In another thread Barbara Robinson, suggested there be a hospitality booth in a hotel. Great Idea.

How many on this board plan to be at General Conference? My daughter and I will be there. Who else is coming?

It will be great to see everyone, perhaps we make ribbons that say ame today on them. Barbara can pick a color for the ribbon;-)

-- Anonymous, January 14, 2004

Answers

I'll be there (from the 4th District - Michigan Conference) as an observer.

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2004

Bro Bob <---------- RAISING HAND

I will most likely be at the Attles for Bishop Booth.

Bob McCain

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2004

I had planned to go but won't be able to make it this time. Will try for the next one.

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2004

I have written legislation so I plan to attend. One of Rev. Fisher's innovations in 2000 was providing updates on the AME Today website for those who were unable to attend the General Conference. It's rather remarkable that despite the widespread deployment of video conferencing technology and webcasts the AMEC has yet to utilize 21st century technology. One of the social benefits of such technology is that it makes distance moot. A webcast of the General COnference would greatly benefit those who would like to attend but cannot for economic reasons. For all the money which will be spent on the logistics in hosting the General Conference, 2-3% of those funds could go towards developng an operational webcast. QED

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2004

I'm planning to attend. I'm relatively new to the board and don't really post that often but I would enjoy putting faces to all your names. Even though my time here has been short, I feel like I know all of the regular posters. See y'all in Indy!

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2004

Bill, I may be a bit paranoid but I don't think we really want to let the worldwide church know what happens at the general conference.

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2004

Why not !!!

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2004

Why not is right!!!! Or, make the webcast by subscription like other organizations do.

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2004

AJ makes a great point concerning the webcast subscription option. This is no different than pay-per-view financing for movies or sporting events. A nominal subscription fee would not be financially burdensome for many of us, plus it could function as an important revenue stream for the AMEC. Let's test my math. I believe a minimum of 100,000 AMEs would be interested in subscribing to a webcast of the General Conference. A significant percentage of the subscriptions could come from our overseas Districts (15th-19th) who are impaired to attend due to the expense of travel costs. If the subscription is $25.00 (or the price of an observer) that translates into $2.5 million dollars just on gross subscriptions. Assuming the cost to produce the webcast is $500,000, yields a net "profit" of $2 million dollars. Why would any rational organization (especially one that is fiscally-challenged) walk away from this type of money? This is not rocket-science. It only takes a few folks with a solid background in communications technology. I will forward this proposal directly to the CIO of the AMEC, Dr. Clement Fugh for his feedback. QED

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2004

Thank you for the suggestion of the webcast and contacting Dr. Fugh, great idea! If it is too late to plan for this at the minimum we can have streaming video and or sudio. This could be coridinated with one of our ame churches in indianapolis, and would not be that expensive.

I also encourage you to share your ideas with Bishop Bryant for the next general conference in 2008 will be in Los Angeles and perhaps we can get a tech committee in place by the end of this year.

And for those who say the fifth district may not get Bishop Bryant back and we know there are a lot of districts that want him. We are praying around the clock that our beloved Bishop will be returned to us.

And Bill the good news for you is the Pastor Mike and many of you friends live in the L.A. area, Rev. Harper too, you will not have to pay airfare. And Pastor Mike is so generous, those from the east coast will be able to have a wonderful ame-today reception at his home and he will bar-b-que. What a great pastor;-)

Mike I know you are going to pay me back at mid-year! love ya,

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2004

I have attended General Conferences since Cincinnati in 1964. Therefore, I will most probably be in attendance at this one as well.

The website of the United Methodist Church still contains an active link to the daily proceedings of their 2000 General Conference four years ago. This is the way I feel it should be done. And, NO Bill, I would not subscribe to or pay a fee, not one dime, for it.

I find it most appalling, indeed, that we are being asked to pay an observer fee for the General Conference this year. It is my sincere belief that each of the five conferences in our church should be open to all members with no restrictions or charge, except those, which apply to the operation of the conference being held.

Neither does placing the blame on facilities and security set well with me, since a proper venue should have been located and my security rests in God.

I am aware of at least two occasions where the General Conference was held on Hotel Ballroom floor. Most who attended felt that this was simply a tatic used to discourage attendance of them. Needless to say the outcry of the members was great and this was never repeated when future General Conferences were held. Perhaps, we have reverted to these tactics again. But in my opinion it will not succeed since, after Christ, the conference is the supreme authority in a Methodist Church, thus the reason for us having them so often and having five of them.

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2004

Robert I heartily join with you in opposition to the observer fee. I heard a bishop say that we ought to be used to these fees since the WMS has charged them in the past. The last Quadrennial had an outrageous charge of $250 for observers. Any wonder why their membership is dwindling. After all, I would rather pay Bishop Jakes for a conference that would at least be spiritually nourishing. Seriously, I cannot fathom why the church would treat the members in such a fashion. And for $75.00 they don't even guarantee you a seat. This is utterly ridiculous and it further supports my contention that our leadership is clueless when it comes to church growth. I hope Dr. Fugh will catch the vision and at least offer streams of the worship experiences.

-- Anonymous, January 16, 2004

Many thanks for all comments (dissenting and supportive) concerning a proposed subscription fee for a webcast of the 2004 General Conference. I fully understand the protests about charging an observer fee for those who will be in attendance in Indy. However, I'm somewhat confused about resistance to a nominal subscription fee for webcast access. This form of technological innovation greatly lowers cost by abolishing time and distance. It enhances democratic principles because it has the potential to reach a far wider AME audience compared to the normal group who typically participate in person. Finally, webcast technology promotes learning by allowing users to interact with computer hardware and software. These three fundamental benefits of webcasts (cost-effective, democratic and educational) offer in mind at least, a compelling case for swift adoption and implementation. Even though the Gen Con is less than 6 months away I'm confident that you can identify the right IT company for this service by using an accelerated RFP (reqest for proposals) process. QED

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2004

Without going into the details, experiences following the elections of officers at a previous Christian Ed Congress for RAYC officers, I determined I would never attend a GenCon. But I relented and attended the 2000 GenCon in Cincinnati; partly because we were the hosts.

It was my intent to attend only the consecration, but due to several unexpected happening, the election of bishops was delayed, ergo, the consecration. But I was glad to have experienced the elections. Not because of the history making election of a female, but to witness the process itself and the technology that was employed.

Will I attend another one...about 3 hours away? I doubt it - and DEFINITELY NOT if there is a fee for observing. Likewise, I would not pay for a webcast.

This past summer Promise Keepers did a live webcast of their first rally in a prison at Marion (OH) Correctional. We had to register to get a password, but it was FREE. Also, it was archived for 60 days for later viewing.

Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship did a delayed webcast of their triennial missionary conference at Urbana, IL during the Christmas holidays (for some reason, I was unable to get the pictures, but did get the audio) for FREE. It remains in their archives along with those from several past conferences...for FREE.

Why can't we also do that. I don't know how much more it would cost, but if other non-profits can do it, why can't we?

p.s. -- I have never subscibed to a pay-per-view movie or event via cable television, either, and it will have to something REALLY BIG for me to do so.

-- Anonymous, January 19, 2004