Rationale: Since the inception of the General Board, the work of administering the “connection” has become significantly more complex. The relationship between AME, Inc. and the General Board is woefully nondescript. The ambiguity of sections of the Discipline and the opaque operation of AME, Inc. have created areas of conflict which need serious legislative and strategic attention. This is CRITICAL.
Proposal: 1. AME, Inc., in its present form, cannot be allowed broad administrative functions beyond the view and control of the Council of Bishops and the General Board. 2. We need clear avenues for a. regular reporting in the interim of the General Conference; b. protocols to communicate strategies and desired outcomes of actions; c. a clear, concise guide for what constitutes necessary, discrete, independent action by AME, Inc.
4. An Empowered Role for Statistics and Finance and Commissions
1. Rationale: In a more traditional application of the concept of a “general” board, the primary tasks center on finance. The salient questions are, a. have the funds allocated from the General Budget been used as intended by the General Conference, b. if not, should a further allocation be delayed or denied, c. should an amended use be approved. In addition, a report from general officers is available for review; it is a platform for discussion (and recommendations) related to policy and implementation; and, the work of the various general officers and components can be coordinated. In more recent decades, episcopal districts have been required to submit both budgets and audits for review. Fiscal review (arguably the most vital task of the General Board) lacks clear standards and direction by Discipline and tradition. Commissions with direct relationships to a general office should take the time to review audits and pass findings to the Commission on Statistics and Finance. Similarly, episcopal district audits should be reviewed annually to assure that district financial activity is true to the approved budget and queries are appropriately vetted. Finally, Statistics and Finance should step into the role of performance and accountability for the CFO and the CIO.
2. Proposals: 1. That we clarify a process for the review of audits by commissions. 2. That we clarify the expectations and process for the review of episcopal district budgets and audits. 3. That the role of Statistics and Finance as an oversight body for the CFO be clarified and affirmed.
Another section to follow