I think I’m going to take a bit to not talk about the specific issues we’ve been discussing, but the way we’ve been discussing them. Any of my friends who know me from MIT, I regret to inform you that sitting through over 7 hours of meetings every day has only served to increase my appreciation for rules of procedure and respect for those who use them properly. In particular, I’d like to hold up Bishop Hanson, as chair of the assembly, and David Swartling, secretary, as two people that make sure things run smoothly. (I was also reminded tonight to thank the floor manager, whose name I forget, but who is there every day at 7 am, managing the volunteers and making sure microphones and voting machines work correctly and that messages get passed to the correct people. Truly, we would not be able to function without him and his team of volunteers.)

Many people seem to regard Robert’s Rules of Order (RONR) as a hindrance, overly complicated rules that only serve to confuse the general assembly. I would contest that they are brilliant and give order to what would otherwise be absolutely chaotic. I only had a vague sense of RONR before I came to Churchwide, but truly, this is possibly the best crash course ever. (I’m sure it doesn’t hurt that I’m an absolute geek and love parliamentary procedure, nor that I’m the type of person who feels compelled to stay in their seat and be there for every single moment of the assembly, and, for the most part, to try and remain completely focused on the speaker and the matter at hand.) This would have been such a different assembly without the Constitution, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions; the Rules of Procedure; and RONR to keep things from descending into chaos. One of the things I love doing is realizing why we have to do things in a certain order and then explaining it to confused people around me and helping them keep track of where we are.

I was told this before I came and I’m willing to confirm it to everyone: Bishop Hanson is an excellent presider. Throughout debate and handling all the strange questions and motions/attempts at motions that come up, he never gives any hint of frustration with a particular speaker or any sign that he wants things to happen a certain way. He also is amazing with votes: before any vote, he clearly states exactly what we’re voting on, what to press if you want it to pass, what to press if you don’t. It sounds very simple, but in an assembly like this, when we have amendments to amendments and substitutions to the amended amendment, it can be extremely confusing, as things can change so quickly; you look away for a minute and discussion has changed completely. What the bishop does ensures that everyone can follow what is going on.

As secretary, David Swartling assists with keeping track of amendments to actions and what matter is on the floor, which is invaluable to knowing what is happening. He also reads the resolutions and recommendations of the church council and other committees. This brings me back to a conversation I had back around Synod Assembly in May. For many years, my mother has chaired Reference and Counsel at the Synod level. This committee receives all the resolutions and memorials in the time preceding Synod Assembly, reads them through to make sure they’re in order as written, combines those that seem to propose the same thing, and presents them to the Assembly for action. As chair of the committee, my mom is the person who reads every resolution out loud for the Assembly when it is presented. She was practicing reading some out loud the night before they were to be presented, and the reason was this: clarity when reading out loud is critical to the understanding of the listeners. A bad reading of a resolution can confuse the listeners as to its purpose. A pause in the wrong place, or leaving out a pause where there should be one can join or break ideas that are supposed to be separate or seamless. I had a much better appreciation of this after I heard her read some of the more difficult ones to us. Secretary Swartling is excellent at telling and reading things to us (he also does the announcements at the end of each plenary session) in a way that is clear and concise.

I’m sure both men have many gifts that I simply haven’t observed, having only seen them here at assembly, but I want to commend them for these, since they make assembly so much better (i.e. they both do many other things, but I don’t have a testimony to how awesome they are there). (They also both wrote and presented excellent reports, but that’s different. I mean, excellent reports are much better for an assembly than boring reports, but in a different way than a great chair and secretary.)

Okay, I’m a geek, I love everything I’m learning about parliamentary procedure, but I think that’s good, because hating it would make this assembly much less enjoyable.

Advertisement