Impressions from an MRTI Meeting

LOS ANGELES – When I hang around as an observer at meetings, such as at the Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI) recently, I run across events and messages that I think will be of interest to others in the church. Here are some of my impressions from three days in Los Angeles with MRTI.

• The Form of Government Replacement. Gary Skinner, a liaison between the General Assembly Council and MRTI, reported on a full rewrite of the Form of Government that will be presented to the General Assembly next June. As Skinner put it, the Form of Government Task Force is “putting together some amendments and changes to our Book of Order,” which was about like saying that the Second World War involved some combat. The effort amounts to a complete revision of our Presbyterian polity.
  

  Bill Somplasky-Jarman and Carol Hylkema (shown at a previous MRTI meeting in 2004) disscussed matters of missions, divestment, and child exploitation during the November 2007 meeting of the PCUSA Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment in Los Angeles. (Photo courtesy PCUSA)

  Skinner did point out that “much of the regulatory language will end up in the manuals, which are more easily managed and changed.” He thus put his finger on one of the revision’s major shortcomings, which is oddly being touted as a boon. What Skinner did not say is that whatever eventual manuals come about will need to be improvised by every governing body. This profusion of differing manuals would seriously fragment our connectionalism while providing enough administrivia busywork to tie up every governing body for years to come.

  Brian Ellison pointed out that the recent rewrite of Chapter 14 of the Constitution—just one chapter—has thrown governing bodies into confusion. Even copies of the Book of Order with the newly replaced chapter 14 are hard to find, he said. “What most presbyteries have done is adopt the old chapter 14 to live with,” he explained.

  So let me get this straight: In order supposedly to improve our polity, a razor-thin majority of presbyteries allowed a rewrite of chapter 14 to be adopted. However, the rewrite is so deficient that many presbyteries are reverting to using the old chapter 14 as an operating manual in order to continue doing their work. And this is progress? And we’re expected to buy another such “improvement” in a proposed rewrite of the entire Form of Government? Hmmm.

• Missions Rejuvenation. “I’d like to report an observation that the definition of mission has changed right before our eyes because of the new leadership,” Carol Hylkema complained with a disapproving frown. Apparently, Hylkema was referring to Hunter Farrell becoming the new Director of World Mission and Tom Taylor exercising considerable influence as Deputy Executive Director for Mission. Both are adding new life and greater respectability to traditional Christian ministry by the denomination. But this change seemed to displease Hylkema, who claimed that “‘mission’ seems to be only what happens outside this country, not anything that happens within this country, and I think it is something that this committee needs to be concerned about.” There does seem to be a new vibrancy about making denominational mission work effective, known, appreciated, and supported. Hylkema’s judgment that only overseas mission is being touted could be deemed a little premature and unwarranted, if not a touch alarmist.
• MRTI Aspirations. Chair Carol Hylkema often is good for a frank, unvarnished comment out of the blue. When Adelle Langworthy mentioned an instance when the Board of Pensions listened to MRTI advice about the need for good public relations, Hylkema quipped, “We’d love to have more opportunity to tell them what to do all over the place!” The remark was made in jest, but there was an underlying hint of the tension over the Board of Pensions’ investment decisions being completely independent of MRTI direction.

  At another point, MRTI was receiving a whirlwind briefing on subprime mortgage lending by John Lind of the California and Nevada Interfaith Council on Corporate Responsibility. The material was concise and well delivered, but Hylkema finally spoke what I’m sure many were thinking: “I don’t know about the rest of you, but a lot of this is over my head!

  I would contend that MRTI—and most Presbyterian entities—would be well served if every member would be as candid as Hylkema about being babes in the woods on a large number of complex subjects. And the church would be better served if such members would stifle any urge to appear omnicompetent, deciding instead to refrain from making many decisions that quite simply exceed the group’s core expertise.

• Corporate Engagement Concerning Israel/Palestine. The movement toward possible divestment of stock in corporations doing business considered deleterious to peace in Israel and Palestine continues, albeit very deliberately. Months go by with only a letter or two written to corporate headquarters, a call or two made. This MRTI meeting did produce one major decision, however: to remove Citigroup from the list of corporations targeted for alleged misdeeds.

  Citigroup had been the sole corporation fingered for possible divestment for supposedly supporting Palestinian terrorism. There were four other corporations suspected of abetting alleged Israeli misdeeds. Citigroup was a late addition to the engagement list, appearing to be added primarily to provide at least a modicum of balance. Citigroup’s supposed misdeeds, involving the secret transfer of funds by terrorist groups using the bank’s accounts, had long since been corrected. As soon as the instances came to light, Citigroup cooperated with authorities to put in place an exemplary program to guard against such problems. Now, finally, MRTI was prepared to recommend that Citigroup be exonerated. The vote was unanimous to remove Citigroup from the list of suspected corporate scoundrels.

  Brian Ellison liked the idea of removing Citigroup. “It implies that we would remove other groups under similar circumstances,” he explained. Then Ellison had a question for the MRTI leaders, who seem to make many decisions and basically deliver them to MRTI members: “Do we have any speculation about what will be coming from this committee to General Assembly?” he asked. “Just a progress report? Recommendations about divestment?”

  “Some of us who have been here since the beginning [of the divestment issue] would like to have some resolution,” Carol Hylkema confessed. “If it were my job, I would call Caterpillar today and say we want to talk. But we work ecumenically, so we don’t know where that would go. But Caterpillar has been unresponsive to us.” Hylkema also outlined engagement with Citigroup and Motorola. Resorting to patience, she conceded that “where that will lead, I don’t know. So probably our report [to General Assembly] will mostly be a progress report.”

  Ellison gently pressed that answer: “Is it your sense that a progress report is fully responsive to what General Assembly asked for two years ago?”

  “Are we involved in a legalistic process, where they want a vote up or down on a given day?” Bill Somplasky-Jarman asked rhetorically. “Or is it an interactive process? Based on previous times and other issues, a faithful demonstration of dynamism and progress is usually quite satisfactory.”

• Who Pulls the Strings? In watching MRTI work for a couple of meetings, I have been intrigued by the extent to which the committee depends on the copious work of the sole staff member, Bill Somplasky-Jarman. It is he who brings the reports, which apparently he has produced. It is he to whom the chair turns repeatedly to explain practically every item. It is he who meets with corporations (often accompanied by an MRTI member or two), writes letters, makes phone calls, birddogs corporate leaders, and represents MRTI in an array of interlocking ecumenical and political partnerships.

  Often Somplatsky Jarman’s opinion begins or even cuts off a discussion. A simple “We’re not going to do that” has been enough to stop the committee in its tracks. Without Bill Somplatsky-Jarman, MRTI would actually do next to nothing.

  Moreover, Somplatsky-Jarman appears to be highly dependent on broad consortiums of partner groups similar to MRTI. The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) seems to be the main driver, so much so that the MRTI 2007–2008 Priority Issues Work Plan is organized in categories supplied by the ICCR. Is the PCUSA focusing on a particular subject? Look at the ICCR priorities, and you’ll find the answer, because ICCR priorities become PCUSA priorities.

  It certainly appears that Presbyterians get their marching orders not especially from the people of the church as a whole, but from Somplatsky-Jarman, who gets them from the ICCR. What hotels do we engage about sex trafficking? Well, ICCR handed us Hilton, so that’s what Presbyterians do. Why engage Time Warner? Why Duke Energy, ConocoPhillips, Arch Coal, and Southern Company? Are they particularly egregious corporate scofflaws that have come to the attention of Presbyterians? No. ICCR assigned them to MRTI to manage for the larger coalition. Somplatsky-Jarman handed MRTI a 14-page Priorities Work Plan, and, other than removing one no-longer-de rigueur cause—the rural farm crisis—MRTI dutifully just accepted the assignments wholesale. Thus, the coalition priorities, for good or for bad, have automatically become Presbyterian priorities.

• Seminar on Trafficking of Children for Sexual Exploitation. MRTI devoted large parts of two days to the sad and unsavory subject of sex trafficking. Friday included a serious presentation on child advocacy by Martha Bettis Gee, and then Saturday was devoted to a seminar on sex trafficking of children, with a small but committed audience of interested Presbyterians from Southern California invited to join in. This effort by MRTI is to be commended and supported. The victims cry out for rescue. MRTI is considering duplicating the seminar in other regions of the country, seeking, it appears, to become a mission arm of the church, rather than remaining in policy implementation.
• Coming Meetings. MRTI will next meet by conference call on January 22 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern to approve proxy voting for shareholder meetings of various corporations. Even phone meetings are meant to be open meetings, so persons wanting to listen in as silent observers may call the MRTI office in Louisville, ahead of time, to receive conference-call information.

  The next MRTI meeting in person will be April 17–19, probably somewhere in the Central Time Zone. However, given the influence of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility on all that MRTI does, perhaps the most important coming meeting will be the ICCR meeting, February 5–8 in New York City. That is where our priorities seem to originate!