Assembly Arrangements

This Committee plans and budgets for General Assembly.

Committee Members

Convener: Mr William M McVey Secretary: Mr Hilary Gunn

Moderator, Moderator-elect, General Secretary, Clerk to Assembly,

Convener of Local Arrangements Committee for the relevant year

1. General Assembly 2006

The Committee brings a resolution that the Assembly of 2006 should be held at the University of Exeter from Friday 7th to Monday 10th July. [Resolution 15]

2. Mr Hilary Gunn – Secretary to the Assembly Arrangements Committee

Soon after the end of this Assembly, Hilary retires from the employment of the United Reformed Church following some 17 years of service. Others will want to pay tribute to his contribution to their particular area of responsibility. We note that four conveners of this committee, three General Secretaries, three Clerks of Assembly, numerous Moderators of Assembly, and about 11,000 members and guests of Assembly have – over the years – benefited from Hilary’s contribution to the organisation of Assembly. In the main, Assembly runs smoothly; that it does so without too much apparent effort is a tribute to Hilary’s accumulated knowledge and his steady hand on the details of the event. The committee, past and present, is very grateful for his service. We wish him well in his retirement.

3. The form of future General Assemblies

The committee has continued to address the form and cost of General Assembly. As the committee has stated before, we believe that any different arrangements for General Assembly should reflect a radical and comprehensive view of the governance of the church. Consequently the convener has made a submission to the “Catch the Vision” review group.

4. The cost of current General Assemblies – action taken

4.1 In the meantime the committee has been considering ways in which the cost of future Assemblies could be prevented from increasing at the current substantial rate. Assembly costs are:

York 2001 £185,000

St Andrews 2002 £265,000

Portsmouth 2003 £155,000

Glamorgan 2004 £248,000 (estimated)

Warwick 2005 £267,000 (estimated)

4.2 Various ideas have been considered but – either because they were more appropriately included in the radical and comprehensive view as noted above, or because they would have required an amendment to the Structure of the United Reformed Church – they have not been suggested.

4.3 Instead, the committee has implemented two immediate opportunities for Districts and Synods to reduce the financial cost of General Assembly:

4.3.1 Mission Council in January 2004 agreed to the proposal that:

“Mission Council requests district councils not to avail themselves of the right to fill vacant places in the General Assembly by making appointments from other districts within the province or nations.”

This could achieve a modest reduction in the number of members of Assembly by abandoning the practice of filling vacancies in the District Council representation; such vacancies are habitually filled from within the Synod. The proposal does not require Districts or Synods to do something that is contrary to the instructions in the Manual or in Standing Orders. It merely requires synods not to pursue the opportunity that is provided.

4.3.2 Mission Council also agreed to the proposal that:

“Mission Council requests Synods to give careful consideration as to the necessity of filling all their allocated places in the General Assembly.”

Synod membership of General Assembly consists not only of the Synod Moderator, the Clerk and the Treasurer – but also of three other people (there is a variation for the Synod of Scotland). This means that in total there are 72 people from the Synods (excluding Scotland) – over and above those coming from the Districts. We believe this to be excessively generous. We are aware that at least one Synod already restricts its number of representatives in the interest of economy. We applaud this.

4.4 At the time of writing this report, we do not know how many Districts and Synods have taken up these opportunities to save the church money.

5. General Assembly 2005 – a more effective meeting? better stewardship of our resources?

5.1 The committee now makes a proposal that would return us close to the ratio of District Council representation that the United Reformed Church started with in 1972. This is a proposal which is capable of taking effect at General Assembly 2005 – that is, it does not require consideration under the 2-year rule as an amendment to the Structure of the United Reformed Church. [Resolution 16]

5.2 This resolution could result in a more effective Assembly and will moderate the very substantial cost of Assembly.

5.3 Membership of the United Reformed Church and representation at Assembly.

The number of possible members of Assembly has shown a net increase over the period 1972 to 2001 through the addition of further categories of members. At the same time the diminution in church membership has slightly reduced the number of members of Assembly. The reduction has been slight because the formula is linked also to the number of churches, which has not declined at anything like the same rate. The net result has been only a small total reduction in the number of those attending Assembly at the expense of the church.

Over the same period, membership of the United Reformed Church has declined from 192,000 members (1973) to 85,000 members (2003).

5.4 Ratio of representation

The ratio of representation at Assembly, which started at 3.65 per 1,000 church members, now stands at 7.65 per 1,000 church members.

Adoption of this resolution would result in a reduction of approximately 100 members of Assembly. The ratio of representation at Assembly would then become 6.47 per 1,000 church members.

5.5 Towards a more effective Assembly

This reduction in the size of Assembly could provide limited opportunities for adjustments to the style and practice of discussion; greater participation might be enabled. Fewer places might be easier to fill, but Synods and Districts would be challenged to ensure that their representation was wholly effective.

5.6 Cost

At 2005 costs, this reduction in District Council representation could save the church approximately £25,000. This might be regarded as only nibbling at the edges of the issue of Assembly. However, it does produce real savings at an early opportunity. More radical proposals could not take effect until 2007. By then, this measure alone could have saved the church about £60,000 – and our earlier measures could also have contributed additional financial savings.

5.7 Other members of Assembly

The committee has given consideration to the other categories of membership of Assembly and proposed various resolutions at Mission Council, which have been rejected. We are of the view that any other alterations can only be successfully accomplished as part of a radical and comprehensive review of the governance of the United Reformed Church. Consequently we do not propose any other adjustments at this time. Instead we remind Assembly of the suggestions set out in paragraph 4.3 above.

Resolution 15: General Assembly 2006

General Assembly agrees that the General Assembly in 2006 will meet at the University of Exeter from 7th-10th July.

Resolution 16: General Assembly Representation

General Assembly resolves, from the close of General Assembly 2004, to change the representation of district councils (ministerial and lay in equal numbers) from, “one representative per eight churches or part thereof plus one per 800 church members or part thereof” to “one representative per twelve churches or part thereof plus one per 1,200 church members or part thereof”.