Respect for pre-General Assembly documents
A Summary of Practices and Concerns of the Advisory Committee in relation to provisions of the Open Meeting Policy of the General Assembly (6/97).
The ACSWP was created to study and give the General Assembly responses and proposals on matters of Christian conscience facing the whole church. Because its work is ultimately prepared for the General Assembly, Committee procedures are designed to prepare the best possible advice for the Assembly, respectful of the commissioners’ role as final decision-makers, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The scope of topics addressed by the Committee reflects the fullness of God’s sovereignty and prior policies and directives of the Assembly. These topics often require study teams that include Presbyterian volunteers of wide variety of qualifications and backgrounds, usually assisted by consultant specialists and staff. The resulting reports require careful theological and ethical debate and deliberation by the Committee.
The Committee’s members were thus elected by the General Assembly in part for this work of deliberation on texts in process. Meetings of the Committee are open to the public, in accordance with the Open Meeting Policy of the General Assembly. At the same time, the Committee marks all of its unapproved documents with “Not for Distribution or Attribution” to give its elected members and their designees the ability to revise documents freely prior to final vote of the Committee.
To distribute or publicize texts in process could prompt misunderstanding and even distortion of the overall work being done, and could politicize the process of committee deliberation with lobbying from affinity groups in the church. These groups are welcome to debate the finished documents, even well in advance of the General Assembly, but their representatives and any other visitors were not elected and designated members of the Committee. ACSWP respects the role of observer, then, but tries to retain the role of participant for elected members who are responsible for the documents and other work.
Out of respect for the process approved by the General Assembly, out of respect for the Committee’s process of deliberation on draft texts, and out of respect for the drafters and study groups themselves, then, the Committee does not normally release documents in process. Clearly, when the Committee feels documents are of a quality worthy of the General Assembly, then it submits them both to the Office of the General Assembly and to the larger church through the press, with particular responsibility to the Presbyterian News Service. This takes place 3-4 months in advance of the General Assembly.
The above summary reflects the Confidentiality section of ACSWP Operations Manual:
Confidentiality to preserve the integrity of the representative form of government, the linkage of Presbyterian governing bodies, and an ethos of honest communication and respect for the rights of duly elected members, professional staff, and consultants, the preliminary texts of documents and reports being developed under the auspices of ACSWP or its task forces are to be treated as internal deliberations which remain confidential. These unfinished documents may be circulated, if advisable, beyond members, staff and consultants of the committee or its task forces. All papers of the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy, its subgroups and task forces are confidential until released by action of the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy or the Coordinating Committee (as authorized by the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy). (See V.B.1 for Coordinating Committee.)
Opinion on Interpreting the General Assembly Open Meeting Policy
The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) has requested an opinion from the Stated Clerk as to whether the ACSWP’s internal policy, “Respect for Pre-General Assembly Documents”, is consistent with the Open Meeting Policy. The ACSWP’s policy has been challenged and it seeks an Opinion of the Stated Clerk (Clerk) who has been provided a copy of that internal ACSWP document for review.
- The Clerk makes this response pursuant to section 7 of the Open Meetings Policy. He reminds ACSWP and any Presbyterians desiring to observe a meeting of the Committee that as members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), “…we also believe that there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good characters and principles may differ. And in all these we think it the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other.” (G-1.0305). We are all bound together by a common Covenant.
- The relevant text of ACSWP’s internal policy is: “…the preliminary texts of documents and reports being developed under the auspices of ACSWP or its task forces are to be treated as internal deliberations which remain confidential.”
- The Clerk notes that the current Open Meeting Policy does not directly address the question of the sharing of documents being considered by a General Assembly entity, division, committee, or workgroup. He likewise notes that neither of the previous editions of the policy addressed the issue of the sharing of papers or reports. If the General Assembly wishes to impose such a practice on its entities, divisions, committees, and task forces of the General Assembly, it may surely do so.
- The Clerk further notes that the opening paragraph of the Open Meeting Policy affirms that “the work of the Church is strengthened when it is done in a spirit of openness and trust.” Such language would seem to presume observers of meetings should have access to documents that are critical to their understanding the deliberations that they are observing. Therefore the Clerk believes the presumption should favor the sharing of all documents under consideration by a General Assembly entity, division, committee, or task group. It is incumbent upon observers to honor requests not to publish, or share the contents of, such documents until the entity, division, committee, or task force has acted.
- The Clerk draws a distinction between documents being considered for action by a General Assembly entity, division, committee, or task force and those being discussed by a writing /drafting team that lacks authority to act on a document, but rather is charged with preparation of a document that will be proposed for action by a General Assembly entity, division, committee or task force.
- Once a draft document comes before the entity, division, committee, or task force of the General Assembly, the document should be made available to all observers.
