Decision Number 356

Petition from the Commission on Entertainment and Program as to Whether the Reduced Percentages of Representation of Paragraphs 602, 615 and 815 are Consistent with Paragraph 21 of the Constitution

Digest

Paragraph 21 established a principle of double relative numerical representation for members coming from The Evangelical United Brethren Church in relation to members coming from The Methodist Church during the three quadrenniums following union. In order to provide during that period following union for participation in decision-making bodies of the Church for persons coming into membership of The United Methodist Church without prior membership in the constituent denominations, minimal percentages of representation for members coming from The Evangelical United Brethren Church and The Methodist Church have been established in Paragraphs 602, 615 and 815. To the extent that the number of persons elected or appointed from the post 1968 new membership is less than the percentage of representation available to this group, the percentage remaining shall be divided between members coming from the constituent denominations in the original 13% to 87% ratio. When thus applied, Paragraphs 602, 615 and 815 are in conformity with Paragraph 602, 615 and 815 are in conformity with Paragraph 21.

Statement of Facts

The Executive Committee of the Commission on Entertainment and Program of the General Conference by petition dated March 24, 1972 requested the Judicial Council to give a declaratory decision on the question whether the percentages of representation and allocations specified in the Discipline, Paragraph 602 (General Conference Delegates), Paragraph 615 (Jurisdictional Conference Delegates) and Paragraph 815 (General, Jurisdictional and Annual Conference Boards and Agencies) are in conformity with the requirements of Paragraph 21 of the Constitution assuring The Evangelical United Brethren Church effective representation in The United Methodist Church. That paragraph, being Restrictive Rule VII, provides inter alia that "in every instance there shall be chosen during the first three quadrenniums following union at least twice the number of representatives coming from The Evangelical United Brethren Church membership as the numerical membership in said particular conference would indicate in relation to the number coming from The Methodist Church . . ."

The petition points out that the percentage of membership coming to The United Methodist Church from The Evangelical United Brethren Church at the time of merger was 6.5% and consequently at the outset of the quadrennium 1968-72 the relative representation of the church when doubled was 13%, and the representation allocable to the number of members coming from The Methodist Church was 87%. The petition raises questions whether in providing ratios of representation in the General Conference in the second quadrennium, 1972-76, Paragraph 602 which provides that at least 6.5% of the delegates shall be chosen from among members coming from The Evangelical United Brethren membership, and 43.5% from among members coming from the Methodist membership is consistent with Paragraph 21; also whether the varying percentage of representation in the several Jurisdictional Conferences during the same quadrennium and in the personnel of conference boards during the quadrenniums, 197276 and 1976-80, are constitutionally correct ratios departing as they do from the starting ratio of 13%-87% applicable to the first quadrennium.

Jurisdiction

The Judicial Council has jurisdiction under Paragraph 1715 of the Discipline.

Analysis and Rationale

The issue before us questions the relationship of three disciplinary provisions-Paragraphs 602, 615 and 815-to Restrictive Rule VII (Paragraph 21) of The United Methodist Church.

The pertinent provisions of Division Two, Section III, Article VII (Paragraph 21) of the Constitution are the following:
"The General Conference shall not do away with the following rights, which are hereby defined: In order that The Evangelical United Brethren Church shall be assured of effective representation in The United Methodist Church it is agreed that at the level of the General Conference, Jurisdictional Conferences, and Central Conferences and on all boards and agencies at the Annual Conference, Central Conference, Jurisdictional Conference, and General Conference levels, in every instance there shall be chosen, during the first three quadrenniums following union, at least twice the number of representatives coming from The Evangelical United Brethren Church membership as the relative numerical membership in said particular conference would indicate in relationship to the number of representatives coming from The Methodist Church, . . . The relative numerical membership shall be computed by taking the membership of The Evangelical United Brethren Church as reported immediately prior to union and the total membership of the particular conference immediately after union. The General Conference may adopt legislative rules designed to carry out the intent and spirit of this provision. At the termination of the first three quadrenniums following union, this Article VII shall be automatically deleted from the Constitution." (Italics supplied)

Paragraph 21 above is a new provision of the Constitution of The United Methodist Church which was proposed in "the Plan of Union, Report to the General Conferences, November, 1966 of The Methodist Church and The Evangelical United Brethren Church." The Report was submitted by the Ad Hoc Committee on E.U.B. Union of The Methodist Church and the Commission on Union of The Evangelical United Brethren Church to the special session of the 1964 General Conference of The Methodist Church and to the 1966 General Conference of The Evangelical United Brethren Church, meeting simultaneously and separately in Chicago, Illinois, in November, 1966. The Constitution along with the Enabling Legislation was duly adopted by the two General Conferences and thereafter submitted to the respective Annual Conferences of the two denominations and adopted by the requisite constitutional votes thereof.

By further action in 1966 the two General Conferences approved in principle Part IV of the Plan of Union in which present Paragraphs 602, 615 and 815 were embodied as Paragraphs 502, 515 and 718 respectively and each prefaced with the same purpose: "In order to carry out the intent and spirit of the constitutional provision (Division Two, Section 111, Article VI-VII in 1968) .. ."

The Uniting Conference of 1968 in Dallas, Texas, composed of the delegates of the special session of the 1966 General Conference of The Evangelical United Brethren Church and the delegates of the 1968 General Conference of The Methodist Church, re-examined the paragraphs in question, accepted the provisions as printed, added two subparagraphs 815.1 (e) and 815.4 and adopted them. This action was ratified and adopted by the 1968 General Conference of The United Methodist Church.

The provisions of the related paragraphs of the Discipline, each of which is directly "tied" to Paragraph 21 of the Constitution, are as follows:

Relating to relative representation in the General Conference is Paragraph 602 (identical with Paragraph 515 of Part IV of the Organization and Administration of the Plan of Union) :
"Paragraph 602. Representation.-in order to carry out the intent and spirit of the constitutional provision (Division Two, Section 111, Article VII), the following special rules shall apply:

"1. In any special session of the General Conference held during the quadrennium 1968-72 and in the General Conference of 1972, 13 percent of the delegates shall be chosen from among members coming from the Evangelical United Brethren membership and 87 percent from among members coming from the Methodist membership. "2. In any special session of the General Conference held during the quadrennium 1972-76 and in the General Conference of 1976, at least 6.5 percent of the delegates shall be chosen from among members coming from the Evangelical United Brethren membership and at least 43.5 percent from among members coming from the Methodist membership.

"3. In General Conferences subsequent to the General Conference of 1976 there shall be no requirements regarding representation from among the members coming from the constituent denominations. "4. For the purpose of this section the term "member coming from" a denomination shall mean a person who was a member of such denomination on the date the Plan of Union became effective.

"5. It is anticipated that before 1976, through the uniting of Annual Conferences or otherwise, many Annual Conferences of the respective denominations may be materially changed as to boundaries, membership, or otherwise but that some of the Evangelical United Brethren and Methodist Annual Conferences existing at the time of union may continue to exist as such without material change. Accordingly, the secretary of the General Conference shall prepare and, subject to review and approval by the Council of Bishops, promulgate a schedule allocating to the Annual Conferences of the Church the number of delegates coming from The Evangelical United Brethren Church and The Methodist Church, respectively, which each Annual Conference shall elect. Such schedule shall attempt to allocate fairly the delegates to be elected as coming from the respective denominations among those Evangelical United Brethren and Methodist Annual Conferences which continue to exist as such without material change and among those Annual Conferences whose membership, because of mergers or otherwise, has been materially changed and consists of persons coming from both constituent denominations."

Relating specifically to relative representation in the several Jurisdictional Conferences is Paragraph 615 (identical with Paragraph 515 of Part IV--Organization and Administration, Plan of Union) reading in part as follows:

"Paragraph 615: In order to carry out the intent and spirit of the constitutional provision (Division Two, Section III, Article VII) the following special rules shall apply:
" 1. In any special session of a Jurisdictional Conference held during the quadrennium 1968-72 and in each Jurisdictional Conference of 1972, delegates shall be chosen from among members coming from the Evangelical United Brethren membership and the Methodist membership, respectively, as follows:
Northeastern 22% and 78% Southeastern 2% and 98% North Central 24% and 76% South Central 5% and 95% Western 8% and 92%

"2. In any special session of a Jurisdictional Conference held during the quadrennium 1972-76 and in each Jurisdictional Conference of 1976, delegates shall be chosen from among members coming from the Evangelical United Brethren membership and the Methodist membership, respectively, using the following percentages as minimums:

Northeastern 14.6% and 52.0% Southeastern 1.4% and 65.0% North Central 16.0% and 50.6% South Central 3.3% and 63.3% Western 5.3% and 61.3%

"3. In any Jurisdictional Conference held subsequent to the General Conference of 1976 there shall be no requirements regarding representation from among the members coming from the constituent denominations.

"4. For the purpose of this section the term "member coming from" a denomination shall mean a person who was a member of such denomination on the date the Plan of Union became effective."

5. (In substantially same language as Paragraph 602.5 modified to relate to Jurisdictional Conferences.)

Relating to relative representation on boards and agencies of the General, Jurisdictional and Annual Conferences, as well as local churches, is Paragraph 815 (identical with Paragraph 718 of Part IV, Organization and Administration, Plan of Union) reading in part as follows:

"Paragraph 815. Relative Representation. In order to carry out the intent and spirit of the Constitution (Division Two, Section III, Article VII) :

"1. All General Conference boards and agencies:

a) Regardless of size shall have, during the first three quadrenniums following union, at least one member coming from The Evangelical United Brethren Church membership.

b) During the quadrennium 1968-72 shall have approximately 13 percent of the members coming from The Evangelical United Brethren Church membership and 87 percent coming from The Methodist Church membership.

c) During the quadrennium 1972-76 shall have at least 8.7 percent from The Evangelical United Brethren Church membership and 58 percent from The Methodist Church membership.

d) During the quadrennium 1976-80 shall have at least 4.3 percent from The Evangelical United Brethren Church membership and 29 percent from The Methodist Church membership.

e) . . .

"2. All jurisdictional boards and agencies:

a) Regardless of size shall have, during the first three quadrenniums following union, at least one member coming from The Evangelical United Brethren Church membership.

b) During the quadrennium 1968-72 shall have members coming from The Evangelical United Brethren Church membership and The Methodist Church membership, respectively, approximately as follows:

Northeastern 22% and 78% Southeastern 2% and 98% North Central 24% and 76% South Central 5% and 95% Western 8% and 92%

c) During the quadrennium 1972-76 shall have members coming from The Evangelical United Brethren Church membership and The Methodist Church membership, respectively, at least approximately as follows:

Northeastern 14.6% and 52.0% Southeastern 1.4% and 65.0% North Central 16.0% and 50.6% South Central 3.3% and 63.3% Western 5.3% and 61.3%

d) During the quadrennium 1976-80 shall have members coming from the Evangelical United Brethren Church membership and The Methodist Church membership, respectively, at least approximately as follows:

Northeastern 7.3% and 26.0% Southeastern 0.7% and 32.7% North Central 8.0% and 25.3% South Central 1.7% and 32.7% Western 2.7% and 30.7%

"3. All boards and agencies of united Annual Conferences shall, when practicable, during the first three quadrenniums following union:

a) Regardless of size have at least one member coming from The Evangelical United Brethren Church membership.

b) Recognize the principle of at least twice the number of members coming from The Evangelical United Brethren Church membership, in relation to the number coming from The Methodist Church membership, as the relative numerical membership in the Annual Conference coming from the respective denominations would indicate; subject to the constitutional provisions and further subject to the fact that over the period of the three quadrenniums many persons will come into membership of The United Methodist Church without prior membership in either of the two uniting denominations and that, therefore, the fixed membership on boards and agencies to come from membership in the two uniting denominations should, over the period, be scaled down, in each case proportionately."

The foregoing legislative history and the pertinent disciplinary provisions quoted lead us to the following conclusions which are dispositive of this case.

There can be no doubt that the special rules set forth in Paragraphs 602, 615 and 815 were adopted by the two denominations at the time of union to express quite specifically their intent concerning the subject of relative representation in the new church. Patently, no generalized constitutional statement such as Paragraph 21, standing alone, could have adequately dealt with the complexities of the whole subject matter at the levels of the several conferences, both in delegate and board and agency representation.

To make clear and explicit and to avoid questions such as are now posed by the petition herein, the rules defined the relationships with a specificity bordering on mathematical precision for each of the quadrenniums involved in the transitional period. Certainly the care and detail with which the special rules were written negate any possible argument that the General Conferences of 1966 and 1968 overlooked Paragraph 21 or mistakenly defined its true intent and spirit. To the contrary, Paragraphs 602, 615 and 815, in each case are introduced with the illuminating and significant clause "In order to carry out the intent and spirit of the constitutional provision (Division Two, Section III, Article VII)," and further in Paragraphs 602 and 615, "the following special rules shall apply." There could be no clearer "tie" or bridge between the special rules and the constitutional article, Paragraph 21. Furthermore, it would appear that the rules as well as Paragraph 21 will become ineffective at the termination of the first three quadrenniums following union.

The special legislative rules in question not only established relative representation for members coming from the constituent denominations but also made provision for representation of persons coming into membership in The United Methodist Church without prior membership in either of the uniting denominations (Par. 815.3[b]). In order to provide this increasing area of openness for all newcomers to The United Methodist Church including youth with Evangelical United Brethren or Methodist background who would not be among "members coming from" the two churches, the draftsmen from the two churches assumed a 2-to-1 ratio between the fixed memberships of the respective churches when they entered union in 1968 but on a reducing base during the ensuing three quadrenniums. This arrangement for openness is in no sense in conflict with the guaranty of Paragraph 21 but is a delineation of it.

A question has been raised whether in the second and third quadrenniums, as to which the ratios are stated to be "at least" those percentages specified in Paragraphs 602, 615 and 815, the actual applications might result in the defeat or substantial impairment of the 2-to-1 ratio guaranty. In recognition of possible difficulty of application, procedures for the same are included in each paragraph.

It is our view that in the three quadrenniums following union if in any conference or board and agency appointments and elections the percentage of representation afforded members coming from The Methodist Church is above the "at least" percentage (for example the 43.5% of General Conference representation in 1976 as provided in 602.2) then the representation above the "at least" percentage allocable to members coming from The Evangelical United Brethren Church (6.5% in the example above) should be increased in double proportion. Otherwise, inequity would arise and the validity of any unilateral increase above the "at least" specification would be questioned.

The special legislative rules, Paragraphs 602, 615 and 815, are necessarily organic in nature and are to be read in conjunction with Paragraph 21 as specific applications of the constitutional guaranty of relative representation. It is clear in the total context that the guaranty of effective representation for The Evangelical United Brethren Church contained in Paragraph 21 was at all times during the three quadrenniums to be at least "twice the number of representatives coming from The Evangelical United Brethren Church as the relative numerical membership in said particular conference would indicate in relationship to the number of representatives coming from The Methodist Church." (Italics supplied)

Decision

Paragraph 21 established a principle of double relative numerical representation for members coming from The Evangelical United Brethren Church in relation to members coming from The Methodist Church during the three quadrenniums following union. In order to provide during the period following union for participation in decision-making bodies of the Church for persons coming into membership of The United Methodist Church without prior membership in the constituent denominations, minimal percentages of representation for members coming from The Evangelical United Brethren Church and The Methodist Church have been established in Paragraphs 602, 615 and 815. To the extent that the number of persons elected or appointed from the post 1968 new membership is less than the percentage of representation available to this group, the percentage remaining shall be divided between members coming from the constituent denominations in the original 13% to 87% ratio. When thus applied, Paragraphs 602, 615 and 815 are in conformity with Paragraph 21.

Concurring Opinion

With the major part of the analysis and decision of our colleagues we are in full agreement. There can be no doubt as to the constitutionality of the relative double representation of former Evangelical United Brethren members versus former Methodist members. We are also in accord with the conclusion that the paragraphs in question (602, 615, and 815) are constitutional and in harmony with and designed "to carry out the intent and spirit of the constitutional provision."

One significant point of difference and of dissent relates to the undistributed percentages for the quadrennia 197276 and 1976-80; that is, the percentages not allocated either to members of the former The Evangelical United Brethren Church or of the former The Methodist Church (Par. 602.2; Par. 615.2; Par. 815.1 c,d, 2 c,d).

Paragraph 602.2 clearly states that "in the General Conference of 1976, at least 6.5 per cent of the delegates shall be chosen from among members coming from the Evangelical United Brethren membership and at least 43 per cent from among members coming from the Methodist membership." This may be interpreted, as the writers of the decision contend, as meaning that a few or many persons who were not members of either of the antecedent churches may be elected as delegates to the General Conference of 1976, but that any portions of the unassigned 50 per cent not filled by such persons must be filled, and on a pro rata basis, by persons from one of the antecedent churches and in the 13-87 per cent ratios (i.e., relative double representation for the Evangelical United Brethren).

In response to this position, we would contend that an equally plausible interpretation of these paragraphs and percentages would be: The writers of the Constitution and of these paragraphs, as well as those who approved them by the necessary votes, could as logically have assumed that the guaranteed representation of two to one covered 50 per cent of the delegations in 1976 and that the remaining 50 per cent could be elected from among those who were not members of an antecedent church or from among those who were-that is, an open election without reference to any prior connection.

There are at least three reasons for this more open interpretation: (1) Had the framers of the Constitution and these paragraphs, and the adopting bodies, intended to secure a proportionate representation of newcomers to the church (and this only) they would have placed the unassigned percentage at 20 per cent or less, in Paragraph 602.2. Certainly less than one fifth of the total membership of the church is received in any four-year period. (2) Those who were responsible for the establishing of the new church evidenced at the start a strong desire to have both denominations melded into one people as soon as possible. The interpretation here given would be in accord with that thought, whereas the opinion of the majority of the Council would preserve through another two quadrennia the heavy emphasis on whether the person was a former Evangelical United Brethren or a former Methodist. (3) The interpretation of the majority creates almost insurmountable problems in the election process. A simple illustration may be given:

A particular Annual Conference is entitled to four ministerial and four lay delegates. The Secretary of the General Conference (who carries the responsibility for allocating to the Annual Conferences the number of delegates coming from each of the former denominations, Par. 602.5) might find it appropriate to state that the conference must elect one minister who was a former Evangelical United Brethren and one minister and two laymen who were former Methodist. These four persons could appropriately be first elected. The question remains: from what group or groups should the remaining two ministers and two laymen be chosen? Under the interpretation of our colleagues there should be opportunity for the election of one or two persons in each class of delegates. Rarely if ever would one half of the delegation be chosen from among persons entering the denomination within the last four years. But if only one minister and/or one layman is selected, how are the remaining positions to be divided between former Evangelical United Brethren and former Methodist? Until the time of election it cannot be determined how many members, up to two ministers and two laymen, will be elected by the conference. If two or three of the positions are not filled by such elections, how are they to be assigned equitably at this stage of the election process?

More serious still is the problem: if this process is left to be dealt with by the Annual Conference at the time of its meeting and voting and if all positions, out of the 50 per cent unassigned, are not occupied by "new members of the denomination," how is the constitutional requirement of equitable representation in the General Conference to be assured?

Assuming the validity of our colleagues' general argument, that Paragraphs 602, 615, and 815 are constitutional and therefore are to be applied, the only effective and equitable way of doing this is to assume that the unassigned 50 per cent will be filled without any reference to denominational heritage, except for such minor fractions as may be used up in giving effect to the phrase "at least" which is used twice in Paragraph 602.2. The unassigned percentages in Paragraph 615.2 and Paragraph 815.2 c and 2 d should be similarly interpreted.

MURRAY H. LEIFFER LEON E. HICKMAN

Dissenting Opinion

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case. The question before the Council is that of the relationship, and possible conflict, between Paragraph 21, Article VII of the Constitution which is protected by the restrictive rules and Paragraphs 602, 615, and 815 of the legislative law of the Church contained in Part IV of the Discipline. The majority opinion attempts to circumvent the necessity of dealing directly with the issue of possible conflict between the two by giving a constitutional gloss or authority to these particular paragraphs of legislative law. There are two proposed justifications for this position.

The first proposed justification is on the basis that Paragraphs 602, 615 and 815 were under consideration and going through the adoptive procedure necessary for their inclusion in the Discipline at the same time that the Constitution was being adopted, that they deal with the same problem as Paragraph 21 of the Constitution and must be interpreted together. While the opinion as written stops short of claiming constitutional authority for them on the grounds of "Concurrent Adoption," it assumes that the time and procedure of their adoption somehow gives them a status somewhat above that of regular legislative law. These paragraphs were adopted by the same procedure as were all the other sections of Part IV of the Discipline. This procedure is set forth specifically in the Analysis of the Majority opinion. From the point of view of the adoptive process they are in no way different from any other section of Part IV of the Discipline.

The second proposed justification for according these three paragraphs a constitutional authority is that they are "tied," through their introductory statements, directly to Paragraph 21 of the Constitution and are therefore "organic" to the Constitution itself. Neither of these proposed justifications is persuasive.

If we accept the first argument then we must of necessity extend the same extra legislative status to all of Part IV of the Discipline for all of it was adopted at the same time and by the same procedure. This procedure was not that which is required for the adoption of constitutional law in the Church. Paragraph 21, on the other hand, was adopted by constitutional adoptive procedures separate and apart from the procedures used in adopting Part IV of the Discipline.

If we accept the second argument, we must then say that all legislation passed for the purpose of implementing provisions of the Constitution, themselves, have a constitutional authority entirely apart from what relationship their substantive content may bear to the provisions of the Constitution which they are designed to implement. This is a logic which I cannot accept.

There can be no doubt those who drafted Paragraphs 602, 615 and 815 of Part IV of the Discipline were familiar with the existence and content of Paragraph 21, and that they intended these paragraphs to be implementing legislation for Paragraph 21 in the Constitution. The statement which introduces the substantive content of each of these Paragraphs is, "In order to carry out the intent and spirit of the Constitutional provision (Division Two, Section 111, Article VII), the following special rules shall apply." However, the test of their validity in this respect does not lie in the declared intent of those who drafted and approved them, but rather in whether their substantive content does in fact carry out the required provisions of the part of the Constitution which they are designed to implement. It is at this point that Paragraphs 602, 615 and 815 fall far short.

The single purpose of Paragraph 21 (quoted in the Analysis of the majority opinion) is clearly stated. It is to assure effective representation of the former The Evangelical United Brethren Church in The United Methodist Church for a period of three quadrenniums after union. In order to guarantee this effective representation it establishes the principle of at least double the proportionate representation, based on membership, as compared with the former The Methodist Church. Not only so but it prescribes the manner in which the representation must be computed, requires that it be applied in every instance for the duration of the three quadrenniums and then places it under the protection of the restrictive rules so that it cannot be altered except by the most difficult legislative procedure known in our Church. The Evangelical United Brethren Church was a very small minority unit (6.5%) in this Union. Assurance of adequate representation for three quadrenniums was one of the prices of Union. This assurance was so important in the Union procedure that it was written into the fundamental law of the Church and given the strongest protection against change that it was possible to give. Therefore, any provision in the legislative law of the Church which is in conflict or provides a procedure for avoiding the requirements of this paragraph must fall.

Paragraphs 602, 615 and 815, although designed to implement the purpose of Paragraph 21, do not, in fact, do so. All of the provisions of these three Paragraphs as now written can be carried out with mathematical precision and yet the results may fall far short of meeting the requirements of Paragraph 21.

I cite but one example of the inadequacy of the provisions contained in these Paragraphs and of the extreme difficulty, if not impossibility, of meeting the requirements of Paragraph 21 by applying the formulae they present. Similar inadequacies and difficulties exist in the application of each mathematical formula presented. Paragraph 602 provides that in the representation to the 1976 General Conference at least 6.5% of that representation shall be from among the Former Evangelical United Brethren Church membership and at least 43.5% from among the membership of the former The Methodist Church. This is in the relative proportion which was determined by the computations required in Paragraph 21 except that it applies to only 50% of the representation to that General Conference. From where will the other 50% of the representation come? If more than 6.5% is selected from among the former Evangelical United Brethren membership the proportional representation will be out of line. If more than 43.5% is selected from among former Methodist membership then the minimum representation requirements for former Evangelical United Brethren will not be met. Paragraph 21 requires that the proportionate representation as between the two former denominations shall apply to the total of their representation. If it does not so apply when the delegations are constituted then the delegations are clearly unconstitutional in their makeup.

The reason given for the "open" membership of a portion of the representation in the second and third quadrenniums is in order that there may be some proportional representation from the "new" membership. That is persons who were not members of either of the Uniting denominations. This certainly is a logical and commendable purpose. It adds a third factor to the representation formula. While representation from this group is not specifically provided for in Paragraph 21 (Paragraph 21 was not written for that purpose) it is not prohibited by it so long as it does not disturb the required proportional representation between the membership of the two uniting denominations. The extremely difficult practical problem is how it is to be accomplished within the constitutional requirements.

As I view it there are two, and only two, possibilities that would not run the danger of being declared unconstitutional. One would be to specifically add the third factor of representation from the "new" membership to the mathematical formulae in these three paragraphs. This might be done by determining the number of such new members received in the quadrennium just past, calculating it as a percentage of the total present membership and assigning that proportion of the total representation to be selected from among such "new" members. The remainder of the representation could then be divided in a 13%-87% ratio between former Evangelical United Brethren and former Methodists. Such a procedure would certainly meet the requirements of Paragraph 21 and might indeed give some real stimulation to the involvement of these new and younger members within the active, responsible life of the Church at all levels.

The other possibility of meeting the Constitutional requirements of Paragraph 21 would simply be to assign 13% (the double representation figure which has been applied to the first quadrennium) of the representation to the membership of the former Evangelical United Brethren Church throughout the second and third quadrenniums, and leave 87% open. This would give no specifically assigned percentage either to the former Methodist or to the "new" membership but such assigned percentages are not required by Paragraph 21. This paragraph was written for one purpose only, which was, "In order that The Evangelical United Brethren Church shall be assured of effective representation in The United Methodist Church." It makes only one requirement which is "in every instance there shall be chosen, during the first three quadrenniums following Union, at least twice the number of representatives coming from The Evangelical United Brethren Church membership as the relative numerical membership in said particular Conference would indicate in relationship to the number of representatives coming from The Methodist Church."

Until such time as Paragraph 21 becomes inoperative by its own self-imposed time limit or by earlier repeal any procedure for selecting representation, regardless of its source, that does not result in a representation that meets this requirement is clearly unconstitutional.

I. LYND ESCH