A new way of doing Conference

The issue that was most time and energy-consuming at the convention was the issue of governance. The Executive Board had concluded that a new structure was important for the Conference in order to respond quickly to needs and to new initiatives, and to be able to spend time visioning and planning, something not seen working well in the previous structure.

Marilyn Hiebert, Executive Board secretary, presenting the new governance structure

A preliminary draft was presented and discussed at the Council of Boards meeting in January. This was refined in time for the publication of convention reports in May, and then presented at the first session of Gathering 2004 on Thursday morning. Further information was given at two breakouts; Saturday morning discussion was held on the convention floor.

Willy Reimer, assistant moderator, gave the rationale for the change. Quoting from Acts 6, he stated that the ministry of the disciples was hampered because they had to attend to the physical needs of the people rather than to their spiritual needs. So also with the Executive Board. They were spending time hearing reports, rather than responding to the needs of the constituency. The new executive board now would be able to do strategic planning and would free Conference staff to do the work with appropriate direction and accountability. (A 47-page manual available on the mbconf.ca website outlines the structure and job descriptions.)

Like a tree

Marilyn Hiebert, secretary of the Board, used a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate the tree metaphor of this new structure. The Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches is the root system of the tree, giving it nourishment, an anchor, and authority; the trunk is the Executive Board which focuses direction, sets policy and monitors results. The trunk then branches out into the various ministries of the Conference that in turn resource and equip the churches. (See MBH, May 21 for more detailed structure.)

The Executive Board will be composed of 19 members: three executive members, nine members elected at-large, one member each from MBMS International and MB Biblical Seminary boards, and the provincial moderators. One member (non-voting) will be appointed from the Board of Faith and Life.

Questions and answers

The Executive Board was ready with answers to many of the questions delegates had. They defined the built-in accountability (the manual outlines performance review) and assured the delegation that when Conference agencies such as evangelism and youth ministries put in place the suggested ad hoc advisory committees, there will be good grassroots involvement and a good connection to the churches. A national survey this fall will hopefully also create buy-in by churches and individuals. Les Stahlke (see box at top of article), the consultant who has guided the process of structural change, stated that now, more than ever, the Board would be able to listen to the constituency. Strategic visioning cannot happen without lots of planning and listening, he said. He also described this governance model as relationship based, and good relationships, he said, begin with values, affirmation, involvement and servant leadership.

Other questioners were concerned about the responsibility assigned to the executive director and about the relationship of the Executive Board to the Board of Faith and Life. It was suggested that the diagram be redrawn to show a better relationship between these two boards. Still others asked whether a convention would still be necessary, or would everything be taken care of by this board. They were assured that conventions would be as necessary as ever and that major decisions would still be made at the Conference level, although the Executive Board could proceed without delegate input if it was deemed necessary in order to respond to critical concerns.

Composition of the board was also a question. Delegates wanted to be assured that all regions of the country would be represented and that there would be gender balance.

Delegates lined up to participate in a lively debate

Too fast?

The speed at which this decision was made was questioned. Technically, since it was a constitutional matter, there should have been a notice of amendment given to the churches three months prior to the convention. Parliamentarian Menno Martens maintained that the discussion of the issue in a previous MBH (Feb. 27) constituted a notice of motion. When the question of suspending the constitution in order to pass this motion was raised, it was indicated that this had already happened at the previous convention (2002) in order to create the Board of Discipleship Ministries.

At the Saturday morning plenary session, John Redekop of Bakerview Church presented a motion to refer this question to the churches. There was lively debate. “The process must appear to be followed as well as being correct,” said one. A number of delegates asked that the process be slowed so their churches could be consulted. Others stated that churches had sent them to this convention to make decisions. In the end, the motion to refer was defeated.

John Redekop (at mic) presented a motion to refer the governance question back to the churches

Statements of trust in the leadership were offered, together with suggestions on tweaking the structure so some of the mentioned concerns could be taken into consideration. Delegates were assured that this structure was a work in progress and changes would likely be made.

The motion to create a new governance structure passed with an 82% majority.

—sbb