As a Lay Deputy about to serve in my 8th General Convention, I would like to offer the following thoughts about what the Diocese of Colorado has offered to GC2000.
First, let me say I find myself, happily, in accord with many of the points
raised by Deputy Crew of Newark. Specifically, I share his concern over the "once in 5 years" language. We can, of course, see that this preserves
GC's right to meet whenever it needs to meet. But the practical implication of the proposal is to make the norm every 5 years, instead of every 3 years. I doubt this is frequent enough.
Before proceeding to respond to the other points of the Colorado initiative, I want to ask "What else can be said about the objectives of these proposed changes?" Will they reduce costs? If so, what benefits are derived from such cost-cutting that will offset tendencies to make hastier decisions which will flow from shorter, less frequent meetings? Will they increase legislative efficiency? If so, how will this be achieved given the other structures which feed into and operate during GC meetings (e.g., rights of Dioceses, Bishops, Deputies, and the Executive Council to propose legislation; the committee structure of GC which limits what committees can do to dispose of matters without floor consideration). Will they help the whole of ECUSA better govern itself for the common good? I don't see any necessary relationship between the proposals and this objective.
In short, what really will be gained if the proposed changes were made? How does Colorado believe the whole Church and its governance will look like when these changes are implemented? Will this "new look" clearly be worth what it takes to achieve it?
Having raised what I hope are fundamental matters for discussion, I go on to say I see no merit in re-hashing the "four vs three" Deputy question. This has been thoroughly aired in at least 2 prior conventions to my knowledge (Deputy Crump can, no doubt, speak more authoritatively to this.) In each case all the merits and demerits were ventilated and at the end of the day we decided to stay as is. Two very compelling reasons for maintaining the status quo ante were (a) it would reduce the opportunity for minorities and women to gain seats and (b) the people voting on the proposal would put one in four out of a seat! Do we really want to take time to go over this ground again? Colorado may save all the money it wants by choosing to reduce the size of its deputations. How about one cleric and one lay person, Colorado. Think of the money you'd save!
On the term of the PB, here again we just changed from 12 to 9 years. Why change now when we have only just begun with the new arrangement? Also, limiting the number of years a President of the HofD may serve has at least 2 undesirable (to my mind) side effects: first, it further erodes the "political" parity between the presiding officers of the 2 houses and, second, it further politicizes the office in the HofD--more frequent changes of candidacies means more frequent electioneering.
In short, while I attribute nothing but positive intent to Colorado, at this point I fail to see how what they are proposing will "preserve the General Convention by reforming it" and "to model a more sensitive and appropriate stewardship of time, talent and treasure." Sorry, Colorado, I think the burden of proof requires much more thought and study than I believe is manifested in your ideas.
Real reform of GC would be to more closely align its dynamics with the mission of the Church and with equipping all members to live into their Baptismal Covenant. Today, if the GC is irrelevant and wasteful it is because, in the mind of this Deputy, it lacks the discipline to focus on essentials and chooses instead to wander in the vagaries of social theories about which there is no consensus. In this mode of being, there is little wonder that the average pew sitter has decided to think and act small!! Focusing on congregational life is deemed far more relevant to real mission opportunities than depending upon a far away bureaucracy to define and be the sole agency of mission and ministry outside parish boundaries. It is up to General Convention and its subsidiary agencies to demonstrate that it "gets it" and is willing to work in partnership with dioceses and congregations in producing real change--change that will make The Episcopal Church a real model of servant leadership.
My guess is, at the best, these proposals from Colorado will wind up getting referred by GC to the Standing Commission on the Structure of the Church for study. In my opinion, this would not be a bad thing.
I will eagerly await further discussion on these matters. Thanks, Colorado, for kicking off the discussion.
George McGonigle Geo_McGonigle@alumni.utexas.net
Lay Deputy
Diocese of Texas
Please sign my guestbook and
view it.
Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.