While I agree about your comment about ownership, the camping model varies greatly across the United Church. In some conferences, a conference ownership model has been in place for years and worked well. In some conference, not at all. 

The issue is not the ownership but the change. One of the huge changes over the years has been the increasingly complex regulatory environment surrounding things like water, staffing and safety. What was acceptable half a century ago, when I was in church camping, is simply not longer allowed.

No, we didn't come from Congregationalist roots. The Congregationalists were the smallest of the three "big partners". The largest was the Methodist Church, which was episcopal in its giovernance system.

Please also be aware that some conferences have just restructured. Toronto Conference, for example, has downloaded all conference functions other than Settlement and Interview Board to four larger presbyteries. I am told that the HR functions will probably not be uploaded to the conference level.

Somewhat, but don't let that get in the way of a good rant.

A number of our personnel ministers are indeed certified in HR . I thin one has his CHRP, the professional designation for HR staff. From my involvement at GCO I know a few of the staff there do.

I am nor sure hr person - on former m&p committee the chair was a hr person and the committee was the most unhelpful because he brought values from business when the church is a relationship - he knew rules but not how to deal with relationships - he knew how to deal with 'employees' through unions -  when a got a teacher it was better because she knew that a work context is a relationship.

I know of a case where the presbytery reps to a search committee were hr types - the end is the congregation is mad - unhappy with the choice.  It was because they had a supply minister who was eligible for the call - it was suggested that a relationship was formed so the ethical thing was to deal with him first and if there was not an 80% yes then move on to an open search ( the reason for 80% was there are always some not happy or thinking we can do better and this gives more say to those needs) The presbytery said no because equality meant open ( which really means all are dealt wtih sameness.)   Really sameness is never the case in a relational reality.

The other reason for a step porcess would be the new person coming in would not be resented as they will now because there is anger at the process.  And there is perception that a small group used the search and did not represent the desire of the majority.

In the reception of the name the process is difficult for those who wanted the person to stay to stand up  to queston- a hand vote was taken. 

On the other hand a hr approach may be better if the idea of business to search for a CEO tends to go out to find the person and only advertize when they have not found the person.  In some situations there is a clear message when the date of the ad and the closing date are close.

The UU have a better method of dealing with calls.  The old presbyterian system of preaching for a call, and dealing with one person at a time also is better.  Or the anglican systerm where the bishop and the cong choose together -

In cases the person in personal in a conference is at a disadvantage - too many conficting roles to fulfill - support of ministers, and support of cong can conflict.   And they can only advise and block.

The UU system is a revised preaching for a call - which at its best was the same as the UU - the person comes in for more than a sunday. It is like a university system where one gives a lecture, meets with the education and other committees, and just hangs out.  It is an extended interview with more face to face time - this is what I understand from our friend who is an uu cong in London.