Jim it is worse than you think. I just shared this on the HoBD listserv:

"Cold hard fact is that the present canons vest the right of calling a special general convention solely in the House of Bishops. The PB and Bp Sauls can engineer one without the House of Deputies concurrence.  Likewise it is good to know that Deputation sizes can be changed by Canon. SpecCons are not required to have a specified purpose and can change Canons and propose Constitutional changes.  

"I am writing a resolution to change the canon on the calling of SpecCons to include concurrence of HoD, and vesting option to initiate a call with the PHoD as well."

If you look at th "C" resolutions filed so far you will find that 15 of the 30 or so are the clones of a boilerplate resolution supporting Bp Sauls' ideas. San Diego amended it to exclude the SpecCon text. Thus a campaign has begun, not just a conversation.

A SpecCon will cost on the order of say 5-7 million dollars, and I am sadly coming to believe that this is about reshuffling staff by reducing grassroots participation. Of course we can clean house around committee structures, but we can also clear out staff positions.

Centralized vision or planning or administration is never nimble or adaptive. It is always self protective and entrenching. Liveliness is in the passion of folks at the grassroots for mission in tune with those passions. We do not need "big picture" people in NYC to find the big picture.

As a young person growing up in the church I believe a shake up is almost needed. I do not want to see the Church I love to be embroiled in HoD vs HoB. Honestly who cares who has the "power." Everyone involved on both sides has the best intentions and we know the current structure is not going to work long term. I do like the support 815 can provide and saw it first hand doing mission work. These fights are not the mission of the Church I have come to love and cherish. Has anyone asked what the future people of the Church think? I think not.

Who has the power does matter. Organizations that value collaborative leadership normally do better in the long run than those that do not. Collaborative leadership usually results in better quality decisions and greater implementation of those decisions by those they affect, since those affected had a voice in making those decisions. When denied a seat at the table, people are less likely to implement decisions. Leadership in the Episcopal Church must change to be more collaborative and transparent, or people will continue to leave.

I believe I understand the concerns raised in this piece, but I think the most pertinent line in the whole post is "Full disclosure: Bonnie Anderson, the President of the House of Deputies, is one of the leaders who has other ideas about restructuring, and she is a client of my communications firm.

This whole article comes off as more of a campaign for one position than anything Bp. Sauls has engaged in.

If the presiding bishop and the president of the house of deputies want anyone to take their proposals seriously they need to resolve the feud that is apparently brewing between the two of them. Perhaps this work could start with the PHoD communications firm rather than spreading discord through Episcopal Cafe.

-Mitch Bojarski

@Chris,

I agree with you that we need serious reconfiguration for TEC to govern best, most efficiently, and most inclusively. I add "inclusively" to the set of qualities we need to emphasis not because inclusivity is an end in itself, but because the bottom line is that there are lots of people out there whose creativity and energy would enrich our sense of where God is calling TEC and vastly increase our ability to follow that call.

My problem with the "Sauls proposal" (and I know he prefers not to have it identified that way, but he is the author of it and thus far he has not visibly brought in any other minds to help shape what comes of it) is that I do not at this point believe it can accomplish its stated purpose.

If we have TWO meetings of General Convention in the next triennium, as +Sauls suggests, Each diocese will have to come up with the resources to send their deputation twice.

Deputies (especially lay deputies) who planned to use vacation time to fly off to one convention have to find time, child care, and so on to do it twice.

There are dioceses in TEC who already can't afford to send a full deputation. If we hold two GCs in two years, we will inevitably have wealthy dioceses and deputies overrepresented in the conversation.

And of course, the cost of the Special Convention itself would be huge in the DFMS budget.

Nor do the specific changes advocated in Bishop Sauls' presentation consistently serve their stated function.

Why create an additional special body (the "blue ribbon commission") to study the structure of the church instead of assigning the task to the body canonically charged with that very thing: the Joint Standing Committee on the Structure of the Church?

Why create an additional special body (the "Board of Trustees" to do something that Executive Council is already doing as one of the tasks our canons assign to it?

These proposed structures are redundant. I thought we were supposed to be streamlining!

I also believe the separation between "mission" and "governance" articulated in the Sauls presentation is a false or at least VERY fuzzy one.

How does a group discern where God is calling them? Then how does a group decide on what resources are needed to follow that call? These are questions of mission that are addressed by governance, whether it's a household, an Occupy camp, a corporation, a parish, a diocese, or a whole church.

I would love to see a real conversation take place in which we examine how horizontal networking (such as "open source" developer and user communities or Occupy movements) and other innovative ways of organizing might apply to TEC.

But we're not going to get there by simply inviting the same people to the same kind of conference rooms and great halls. We're also not going to get there via a series of streamed speeches from those most enmeshed in our current governance.

We need to invite fresh voices to the conversation.

Global Voices Online (http://www.globalvoicesonline.org) manages to provide news and opinion from around the world in myriad languages on a shoestring budget. Check out what they produce and what they say about how they're organized. Then invite the co-founders (one of whom is Episcopalian) to take a look at our resources and offer some of their ideas.

Lather, rinse, and repeat with other fresh voices offering new perspectives and ideas.

Then let's have an informed conversation as a church. We can study what some of the best-sounding ideas might cost. We can PRAY about it. And we can decide what good ideas we can implement withint the current canons and budget and which would need action from GC.

I've invited Bishop Sauls to persuade me that his proposal is the best way to start and engage in the discernment we need to do as a church. So far, he's been gracious enough to spend a substantial amount of time on the project, and he hasn't persuaded me.

We do not need a GC resolution to have a conversation. The draft budget even provides funding that could be used to bring in those fresh perspectives from people already experienced in fruitful use of some of the alternative structures we might consider. That money could be used to have conversations via streaming video and other media that allow people in the church -- even people who are not currently bishops or deputies -- to ask questions and offer ideas.

So let's talk, and let's make sure our conversation includes some of the people who have been doing for years some of the things we're dreaming and speculating about. Let's make sure our conversations include listening to the most marginalized among us.

I don't see that happening in the Sauls proposal, so I propose that we all approach those in our networks, our friends and family and people who are successfully immersed in 21st-century culture, and we look for ways to compile those resources ourselves. I think we can do it. Call the proposal anything you like -- just call people and start brainstorming.

Blessings,

Sarah Dylan Breuer

"I continue to be dismayed..."

While I value a robust discussion of these issues, which is certainly occurring on the HoB/D list, I am somewhat concerned to see what is clearly an opinion post here on The Lead. My understanding was that this was an, admittedly progressive, but nevertheless generally unbiased website for "news items" (as described on the About page).

It seems that the editorial board of Episcopal Cafe is clearly taking a stance on this issue, especially as one of those editors is profiting financially from one side of the debate. (The transparency around that financial relationship is good to see, but it is still a concern nevertheless.)

Without taking a side in the debate myself (at least not in this post), I respectfully request that the Cafe clarify the intent of The Lead.

Sorry, that previous post was me. Not sure why it signed me in as 'A Facebook User'.

I wholeheartedly agree with Mitch. No matter one's position, I think Jim should has a conflict of interest and should absent himself from this issue, especially in a discussion that constantly brings up the word "transparency."

("I think Jim has a conflict...") Oy, Mondays...

The purpose of Episcopal Café can be found here. None of us are paid for our work on the Café and we have a variety of opinions. Jim is entitled to his as are all of us. The fact that he says he does communication work for Dr. Anderson does not silence him. If others would respond with some better plans for restructure we would be glad to carry them. If Bishop Sauls or the PB wishes to write something one of us will report it. So far it has been a one-sided conversation. I want more ideas.
You can discount his opinions but he has offered his POV and facts about his employment.
See the item by Tobias Haller in the stream for another point of view.

How come the disclosure, as far as I can tell, comes now, when the discussion has been ongoing? It may be okay, but is it truly ethical? Has it been handled in a transparent matter? Should Jim's posts on the topic not lead with this disclaimer, instead of being buried in a paragraph?

More ideas are certainly necessary. It's important, though, they not come from people with possible financial interest in the discussion.

Ann, I find your post defensive and non-constructive, and that surprises me.

Jamie, thanks for your question about the nature of The Lead. Sometimes the items are newsy. Sometimes they are opinion. Sometimes they are a blend. The Lead is more like an Episcopal news and opinion magazine than an Episcopal newspaper.

There are pretty common standards in the journalistic world for commenting on issues in which one is involved. One discloses one's involvement, says what one wants, and lets readers determine how much credence they want to give to what you've had to say. That is what I have done.

What I find interesting is that the church does not appear to have ever surveyed to understand what people want. Not just sending around messages asking what folks think, but a formal process in which the church measures present state, identifies desired future state, and maps out a path forward, while stablishing measurement criteria.

Of course, a church is much more than the results of polling, but I think folks would find interesting perceptions about what we do well, what we don't do well, and more. All too often, folks say, "I know what we need--I've been around for a while." But one's view is skewed by one's life experiences, and it's very hard without some empirical basis to avoid, "Shoot, ready, aim."

Eric Bonetti

Jim Naughton has adequately identified his professional dealings with Bonnie Anderson. His analysis strikes me as excellent and raises important questions about what happens when a Presiding Bishop and a chief operating officer try to impose their own model of the denomination in defiance of the House of Deputies and the General Convention.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Jim, I appreciate your clarification of the purpose and content types of The Lead. Thank you.

One need look no further than the first "Resolved" clause to understand the perspective and ideology of the author of the resolution on restructuring. Since when can any diocese "direct" the Secretary of General Convention to do anything? This is ludicrous on the face of it. Compare the wording in the first "Resolved" clause to Rule 22 of the Rules of Order of the House of Deputies. Rule 22 specifies the appropriate format for a resolution from a Diocese. Rule 22 was written and adopted by people who understand the polity of the Episcopal Church.

Nathaniel Pierce
Trappe, MD