Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Marked to show tentative actions taken at November 6-8, 2016 Meetings
TO: TASK FORCE ON EPISCOPACY
FROM: GARY HALL AND LEE DAVIS THAMES
SUBJECT: ISSUES PENDING BEFORE THE TF
DATE: 2 OCTOBER 2016
INTRODUCTION
We were asked to identify issues requiring analysis for which new or amended canons
should be proposed so work could begin on drafting them. As we began reviewing all of the
ideas and suggested tasks that have been generated by members of our TF, we realized that it is
necessary to prepare a master list of ideas and tasks in order to do the assigned job.
Resolution D-004 has charged our Task Force to address five (5) major topics and report
to the 79th General Convention. In order to prepare the master list, we reviewed the minutes from
the two “in person” Task Force meetings and assorted electronic meetings of sub-committees
and the documents prepared by various TF members. We also reviewed the “Synthesis and
Overview” memo of Lynn and Lee Davis.1 From those sources we have identified the
ideas/tasks suggested by TF members.2
We first listed the major tasks assigned by D-004 (“D-004 tasks,” hereafter). We then
listed beneath each “D-004 task” each suggestion/task/idea that we think relates (or might relate)
to that particular “D-004 task.” After doing this, we realized that the number of individual tasks
listed below many of the “D-004 tasks” was so long that further organization was
required. Thus, for most of the “D-004 task” listed below we grouped the individual tasks into
sub-groupings of: canonical, administrative, legislative, and deferred.
It is an enormous list. The time has come for us to shift gears from “what ifs,” from
complaints, and from further speculations. Instead, we must address each of these items and
make decisions that will lead to recommendations. We hope that this organization of the
material will make it easier for the entire TF to move through the list and arrive at practical,
positive, and pastoral recommendations to the 79th General Convention.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Marked to show tentative actions taken at November 6-8, 2016 Meetings
We believe that you will see that the TF is way ahead with speculative ideas and way behind
with concrete decisions and recommendations. This woke us up to the tremendous task
ahead. We trust you will be affected the same way. Beginning with the conference call
scheduled for 13 October 2016, we hope that the TF can quickly make decisions as to the types
of action to be taken for each idea/task so that we can then assign responsibilities for developing
the concrete decision or recommendation appropriate for the individual ideas/tasks identified
below.
IS = In the scope of Resolution D004
BS = Beyond the scope of Resolution D004
Y = Task Force agrees
N = Task Force disagrees
MAJOR TASKS ASSIGNED THE TASK FORCE
Task No. 1 - “Roles and responsibilities of the Episcopate, including the use of Bishops
Diocesan, Bishops Coadjutor, Bishops Suffragan Provisional Bishops, Missionary Bishops, and
Assistant Bishops.”
1. Canonical
a. Identify each type of bishop TEC needs and make sure each is canonically
authorized. IS; Y
i. Should we limit future categories without canonical authorization?
IS; Y
ii. Should we address (by canon or otherwise) defining the authority
of bishops? IS, Y
b. Is clarification required for “ordination” and “consecration”? BS. See P. 520
of BCP. Defer to next BCP revision and/or to next comprehensive revision of
Constitution and Canons (i.e., defer to SCGSCC or SCLM).
2. Administrative
a. Are the following issues within the scope of D-004? BS
i. Should the dioceses continue to be the primary funding source for
HOB meetings?
1. If so, must this be resolved by canon?
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt
Formatted: No Spacing, Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt
Marked to show tentative actions taken at November 6-8, 2016 Meetings
b. Does the HOB have the authority to issue “mind of the house” papers and
pastoral letters? BS
i. If not, should we recommend adoption of a canon or legislative
action to authorize it?
c. Can/should bishops exercising multiple jurisdictions vote more than once in
confirming a bishop’s election? IS
d. Can a bishop exercise jurisdiction after age 72? IS If so,
i. What are the requirements?
ii. Is canonical or legislative action required?
3. Legislative
a. Nothing in this action category
4. Deferred
a. Role and Responsibilities of Bishops in light of changes in Church/World
(culture, economics of dioceses, other factors identified by TREC and other
sources) Deferred to later in the November meetings (LITM)
b. What do we want from Bishops? LITM
c. What do we need to get to what we want? LITM
d. What is the process to get what we want? LITM
e. How do we support dioceses in this work? LITM
f. Define “bishop creep” LITM
g. Should we address the issue of whether ordination changes one’s ontology,
i.e., at baptism, not at ordination? BS
h. Are the following issues within the scope of D-004?
i. Bishop’s role in clergy transition matters? IS, but in the weeds.
Marked to show tentative actions taken at November 6-8, 2016 Meetings
ii. Appointment of priests in charge as it relates to the vestry in the
calling of priests IS, but in the weeds.
iii. Role of the bishop as chief liturgical officer IS, but in the weeds.
iv. Range of liturgies a diocese can authorize BS
v. Can/should bishops exercise jurisdiction simultaneously in more
than one diocese? IS
1. If so, what canonical or legislative action, if any, should be
taken by General Convention?
vi. Do “jurisdiction” and “ecclesiastical authority” need to be defined?
IS
vii. TEC has lost five dioceses because of abuse of power of
bishops. Existing canons were avoided. Need to use/enforce those we
have and add new ones as needed. IS
viii. The decisions as to abuse of power should be made collectively,
keeping in mind the plight of those trapped in the dioceses with
bishops that abuse their power. IS
Task No. 2 - “Particular gifts, life experience and expertise required for episcopal office.” All of
Task 2 is IS; defer to LITM (Monday evening)
1. Canonical IS
a. None at this time
2. Administrative
a. Some see bishops as “CEOs” of dioceses. IS
b. “We need pastors, not princes.” IS
3. Legislative IS
Marked to show tentative actions taken at November 6-8, 2016 Meetings
a. None at this time
4. Deferred
a. None at this time.
Task No. 3 – “Diversity”
1. Canonical
a. General Convention should adopt a canon requiring each diocese to adopt local
canons3 that require: IS, LITM
i. The election of those who will vote to select a bishop within ninety (90)
days after the bishop diocesan has announced his/her pending resignation;
ii. Defining the electors so as to have a representative group of voters;
iii. An election process that facilitates diversity;
iv. Adoption of the local canon as long as possible before a diocese must
initiate an Episcopal election process.
b. Create a new group of missionary bishops composed of females, African-
Americans, and members of other under-represented groups who then could be
assigned to dioceses to exposed dioceses to the rich ministries that they bring to
the Episcopacy. IS, but consensus is to not pursue this.
2. Administrative
a. Collect from the Episcopal election process and from other sources within TEC
statistics on gender, racial/ethnic ratios, and other forms of underrepresentation;
and provide the funding and expertise to analyze the data to identify ways in
which the House of Bishops can become more diverse. IS
b. Include inInsure that the Best Practices Manual discussion ofrecommends:
Marked to show tentative actions taken at November 6-8, 2016 Meetings
i. Standing Committees should emphasize importance of diocesan
emphasis on diversity in the election process IS
ii. Standing Committees should have oversight responsibilities of the
Search/Nominations and the Transition Committees4 to insure maximum
emphasis upon achieving improved diversity in the House of Bishops. IS
iii. Making the Education Committee one of the three major committees
in the diocese and making diversity education one of its primary
responsibilities. IS
iv. Encourages5 dioceses, their Standing Committees, and their
Search/Nomination Committees to act affirmatively to raise the level of
awareness in each diocese for the need for a more diverse House of
Bishops. IS
v. Add to the responsibilities of the Search/Nomination Committee
specific ways in which it can work to increase diversity among those
nominated, including, but not limited to casting a wider net to locate
qualified gender and ethnic persons to be considered for nomination. IS
c. Provide to OPD adequate funding to update existing educational materials and to
develop new educational materials – especially for the education of those who
vote in Episcopal elections. IS
3. Legislative
a. In addition to the Episcopal election process, what else is needed to identify and
improvefix the issue of diversity in the Episcopate and in the House of Bishops?
IS
b. In Episcopal Elections, the laity usually stay with their choice which leads to the
election of the laity candidate. Doesn’t this “lead to women and those of color not
being elected?” If so, what should be done? IS
c. Would it help the diversity issue for there to be a church-wide Committee on
Ministry or a church-wide Office for Episcopal Elections – instead of or in
addition to the current arrangement with OPD? IS
d. Get adequate funding from General Convention. IS
4. Deferred
a. Nothing at this time
Marked to show tentative actions taken at November 6-8, 2016 Meetings
Task No. 4 – Process for Discernment, Nomination, Formation, Search, Election, Transition
1. Canonical
a. Are canons required to authorize the current roles of the PB and OPD in
providing “consultative assistance” to electing dioceses? This includes, among
other services, IS
i. Best Practices Manual IS
ii. Transition Consultants IS
iii. Psych and medical exams (both format and interpretation) IS
iv. Letters of Agreement IS
b. Should TEC have authority to change diocesan boundaries? BS. See TREC
report and 2015 Blue Book report of Standing Commission on Structure of
Church
i. If so, is a canon required?
2. Administrative
a. Should TEC encourage/require local dioceses
i. to engage in strategic planning during an episcopal vacancy? IS
1. Is this within the scope of D-004? Yes
ii. To require a study of missional opportunities when the diocesan is
contemplating resignation YS
1. Is this within the scope of D-004? Yes
b. Are the following subjects within the scope of D-004 and, if so, should they
be addressed in the Best Practices Manual or by canon?
i. Pastoral planning for retirement ???
Marked to show tentative actions taken at November 6-8, 2016 Meetings
ii. Diocesan mission strategy or readiness assessment IS
iii. Education/formation of bishops? IS
3. Legislative
a.
4. Deferred
a. Appalled at personal questions asked of candidates. Move eto Task 3.
5. Additional Actions Suggested By The “Synthesis and Overview” Memo
a. – r. were moved to the best practices discussion
C = Consensus/agreement.
NC = No consensus, and will be revisited
a. While improvements should be made to the Best Practices Manual, there is
no need to create an entirely new and separate Best Practices Manual. C
b. The Best Practices Manual should be updated from the work the TF has
done, from the input OPD has received from dioceses and Transition
Consultants, and from the ETES Report. C
c. The selection of bishops should continue to be by an election process for
which the electing diocese is primarily responsible. C; need to define
“primarily.”
d. General Convention can provide limited canonical guidance to the electing
dioceses without transgressing upon the longstanding polity of the church that
makes the electing diocese primarily responsible for the election of its
bishops. C – subject to revising language of D.
e. General Convention should adopt a canon requiring each diocese to adopt
adequate local canons6 that, among other things, require the election of those
who will vote to select a bishop within ninety (90) days after the bishop
diocesan has announced his pending resignation. NC
Formatted: No Spacing, Indent: Left: 0", Space Before: 0pt, Line spacing: single
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Marked to show tentative actions taken at November 6-8, 2016 Meetings
f. There needs to be new, more detailed medical and psychological tests and
protocols, and new and more detailed background information requests. C
g. There needs to be new requirements related to the distribution of the results
of these tests, protocols, and other vetting information that will improve
transparency and get essential information to those voting for the selection of
the bishop. C
h. In the Best Practices Manual
i. Add as a third major committee the Education Committee with
responsibility for pProvideing more robusteducation directly to the
voters about the work of bishops, information helpful to discern who
should be elected, and diversity information and training. C; “beef up”
this type of education.
ii. Clearly present allthe three options available to an electing diocese
without a bishop (or expecting to be without a bishop) for obtaining
episcopal services, including the three types of obtaining a bishop
diocsan or a non-diocesan bishopfor the conduct of the election. C
iii. More clearly identify
1. Alternative procedures and ways for the Episcopal election
process to be more flexible. C
2. Ways to accomplish cost-savings. C
3. Whether, how and whenAdvantages to useing Consultants. C
4. Specific tasks for which assistance from Consultants is best
suited.
i. Identify ways to use technology to advantage, for example
i. Search/Transition interactive web page with live links. C
ii. Ability to submit names electronically. C
iii. Conduct of initial interviews. C
1. Advanced preparation, e.g., use of forms to insure same
material covered with each person. C
iv. Develop means for secure email communications with individuals
in the process. C
Marked to show tentative actions taken at November 6-8, 2016 Meetings
j. Provide clearer guidance about the handling of individual’s confidential
information while providing greater transparency for the benefit of the voters.
C
k. Provide greater detail on how to exclude from the search/nomination process
persons desirous of leading the diocese out of TEC. C
l. Consnider rRevisinge timelines in light of the following considerations
i. To accommodate use of availability technology. NC
ii. The need to begin much earlier in the process making arrangements
for the Discernment Retreat (should the diocese desire to have
one). NC
iii. Presentation of slate to the Standing Committee. NC
iv. Publication of the slate. NC
v. Allow for petition candidates. NC
vi. Allow for expanded time for education for voters. NC
m. Invite representative Consultants to participate in the revision of the Best
Practices Manual. C
n. Provide greater emphasis upon screening those being considered for
nomination, including C
i. Reference checks.
1. Include all former bishops. C
2. Include all transition ministers for dioceses in which the
person has served. C
ii. Expand and modernize background checks, including legal,
financial, civil, criminal, and vehicular. C
iii. General internet searches. C
o. Avoid archaic institutional language by the use of more user-friendly
language.
Cp. Update all resource material, C including, but not limited to
Marked to show tentative actions taken at November 6-8, 2016 Meetings
i. Materials made available to electing dioceses.
ii. Materials to be used in by the more robust diocesan eEducation
processCommittee covering:
1. Historic role of the Episcopate. C
2. Changing roles of the Episcopate. C
iii. Diversity training that will be helpful to the voters as they decide
how they will each cast their vote. C
q. Draft a separate document covering the selection, the roles and
responsibilities, and the training of Transition Consultants. C
i. Selection should be by OPD with input from existing Consultants in
good standing and such other sources as may be appropriate. NC
1. A list of approved Consultants should be maintained by OPD.
NC
2. Only those on the list should be recommended to electing
dioceses. NC
ii. Roles and responsibilities.
1. Specific tasks identified in the Best Practices Manual. NC
2. Consultants can only make recommendations to the electing
dioceses. They are not allowed to make decisions for the
electing dioceses or its committees. NC
3. Assist in the recruiting and recommendations for selection of
other Consultants. NC
4. Have representative consultants participate in the revisions of
the Best Practices Manual. NC
5. Provide feedback to OPD. NC
a. The conduct of each Episcopal election process on
which they work. NC
b. Changes/deletions/additions to the Best Practices
Manual. NC
Marked to show tentative actions taken at November 6-8, 2016 Meetings
c. The training they receive. NC
d. Performance of other Consultants (based observed
facts). NC
iii. Training should be by OPD. NC
1. It should include both initial training and continuing training.
2. Funding will have to come from General Convention.
iv. Evaluation can come from dioceses being served, from OPD
observations, and from other consultants. C
v. A form contract between a using diocese and a consultant should be
provided. C
vi. Fees should be consistent among the Consultants and a record of
them kept by OPD. NC
r. General Convention should provide adequate funding for a successful
transition process, at a minimum, the following funding: C
i. To OPD to discharge its responsibilities for the Episcopal elections
process. NC
ii. Tool kit supporting women and other underrepresented groups
seeking to advance in the church. NC
iii. Support for completion of the Episcopal Transitions and Election
Project. NC
iv. Revision of the Best Practices Manual. C
v. Support of the Transitional Consultants in the Episcopal elections
process. NC
Task No. 5 – “Explore . . .” NOTE: This task includes four separate subjects. Each subject will
be listed separately with the comments made about that subject from TF members and without
the sub-classifications.
Marked to show tentative actions taken at November 6-8, 2016 Meetings
Item #1 – “The roles and responsibilities of the Office of Pastoral Development” All of Item # 1,
1-6 (h), are IS, as part of the Office of Pastoral Development discussion.
1. Regardless of issues about its origin or location within TEC structure, is OPD’s
work
a. Helpful to the ministry of bishops?
b. Helpful to the ministry of TEC?
2. Does its work require canonical authority? If so, which ones?
3. Role as Title IV intake officer should be removed.
4. Has the TF completed its required “work with OPD” concerning development of the
Best Practices Manual and educational materials to be published electronically?
6. College for Bishops
a. Is/was it properly organized by OPD and PB’s office?
i. Is this within the scope of D-004?
b. If not, what action should be taken to organize it properly within OPB?
i. Is this within the scope of D-004?
c. Should it be moved from OPB?
i. Is this within the scope of D-004?
d. If so, why should it be moved and to what location in TEC?
i. Is this within the scope of D-004?
e. Should its governance be reorganized?
i. Is this within the scope of D-004?
ii. If so how should its governance be re-organized?
f. Should CfB be allowed to seek funding for its various missions in addition to
the funding it receives from the General Convention budget?
i. If yes, what authorization, if any, is required?
Marked to show tentative actions taken at November 6-8, 2016 Meetings
ii. Is this within the scope of D-004?
g. Have the efforts of the CfB to obtain funds to supplement funds received
from the General Convention budget damaged any other recipient of General
Convention budgeted funds?
i. If yes, which ones?
ii. Is this within the scope of D-004?
h. Has CfB moved without authority (stolen) or received stolen intellectual
property belong to TEC?
i. Is this within the scope of D-004?
Item #2 – Selection of roles and responsibilities of Transition Consultants
All of Item # 2, 1-8, are IS, as part of the best practices and processes discussions.
1. Recruiting, training and maintenance of the records of Transition Consultants should be the
responsibility of OPD.
2. Selection should be by OPD with input from existing Consultants in good standing and such
other sources as may be appropriate.
a. A list of approved Consultants should be maintained by OPD.
b. Only those on the list should be recommended to electing dioceses.
3. Roles and responsibilities include, but are not limited to,
a. Specific tasks already identified in the Best Practices Manual.
b. Assist in identifying sources for potential nominees
c. Emphasize the importance of diversity both in the search process and in the
results.
d. Suggest ways in which to increase diversity in the search processes.
e. Provide suggestions about vetting potential nominees
Marked to show tentative actions taken at November 6-8, 2016 Meetings
f. Consultants can only make recommendations to the electing dioceses. They are
not allowed to make decisions for the electing dioceses or its committees.
g. Assist in the recruiting and recommendations for selection of other Consultants.
h. Have representative consultants participate in the revisions of the Best Practices
Manual.
i. Provide feedback to OPD.
i. The conduct of each Episcopal election process on which they work.
ii. Changes/deletions/additions to the Best Practices Manual.
iii. The training they receive.
iv. Performance of other Consultants (based observed facts).
4. Training should be by OPD.
a. It should include both initial training and continuing training.
b. Funding will have to come from General Convention.
5. Evaluation can come from dioceses being served, from OPD observations, and from other
consultants.
6. A form contract between a using diocese and a consultant should be provided.
7. Fees should be consistent among the Consultants and a record of them kept by OPD.
8. General Convention must pay for the expenses and maintenance of the Transition Consultant
program, but not for their specific services to the electing diocese, which is to be paid by the
electing diocese.
Item #3 – Aid from adjoining dioceses in the transition process IS.
1. Not yet addressed.
2. Defer? Probably.
Item #4 – Required Constitutional and Canonical changes IS
Marked to show tentative actions taken at November 6-8, 2016 Meetings
1. These can be addressed as the remaining issues are resolved or eliminated.
1 The Synthesis and Overview memo contains a list of Conclusions on pages 14 – 16. Each of
those has been included in this list by placing it under the “major topic” to which we felt it was
most related. Additionally, throughout pages 1 – 14 there are ideas/tasks/suggestions contained
in the text. Those have been identified and placed under the “major topic” to which we felt it
was most related.
2 In compiling the list, where necessary, we summarized the lengthy ideas/task descriptions and
we consolidated where we found duplication.
3 An alternative to having a General Convention “nudge” to the local dioceses would be to
include these items in the recommendations found in the Best Practices Manual.
4 Reference here should include the Education Committee if it is added as one of the major
committees.
5 Because of the polity issue of keeping the Episcopal election process at the local diocesan
level, it might not be prudent to use canons as the vehicle for taking these actions. Even so,
whether to act by canon on some, if not all, of these actions presents a separate polity issue that
might require discussion and decision.
Marked to show tentative actions taken at November 6-8, 2016 Meetings
6 See, e.g., the canon recommended by the HOB Committee on Pastoral Development found in
the 2015 Blue Book at pages 55-56. While it requires additional editing, it can serve as the
starting point for a recommended canon.