PEP Argument Briefing Paper
|
Title:
|
Some Changes Innocuous
|
|
|
|
|
Applicable
to:
|
Changes to
Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh as
recommended by the Committee on Constitution and Canons (Article X and Canons
III, VI, VII, XIV, XX, XXI, XXIII, XXV, XXIX)
|
|
|
|
|
Author:
|
Lionel E. Deimel
|
|
|
|
|
Date:
|
10/27/2007
|
Background
Some
of the changes being put before the 2007 annual convention by the Committee on
Constitution and Canons are simple corrections or relatively innocuous changes.
The changes we consider to be in these categories are discussed below. Briefing
Paper AC07-C01-01 shows the exact changes proposed, which we describe only
briefly below. The numbering shown is that of the Committee’s report. It is the
view of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh that none of the changes
discussed in this paper are harmful to the diocese, The Episcopal Church, or
the cause of the Gospel.
This
is not to say that all of these changes are well thought-out. Deficiencies in
wording are noted and, in parentheses, we suggest perfecting changes that
should be proposed, if possible. Generally, however, it is not worth spending
the limited time of the convention arguing about such wording changes when more
significant and damaging proposals are on the table.
Proposed
Changes of Little Consequence
1. Constitution Article X,
Section 1
The change makes explicit that the “five other persons” on the Board of
Trustees must be laypersons. The addition of “lay” likely reflects the original
intent. The Board of Trustees is largely concerned
with financial matters and requires the specialized expertise of lay
professionals. (“Lay” should be substituted for “lay.”)
2. Canon III, Section 2a
Two
things are going on here, only one of which is being acknowledged. The
unacknowledged objective is the removal of the reference to the Executive
Council of The Episcopal Church (in “upon the forms prepared by the Executive
Council of the Church”). In fact, the reference to Executive Council seems too specific
anyway, and “standard forms,” referring to whatever form or forms are in
current use seems adequate. The deadline for submitting parochial reports is
being pushed back 44 days, a change likely to be welcomed by parishes, though the
rigorous enforcement of the deadline, as suggested in the Committee report,
will not be. The change does not address enforcement explicitly, however, so this
does not seem worth arguing about. (It would be wise to substitute “standard
form or forms” for “standard forms,” as the exact nature of the parochial
report could change over time, irrespective of the diocese’s relationship to
The Episcopal Church.)
3. Canon III, Section 2b
The
change proposed here, from “March 1st” to “April 15th,” simply makes Section 2b
consistent with Section 2a.
7. Canon VI
This
change seems to allow the bishop to enlarge his ordained staff without limit, but
expansion can only be done “with the consent of the
Standing Committee, Diocesan Council and the Convention.” (There are a number
of changes being made here, not all of which deserve comment.) Because adding
staff must be approved by Convention and because Convention can amend the
canons by a simple majority vote anyway, the change does not seem to be of
great importance.
9. Canon XII, Section 2
The
proposed change substitutes “missionary objectives” for “work programs” as one
of the bases for the diocesan budget. This hardly seems a wise change, but
neither does it appear to be a harmful one. The substitution reflects the
rhetoric of the present bishop and destroys the parallelism inherent in “work
programs” and “evaluation of program accomplishment” in the present canon.
Clearly, the intent of the canon is to suggest that the budget should be
informed by rational and realistic planning. Why not just say that? Some
perfectly reasonable objectives might not be “missionary” ones. (Replacing a
computer, for example, is a reasonable thing for the diocese to do, yet it
seems more administrative than missionary in character.) What is “program
accomplishment” or, for that matter, “determined priorities”? This is really a
badly worded canon made worse by needless tinkering. (It might be better to say
the budget should be based on “objectives and priorities, informed by past
experience.” Assuming that such a change is unlikely to be adopted,
“accomplishment” should be made plural and followed by a comma.)
10. Canon XIV, Section 4
The
proposed change substitutes “the Cathedral Chapter and its corporation” for the
current, rather cryptic, “said corporation. The change, presumably, clarifies
the original intention.
14. Canon XX, Section 4
The proposed change, substituting “a Transitional Parish” for “an
Aided Parish,” uses current nomenclature.
15. Canon XXI, Section 4
The
proposed change declares that the compensation guide determines the minimum
salary for full-time resident clergy. Currently, that minimum is the minimum
“established for Clergy of Aided Parishes.” The existing canon is inexplicit
and uses the now-replaced “Aided Parish” nomenclature. Although this change could
be used to increase clergy compensation, there are, at least in principle,
democratic checks against abuse in the suggested wording.
16. Canon XXIII, Section 1c
Again, “Transitional” is being
substituted for “Aided.”
17. Canon XXIII, Section 1d
Yet
again, “Transitional” is being substituted for “Aided.”
18. Canon XXV, Section 1
The
proposal eliminates “be,” whose inclusion appears to be a typographical error.
23. Canon XXIX,
Sections 3, 4, and 5
Proposed change #22 would eliminate Section 2 of Canon XXIX. This
change only renumbers the following canons. It is, therefore, necessary if #22
is adopted.