Once again this year the singular focus of judicial Committee attention has been the project, begun in 1991, to consider a restructuring of The Fellowship's Constitution. As you know, the primary purpose of this work is to make our guiding document more reflective of the principles of group functioning derived both from the teachings of The Urantia Book and from the best human systems available today.
At the February, 1993 mid-year meeting of the General Council (as was reported in last year's annual report) a resolution was passed approving in principle the work product of the sub-committee on restructuring and instructing the judicial Committee to solicit comments from Fellowship members and societies and to place before the Council at its August, 1993 meeting finished recommendations for action as appropriate. Inasmuch as there was a minimal level of response to the request soliciting comments from both individual Fellowship members and from societies, several of which stated they had not had sufficient time for full consideration, the Council voted to place this issue on the agenda for the 1994 annual meeting of the General Council. Additionally, this subject was discussed at a society conclave held in conjunction with the 1993 General Council meeting and attended by representatives of 11 of the 18 Fellowship societies.
At the February 1994 mid-year Council meeting, this subject was the primary business issue on the agenda and was discussed extensively. As a consequence of that discussion, the following resolution passed by a vote of 23-3-0:
That the Executive Committee proceeds with the procedures necessary to change the Constitution to allow each society the option to elect a member of their society as a General Councilor for a three-year term. The Triennial Delegate Assembly will continue to elect General Councilors in the current constitutional manner.
The sense of the discussion and the intent of the resolution is that the size of the Council would be increased to a total number which would be the result of the 36 Councilors now elected under the current system plus one additional Councilor from each society (if each chose to exercise their option to do so). As an example, using today's numbers, the Council could total 54 members (36 + 18). The judicial Committee was subsequently charged with the responsibility to draft the necessary constitutional language for consideration by the Executive Committee at its April, 1994 meeting in time for formal consideration by the General Council this summer.
Although the final language was unavailable for that meeting, in order to facilitate consideration by the Council as planned, the Executive Committee agreed to discuss the proposed amendment fully with the view toward final approval of language via conference call in May. During that discussion, however, there was a clear consensus that the proposed amendment could not responsibly be sent forward to the Council for vote until it was determined what minimum standards constituted a society. In essence, is it fair that societies that are virtually inactive (with membership levels far below the minimum chartering standards) have the same opportunity to send a representative to the Council as an active society with membership in excess of that number required for chartering? This fairness issue, also surfaced at the February 1994 mid-year meeting, becomes especially relevant in the context of a possible shift in the make-up of the Council toward some level of constituency representation. Accordingly, the Executive Committee passed the following resolution to be addressed both by the General Council this summer and by the societies (initially at the TDA since it directly affects local autonomy):
That if the membership in a society falls below the standard of 10 persons as established in Section V.1 of the Fellowship Constitution as that minimum level required for chartering as a society, then that society, while retaining its charter, shall lose its voting privileges until that minimum level is once again regained.
This has been the only issue before the judicial Committee during this past working year. In addition to those members of our committee who have devoted significant effort to this work--Duane Faw, Steve McIntosh, and David Owen--a considerable amount of time and effort has also been expended by the full General Council, the Executive Committee, and a number of individual Fellowship members and societies. Although some have characterized this matter as essentially irrelevant to the real work we have to do, others have suggested that the effort to evolve better ways of working together can, if we so choose, be reflective of the Supreme. The unselfish expenditure of personal and group resources on this issue, to my mind, suggests that such a choice has been made.
On behalf of our committee, we thank you for the opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
Dave Elders, Chairman
Duane Faw
Tom Kendall
Steve McIntosh
Ellen Montgomery, Secretary
David Owen