DownloadJuly 6, 2009 issue
MCC’s structure
By Donald R. Steelberg Wichita, Kan.I feel elated about — and, indeed, vindicated by — your report of Mennonite Central Committee’s vision for its revised structure. More than 10 years ago while vice chair of MCC U.S. I proposed that MCC U.S. and MCC Canada become the parent organizations of MCC, with the MCC executive committee their joint committee for the oversight and instrumentation of international programs.
The proposal was made to strengthen the organization, but was met with polite indifference to outright hostility by the MCC international executive committee. I took it before joint meetings of the Canada and the U.S. boards but was not supported by them. One intention of the proposal was to reduce the number of centers for decision-making from 12 to two, with an international arm, perhaps based in Geneva, Switzerland, serving them both. Another was to give a greater sense of empowerment to the national board members.
Elizabeth Soto Albrecht is right in disagreeing with the placement of international program in the U.S. and Canada. The international executive committee should continue its excellent oversight of those programs.
Comment on the article MCC’s structure
The purpose of comments is to engage in dialogue. We expect commenters to treat authors and each other as each would want to be treated. Respectful criticism is welcomed; offensive comments or parts of comments will be removed by the site administrator. Name and comment will be posted; email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.
Download a free PDF showing the populations of
Mennonite groups and other Anabaptists.
