THere is obviously far more to this story.

Presbyteries generally have better things to do than fight with congregations.   In order to comment I would need a whole lot more background.  But as CH has already waid, there is no them vs us since Presbytery is us  (sort of like Pogo meeting the enemy)

Wow, jemholmes - there is definitely a lot going on here.

First comment - it might be a good idea for someone from the congregation to ask to talk with the Executive Secretary of the Conference. They'll have the best understanding of how to deal with things in that Conference's context.

Second comment - I'm going to do a pretty typical (and often frustrating) thing of suggesting some pathways for resolution. (And noting some practical concerns.) 

Ouch! Having been on Presbytery for most of my life, I know that there are times when congregations feel like this - sometimes validly, sometimes because people (both in congregations and in presbyteries!) don't get the oversight responsibility that Presbytery is supposed to have.

Actually... the Presbytery reps can't quite the JNAC. The JNAC can't meet and make decisions without the presence of at least one of them (if you need Manual stuff, its 052 of the 2010 Manual). In essence, then, they disbanded the committee.

Yep. Really frustrating!

T

Hmmm... well, the JNAC makes a report and recommendation to the Official Board (or equivalent). (sec. 053) The Board makes a decision to adopt the recommendation, amend it, make an alternative recommendation, refer it back to the JNAC, or recommend to the Pastoral Charge that no action be taken. The Pastoral Charge (or congegational meeting) makes a decision to adopt the recommendation of the board, amend it, make alternative recommendations, refer it back, or recommend that no action be taken... then...

The recommendation of the Pastoral Charge goes to the Presbytery or the Presbytery Executive (who have the powers of the Presbytery between meetings). The Presbytery (or its Executive) then make a decision regarding the report and the decision of the Pastoral charge and, adopt the recommendation, amend it, make alternative recommendations, refer it back, or recommend that no action be taken. (sec.058)

So *my* reading of it is that what is presented to the Presbytery (or its executive) is the report and recommendation that comes from the Pastoral charge through its congregational meeting. Presbytery can then do something totally different with it, but what they should see is what the congregation sent. Having said that, as a Pastoral Relations chairperson, I've often sent back a JNAC report to a congregation if there are items in it that are ultra vires (eg. a statement that the minister is not a voting member of the Board), to be changed before it gets to the Presbytery. As well, as part of the discussion, the Presbyters who were on the JNAC, or the Pastoral Relations committee, could bring forward their thoughts/concerns about the recommendation of the Pastoral Charge, and suggest that another option would be better for the congregation.

Well... like I said above, the Presbyters, the Pastoral Relations Committee, or... well... any member of Presbytery, can ask Presbytery (yeah, or its Executive) to decide to go a different direction than what is recommended by the Pastoral Charge. 

I agree that it is more helpful if *all* of the options are presented to the JNAC, and that the Presbytery reps on the JNAC are able to say, "Here are our thoughts and concerns, and why we'd suggest that the Pastoral Charge recommends going with an interim ministry." I also know situations where the Presbyter has called me as PR chair and said "I need to say that, but I can't". Often, I've shown up at the next JNAC gathering to help that conversation happen.

Jemholmes, it sounds like this is a deeply frustrating situation for you, and for others in your congregation. I'm sure that there are other things happening - especially if the congregation is currently without ministry personnel - that are making things even more frightening and frustrating. As someone who is trained as an interim/transitional minister, I know it can be a really exciting and helpful time for a congregation as they figure out where they're heading next. As someone who has been in a long-term ministry, I also know that we congregations want to "get moving!" with our lives.

I wish you well in this. Try and talk with your Pastoral Charge Supervisor, the Pastoral Relations Convenor, or the Exec Sec. of the Conference about your concerns.

Christ's peace - r

Then no JNAC existed and no official report or recommendations can be produced.  THe process is still at stpe one (as frustrating as that would be)

Any meeting of that results in an official Decision MUST be minuted.  However, as a general rule, minutes only include the motion and the result of the vote, not the content of the discussion around the motion.  THeoretically if a Presbytery feels that they need a more hands on approach on a specific issue they can passa motion that Executive is not allowed to deal with it.

The motion from the congregational meeting MUST go "as is", preferably directly from the secretary of that meeting rather than through the Presbytery reps.  At the same time, PResbytery does have the authority to mandate an Interim Minister as it sees fit.  And since it is Presbytery who officially creates the vacancy they have a great deal of say in what that vacancy is.  But the hope is that this is done through consultation, explaining why an Interim is seen as desirable.  Still sometimes a congregation has difficulty seeing itself accurately and Presbytery plays heavier (of course such a mandate assumes that a properly trained Interim is available and that is often not true).

I would love to hear Presbytery's side of the story too.  It sounds like the original reps were frustrated and/or not feeling heard.  I also wonder why the insistence on a Transitional Minister (and what exactly do they mean by that?  do they mean Intentional Interim?).  In my experience such a thing is only pushed when Presbytery is unconvinced of the health of the PAstoral Charge or when PResbytery thinks there is a reason that a call without term is inadvisable at this time.

BUt, we are only hearing the congregational side of the story.

I agree on the communication break down. We have had some issues that required support and help from Presbytery. Some of our perceived difficulties were due to us not knowing how things work. Some were because Presbytery was working behind the scenes on some level. They have actually been quite concerned about us and have been trying to find solutions. We had a JNAC process that has since changed somewhat. Presbytery explained clearly why the change was necessary, though in actuality, we knew where we stood, and how realistic a JNAC process really was at this point.

This is probably the best way to get some resolution. I also like the idea of jemholmes speaking to Presbytery at some point. It is always a concern when there is "us vs them" thinking. Usually there is middle ground out there and the only way to find it is to jump in and get talking/communicating.

Again, I would suggest a formal motion from the presbytery or its executice, expressing its concern, sent in written form over the signature of the Chair of the presbytery, to the Executive Secretary. That's a court to court communication. That requires a formal response from the conference. Alternatively, it can be raised by the presbytery representatives to the executives, although that is often less helpful.  

 Which, of course, has its own problems, Jae.

Christ's peace - r

Amen, Richard. UU'ism is also congregational in its governance. National (CUC) and continental (UUA) bodies have a mandate to help and support congregations in areas of common interest like coordinated action on social issues, standards and settlement for ministry, creating educational materials (RE curricula and the like), and so on. However, when push comes to shove, each congregation is governed by its own by-laws and board (technically, we can even choose and ordain our own ministers outside of the process set out by the UUA). The role of these bodies when a specific congregation is in crisis tends to be providing guidance, support and perhaps mediation. There's nothing like a presbytery that has the authority to step in and take positive (or negative, for that matter) remedial action. It is the product of our devotion to democracy in our processes, so I understand why it is this way but it can be both a blessing and a curse.

Mendalla

Having seen the damage done when a bad pastoral call was made, I can see why the UCC wants Presbytery to have the authority to intervene in these sorts of situations. It was a UCC that called a minister with an evangelical leaning who then started evangelizing like crazy while neglecting those who called him in the first place. Church and minister eventually parted ways. Not pretty. I wasn't at that church, but word gets round and I knew a girl whose mother went there.

Mendalla