Overture 46

On Amending G-9.0302 to Give Governing Bodies an Option to Make Certain Decisions by Consensus—From the Presbytery of Detroit.

The Presbytery of Detroit overtures the 217th General Assembly (2006) to direct the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly to send the following amendment to the Form of Government to the presbyteries for their affirmative or negative votes:

Shall G-9.0302 be amended by adding by adding an “a.” to the current paragraph and adding a new paragraph “b.” to read as follows:

“G-9.0302 Parliamentary Procedure

“a. Meetings of governing bodies, commissions, and committees shall be conducted in accordance with the most recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order, except in those cases where this Constitution provides otherwise."

“b. A governing body may, by a 4/5 vote, choose to decide a matter in plenary, committee, or commission by consensus rather than majority vote. A governing body shall by rule determine the methods and procedures to be used to decide by consensus."

The General Assembly Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the church made the following conclusion about the effects of using parliamentary procedure to make decisions:

... [D]ecision-making by up-or-down vote, in which the winning majority takes all, may be ill-suited to situations in which there is a sizable minority or a persistent, substantial division on important aspects of its common life. In such situations, parliamentary methods may exacerbate political infighting and escalate conflicts rather than resolve them. Adversarial debate tends to set positions in opposition to one another and to mask the needs, values, interests, and concerns that underlie those positions. (Final Report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church, PC(USA), 2005, pp. 29-30, lines 846-851)

The consequences of deciding some very difficult issues by parliamentary procedure can be so destructive that they prompted the task force to propose that governing bodies “... explore the use of alternative forms of discernment and decision-making as a complement to parliamentary procedure, especially in dealing with potentially divisive issues” (Final Report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church, p. 35, lines 1025-1027).

The Book of Order requires all governing bodies, their committees, and commissions to use Robert’s Rules of Order, except where the Constitution says otherwise (Book of Order, G-9.0302).

Robert’s Rules of Order prohibits suspending any rule governing fundamental rules of parliamentary law or the fundamental right rights of members (Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised [RONR] [10th ed.], p. 255, l. 3-28.) Among the fundamental rights of a member are to make motions, debate them, and vote on them (RONR, p. 3, l. 8-12.)

The Constitution states that majority rule is a historic principle of church government, G-1.0400(4), and requires that “[d]ecisions shall be reached in governing bodies by vote, following opportunity for discussion, and a majority shall govern” (Book of Order, G-4.0301e).

The constitutional provisions requiring decisions by vote and the Robert’s Rules of Order prohibition of suspending the right to vote together mean that governing bodies may not make decisions by any means other than motion, debate, and vote.

Even though the task force covenanted to seek consensus and used various strategies to build consensus to good end in its deliberations, taking no votes in the development of their report, the decision to approve the final report could be made only by vote.

The task force observed that decisions by debate and vote tend to escalate conflicts and harden positions because of the adversarial presumptions built into parliamentary procedure (Final Report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity in the Church, p. 30, lines 850-854). Not mentioned in the report is the lack of motivation for those who believe themselves in the majority to consider any compromise.

The ordinary understanding of deciding by consensus is that there are either no or a limited number of “no” votes. The power of deciding by consensus is that no decision can be made when those opposed refuse to consent.

Where a decision will be reached by consensus, those in the majority must be willing to negotiate and compromise if they are to achieve their goals, a prospect that changes the nature of the discussion.

There are different procedures and methods for using consensus decision-making in groups of various sizes and configurations. Governing bodies should be able to decide for themselves the procedures and methods they will use if they choose to decide a matter by consensus rather than vote.

Unless provision is made that will allow governing bodies to make decisions by consensus, the recommendation of the task force to explore the use of alternate forms of decision-making is meaningless and without effect. The intent of this overture is to make it possible for governing bodies to follow this task force recommendation.

Approved by the Presbytery of Detroit in a stated meeting on January 24, 2006.