As the General Council prepares to elect Fellowship officers and Executive Committee members, I think it is appropriate to review the history of certain key positions and the effects of personal approaches to executing the responsibilities of office. I am especially concerned that we elect to office individuals with the management and organizational vision to help us get the greatest benefit from our efforts. In this note I set forth what I believe to be some reasonable approaches to various organizational roles. I challenge the candidates for these offices to live up to the requirements of an efficient organizational vision.

First, I feel the office of President must be filled by a person who is able effectively to delegate responsibility and authority to other people. This means that the President must know how to identify capable people and how to motivate them to appropriate forms of organizational service. More importantly, however, the President must be able to trust the people selected to perform their work without excessive supervision. This requires both an internal attitude adjustment by the President and a willingness to empower individuals to act on behalf of the organization, in a specified capacity, without detailed continuing review and consultation.

The past three presidents have only occasionally conducted the business of the Fellowship in this way. For the most part, they have taken upon themselves far more work than it was reasonable for any individual to bear, acquiring heavy responsibilities and retaining questionable authorities. I do not offer these remarks as a personal criticism of the individuals involved. There were many circumstances over the last eighteen years that led the President into this mode of operation. I definitely do not mean to imply that anyone serving in the presidency abused the office for personal reasons. Rather, I want to recognize that these individuals committed themselves overwhelmingly to an exclusive dedication to organizational service that was potentially disruptive of other aspects of normal life.

For this reason, it has become difficult to convince otherwise capable people to consider serving as President. It is most necessary for this office to be filled by someone who is willing and able to surrender authority and responsibility, will steadfastly refuse to allow the position to dominate their personal life, and will avoid accepting any task that can plausibly be delegated to another, whether on the Executive Committee or selected from the readership. Beyond this, the individual chosen for the office of President must have a sincere and abiding faith in the ability of the seraphim to marshal the required human resources and the ability of the person assigned a task to rise to the occasion.

Second, I feel the President must be supported by officers and committee chairpersons who are able to execute their constitutional responsibilities and relieve the President of unnecessary duties. I have long believed that the most important office in the Fellowship organization for this purpose is that of Secretary-General. The President is analogous to a Chief Executive Officer, while the Secretary-General is analogous to a Chief Operating Officer. Of course, these labels are only generally descriptive. In a parliamentary political system one might imagine the roles of President and Prime Minister. The point is that the Secretary-General is the administrative head of the Fellowship. If a Secretary-General is able and willing to function in this capacity, there is no need for the President to become involved in day-to-day matters of Fellowship operation, including details of coordinating committee work with the headquarters organization.

I believe the confusion in the roles of President and Secretary-General can be traced to a time in the history of Urantia Brotherhood when the Executive Committee was comprised largely of office staff, Trustees of Urantia Foundation, and their relatives. When John Hales served as President, he was also Resident Director. At the same time, Marian Rowley served as Secretary-General and worked full-time (and more) in the office on all matters of operational detail. This dual-hatting led to a lack of clarity about the proper functions of the two offices in the minds of those who succeeded them in office.

In particular, when Dave Elders assumed the Presidency, Marian was reaching a fairly advanced age and becoming less able to maintain the pace of office work and the duties of the Secretary-General. When Marian finally retired from the Executive Committee, much of her work as Secretary-General was divided between Dave, as President, and the office staff. I recall any number of councilors asking, "what does the Secretary-General do?" The normal answer has been, "keep the minutes for the Executive Committee," leading to the next question, "so what does the Secretary do?" Answer: "keep the minutes for the General Council and the TDA." It has often been suggested that the constitution be amended to merge the two positions.

Well, I beg to disagree (and long have). The Secretary-General is, for example, an ex officio member of every standing committee. I can recall a time when committee chairs couldn't or didn't hold annual meetings unless Marian Rowley could be present. (I can also recall a later time when committee chairs may have scheduled meetings for remote locations so Marian wouldn't be present.) I am not calling for us to turn the clock back 20 years, but simply to recognize that our constitution intends for the Secretary-General to serve a much broader organizational function than has occurred for at least the past twelve years. This function is essential to making the office of President work effectively.

In selecting a person for the office of Secretary-General, we should be sensitive to the need to develop the responsibilities and authorities of this office, while reducing the responsibilities of the President. I do not have a detailed plan for how this should change, and would like to see the two individuals selected for these offices begin the process of effective redistribution of labor between themselves. I think the guiding principle is that the role of the Secretary-General is an inward-directed, organization-supporting, administrative role, while the role of the President is an outward-directed, movement-supporting, representative and figurative role. These call for different types of people or, at least, for very different behaviors on the part of the office-holders.

Third, we have yet to clearly define the role of the Vice-President. Unlike the President and the Secretary-General, there is no clearly established function for the Vice-President. About half the time it has been occupied by the ad hoc chairman of the General (International) Conference. At other times, this person has served as a resource for performing other complex and time-consuming activities that did not logically fall under one of the committee chairs, such as organizing a strategic planning effort. As an organization, we are still maturing our concept of this office; however, a suitably flexible and capable Vice-President, not dedicated to the personal capture of specific responsibilities, may be able at this time to help smooth the transition from a one-man Fellowship government to a powerful and synergistic group.

As a final observation, I believe it is essential to find and place in the organization people who are effective in accepting and delegating responsibility and authority, to committee members and to other volunteers--people who will get things done properly and neither desire nor require micro-management or excessive attention from their associates. We are on the brink of a great transition and, if you will attend to these issues, we will forge a service organization that will strengthen the Urantia movement and expedite its worldwide mission.