printer-friendly email a friend

Bishop Marcus Matthews announces the realignment of districts effective July 1

Written: 4/20/2010

 Bishop Marcus Matthews announced the realignment of districts in the New York West Area of The United Methodist Church to be implemented July 1, 2010 following the closing sessions of the North Central New York and the Western New York Annual Conferences.

Bishop Marcus Matthews recently announced the realignment of districts currently in the New York West Area of The United Methodist Church following the closing sessions of the North Central New York and the Western New York Annual Conferences.  The realignment is effective July 1, 2010, with implementation in the new Upper New York Area.

The realignment is in response to a report from a task force empowered by New ACT (New Area/Conference Team) to explore how the superintendency might best be carried out in regard to the vision and mission and core values adopted last June.  

The work of this task force established some guiding principles that will continue to inform and guide our understanding of superintendency in the new annual conference.  The first of which is: “The focus of the work of the District Superintendent is mission.  Another way of putting this is: The DS is a conference Missioner. The emphasis is on the DS as leader, and less as manager.”

Their work supports a recommendation for further study and discernment regarding how district lines may be delineated, new models for superintending, new roles for administrative assistants, funding for local mission and ministry, and locations of resource centers.  The task force realizes that this further study and discernment may result in a recommendation for even fewer districts. Recommendations from that study are to come to the June 2011 Annual Conference session.

A complete report of the task force and all seven of the guiding principles will be posted to www.uppernewyork.org. Their work supports a recommendation to reduce the number of districts in the new annual conference.

Because the new alignment will take effect in the new conference of the Upper New York Area, the cabinet and Bishop Matthews looked across the boundaries of our current conferences to create a balanced distribution of churches and charges.   Among the criteria considered were: geography, sociological attributes, traffic patterns, and culture. With the desire to strengthen the district by natural relationships, the cabinet specifically looked for functional, natural, relational connections between communities.

In addition, New ACT and those preparing the second half 2010 budget and the full budget for 2011, made a commitment to not increase local church ministry shares/apportionments for the second half of 2010.  The realignment of districts in both the Albany and New York West Areas will assist in this commitment.

Bishop Matthews invited the nine district lay leaders, chairs of district committee on ordained ministry, chairs of district United Methodist Women, chairs of district United Methodist Men, chairs of district committee on superintendency and the nine New York West Area District Superintendents to gather for an informational meeting on April 14, 2010 regarding this announcement.

In a related development, Bishop Matthews announced the appointment of the Rev. David Underwood to Wesley UMC in Rochester, NY, effective July 1, 2010.  D.S. Underwood served as the Crossroads District Superintendent in Syracuse for 5 years and as the Central Lakes District Superintendent this past year.  Bishop Matthews met with the Central Lakes District Committee on Superintendency to inform them of Rev. Underwood’s request to be appointed to a local church.  The committee was also advised that the churches of the Central Lakes District would be realigned with existing districts.    For now, current district names will remain the same. 

Bishop Hassinger in a similar announcement for the Albany Area stated:

In the “Imagine” statement of what we feel God calling us to be as United Methodists in Upper New York, several of the lines include the invitations:  ‘opening to new ways of being and doing Church’ and ‘trusting the ambiguity and messiness of change.’  These matters of changes in district leadership and relationships illustrate this invitation to openness and trust, and demonstrate a call for us to adapt.  It is my hope and prayer that other leaders in the conference and in congregations will risk the kind of thoughtful changes that the district superintendents have pursued.  I recognize that these shifts in district superintendent responsibilities and district connections had not been anticipated.   For some there will be a sense of loss and for many there will be challenges.  Pastors, lay leadership, and congregations, as well as district superintendents who are increasing their workloads will feel losses and challenges.  It is important to be able to name that, and then to ask where God is leading us into the future.

Bishop Matthews stated, “As we seek to grow in our relationship with God in being the body of Christ within the world, engaging, equipping and empowering local churches to be in ministry with our neighbors in all places, it is my hope that new directions will emerge at every level within our church.  I will continue to encourage cabinet and conference leaders, along with our pastors and laity, to explore and consider new models for superintending in our ministry for Jesus Christ. Let us move forward seeking the Lord’s guidance, confident that we are being led by the Holy Spirit to a bright new day. “

(A projected, still being perfected,  list of churches that will be in the eight new districts from the NYW Area that will be a part of the New Upper New York Annual Conference are attached to this announcement.  The superintendents currently serving these districts will be appointed until June 30, 2011.)

Comments

1. Dale E. Austin wrote on 4/22/2010 3:34:32 PM

While I understand the reasoning behind such a move, and at the risk of committing vocational suicide, the way in which this has been handled and decided seems a bit presumptuous on the part of both NewACT and the episcopal office. We are proceeding under the assumption that there will be eight districts where there had previously been nine. However, that decision MUST be made by the Annual Conferences affected by this realignment. By Discipline, the Annual Conference determines the number of districts, and then the bishop determines the boundaries. Until both the NCNY and WNY conferences actually decide that there will be eight districts to replace the current nine, this is still just a proposal. And yet, here we are, proceeding as though it were already a fait accompli. Aren't we getting just a little bit ahead of ourselves here?

2. Joe Thoman wrote on 4/22/2010 5:03:16 PM

To Dale Austin.
While I agree totally that there needs to be strict adherence to the Discipline, it should be noted that the NCNY and WNY Conferences will no longer exist after June 30, 2010. The "New" conference will then act on the Bishop's recommendation for the redistricing.

3. Dale E. Austin wrote on 4/23/2010 1:26:01 PM

With all due respect to Mr. Thoman, that's not the point, at all. Until at least June 19, both WNY and NCNY Annual Conferences are still very much in existence and subject to all the provisions of the Book of Discipline. Para. 415.4 requires that the bishop "form the districts" AFTER the Annual Conference(s) has determined the number. It would be perfectly acceptable to have a "proposed" plan in place, to be implemented upon a vote by the conference(s) involved. But to announce the redistricting as though it were a done deal prior to any such vote is getting the cart before the horse; it does not conform to the requirements of the Book of Discipline. This is true whether we are speaking of WNY and NCNY or of the new conference. Either way, someone needs to vote on this proposal BEFORE the district boundaries are announced.
BTW, it should be noted that Bp. Hassinger's redistricting within the Albany Area in no way affected the number of districts, so she was entirely within her authority to do so. Since Bp. Matthews' proposal DOES alter the number of districts, the same cannot be said of this proposal, at this point in time.

4. Lawrence Lundgren wrote on 4/23/2010 2:52:52 PM

I do beleive that the planned district changes in what is now the Albany Area also reduce by one district (essentially the Embury District).

5. Dale E. Austin wrote on 4/24/2010 3:19:58 AM

Not really accurate. The Embury District straddles New York and Vermont; the Vermont portion remains intact. From the outset, for purposes of discussion, the Embury District has been considered a Vermont District and has never figured into the number of districts presumed to be in the new conference in New York. The churches in that district which lie in NY have been realigned with the Albany and Oneonta Districts, but the Vermont portion of Embury was not affected. What happens with those churches is Bp. Weaver's call. Embury was bisected, but it was not eliminated.

We need to keep this discussion going. I realize that my intentions may be suspect, and that some may view me as trying to make trouble. Quite the contrary, I'm trying to keep us out of trouble. It is always my preference to deal with such issues "in house" rather than dragging the Judicial Council in. But if we get to the floor of the Annual Conference with this proposal as is, someone is sure to request a ruling of law on the legality of this action with respect to para. 415.4. The Judicial Council would then have no choice but to rule that the bishop's actions were inappropriate. I'd like to avoid that, if we can. But since the realignment has already been announced nearly two months prior to the Annual Conferences, I'm not sure how we do that.

6. Jeff McDowell wrote on 4/26/2010 8:21:35 AM

Ok Dale; so I am not the ONLY one who was surprised by this announcement. I find in ministry, this simple observation may hold true:

"HOW things are done are often as important as WHAT gets done."

Jeff McDowell, Order of Elders, NCNY conference.

7. Bill Gottschalk-Fiellding wrote on 4/26/2010 12:14:45 PM

Dale,
Thanks for raising this issue. If raising good questions in a civil and helpful manner (as you have) ever leads to "vocational suicide(!)," we are done as a denomination. Please don't ever hesitate. You have logged too many years as a Conf Secy not to have valuable insight to share.

Here's what I would add to this discussion by way of clarification. It's my understanding the move from 9 to 8 districts in the NYWA will be an action taken by the Closing Sessions of NCNY and WNY in accord with 2008 Book of Discipline, para. 415, 4.

It's also my understanding Troy and Wyoming will be asked to take a similar action regarding the Embury District.

The news release is based on the assumption these actions will be taken, just as the US Constitution was drafted assuming it would be ratified. There's really no other way to proceed, if the Plan of Union is to be coherent and implementable in the time we have. We've made every attempt to offer the Uniting Conference as good a Plan of Union as we, with God's help, can devise. It ain't perfect, but I think it's good enough for us to take a first step without a stumble.

Though New ACT does not have (or want!) the authority to change the number of districts, it was asked to develop a Plan of Union for the structure of the new conference. This necessarily involved examining the appropriate number of districts. As New ACT's Districting Task Force report said, reducing the number of districts is proposed in order to free resources for mission. It takes into account current financial limitations and a comparison of district configurations in comparable annual conferences.

I think its the right thing to do, given where we are and where we hope to move. Its not without challenges, but nothing we do from here on out will be. We've all got to live with into this new thing with as much boldness and trust as we can find within ourselves and one another.

I hope this helps. If its not clear, its probably me (not you) and I welcome continued conversation.