Support the Café
Search our site

GC2012: The energy and passion of unexpected moments

GC2012: The energy and passion of unexpected moments

The Rev. Marshall Scott reports:

At any given General Convention, perhaps the most interesting questions is, “What are

we really going to argue about?” That might seem an odd question. After all, before the

Convention begins there have been meetings and conversations and unnumbered blog

posts to discuss the issues.


But, in my experience much of speculation doesn’t play out. Oh, the typical stuff is

certainly debated. However, there are always a few issues, a few resolutions, that get a

surprising amount of attention and generate a surprising amount of energy.

We had one of those events today on the floor of the House of Deputies. The resolution in

question was D034; and this is how it came to the floor:

Resolved, That Rule of Order 34 of the House of Deputies be

revised to read as follows:

When any member is about to speak or to deliver any matter to the

House, the member shall, with due respect, address the President,

state name and Diocese, and confine any remarks strictly to the

point of debate. If the member is speaking about a resolution

calling for the expenditure of any moneys, including the proposed

Budget of The Episcopal Church, the member shall also state the

percent of diocesan income that deputy’s diocese has committed to

The Episcopal Church for the current year.

Now, this is not a matter affecting the whole Church. It’s a change in Rules of Order of

the House of Deputies, the specific applications of and beyond Roberts Rules of Order by

which the House structures its work.

And the first part, at least, seems so very straightforward. Debaters who take off on

tangents can take a lot of time in the very limited time of the House.

But, of course, that wasn’t the problem. It was that second point, calling on Deputies to

announce the contributions made by each Diocese to the work of the Episcopal Church.

Indeed, the legislative committee recommended rejection of the resolution.

Deputies spoke on both side of the issue. Some went ahead and announced their

Diocese’s contribution to the Episcopal Church, and others didn’t. It was noted that

different dioceses would have different reasons for not paying the full asking to the

national Church (currently 19% of the diocese’s previous year’s revenues). One Deputy

also noted an inconsistency in the resolution itself: a Deputy who reported the diocese’s

percentage would be going off on a tangent relative to the point of debate.

However, what energized most speakers was a concept understood but not put into

words: that this was an effort at public shaming. It’s not that there was no precedent for

accountability about the annual asking. Most of our dioceses have some requirement

that a congregation that hasn’t paid the annual assessment must provide an explanation

and a plan to pay to be admitted to the diocesan convention with seat, voice, and vote.

The thing is, this is done discretely, perhaps even in private. Most of the time the plan is

accepted, and the congregation is seated without much ado, and without public exposure.

There is no such provision at the level of the General Convention. One could argue that

there should be. There are some dioceses that fall short for economic reasons. There

are others that withhold for political reasons. Having some process to examine those

reasons, and perhaps require some consequences, might be worthwhile. Having some

accountability and some expectations for participation in the House of Deputies might

make sense.

But what brought the heat today was this recognition that this was public shaming, even

if those words weren’t spoken. Those who weren’t paying in full for economic reasons

didn’t want it. Arguably, those who don’t pay for political reason didn’t want it (although

it wasn’t an issue that was raised. Even most of those who pay in full saw the tensions

inherent in the public nature of these announcements.

And so the matter was rejected. Once again, that was the recommendation of the

legislative committee; and so all was well.

Well, not quite all. This is an idea that I expect will return, if perhaps in another form.

Still, it was interesting. The known topics, the identified issues haven’t come up yet. This

was unexpected. But this brought energy and passion to the debate on the floor of the

House. It was interesting to see that happen. So, what will the next surprise be?

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

4 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Christi Hill

Oh good grief! The resolution as printed smacks of the

Anglican Covenant with its deceptive language.Tisk,tisk.

Dave Paisley

Once GC is convened and all dioceses are seated and able to vote the point is moot.

The real accountability would be if dioceses who do not contribute fully without a good reason were to be assessed reduced voting privileges as a result.

Thus the “discreet conversations” would be had ahead of time and no doubt worked out.

This is, as noted, the exact dynamic that plays out at Diocesan conventions, with pretty much the same spectrum of reasons for lack of payment.

But then we get to the notion of “asking”. If it’s an asking then there’s a sort of implied voluntary tone to the nature of the giving, with softer implications for non-compliance.

If it’s really a “demand” aka tax, then there should be more stringent consequences.

Of course, in TEC we can’t quite make up our minds which it is, hence the blurry ambiguity of both the giving (or lack thereof) and the response to it.

Ann Fontaine

Is it shaming to tell the truth? I think it is more that people want freedom to do what they want when they want and not pay the price.

John B. Chilton

As your post indicates, aside for the inherent contradiction with Rule of Order 34, there’s nothing to prevent speakers from opting to reveal their diocese’s percent of income committed. I wonder if there will be public shaming for doing just that.

Also, in this age of instant messaging, there’s nothing to prevent someone at GC from using a hashtag #percentcommit instantly looking up the speaker’s diocese and posting their percent giving. Those interested can follow the hashtag.

Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts
2020_012
2020_013_B
2020_013_A

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café