Please check back frequently as we will continue updating the expected motions.
2021 Expected Motions
As usual, Virginia Methodists for a New Thing has shared a pre-Annual Conference Information Sheet, which we hope is especially helpful for first-time delegates. Additionally, a number of individuals have reached out to us because they plan to propose legislation and would like to share information prior to Annual Conference. While these efforts are not all connected to our stated mission of LGBTQ+ inclusivity, they are related in indirect ways. Also, we sense that during this isolated pandemic year, it has been a challenge for clergy and laity to connect as closely as we might otherwise. Therefore, we are offering a platform on our webpage where VAUMC delegates who wish to share their proposals prior to Annual Conference may do so. With such a condensed Annual Conference schedule, this will allow space for many questions to be answered and ideas to be explored before we are formally in session.
If you have motions/legislation that you are planning to bring to Annual Conference, you may share it for pre-reading or discussion by emailing anewthingva@gmail.com and we will add it to this public document.
A MOTION TO AMEND SECTION VII. OF THE REPORT OF THE STANDING RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE - PROPOSED BY REV. TIMOTHY BARTH
Brief Synopsis:
During last year’s Electronic Annual Conference, the Bishop moved too quickly for delegates to ask their questions or to type out their amendments. Given the numerous changes found throughout the Book of Reports this year, it is important to allow delegates the opportunity to consider and act on all proposals.
Motion to be considered:
I move that Section VII. entitled “Rules of Order and Parliamentary Procedure” of the Standing Rules of Order and Procedure be amended by adding a new subheading under VII.E and that all sequential headings be properly reordered:
The new subheading VII.F shall be titled ‘Electronic Voting Procedure’ it shall state the following: “Anytime the presider opens the floor, during an electronic meeting, whether for questions, discussions, motions, and/or amendments he or she shall wait at least 3 minutes before putting the question, motion, report or amendment to a vote.”
Rationale:
This amendment will allow delegates to the Annual Conference enough time to respond during electronically or virtually held sessions of the Annual Conference. Last year and during last week’s clergy session the presider moved too quickly through the business of the body for persons to properly respond in the manners requested.
The proposed amendment is a means of accountability by which the presider will have to intentionally recognize that meeting in a virtual or electronic format is not the same as meeting in person and as such it requires a longer response period than in-person meeting of the Annual Conference.
Memo to VAUMC 2021 Delegates
Regarding: iDAT Funding embedded in the 2022 VAUMC budget
Overview: Most years the Annual Conference budget is passed with no big fanfare. This year, embedded in the 2022 Budget is a radical change to District Ministry and Administration developed by the “District Alignment Team” (DAT or iDAT). The iDAT report can be found on pg. 110-111 of the Book of Reports. This plan and the means by which the conference is being asked to approve of it (through the budget and not a proposal, and over an online Annual Conference) is improper, unwise, and the way we got here has lacked transparency.
Below find a list of concerns for why the iDAT proposal and corresponding portion of the budget should be questioned and resisted, and a list of questions that demand answers.
8 Concerns about the iDAT collected from around the Virginia Conference:
The iDAT plan is billed as an investment in the local church but is in fact a centralization and relocation of power and influence over District-level ministry, decision making, and money to Glen Allen. It concentrates both responsibility and power in the hands of the Conference office, cabinet appointative process, and the Bishop rather than in District offices (let alone local churches). It eliminates contextual, local District ministry and creates 17 new positions that run out of the Conference office.
This massive reorganization plan is being snuck into the budget, not properly debated, and adopted as its own recommendation. It needs to be voted upon as its own legislative package, not through the budget.
The online Annual Conference platform does not allow for true discussion on an issue this serious. Something this big warrants an in-person conference at least.
This plan is intended to adapt to changing landscape and streamline the ministry of the church but it doesn’t save us money; in fact after year 1 it will increase the Conference budget by nearly half a million dollars (assuming no one gets even a cost of living raise after year 1).
What are we “aligning” to in this 2022 budget? There’s no initiative or vision properly before the conference to be voted upon. Instead, there is a report from the iDAT (not a proposal), which we’re being asked to fund before approving of the initiative overall.
We reorganized Conference staff around a vision we never voted for (though the iDAT orientation video says we “adopted” it). Now we are reorganizing the whole Conference around a plan we are not even voting for? The Annual Conference Session, and by extension Annual Conference delegates, is being treated like a rubber stamp.
We’ve heard that “These recommendations invest more in local churches and their leadership” but at least one district is required to pay more in apportionments while losing on-the-ground resources and staff. Meanwhile, the iDAT proposal will remove the role of the District Finance Committee in setting the district budget, and will give the Conference Office control over district apportionments.
Ultimately this plan will result in the Conference Office having more influence on how each district conducts themselves from programing to staffing and even district budget planning. All of it will be governed from Glen Allen, not from the laity or clergy in actual churches.
Questions for the Budget Presenters and or iDAT:
The iDAT has been discussing this plan as apportionment neutral, but what is the apportionment increase anticipated in 2023 (Our calculation is a $495,000 increase in the 2023 VAUMC budget and following)? And where do we expect that apportionment increase will come from when many churches are unable or unwilling to pay their full apportionments as it is?
Regarding District Developer positions, since we have no details about the positions,
What’s the baseline salary of a District Developer?
What’s the Job description of the District Developer?
Who is appointing/hiring them?
What proportion of the District Developers will be appointed by the Bishop?
Who will be evaluating the effectiveness of District Developers?
Who will be supervising the District Developers?
How many current district staff positions will be eliminated as a result of this plan? What is the anticipated ministry loss as a result?
How much, if any, autonomy will District leadership (like a District Leadership Team, or District staff) have in making financial decisions?
What impact would a denominational split have on the implementation of this plan?
The DAT video named that some administrative decisions (Board of Missions and Camps) will remain at the district level implying that other administrative decisions will not. What administrative decisions will no longer be made at the district level but be made at the Conference level instead?
If this budget passes, will we vote on the iDAT plan? Will we ever? Or is this the closest we get to having a say in the direction the conference is heading?
3 Summary Points:
This isn’t the place and now’s not the time.
Many of the goals of the iDAT are faithful and good but the means by which they are being pursued is unwise, inefficient, and improper.
This District Alignment effort is significant enough that it warrants in-person conversation and conferencing.
This concentrates too much power in Richmond
This isn’t about district ministry, it's about the conference appointing, hiring, and dictating what districts should be doing with leadership, decision making, and funding all concentrated in Richmond.
This plan is too expensive, especially beyond 2022.
See question 2 above.
Motions to create oversight and restrictions for legal expenses.
Move to create a Legal Expenses Oversight Work Group, with the following members
Two members Conference Council on Finance and Administration
Two members of the Conference Trustees
The Conference Lay Leader
One representative from the Committee on Rules
One representative from the Cabinet (option)
The purpose of the work group is to:
Review current agreement for services/contract for the position of Chancellor, offering recommendations for revisions to provide accountability to the Annual Conference
Consult with the Association of Conference Chancellors to determine if Virginia “best practices” are consistent with those of other Annual Conferences
Determine if the Conference Standing Rules should be modified to establish accountability protocols
Recommend enforcement measures on expenditures for legal services
Report back to the Annual Conference within 90 days of adoption of this motion
Rationale: The Chancellor serves the Annual Conference and the office of the bishop (Para 602.8). There is currently not an adequate degree of adequate accountability for expenses associated with this role. The disproportionate increase (relative to other budget items) in these expenses since 2016 is ten-fold.
Reduce Line item #19 “Legal Services” in Schedule B Apportionment 402 of the Proposed Budget for 2022 from $200,000 to $100,000.
Rationale: This reduction will bring Virginia into closer alignment with the budgets/expenditures reported by Annual Conferences of similar size and demographics. It will also lift a significant burden currently being borne by the local church.
A Motion regarding the bishop’s vision statement - Prepared by Rev. Bill Davidson
Brief synopsis:
The statement named as the “Vision Statement of the Annual Conference” was announced by Bishop Sharma Lewis at the closing worship of Annual Conference 2017
The Annual Conference took no formal action during the 2018 or 2019 sessions
The Annual Conference adopted the Davidson amendment against the recommendation of the Rules Committee to include the Bishop’s vision in the Standing Rules of the Conference
The Report of the Common Table for Church Vitality made reference to “the Vision of our Annual Conference adopted in our 2017 session” but the vision statement has never been “adopted” by the Annual Conference
Motion to be considered:
I move that the Report on Amendments to Common Table Charter be amended by striking out:
Recommendation 3, referring to Section 1, Purpose, pages 43 and 44 of the Book of Reports, which reads: “B. Vision - The vision of the Virginia Annual Conference is to be disciples of Jesus Christ who re lifelong learners who influence others to serve.” and preserve this section of the Charter for the Common Table for Church Vitality in its original form.
Rationale:
Vision is a fluid and temporal statement which is appropriately refined with changes in Annual Conference leadership and rapidly changing mission fields over the short term
The Charter for the Common Table for Church Vitality is a foundational document of our Annual Conference rooted on our mission “to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world” and as such guides the body over the long term
This is in keeping with the action of the Annual Conference last year which voted to not include a statement of vision in another foundational document, The Standing Rules of the Virginia Annual Conference
Information to consider when discussing district superintendent and district developer salaries - prepared by Rev. Steve hundley and Rev. Joe Carson (updated: 6/11/21)
District Developer
As we understand the proposal and the iDAT’s information shared thus far, we are concerned that the DD position would create a new layer of expensive, conference-level, apportionment-funded jobs that will be unsustainable in the next one-two years.
The annual compensation of any full-time clergy in this Conference consists of a base salary and
fixed costs calculated by Conference: pension + health insurance,
variable costs set by a pastor and a local church: travel expenses + housing allowance.
Current minimum base salary for an elder is about $42,000. The table below estimates total annual expense per pastor using current conference calculations and conservative, perhaps low numbers for housing and travel.
| Base Salary | Housing Allowance | Health Insurance | Pension/CPP | Travel Expenses | Annual total/position |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The principle of having all DSs make the same salary creates a cooperative and balanced working group.
We will assume that the same would be true for the DD servants, whether laity or clergy. Thus…
If all DDs were paid $42K, then the annual cost for 17 DDs would be $1,341,028
The DD position may call for more experienced servants making more than minimum elder salary. So...
If all DDs were paid $50K, then the annual cost for 17 DDs would be $1,499,332
If all DDs were paid $60K, then the annual cost for 17 DDs would be $1,697,212
If all DDs were paid $70K, then the annual cost for 17 DD’s would be $1,895,092
Based on these scenarios, the proposed DD positions could cost the Virginia Conference $1.5 million - $2 million each year.
The rationale for the DD position cites innovation and creativity for flexible responses to an uncertain future. That same language has been used for the past 30 years in such creative innovations as: Catch the Spirit; Revealing Christ; All things New; 5 Talent Academies; Virginia Clergy Leadership Program; Fresh Expressions; Equipping Planters; FOCUS Initiative; District and Conference training events; clergy continuing education; et al. There is nothing new under the sun, nor hidden in the rushes that DDs will discover to fix our churches’ problems.
Many of our churches do not want to change who they are or how they operate. One-half to two-thirds of Virginia’s UM churches are already everything they will ever be. More information and development will not change that. A wealth of parish growth and development resources are now available to every church and pastor online from UM boards, agencies, seminaries, coaches, and consultants. Churches unwilling to use those resources now are not likely to start because a DD position is created.
Several districts now have or used to have some version of a DD position. Certainly, good ministries have occurred because of that dedicated leadership. On a larger Conference scale, however, our Annual Statistical Reports of commonly used indicators show a decline in membership and engagement in recent years.
The UMC is in the process of a denominational ‘divorce’. When that separation is finalized we can reasonably expect Virginia Conference apportionment revenues to shrink by about one-half.
Virginia’s percentage of General Church apportionments for 2022 has increased in 6 funds, and by double digits in 5 of those funds (#’s 411- 415) for a total increase of $1,425,000. Virginia’s General Church apportionments, our ‘slice of the UM pie’, will certainly increase as local churches drop out of the UMC and smaller Annual Conferences are less able to share the costs of operating the General Church.
The DD proposal would add a costly layer of administration, of dubious efficacy, at the same time that other costs are rising rapidly and apportionment income is decreasing dramatically.
Bishop’s proposal to set DS salaries
Years ago, the districts set and paid their own DSs’ salaries. In the late 1990s, the Virginia Conference established policies for and began paying DS salaries. A DS salary could not exceed 95% of the bishop's salary. DSs came into the cabinet at their parish salaries and received a formula-based raise. Those who had been making less than twice the minimum elder salary were raised to that level. Each year a percentage raise for the whole cabinet was divided equally among the DSs. In 2008 Virginia established a uniform DS salary that was approved annually at Conference. The last redistricting effectively equalized workloads for the DSs.
Across the UMC, Annual Conferences set salaries for DSs and cabinet level positions. In many conferences the treasurer, director of connectional ministries, church development leader, and pension officer are all paid the same salary as their DSs.
Giving a bishop the authority to set DS salaries would negate our own wisdom, hard-won over decades. It would contradict the well established policy of this, indeed, of most Annual Conferences. It would silence the voices of the laity who fund the DSs and annually authorize their salaries. It would hinder morale among the many pastors who have been paid at the same minimum for the last 5 years, and who will not see raises in the foreseeable future. It would create a window through which the unintended spectre of favoritism could appear. It would increase Annual Conference expenses as our General Church costs are rising, our apportionment income is declining, and our future resources are disappearing.
A MOTION REGARDING Equitable compensation - PREPARED BY Rev. Ryan Ware & Rev. Timothy Barth
Brief Synopsis:
There are clergy making the minimum who are struggling to make ends meet while continuing to support their families. Further increases in the minimum wage set to take place in January of 2022 will further increase the strain on our clergy who make the minimum salary. Many clergy are already feeling the effects of the minimum wage raise that took place in Virginia in May of 2021.
The Annual Conference has not given raises to the minimums in clergy salaries in at least 8 years while District Superintendents continue to have increases recommended for them.
District Superintendents received an increase from $88,000 to $90,000 in 2019.
District Superintendents are being recommended for a further increase in which the proposed motion gives the Bishop the authority to appoint Distinct Superintendents anywhere from $105,000 to $120,000 (CFA Report Section V-A; pg. 118 in the Book of Reports). At the high end, this can be almost twice the Conference Average Compensation of $66,039 (Report of Equitable Comp. found on pg. 55 of the Book of Reports)
Motion to be considered:
I move that the Report of the Equitable Compensation Commission be amended by striking out:
Recommendation 1a, Full connection pastors $42,000
Recommendation 1b. Provisional and Associate Members $38, 500
Recommendation 1c. Local Pastors $36,000
Recommendation 2a. Full Connection Pastors $28,000
Recommendation 2b. Provisional and Associate Members $25,600
Recommendation 2c. Local Pastors $24,000
I further move that the Report of the Equitable Compensation Commission be amended by replacing as follows:
Recommendation 1a, Full connection pastors $44,000
Recommendation 1b. Provisional and Associate Members $40, 500
Recommendation 1c. Local Pastors $38,000
Recommendation 2a. Full Connection Pastors $30,000
Recommendation 2b. Provisional and Associate Members $27,600
Recommendation 2c. Local Pastors $26,000
Rationale:
As our economic times are changing, we must continue to support our clergy who work tirelessly to support our churches in Making Disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.
Many annual conferences in our jurisdiction have increased their minimums including Florida, North Carolina, and the new Tennessee Conference. Many have raised the minimums multiple times in the last 8 years.
This is in keeping with the action of the Annual Conference in 2018 which voted to increase the salaries of our District Superintendents as well as the proposed increase requested by the Council of Finance and Administration (CFA) to give the District Superintendents another raise.
A Motion to Enhance Transparency for the Conference Council on Finance and Administration - proposed by Rev. David Hindman
Motion to be Considered:
"I move to add a new item L to the CFA Report, Section V - Policies, (p. 121 in the Book of Reports):"
"Transparency
When, as part of its fiduciary and stewardship responsibilities, the CFA makes long-term financial projections related to future funding of Conference ministries and apportionments, CFA shall communicate those projections verbally and in writing to the Annual Conference.
When CFA proposes significant changes in apportionments (10% or more), especially reductions or complete termination of funding (immediately or over a set period of time) for any board, agency, or other recipient of financial support, such proposed changes and the guiding rationale shall be presented verbally and in writing to the Annual Conference for its information and final approval."
Rationale:
Membership of the Annual Conference, especially among lay members, can change significantly from one year to another, and members may not readily be aware of significant changes in funding patterns over a period of years. For example, since 2016, the apportionment for the Virginia Education Fund has decreased from $1 million to a proposed amount of only $336,000 in 2022. Usually the decrease in the apportionment each year has been approximately $100,000; at that rate of decrease, in four more years the Virginia Conference will no longer provide any financial support to our four colleges (Ferrum, Randolph-Macon, Shenandoah, Virginia Wesleyan) or Randolph-Macon Academy.
To date, in Minutes of past sessions, or in each year's Book of Reports, the Council on Finance and Administration has not provided a rationale for this decision, or alerted members of the Conference to what seems to be a plan to eliminate completely this apportioned support for our schools.
In order to bring greater transparency from CFA to the Conference, and thereby enable us to make informed and wise choices, this motion requires the Council on Finance and Administration to explain verbally and in writing, the reasoning for significant changes in funding for apportionments.
A Motion to Amend Section I of the Report of the Council on Finance and Administration - Proposed Conference Budget for 2022 - proposed by Rev. David Hindman
Motion:
"I move that Conference Apportionment 406, Virginia Education Fund, shall be retained at the 2020 amount of $420,000."
Rationale:
Since 2016, the apportionment for the Virginia Education Fund has been reduced dramatically each year, usually by $100,000, from an apportionment of $1,000,000 to the current level of $420,000. The proposed 2022 budget would reduce the asking by an additional $84,000, to $336,000. In the past the Education Fund received 78-86% of the apportioned asking; in 2020 the Fund only received 55% of that asking, largely due to being designated as a Priority 2 apportionment.
Maintaining the apportionment at the 2020 level will avoid any further erosion of our financial support for our four colleges and the academy. It will also be a good faith expression of our support for the BHECM (Board of Higher Education and Campus Ministry) and its aim to to strengthen its connection to United Methodist related institutions throughout the Virginia Conference.
If CFA has good reason for these significant reductions over the past five years, seeming to lead soon to elimination of the apportionment entirely, this also allows the Conference to maintain our status quo support for the schools until CFA can provide that rationale in writing to the 2022 session of Annual Conference.
Requests for declatory decisions are less common than standard motions or amendments to reports. If you would like more information on the specifics of a declatory decision in the UMC process, you can find that here.
A request for a declaratory decision was made during clergy session of Annual Conference 2021. The Annual Conference sought to revisit the request for Declaratory Decision multiple times during the full conference session, but those requests were ruled out of order. The Fall 2021 Judicial Docket is now available, but it is still not included.
More information about the typical path for a declaratory decision can be found here.
A request for a declatory decision from the judicial council pursuant to the membership status of rev. andrew Ensz - submitted by rev. rob vaughn
In this first series of questions, the context centers around the Bishop’s accepting multiple complaints, at different times, by different complainants, based on the same underlying set of facts, and alleging the same chargeable behavior on the part of Rev. Ensz:
1. Pursuant to ¶¶ 20, 362, 2701, and any other pertinent constitutional or Disciplinary rights, as well as Judicial Council Decision 1226 and any other pertinent decisions, may a bishop accept multiple complaints on the same underlying set of facts alleging the same chargeable behavior? Multiple complaints are distinguished from multiple complainants who jointly write and submit a single complaint.
2. When a bishop accepts multiple complaints on the same matter, does it unconstitutionally dilute the rights of the original complainant, or otherwise violate the Disciplinary rights of a complainant pursuant to ¶¶ 362, 2701 or any other provision of the Discipline or Judicial Council decisions, such as in relation to seeking a just resolution to which all parties agree?
3. Does accepting multiple complaints on the same matter constitute double-jeopardy pursuant to ¶ 2701.2(d) or any other provision of the Discipline?
4. Pursuant to ¶ 362.1 and any and all fair process rights and pertinent Judicial Council decisions, if it is permissible to accept a second complaint on the same matter on which a complaint has already been received, may a bishop a) orchestrate a second complaint; b) disclose to a second complainant or otherwise utilize information that is not public and is only available through the content of the first complaint letter in order to facilitate a viable second complaint; and/or c) orchestrate a second complaint with the effect of partly displacing the original complainant, such as due to finding the original complainant dissatisfactory in some way and desiring a party in the role of complainant who is more hostile to the respondent and more amenable to the bishop?
5. Pursuant to ¶ 362.1 and any other pertinent Disciplinary provisions, when a complaint is submitted by a cabinet member (district superintendent), and the district superintendent’s term on the cabinet ends, and said complainant notifies the bishop of withdrawal of the complaint, is it permissible for a bishop to substitute in a new complainant from among the members of the cabinet or otherwise?
I request the following further declaratory decision regarding the authority of bishops in relation to complaint process timelines.
6. Pursuant to ¶ 362.1(e) and Judicial Council Decisions 777, 915, 1156, and 1361, is use of the word “shall,” in relation to conducting a supervisory process within 90 days, a synonym for a different, more permissive verb? Does the Discipline actually mean “shall,” or is it permissible to still be in a supervisory response process around 625 days later?
I request the following series of declaratory decisions regarding fair process rights in the context of the supervisory response process and Rev. Ensz.
7. Pursuant to ¶¶ 20 and 362, any and all aspects of fair process and clergy constitutional or Disciplinary rights, Judicial Council Decisions 777 and 1226 and any other pertinent decisions, is it permissible for a bishop to a) call a meeting with a clergy member, b) outside of a complaint process c) but in contemplation of orchestrating a complaint against that person d) attempt to coerce that clergy person e) into making admissions f) that could then be used as the basis for a complaint?
8. Also pursuant to ¶¶ 20 and 362, any and all aspects of fair process and clergy constitutional or Disciplinary rights, Judicial Council Decisions 777 and 1226 and any other pertinent decisions, is it permissible a) to continue attempting to coerce admissions b) in contemplation of a complaint c) and outside a complaint process d) after the clergy person has already answered questions regarding what would be the substance of the imagined charges.
9. Further, pursuant to ¶¶ 20, 362, 2701, 2704, 2706, any and all aspects of fair process and clergy constitutional or Disciplinary rights, and any pertinent Judicial Council decisions, may a bishop demand that a potential respondent provide evidence of alleged chargeable behavior, thereby alleviating the obligation of the church to expend the effort of investigating and developing evidence of the alleged chargeable behavior sufficient to meet the church’s burden of proof?
10. Further, also pursuant to ¶¶ 20 and 362, any and all aspects of fair process and clergy constitutional or Disciplinary rights, Judicial Council Decisions 777 and 1226 and any other pertinent decisions, a) is it permissible for a bishop to call a meeting with a respondent, b) deny that the meeting is about the complaint against the respondent, c) deny them the opportunity to have their advocate present, d) lure the clergy person into a meeting under the assurance that this meeting has nothing to do with chargeable behavior, e) then try to coerce them f) into making admissions regarding new imagined chargeable behavior g) in contemplation of a complaint?
Finally, I request a declaratory decision regarding the following:
11. When Judicial Council Decision 777 and its progeny state that the steps of complaint, administrative, and judicial processes in ¶ 362 and elsewhere must be followed “carefully and explicitly or injustice results. Lack of diligence, integrity, care, or compassion in dealing with a case almost always results in irreparable harm to both individual and church”—may a bishop determine whether any such harm would actually result from deviation from Disciplinary processes and lawfully deviate from Disciplinary processes whenever a bishop judges that such harm would not occur or is outweighed by other considerations?
Outcome: Likely Will be referred to the Judicial Council once bishop lewis responds. May need to be introduced at annual conference.
Update on Board of Higher Education and Campus Ministry (BHECM) and Consent Agenda
A revised and expanded report of the BHECM will be included in an updated Addendum to the Official Conference Packet. Importantly, it now provides a rather fulsome report to the Conference that Randolph College disaffiliated from the Virginia Conference and The UMC in June 2019, following the actions of General Conference related to matters of human sexuality and LGBTQ inclusion. The updated document also reports on BHECM specific steps in the coming year, aiming to strengthen our ties to our remaining schools, and offers the hope for reconciliation and renewal of relationship with RC "if the Virginia Conference and The United Methodist Church commit to values aligned with Randolph College."
Here is a link to read the updated addition to the BHECM report. You are encouraged to read the updated report and share the information found in the Addendum to the Official Packet with other members of the Conference.
Because these changes and additions have been made to the BHECM report, it will now remain on the Consent Agenda.