Bishop Douglas was duly and canonically elected by the Executive Council to serve on the JSC of the ACC.

I guess ++Williams' didn't hear his handlers clearly. Evict TEC from the JSC, who cares about ecumenical conversations.

Actually Lee, your EC elected +Ian to represent TEC at the ACC.

He was elected by the ACC to the ST of the AC to fill a non-bishop's position. Someone else was elected by the ACC from TEC to fill a bishop's position.

It is quite obvious that you lot are playing a game of switch hoping that no one else notices. I do not see the harm, but please, let's be transparent about what is really happening.

David, there is no such thing as a non-bishop position on the ACC's standing committee, and no one else from TEC was elected to fill the also non-existant bishop's position. That would have to have been Bishop Roskom of New York, who did not run for and was not elected to the standing committee. Ian was elected to the standing committee while he was a clergy person and has since become a bishop. One can argue about whether he should have been allowed to remain on the standing committee, because he had to resign from the council as a clergy person in order to be re-elected (which he was) as a bishop. But this has to do with the continuity of his membership on the ACC and not whether he was elected to a certain sort of position on the standing committee.

It confuses matters a bit that Bishop Katharine was elected by the primates of the American provinces as their representative on the primates' steering committee, thus putting two Episcopalians on the Joint Standing Committee.

So before he held a non-bishop's position on TEC's EC? And when he became a bishop he was no longer eligible to hold that position on the EC? And now he has been elected by the TEC EC to take a bishop's position that became available on the EC?

So there is a bit of a musical chairs game being played, and TEC should at least be up front about what has been happening and realize that there will be folks who cry foul.

A little more research cleared up my confusion. Being a large province, TEC elects three members to the ACC; a bishop, a clergy person and a lay person. So prior to his consecration +Ian was the clergy representative from TEC to the ACC and +Catherine was the bishop representative.

Catherine's term as rep was completed with ACC 14 and so she resigned from the ACC.
When he was consecrated, Ian no longer qualified for his clergy position as TEC rep to the ACC.

But there is indeed a bit of musical chairs occurring because the EC of TEC obviously likes the fact that, as its clergy rep, Ian had been elected to the Standing Committee of the EC. So when he was elected bishop, Ian delayed resigning from his position with the ACC. At the same time the EC of TEC delayed electing a new bishop rep to the ACC in anticipation of Ian being given that spot in hopes he could retain his position on the Standing Committee of the AC.

One can see why conservatives would call TEC out on the musical chairs, because as much as TEC wants Ian on the Standing Committee, for the same reason the conservatives do not want him on the Standing Committee, namely influence on what occurs in the AC.