The Constitutional Interpretation Committee of the 227th General Assembly voted Monday to recommend that Presbyterian Life & Witness and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), A Corporation – the denomination’s principal corporate entity – rewrite employee policies prohibiting non-disclosure covenants with all PL&W employees. The overture is a direct response to a controversy over documents that mission co-workers were asked to sign in 2025, as they were being notified that their positions would be eliminated.
The committee approved an amended version of CON-02 (40-17) and voted to answer a companion overture, CON-03, with that action (40-18). The amendment itself passed 40-4. The recommendation now goes to the full assembly for consideration during plenary sessions next week, when commissioners will meet in person in Milwaukee.
Related reading: “Overture authors defend global mission” by multiple authors
The overtures arose from the termination of all mission co-worker positions by the Interim Unified Agency (IUA) in March 2025. As mission co-workers were being told that most of their positions would be eliminated — while remaining uncertain whether they would be among those let go or offered roles in the new structure — the IUA, now called Presbyterian Life & Witness (PL&W), asked them to sign a document titled “Employee Covenant: Together in Transition.” Overture advocates argued the covenant functioned as a non-disclosure agreement in practice, regardless of what it was called.
Dennis Smith, a retired mission co-worker and overture advocate, told the committee the denomination has “moved toward a corporate HR model” that failed to account for the human cost to employees whose work carried deep theological stakes.
Related reading: “Former mission co-workers go public as PC(USA) severance conditions expire” by Eric Ledermann, Outlook reporting
“Little attention was paid to the risks of threatening employees,” Smith said, “especially employees who were challenging local churches in the U.S. to open their doors to widows and aliens in their midst.”
Smith also argued that A Corp has positioned itself outside the rules that govern the rest of the denomination. CON-02 and CON-03, he said, exist to make clear that the A Corp is subject to the same standards.
Ruben Rosario Rodriguez, an overture advocate from Giddings-Lovejoy Presbytery, framed the committee’s work in theological terms, invoking the distinction between the letter and the spirit of the law.
“Little attention was paid to the risks of threatening employees…” — Dennis Smith
“It seems there was an attempt to use the letter of the law to see how far the law can be used to stretch a financial situation,” Rodriguez said. “Whether intentional or not, the perception, especially by those mission co-workers forced to sign the covenants and the implied threat if they spoke, speaks very strongly to the spirit of the law having been violated.”
HR defends the covenant’s purpose
Ruth Gardner, supervisor of human resources for A Corp, told the committee the covenant was intended to establish values and guidelines for staff during a difficult transition — not to silence anyone.
“We knew there was a lot of information being discussed. We knew there were a lot of questions,” Gardner said. “We decided, ‘Let’s provide enough information to say these are the ongoing values.’”
Gardner described the covenant as a restatement of existing ethics policies and employee handbook standards, not new requirements. “It was not a new piece of information, but the format was in the covenant form,” she said.
“To my knowledge, there was never any specific threat to any individual that there would be a loss of severance.” — Ruth Gardner
When asked directly whether mission co-workers were threatened with losing severance if they spoke publicly, Gardner said: “To my knowledge, there was never any specific threat to any individual that there would be a loss of severance.”
Gini Norris Lane, teaching elder commissioner from Mission Presbytery, pressed Gardner on whether Gardner had been present for all conversations between HR staff and mission co-workers — not only those who received layoff notices, but others affected by prior reductions. Gardner acknowledged she had not.
Documents tell a more complicated story.
On Jan. 23, 2025, two days before the covenant was distributed to staff, IUA leadership sent an email obtained by the Outlook to World Mission employees that read: “Unauthorized disclosure of information, even inadvertently, could lead to corrective actions, including potential separation from employment.”
That email was sent while staff were being notified of significant changes to their positions. It was signed by Stated Clerk Jihyun Oh, Mienda Uriarte and Sara Lisherness and copied to Anisha Hackney and Katie Rhodes. Hackney and Rhodes are the same HR contacts named in the covenant as the people employees should approach if they found the covenant’s expectations difficult to meet.
At the time the documents were distributed, Uriarte served as director of World Mission and now serves as PL&W senior director for partnerships beyond the PC(USA). Lisherness was IUA deputy executive director for mission programs and retired in April 2025 as a consultant for global partnerships for the IUA.
The covenant itself, also obtained by the Outlook and distributed Jan. 25, 2025, instructs employees: “Do not publicly criticize the missional and operational decisions of the Interim Unified Agency or its leadership.” Under the heading “Accountability to the Covenant,” the document states that noncompliance “will not be tolerated and may be subject to disciplinary action.” Employees who found the expectations difficult to meet were directed to “explore support options and consider your future within the organization.”
Both documents are published with this story: email from IUA leadership; the “Employee Covenant: Together in Transition” distributed on Jan. 25, 2025.
Legal counsel says, ‘no prohibitive and punitive elements’
Sarah Sullivan, legal counsel for A Corp, who served as a resource person for the Constitutional Interpretation Committee, told commissioners the covenant was “a re-affirmation of values, not a legally binding agreement like an NDA.” Sullivan said there were no prohibitive or punitive elements attached to the covenant.
However, the covenant’s “Accountability to the Covenant” section specifies that noncompliant behavior “may be subject to disciplinary action” and instructs employees struggling to meet the covenant’s expectations to “consider your future within the organization.” Employees were not informed until early February 2025 that their positions were being terminated. The Jan. 23 email that preceded the covenant by two days warned staff that unauthorized disclosure of information “could lead to corrective actions, including potential separation from employment.”
The covenant also directs employees to “not publicly criticize the missional and operational decisions of the Interim Unified Agency or its leadership” — a prohibition on public criticism that overture advocates argue is the defining characteristic of a non-disclosure clause. The 226th General Assembly in 2024 prohibited non-disclosure agreements in pastoral relationships through POL-08, amending sections G-2.0901 and G-2.0504b of the Book of Order. CON-02, if approved by the full assembly, would extend a similar prohibition to all PL&W employees.
Related reading: “#GA226 advances two-part inclusivity change to Book of Order” by Gregg Brekke
Oh, Gardner and Sullivan have not yet responded to a request for comment. The Outlook asked them to explain how the covenant’s prohibition on public criticism and its potential punitive actions differ functionally from an NDA, given Sullivan’s testimony that the covenant contained no NDA-like elements.
Employee handbook appears to conflict with covenant
A copy of the A Corp Employee Handbook, dated January 1, 2024, raises further questions. The handbook’s Section 108, covering confidential information, includes an explicit carve-out stating the confidentiality policy “should not be interpreted to prohibit you [the employee] from disclosing and discussing the terms and conditions of your employment.”
Further, Section 605, governing employee personal public witness, affirms that personal dissent from A Corp policies “is not precluded by employment with A Corp,” provided the employees make clear they are speaking personally — a nuance absent from the covenant’s prohibition on publicly criticizing IUA (now PL&W) decisions.
Committee narrows the proposed remedy
The Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) recommended disapproval of both overtures on constitutional grounds, arguing they were overbroad, lacked clear definitions and exceeded the General Assembly’s authority to direct agency employment policies. The committee ultimately approved an amended version of CON-02, rather than dismissing it outright.
The committee’s amendment narrowed the original overture’s scope, directing PL&W and A Corp staff specifically – rather than all PC(USA) agency staff – to rewrite employee policies prohibiting non-disclosure covenants. The amended overture also directs the agencies to report on those policy revisions to the 228th General Assembly in 2028.
The Presbyterian Outlook obtained copies of the “Employee Covenant: Together in Transition” and the Jan. 23, 2025, email from IUA leadership on condition of anonymity due to fear of professional retaliation. Both documents are published with this story.
Read further GA227 reactions to the closure of Global Mission:
“Committee orders review of World Mission closure and mission co-worker cuts “ by Eric Ledermann, Outlook reporting
“Committee moves to limit PL&W authority in revised Organization for Mission” by John Bolt, Outlook reporting
