PEP Argument Briefing Paper
|
Title:
|
Analysis of
Troublesome Proposed Changes
|
|
|
|
|
Applicable
to:
|
Changes to
Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh as recommended
by the Committee on Constitution and Canons and Addenda from Chancellor (Canons
IV, V, XVII, XIX, XXVI XXVII, XXIX, XXX, XXXIII and Rules of Order B.1, B.3,
C.4)
|
|
|
|
|
Author:
|
Lionel E. Deimel
|
|
|
|
|
Date:
|
10/27/2007
|
Background
The
Committee on Constitution and Canons and the Chancellor have proposed various
changes to the diocesan constitution, canons, and rules of order. The reader is
directed to Briefing Paper AC07-C01-01 to see the exact changes to be voted on
at the 2007 annual convention. The proposals, as submitted, are available on
the diocesan Web site and elsewhere. They are also, of course, in the
pre-convention journal (pages C5–C25).
Some
of the proposed changes, PEP believes, are innocuous. They are analyzed
separately in Briefing Paper AC07-C01-02. More complex or troubling proposals
are analyzed in other briefing papers. In this paper, we analyze the remaining
proposals.
Proposed
Changes by Committee
4. Canon IV, Section 2
The proposed change
would allow the Nominating Committee to offer only one nominee for
trustee-at-large, rather than “at least two.” Like several other proposed
changes, this makes the diocese slightly less democratic. We are told that the
change is being made “to reflect current practices.”
Rather than modifying this canon, it would be better to work harder to find
additional candidates.
5.
Canon IV, Section
4
This section
is new and specifies that mid-term vacancies on the Board of Trustees are to be
filled in accordance with Article IX, Section 5 of the diocesan constitution.
Seemingly, this provision allows the Standing Committee to fill vacancies, at
least of elected, but not appointed, trustees. In any case, the Standing
Committee should not be given additional powers at the expense of more
representative bodies, and its ability to fill its own vacancies is, in itself
worrisome, particular if our bishop and some, but not all, members of the
Standing Committee should leave The Episcopal Church. If vacancies in elected
positions are to be filled between conventions, the power to do so should be
given to Diocesan Council, which represents Convention in recess, not to the
Standing Committee.
6.
Canon V, Section 3
This proposal affects
the way districts elect representatives to Diocesan Council. Like proposal #4,
the changes are said “to reflect current practices. At present, the canon calls
for the District Commission to nominate at least two persons for a vacancy;
deputies who take office immediately after the convention may run. The change
would require only one nominee, but it eliminates an explicit provision
allowing a deputy taking office after the convention to run. More explanation
from the Committee would have been helpful here. Finding deputies willing to
run is surely a problem, and one the Committee seems to have recognized. Why
then, did it choose to restrict the pool of candidates?
13.
Canon
XIX
This proposed change is curious indeed. It basically does two things. A new
Section 1 identifies the Standing Committee as the Diocesan Review Committee,
essentially the body that acts as a grand jury in assessing charges that might
be brought against a member of the clergy. A revised Section 5, now renumbered
as Section 6, declares that disciplinary procedures, formerly specified in
Title IV of Episcopal Church canons, is now specified in a “Disciplinary
Appendix, attached to these Canons.” To have some idea of what is going on
here, one has to realize that the “Disciplinary Appendix” is a word-for-word
copy of Episcopal Church Canon IV.1. This canon specifies offenses and certain,
but not all, disciplinary procedures. The proposed changes are all about
retaining disciplinary regulations as the diocese divorces itself from The
Episcopal Church. Episcopal Church Canon IV.1 refers to a Diocesan Review
Committee, but it does not define it. That is done in Canon IV.3.1, which
designates the Standing Committee as the Diocesan Review Committee in the
absence of a canon providing otherwise. Since the change is tossing all of
Title IV overboard accept its first canon, the diocese must provide for a
Diocesan Review Committee. The relationship of the diocese to The Episcopal
Church aside and despite the fact that Episcopal Church canons offer the
Standing Committee as the default Diocesan Review Committee, this arrangement
has to be seen as a bad idea. Although the Standing Committee is not necessarily
a party to charges brought against a member of the clergy, it often is, and,
acting in a reviewing capacity, it faces a certain conflict of interest, in
that it might have to rule on its own charges, to which one might expect it to
be unusually sympathetic.
One has to be even more concerned with two facts, only one directly involves
the proposed change. Both involve the quality of justice for members of the
clergy accused of misdeeds. First, the diocese, having, at its last convention,
declared (illegally, we think) that it is no longer part of Province III,
presumably will no longer allow appeals from decisions of the local
Ecclesiastical Trial Court to the appeals court at the provincial level. We
should ask if this means that there no longer is a mechanism of appeal from
local court decisions. Apparently, there is not. Second, there is a question of
just how judicial processes will operate if the proposed canonical change is
approved. The diocese is adopting a single Episcopal Church canon to specify its
disciplinary procedures, but Title IV of those canons, which is concerned
exclusively with disciplinary matters, consists of 16 canons and two
appendices. Thus, by adopting the proposed change, the diocese is exchanging 61
pages of regulations on ecclesiastical discipline for approximately 3 pages of
regulations. Moreover, since those three pages to be carried over into an
appendix to the canons, it is not at all clear who has the ability to change
these regulations and how. Other than voting for the elimination of the
accession clause to the Episcopal Church’s constitution and canons, voting for
this change has to be one of the most irresponsible acts a deputy can perform
at the upcoming convention.
The disciplinary appendix has one other troubling aspect: The appendix includes
part of the instructions for the trial of a bishop. This section includes reference
to a Committee of Review. Under the badly cobbled-together appendix, it would
appear that the Committee of Review used for the trial of a bishop is the same
as the diocesan Committee of Review. In the Episcopal Church canons, however,
this committee is appointed by the Presiding Bishop and President of the House
of Deputies, and it is comprised of 5 bishops, 2 clergy, and 2 lay members.
20.
Canon XXVI,
Section 1 (also
addressed by Chancellor)
The changes proposed by the Committee, will, according to Bishop Duncan,
not be considered, and the change proposed by the Chancellor will be discussed
instead. (See #2, below)
21.
Canon XXVII
This canon, labeled “Of
the Removal of Churches, or Chapels, to Nearer Sites,” provides assurances to
existing churches or chapels that their concerns will be considered before
another worship site is relocated to their neighborhood. The proposed change
removes safeguards, giving more power to the bishop and less to individual
congregations that might be affected. In the proposed wording, only the
Standing Committee can stop the bishop from approving a proposed relocation.
The bishop can consult with whatever congregation he or she chooses (or not)
and seems to have no particular obligation to listen to what their leaders have
to say. The Committee says that it proposed the change to “simplify” the canon,
but the effect is to gut it. The change is bad polity and represents a potential
threat to every parish of the diocese.
22. Canon XXIX, Section 2 (also addressed by Chancellor)
As is the case for proposed change #20, the
changes proposed by the Committee, will, according to Bishop Duncan, not be
considered, and the change proposed by the Chancellor will discussed instead.
(See #3, below.)
25.
Canon XXXIII
The addition of Canon XXXIII is
curious. It purports to clarify the meaning of “constitution” and “the bishop.”
Since Canon XXIII is used to define such terms as “rector” and “priest-in-charge,”
it would seem reasonable to clarify other terms in that canon, rather than in a
new one, thus collecting all definitions in one place. It is worrisome that
this canon refers to the “Diocese of Pittsburgh,” not the “Episcopal Diocese of
Pittsburgh.” This seems to anticipate a time when the diocese will not be part
of The Episcopal Church. As an aside, it is interesting to note that the pre-2004 version of diocesan
rules as provided in a PDF file on the diocesan Web site carried the title
Constitution
& Canons
Rules of Order &
Financial Regulations
November 2001 Revision
The Episcopal Diocese of
Pittsburgh
The
present PDF file carries no title whatever. This was probably an early
indication that diocesan leaders were planning to divorce the diocese from The
Episcopal Church.
26. Rules of Order, C.4
(Parliamentary Procedure)
The
Committee here proposes that it be made more difficult to demand a roll-call
vote by Convention. Such a vote, which now can be forced by ten clergy and ten
laypeople, would, if the proposal is adopted, require a majority of members of
the Convention present. (Notice that this is an even stronger requirement than
a majority of votes cast.) The justification advanced by the Committee is to
guarantee that it is the will of the majority that the Convention’s precious
time be spent in this manner [taking a roll-call vote].” Robert’s Rules of
Order, §45, provides a direct answer to this “justification”: “In a
representative body, if there is no legal or constitutional provision specifying
the size of the minority that can order a roll-call vote, the body should adopt
a rule fixing the size of such a minority—for example, one-fifth of those
present, as in Congress, or some other portion of those present that is
less than a majority. In the absence of such a special rule, a majority vote is
required to order the taking of a vote by roll call—in which case a motion to
do so is likely to be useless, since its purpose is to force the majority to go
on record.” In other words, a roll-call vote provides protection for the
minority, and the proposed change eliminates that protection. The proposal
should be defeated.
Proposed
Changes by Chancellor
1.
Canon
XVII, Section 7
A brief section about
property insurance is here expanded to cover “insurance protection for
personnel, property and contents, and liability,” the details of which are to
be at the discretion of the Director of Administration. Adding insurance for
contents and liability is certainly understandable, and it is reasonable to
expect that O&D (officers and directors) insurance, as well as conventional
liability insurance, will also be required, in anticipation of widespread
lawsuits that might well be in the diocese’s future. The “personnel” insurance
the Chancellor has in mind—unlike the Committee, the Chancellor has provided no
rationale for his proposals—is likely health and life insurance, the
requirement for which, for lay employees, he has proposed eliminating from
Canon XXIX (see #3, below).The proposed change clearly intends to tighten
administrative oversight of insurance, which, likely, is a good thing. Parishes
might well worry about additional costs they may be asked to bear, and lay
employees might well worry about the future of their employee benefits.
2.
Canon
XXVI (also
addressed by Committee)
In 2006, convention voted to remove the diocese (improperly, we believe)
from Province III of The Episcopal Church. The Committee tried to modify Canon
XXVI so as to make it meaningful, irrespective of the church of which the
diocese is a member. The Chancellor, apparently, recognized the futility of
such an abstract enterprise, and his suggestion that the canon be deleted is,
under the circumstances, not unreasonable. If the diocese is not going to
participate in Province III affairs, it makes no sense to elect deputies and
demand reports of the provincial synod. The Chancellor failed to note what is
to be done with the numbering of canons following Canon XXV. Are they to be
renumbered, or are we simply going to jump from Canon XXV to Canon XXVII?
3.
Canon
XXIX (also
addressed by Committee)
Canon XXIX deals with the Church Pension Fund. The proposal from the
Chancellor mostly removes requirements from this canon. It retains the Church
Pension Fund as the provider of pension plans for clergy and lay employees,
while removing any references to the General Convention or The Episcopal
Church. This seems to be a matter of taste, rather than substance, however. The
elimination of the diocesan Committee of the Church Pension Fund seems to have the
effect of providing less information to clergy and laypeople participating in
pension plans, which can hardly be seen as a good thing. It is not clear
whether removal of requirements to inform the Church Pension Fund of various
matters is intended to withhold information or (more likely) to place the
obligation on individuals to do what is necessary to protect their investment.
The elimination of Section 5 of the canon is worrisome. That section specifies
what benefits must be provided to lay employees. One would like to assume that
the proposed change to Canon XVII (#1, above) would lead to requirements being
articulated by the Director of Administration that would compensate for the
loss of Section 5, but the proposed changes do not protect the interests of lay
employees explicitly. Thus,
changes #1 and #3 are inextricably linked. Taken together, the proposed changes
seem to endanger pension plans for lay employees.
4.
Canon
XXX, Section 1
Canon XXX is about the Commission on Ministry. This proposal is a straightforward
instance of detaching the diocese from The Episcopal Church, eliminating
obligations of the Commission in the constitution and canons of The Episcopal
Church in favor of those of the diocese. Should the diocese depart from
procedures specified by “the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church in
the United States of America,” of course, persons responsible for such a
departure would be subject to the disciplinary procedures of The Episcopal
Church.
5.
Rules
of Order, B.1 (Admission to Convention)
The proposed change would eliminate the seating (generally without voice or
vote) of Episcopal Church clergy not canonically resident in the diocese to the
Convention should the diocese claim not to be in full communion with The
Episcopal Church. Were the diocese able to remove itself from The Episcopal
Church, it would likely not consider itself to be in communion with The
Episcopal Church and might reasonably bar Episcopal clergy from the convention.
This raises an interesting question that should be asked: does the diocese now
consider itself not to be in full communion with The Episcopal Church? The
meaning of the proposal hinges on this question. The existing wording should
have a comma after “if they are not Deputies.”
6.
Rules
of Order, B.3 (Nominations)
This
proposal would eliminate the requirement that each nominee for diocesan
positions be a “Communicant
in good standing of the Episcopal Church.” This is
yet another instance of decoupling the diocese from The Episcopal Church. The
Episcopal Church constitution and canons demand allegiance from all clergy and
all lay officeholders, so, as long as the diocese is in The Episcopal
Church—forever, we assert—the elimination of the words “of the Episcopal
Church” is irrelevant.