Disinterested "democracy"

When decisions are made in your name without your participation, can it be a democratic process?

Turns out that in our Presbyterian Church, decisons are made by a group known as the "Session," a body of elected elders. From there, groups of church sessions form collectives of "Presbyteries," which then can be formed into "Synods," and, ultimately, into a "General Assembly."

Today I learned that the Presbytery to which our church belongs made a decision that, in my humble opinion, was controversial. Yet this decision was made by a near-unanimous vote of almost four hundred representatives.

One Session member from our church reported this issue to a group of members in an informal meeting. Turns out that none of us was aware that this was even an issue for discussion by the Presbytery, yet it commits funds from all the member churches.

This seems to be a general method for doing business. Is it because of apathy among the membership or failure to adequately provide information from the church staff? Perhaps responsibility lies in both areas.

I have only been a member for a couple of years, but don't remember any notification of agenda for Session, Presbytery, or General Assembly ever being highlighted or called to the attention of the church membership.

I would like to propose that Session investigate methods by which members can better inform themselves of these matters. Email or Internet postings should facilitate this process and make it at least as easy as a single telephone call.

Such efforts would greatly democratize a process which presently seems oligarchical at best.