News

Bishop Calls Special Session

by Greg Nelson
Director of Communications
Send Email
10/26/2011

 

In the letter, Bishop Hoshibata lays out two key issues related to the change in districts.

 

 

Bishop Robert T. Hoshibata has called a special session of the Oregon-Idaho Annual Conference. In a letter mailed to members of the Annual Conference, the bishop states that “This special session will be convened in order to vote on one question only: Shall there be 4 districts in the Oregon-Idaho Annual Conference beginning on July 1, 2012?”

Attendees at the June 2011 regular session of the Annual Conference heard of the bishop’s plan to adjust the number of districts when he shared it at the conference session. Conference members have been able to share their thoughts on this matter with the bishop since then, but have not had the opportunity to vote on the item. According to The United Methodist Book of Discipline, a plan to change the number of districts in an annual conference requires a ratification vote by the membership of the annual conference.

Therefore Bishop Hoshibata has called for a vote-by-mail ballot on this question.

The letter sent to members is an “invitation to attend” the by-mail conference. It was mailed to clergy and lay members of the Annual Conference. In some cases, churches may have changed their elected representative. They are asked to contact Annual Conference Session Manager, Turella Woods at turella@umoi.org to update the membership lists (note: since the vote will be held before the end of the year, members are those who were elected for 2011, even if another person has already been elected for 2012). Members of the Annual Conference who did not receive the letter should also contact Turella.

In the letter, Bishop Hoshibata lays out two key issues related to the change in districts. The first is the change in the episcopal area that will happen in September of 2012. When Oregon-Idaho, Pacific Northwest, and Alaska Missionary conferences are all supervised by one bishop, a “general assistant” to the bishop will provide “continuity of leadership and linkage to your bishop when the bishop is not full-time in Oregon-Idaho.”

The second change the bishop describes is the effort to reduce the budget of the annual conference and be fiscally responsible in challenging economic times. Therefore he is calling for the reduction in the number of districts to provide funds for the new general assistant.

Bishop Hoshibata invites comments and dialog about the proposal. (Comments can be posted  below, or mailed to the bishop at Bishop@umoi.org.) More details will be shared at Clergy Colloquy sessions around the conference, here on the conference website, and with the ballots that are mailed out in early November.

LINKS TO MORE INFORMATION

Comments

1. Frank Braudt wrote on 10/6/2011 6:00:12 PM
How will churches be rearranged into the 4 districts if the vote passes? Will those changes be known by local churches prior to the vote?
2. Al Rieke wrote on 10/6/2011 6:28:53 PM
We should be informed of the proposed District boundaries before we vote.
3. Lisa Nelson wrote on 10/6/2011 11:42:45 PM
I would also like to know the proposed district boundaries before we vote. I think we need to be better informed before deciding.
4. Anne Weld-Martin wrote on 10/7/2011 9:01:17 AM
Can we call the new position the Vice-Bishop?
5. Al Rieke wrote on 10/7/2011 10:42:08 AM
An additional financial benefit would result from reducing the number of assistants to the bishop from 5 to 4; if we're still going to have five A2Bs, we might as well stay with five districts.
6. Bob Burns wrote on 10/7/2011 2:10:26 PM
Shouldn't the laity (UMC church folks)be more heavily involved and consulted on this and other matters of significance??
7. Patty Meyers wrote on 10/7/2011 4:10:32 PM
Will the November letter be sent via e-mail or snail mail? With annual conference members who serve outside the bounds of the conference, I hope that time will be allowed for the letter and time to vote.
8. Greg Nelson wrote on 10/7/2011 4:14:25 PM
The ballots will go out via US Mail, but with enough time to allow for return. The "deadline" will be based on the post mark date. We have eligible members outside the country, so that has to be considered.
9. Roz Collins wrote on 10/7/2011 4:53:09 PM
I am NOT a voting member of the AC, but I would value seeing the amount of budget savings this move is projected to generate. Round numbers would be fine...
10. Earl Riddle wrote on 10/8/2011 8:17:16 PM
There is no savings in this proposal. There will still be 5 Assistants to the Bishop. Designate one of the 4 District Assistants to the Bishop (The Dean of the Cabinet) as the connection to the Bishop's office.
11. Babs Eggleston wrote on 10/10/2011 12:04:46 AM
Yes, I see the need to not appoint an additional A2B, but you're asking us to vote for a pig in a poke (bag), not knowing what the new boundaries will be. How about sharing that with us before we're asked to vote?
12. Robert Birge First church Portland wrote on 10/11/2011 3:16:00 PM
I would as well like to know the potenial boundaries before we cast a vote. Why would we continue to have 5 A2B's if we are reducing to 4 districts. This does not make sense to me without further explanations. I feel we should be looking at cost savings in every corner.
13. Howard DeVore wrote on 10/12/2011 11:00:37 AM
I agree with the observations that the economy of the Bishop's plan to reduce districts to four but maintaining five "assistants to the Bishop" promises no cost savings. Reducing assistants to four and grouping charge conferences and travel costs would.
14. Greg Nelson, Dir. of Communications wrote on 10/12/2011 11:45:08 AM
When counting noses of the number of assistants, it's important to remember that beginning July 2011 one position (Director of Connectional Ministries/A2B) was eliminated in response to underpayment of apportionments. The proposed shift brings support to the bishops office without adding back a conference staff position.
15. Jean Neely wrote on 10/18/2011 1:29:40 PM
Why does it matter that we know the new boundaries before we vote? They will be drawn with geographic limitations in mind, I'm sure. I trust the bishop to do this prayerfully and with consideration for each church. (I am a voting member.)
16. Claudia Roberts wrote on 11/3/2011 1:34:45 PM
I agree with the posts that indicate that knowing more about the proposal would help. I would not only like to know what the proposed boundaries would be but also where this proposal came from. Has it been discussed with the cabinet and the advisory board? Will we need another special session to vote on the changed boundaries? The Bishop has the authority to call a special session but I know Bishop Hoshibata well enough to know that he did not come up with this idea in a vacumn so would like to know who helped draft this proposal and what are their thoughts. When we vote at annual conference we have seen a report and/or an action request and have had the opportunity for holy conferencing. This seems to be a momentous decision to make without understanding the implications.
17. Greg Nelson, Dir. of Communications wrote on 11/3/2011 1:45:41 PM
Claudia, I can answer some of your questions. Yes, the bishop came to this recommendation in conversation with the Ministry Leadership Team (which includes the cabinet). We will not need another session to set boundaries. The assignment of church to a district is done by the bishop in consultation with the cabinet.
18. Jan Nelson wrote on 11/3/2011 6:55:22 PM
I've read all these comments, and I still don't feel like I have enough information. Knowing how the new districts would be configured has a lot to do with how workable I think this would be. I would like to see more discussion of the option of simply designating one of the A2Bs as the primary link to the bishop.