Justice and Witness Ministries Board Votes a Cautious
Response to Governance Proposal

John Gregory-Davis
Board Chairperson

At its Fall 2007 meeting, the Justice & Witness Ministries Board of Directors expressed its deep appreciation for the hard and faithful work of the Governance Follow-up Team.  However, in contrast to previous communication in this regard, the JWM Board definitively did not take an official vote to “affirm the general concept proposed by this model.” Indeed, following lengthy discussion of critical concerns and questions raised by members of the Board, and prayerful discernment, a substitute motion was offered, with the intention of clearly stating that the JWM Board was not ready for a “yes” vote on this proposal.  Considerable debate around whether a “yes, but” or even a “no, but” vote might more accurately reflect the serious reservations voiced by numerous board members ultimately resulted in what might be described as a cautious “maybe, if” alternative motion.  Thus, the motion which the Board did pass reads: “JWM appreciates and honors the work of the Governance Follow-up Task Force, and encourages it to continue its work paying attention to the concerns forwarded by the board.”  
 
Many voted this way because of significant concerns around such unresolved issues as preserving JWM's ability to speak and act prophetically once submerged into the proposed United Church Board, maintaining diversity of voice and representation while substantively reducing the number of people serving on national boards, further marginalization of people of color due to decreased representation and centralization of governance, the name and composition of the proposed Executive Committee, the possibility of nominating board members specifically to the JWM ministry group, the length of term served by the Youth and Young Adult Delegates, the relationship of the proposed United Church Board to General Synod, and the extent to which those of limited means might be no more and possibly less able to serve on this new board, especially if its meetings required even longer times away from work.   

With responses of the Board members, ranging from enthusiastic approval, to skeptical ambivalence, to fundamental disagreement with the proposed new governance structure, JWM’s “maybe, if” vote demonstrates openness to continuing consideration as to the possibility of a new governance model, while likewise emphasizing that the presently proposed model is unacceptable until essential concerns are adequately addressed in the on-going work of the governance committee.