From the unhassled comfort of hindsight, this article is a mixed bag of reflections on our 2000 Biennial Convention. My intent is to continue a healthy dialog begun by some bright people in the last two issues of Forum on the convention and how to improve future ones.

But first, a matter of well-merited kudos. Properly planned and executed, the AEUNA convention is necessarily a huge task. Nor can an assigned committee be compensated for the tiresome hours of research and preparation except the realization that the job met the Union¹s objectives and that God was somehow glorified.

By any measure, the United Armenian Congregational Church task force that piloted the 2000 convention in Los Angeles last June should yet feel aglow for their accomplishment. Their church and they richly earned the plaudits expressed in the September 2000 Forum.

Still, we know it¹s wise to think about how to do even better the next time around. That¹s why the same issue featured an editorial entitled "Rethinking the Biennial Convention" by Rev. Mgrditch Melkonian, associate pastor of the host church itself. Among his observations, Rev. Melkonian cited the relative lack of representational attendance. Further, he questioned the high cost of $900 per couple (plus transportation).

This dilemma may be described as "taxation vs. representation". With inflation a factor, it is plausible that rising registration costs have discouraged if not precluded the presence of many rank and file church members. Thus, one way to gain representation is to make the convention less taxing financially. More on that later.

Rev. Melkonian also described possible vacillation among convention objectives such as fellowship, business, education and spiritual life, and urged timeliness and clarity of publicity. In a word, Rev. Melkonian¹s recommendations need to be considered now in preparation for 2002. Rev. Melkonian also described possible vacillation among convention objectives such as fellowship, business, education and spiritual life, and urged timeliness and clarity of publicity. In a word, Rev. Melkonian¹s recommendations need to be considered now in preparation for 2002.

It was encouraging that the very next issue of Forum in December published a letter from the vice chairman of the 2000 convention task force, Fred Mickaelian, Jr., acknowledging Rev. Melkonian¹s views. Mr. Mickaelian conceded that cost might be a burden for many but also indicated, as had Rev. Melkonian, that attendance was affected by simultaneous events held by AEUNA churches in the Los Angeles area.

Moreover, Mr. Mickaelian disclosed that the convention costs bore the fact that "AEUNA board members (16 of them) and employees are given complimentary passes and hotel accommodations for five days because they needed to attend a board meeting prior to the convention."

It is right, of course, to absorb or reimburse board meeting expenses, particularly for clergy. However, if understood correctly, it is shockingly exorbitant for the Union to have paid for convention passes and five days at a hotel because of one day¹s board meeting. If indeed these costs are passed on to delegates and attendees, the question begs balance and propriety. Even if board members return their reimbursement as a donation, it accrues to the Union after the conven-tion without decreasing registration costs. In fairness to all, this needs to be well aired and adjusted as necessary.

On to objectives. Convention objectives are, naturally, the province of AEUNA leadership based on best assessment of current needs and of such func-tions as "fellowship, business, education and spiritual life." However, the measure for progress versus objectives must be central to the reports of every standing committee with clearly stated goals, results and challenges. Reports need to be sent to each church at least one month in advance so delegates can be prepared to respond at the convention.

Regarding schedule conflicts, the best safeguard is to publicize convention dates and location at least a year in advance via personal letter to each AEUNA pastor. Enclose a reply form for acknowledgment, and follow up quickly with phone calls. Early publicity to church members must clearly state dates, place and cost plans and ask for registration. Objectives, agenda, speakers, etc. can follow.

All of the above reinforces the reality that the AEUNA is much more than a parental umbrella. It must see to the Union¹s needs of ministry, pastoral education, youth programs and church plantings‹to name the obvious. Conventions are when we collectively examine and revitalize the corporal and spiritual state of the Union, all within the warm embrace of Christian fellowship.

Finally, back to taxation vs. representation.

Assuming lower registration costs attract higher attendance, we should reconsider a variation on an earlier method. A few decades ago, when our East and West divisions merged into one Union, the swelled ranks of attendees required new logistics for convention sites and lodging. The solution was found in local college campuses and dormitories. Then, year by year, we upscaled into such venues as Hilton hotels.

An answer may lie in a choice of the two. Simply stated, an economy plan would offer lodging in college dormitories. For those who prefer and can afford it, a hotel would be designated. Here again, special rates would be prearranged. Meals for all would continue to be mainly on campus.

Is this practicable? Certainly it must be weighed in the context of each convention site but seems worth exploring. In any case, it is imperative to employ all means to economize and make convention costs more affordable. The result can be the difference between narrow inbreeding of the few and democratic representation of the many as we strive to strengthen our Evangelical calling.

And perhaps that¹s a good definition of convention wisdom.

Note:Charles DeMirjian and his wife, Diane, were delegates representing the Armenian Martyrs¹ Congregational Church of Havertown, Pa. at the 2000 convention in Los Angeles.