2 The following faults were identified in the existing system:
(a) The system is time-consuming and overly bureaucratic.
(b) It does not generate enthusiastic support from Presbyteries/UDC´s and Parishes.
(c) There are no easily accessed central sources of information about roles and functions of Policy Groups, Work Groups, Reference Groups and other Church structures.
(d) It can be difficult to identify the most appropriate candidates for positions.
(e) The present procedures are vulnerable to criticism of preferment towards individuals.
(f) An undue burden of reliance is placed on Nominating Committee co-Conveners.
(g) The system overall lacks clarity, easy comprehension and transparent processes.
(h) There is difficulty in obtaining Presbytery/UDC response within timelines and cut-off dates.
6.3 Reforming the Process
This paper is concerned with the physical processes of applications, nominations and acceptances being made prior to the meeting of the Nominating Committee at Assemblies. The Task Group proposes a new system based on receiving all applications ON-LINE.
6.4 A Proposed New Process
6.4.1 Accept the principle of conducting all nominations ON-LINE.
1. Establish a website specifically for nominations. This website would show expected vacancies on Council of Assembly, Policy Groups, Work Groups and Reference Groups and have relevant information concerning the skills and attributes required, place and frequency of meetings of the various groups and the time commitment involved.
The website would also contain detailed application forms for all positions. Carefully prepared resumes will give exactly the information required.
2. Applications to be sent on-line to a Nominating Committee co-Convener. Nominations to be made by local Session, Parish Council or Presbytery/UDC. Presbyteries/UDC´s could be asked to affirm nominations from Parishes. (Further note: there is a good case for nominations from Policy, Work, and Reference Groups themselves especially in relation to replacing a co-Convener.) For those without computer access, applications may be sent by mail or post.
3. Necessary checking procedures would then be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act.
Candidates who do not meet the specifications or requirements for particular roles can be identified and notified at this point. This would ensure all nominations are practical and can succeed (see note (f) below).
4. The on-line nominations are then e-mailed to Nominating Committee members.
This eliminates excessive paper, cuts costs and saves time. Presbyteries/UDC´s, Parishes and potential nominees can access the website for information.
Uniform application forms ensure comparable information on nominees.
6.4.2 Points to Note
(a) The co-Conveners of Council, Policy Groups, Work Groups and Reference Groups etc. would e-mail information regarding vacancies.
(b) People would be better informed both on the work of the church and the skills and attributes required for the various groups. An example of this type of informative web site may be found at www.fonterragrads with special reference to the Fonterra Summer Programme.
(c) Application forms to be carefully prepared to give exactly the information required. We suggest applicants would be nominated by local Parish Council or Presbytery/UDC. If nominated by a Parish the local Presbytery/UDC can provide a report if they choose to.
(d) All applications to a central point, on-line, to Convener of Nominating Committee.
(e) Necessary normal church procedures checks to be carried out.
(f) Convener to check that candidates meet the specifications for role. For instance, there may be nominations where the person cannot meet the required criteria, such as when the Church Architecture Reference Group needs a practicing Architect and an unqualified person is nominated, or when an out of town nomination is made for a Wellington-based Group that meets frequently. The purpose is not to provide the Convener with the ability to reject some nominations but simply to ensure all nominations are practical and can succeed.
(g) Convener can send all the cleared applications to members of the Nominating Committee via Internet to study at their leisure.
(h) The Conveners of Task Groups, Work Groups and Reference Groups can indicate by e-mail vacancies that exist on their Groups and ask Nominating Committee members to search for suitable Candidates
6.4.3 It is recommended:
That the principle of computerising the Nominating Process on–line and the practices contained in Section 2 points (1), (2), (3) & (4) of this report be adopted as the new Nominating Process for the Presbyterian Church.
<typohead type="3">7. Section 3 : Sharpening up the Process </typohead>
Further aspects of the Nominating Process identified during discussion by the Task Group or raised by General Assembly Overtures/ Notices of Motion include:
7.1 Nomination and appointment of the members of the Nominating Committee
7.1.2 Concerns have been voiced about the processes used within Presbyteries/UDC´s when making nominations for the Nominating Committee itself.
7.1.3 The Task Group wishes to emphasise the need for Nominating Committee members to have knowledge of the National Church and knowledge of available people-resources, certainly within their own Presbytery/UDC. Skills in making appointments, willingness to seek candidates, integrity and fair-mindedness are important attributes. The Task Group recommends that the Best Practice Procedures are:
(i) At their final meeting in the year preceding a General Assembly, Presbyteries/UDC´s advertise the role of membership of the Nominating Committee, seeking nominations from prospective commissioners to General Assembly. Nominations to be received by the first meeting of the new year.
(ii) Any nomination may be handled in a manner appropriate to each Presbytery/UDC, by the Business Committee, or Executive, or a separate Committee set up to consider all applicants.
(iii) Discernment of who is the most appropriate must always take into account the particularities of the task required.
(iv) Presbytery/UDC should confirm the nominations doing as much as possible to ensure there is a wide level of consensus, before forwarding the names to the Nominating Committee co-Convener
(v) The Church acknowledges the importance of trying where possible to make all nomination in keeping with the concept of "Healthy Congregations". Every effort to be made to give Nomination Committee Members a period of induction before Assembly.
7.1.4 It is recommended:
That the procedural steps in Section 3(1) points (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) be adopted as Best Practice Procedure for Presbyteries/UDC´s in making nominations to the Nominating Committee.
Footnote: The Task Group considers that the work-load being undertaken by the co-Conveners of the Nominating Committee should be recorded and provided to Council of Assembly before and following changes to the procedures.
7.2 Balancing the Nominating Committee
7.2.1 This procedure was put in place with the desire to produce Nominating Committees that are balanced between lay and ordained members, and between gender, ethnicity, and geographic locality and was sanctioned by the 1996 General Assembly.
7.2.3 The procedure on occasions compromises the nominations from some Presbyteries/UDC´s that would prefer to exercise the right to choose their own representative.
7.2.4 The Task Group has considered a wide range of options and decided that publicity should be sent to Presbyteries/UDC´s emphasising the need for diversity in their appointments. Presbyteries/UDC´s are asked to understand that in the event of a lack of diversity amongst the nominations received (for example a pre-dominance of male clergy) the co-Convener of the Nominating Committee may request them to reconsider their nomination.
7.2.5 The Task Group considers that some continuity within the Committee would be useful as it may take more than one Assembly for Nominating Committee members to become completely familiar with their task. Some specific orientation prior to the Nominating Committee work beginning would assist newly appointed members. Meeting formally a day prior to the beginning of Assembly is advantageous.
7.2.6 It is recommended:
That suitable publicity be provided to Presbyteries/UDC´s emphasising the need for diversity in their nominations to the Nominating Committee, and seeking Presbytery/UDC understanding that there may be occasions when they are asked to reconsider.
7.3 Opportunity for comment from Assembly Commissioners and selection of Conveners and co-Conveners
7.3.1 At present the Nominating Committee selects the final nominations for appointment including the nominations of Conveners and co-Convenors of Work, Policy and Reference Groups and Council of Assembly. The General Assembly may accept or reject the nominations.
7.3.2 The Assembly 2000 Notice of Motion 128 reasoned that Assembly should be able to study nominations before they were moved ?en bloc´. In 2002 the lists of nominations were circulated in the Assembly and time given for Commissioners to appear before the Committee to make submissions.
7.3.3 The Task Group considers that this was most worthwhile, and feels the opportunity should be taken to continue to create a closer tie between the Assembly and nominees to encourage a feeling of ownership of the Council of Assembly, Work, Policy, and Reference Groups in much the same way that the Tutahi Tatou meetings allow.
7.3.4 The Task Group considered various options of achieving this, including direct elections of co-Conveners. A number of practical issues would need to be resolved before this could be easily contemplated. In the meantime it is suggested that all of the nominated Conveners/co-Conveners of Council of Assembly, Policy, Work, and Reference Groups should have the opportunity to appear before Assembly to introduce themselves. This would put ?faces to names´ and give ?personalities to positions´ and hopefully stimulate continuing and sustainable interest in the work of the Council of Assembly, the Policy, Work, and Reference Groups, and through that, the work of the Church – for that is what it is all about. Amen.
<typohead type="3">8. Concluding Comments </typohead>
8.1 From Chris Elliot – Previous Nominating Committee Convener
Any system is only as good as those who operate it. This new or revised process will only succeed if Presbyteries/UDC´s take their responsibilities seriously, actively seeking appropriately skilled people and meeting deadlines. One of the inadequacies of the system has been a breakdown of the process at Presbytery/UDC level. I believe that this needs to be made clear in the report. Education may be part of the solution, but I don't believe that the Nominating Committee co-Conveners and executive have the time to do this, apart from good communication – hopefully now through a web site and enhanced e-mail contact.
8.2 From Neil Walker – Consultant to the Task Group
One of the most pleasing aspects of working with the Task Group has been the way in which all the conclusions and recommendations have been arrived at through universal consensus. This allowed the considerations; deliberations and discussions to proceed unimpeded through every aspect of the task that had been set. We have endeavoured to produce a definitive document to meet the Council of Assembly´s requirements.
8.3 From Chris Auchinvole – Convener of the Task Group
The Church and I are indebted to the work and assiduous efforts of the individual members of the Task Group. They each have no more time available than anybody else within the Church, yet they each responded to the call, and have allocated a proportion of their time to considering and structuring the above report for consideration. It would be a poor investment of their time if the recommendations were not seized upon, carefully examined and responded to by Parishes, Presbyteries/UDC´s and individuals who have the well being of the Presbyterian Church at heart. Your responses will be welcomed.
Chris Auchinvole, JP
Convener