TO: TASK FORCE ON EPISCOPACY

Marked to show tentative actions taken at November 6-8, 2016 Meetings

TO: TASK FORCE ON EPISCOPACY

FROM: GARY HALL AND LEE DAVIS THAMES

SUBJECT: ISSUES PENDING BEFORE THE TF

DATE: 2 OCTOBER 2016

INTRODUCTION

We were asked to identify issues requiring analysis for which new or amended canons

should be proposed so work could begin on drafting them. As we began reviewing all of the

ideas and suggested tasks that have been generated by members of our TF, we realized that it is

necessary to prepare a master list of ideas and tasks in order to do the assigned job.

Resolution D-004 has charged our Task Force to address five (5) major topics and report

to the 79th General Convention. In order to prepare the master list, we reviewed the minutes from

the two “in person” Task Force meetings and assorted electronic meetings of sub-committees

and the documents prepared by various TF members. We also reviewed the “Synthesis and

Overview” memo of Lynn and Lee Davis.1 From those sources we have identified the

ideas/tasks suggested by TF members.2

We first listed the major tasks assigned by D-004 (“D-004 tasks,” hereafter). We then

listed beneath each “D-004 task” each suggestion/task/idea that we think relates (or might relate)

to that particular “D-004 task.” After doing this, we realized that the number of individual tasks

listed below many of the “D-004 tasks” was so long that further organization was

required. Thus, for most of the “D-004 task” listed below we grouped the individual tasks into

sub-groupings of: canonical, administrative, legislative, and deferred.

It is an enormous list. The time has come for us to shift gears from “what ifs,” from

complaints, and from further speculations. Instead, we must address each of these items and

make decisions that will lead to recommendations. We hope that this organization of the

material will make it easier for the entire TF to move through the list and arrive at practical,

positive, and pastoral recommendations to the 79th General Convention.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

javascript:parent.onLocalLink('footnote1',window.frameElement)



We believe that you will see that the TF is way ahead with speculative ideas and way behind

with concrete decisions and recommendations. This woke us up to the tremendous task

ahead. We trust you will be affected the same way. Beginning with the conference call

scheduled for 13 October 2016, we hope that the TF can quickly make decisions as to the types

of action to be taken for each idea/task so that we can then assign responsibilities for developing

the concrete decision or recommendation appropriate for the individual ideas/tasks identified

below.

IS = In the scope of Resolution D004

BS = Beyond the scope of Resolution D004

Y = Task Force agrees

N = Task Force disagrees

MAJOR TASKS ASSIGNED THE TASK FORCE

Task No. 1 - “Roles and responsibilities of the Episcopate, including the use of Bishops

Diocesan, Bishops Coadjutor, Bishops Suffragan Provisional Bishops, Missionary Bishops, and

Assistant Bishops.”

1. Canonical

a. Identify each type of bishop TEC needs and make sure each is canonically

authorized. IS; Y

i. Should we limit future categories without canonical authorization?

IS; Y

ii. Should we address (by canon or otherwise) defining the authority

of bishops? IS, Y

b. Is clarification required for “ordination” and “consecration”? BS. See P. 520

of BCP. Defer to next BCP revision and/or to next comprehensive revision of

Constitution and Canons (i.e., defer to SCGSCC or SCLM).

2. Administrative

a. Are the following issues within the scope of D-004? BS

i. Should the dioceses continue to be the primary funding source for

HOB meetings?

1. If so, must this be resolved by canon?

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: No Spacing, Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt




b. Does the HOB have the authority to issue “mind of the house” papers and

pastoral letters? BS

i. If not, should we recommend adoption of a canon or legislative

action to authorize it?

c. Can/should bishops exercising multiple jurisdictions vote more than once in

confirming a bishop’s election? IS

d. Can a bishop exercise jurisdiction after age 72? IS If so,

i. What are the requirements?

ii. Is canonical or legislative action required?

3. Legislative

a. Nothing in this action category

4. Deferred

a. Role and Responsibilities of Bishops in light of changes in Church/World

(culture, economics of dioceses, other factors identified by TREC and other

sources) Deferred to later in the November meetings (LITM)

b. What do we want from Bishops? LITM

c. What do we need to get to what we want? LITM

d. What is the process to get what we want? LITM

e. How do we support dioceses in this work? LITM

f. Define “bishop creep” LITM

g. Should we address the issue of whether ordination changes one’s ontology,

i.e., at baptism, not at ordination? BS

h. Are the following issues within the scope of D-004?

i. Bishop’s role in clergy transition matters? IS, but in the weeds.


ii. Appointment of priests in charge as it relates to the vestry in the

calling of priests IS, but in the weeds.

iii. Role of the bishop as chief liturgical officer IS, but in the weeds.

iv. Range of liturgies a diocese can authorize BS

v. Can/should bishops exercise jurisdiction simultaneously in more

than one diocese? IS

1. If so, what canonical or legislative action, if any, should be

taken by General Convention?

vi. Do “jurisdiction” and “ecclesiastical authority” need to be defined?

IS

vii. TEC has lost five dioceses because of abuse of power of

bishops. Existing canons were avoided. Need to use/enforce those we

have and add new ones as needed. IS

viii. The decisions as to abuse of power should be made collectively,

keeping in mind the plight of those trapped in the dioceses with

bishops that abuse their power. IS

Task No. 2 - “Particular gifts, life experience and expertise required for episcopal office.” All of

Task 2 is IS; defer to LITM (Monday evening)

1. Canonical IS

a. None at this time

2. Administrative

a. Some see bishops as “CEOs” of dioceses. IS

b. “We need pastors, not princes.” IS

3. Legislative IS


a. None at this time

4. Deferred

a. None at this time.

Task No. 3 – “Diversity”

1. Canonical

a. General Convention should adopt a canon requiring each diocese to adopt local

canons3 that require: IS, LITM

i. The election of those who will vote to select a bishop within ninety (90)

days after the bishop diocesan has announced his/her pending resignation;

ii. Defining the electors so as to have a representative group of voters;

iii. An election process that facilitates diversity;

iv. Adoption of the local canon as long as possible before a diocese must

initiate an Episcopal election process.

b. Create a new group of missionary bishops composed of females, African-

Americans, and members of other under-represented groups who then could be

assigned to dioceses to exposed dioceses to the rich ministries that they bring to

the Episcopacy. IS, but consensus is to not pursue this.

2. Administrative

a. Collect from the Episcopal election process and from other sources within TEC

statistics on gender, racial/ethnic ratios, and other forms of underrepresentation;

and provide the funding and expertise to analyze the data to identify ways in

which the House of Bishops can become more diverse. IS

b. Include inInsure that the Best Practices Manual discussion ofrecommends:



i. Standing Committees should emphasize importance of diocesan

emphasis on diversity in the election process IS

ii. Standing Committees should have oversight responsibilities of the

Search/Nominations and the Transition Committees4 to insure maximum

emphasis upon achieving improved diversity in the House of Bishops. IS

iii. Making the Education Committee one of the three major committees

in the diocese and making diversity education one of its primary

responsibilities. IS

iv. Encourages5 dioceses, their Standing Committees, and their

Search/Nomination Committees to act affirmatively to raise the level of

awareness in each diocese for the need for a more diverse House of

Bishops. IS

v. Add to the responsibilities of the Search/Nomination Committee

specific ways in which it can work to increase diversity among those

nominated, including, but not limited to casting a wider net to locate

qualified gender and ethnic persons to be considered for nomination. IS

c. Provide to OPD adequate funding to update existing educational materials and to

develop new educational materials – especially for the education of those who

vote in Episcopal elections. IS

3. Legislative

a. In addition to the Episcopal election process, what else is needed to identify and

improvefix the issue of diversity in the Episcopate and in the House of Bishops?

IS

b. In Episcopal Elections, the laity usually stay with their choice which leads to the

election of the laity candidate. Doesn’t this “lead to women and those of color not

being elected?” If so, what should be done? IS

c. Would it help the diversity issue for there to be a church-wide Committee on

Ministry or a church-wide Office for Episcopal Elections – instead of or in

addition to the current arrangement with OPD? IS

d. Get adequate funding from General Convention. IS

4. Deferred

a. Nothing at this time




Task No. 4 – Process for Discernment, Nomination, Formation, Search, Election, Transition

1. Canonical

a. Are canons required to authorize the current roles of the PB and OPD in

providing “consultative assistance” to electing dioceses? This includes, among

other services, IS

i. Best Practices Manual IS

ii. Transition Consultants IS

iii. Psych and medical exams (both format and interpretation) IS

iv. Letters of Agreement IS

b. Should TEC have authority to change diocesan boundaries? BS. See TREC

report and 2015 Blue Book report of Standing Commission on Structure of

Church

i. If so, is a canon required?

2. Administrative

a. Should TEC encourage/require local dioceses

i. to engage in strategic planning during an episcopal vacancy? IS

1. Is this within the scope of D-004? Yes

ii. To require a study of missional opportunities when the diocesan is

contemplating resignation YS

1. Is this within the scope of D-004? Yes

b. Are the following subjects within the scope of D-004 and, if so, should they

be addressed in the Best Practices Manual or by canon?

i. Pastoral planning for retirement ???


ii. Diocesan mission strategy or readiness assessment IS

iii. Education/formation of bishops? IS

3. Legislative

a.

4. Deferred

a. Appalled at personal questions asked of candidates. Move eto Task 3.

5. Additional Actions Suggested By The “Synthesis and Overview” Memo

a. – r. were moved to the best practices discussion

C = Consensus/agreement.

NC = No consensus, and will be revisited

a. While improvements should be made to the Best Practices Manual, there is

no need to create an entirely new and separate Best Practices Manual. C

b. The Best Practices Manual should be updated from the work the TF has

done, from the input OPD has received from dioceses and Transition

Consultants, and from the ETES Report. C

c. The selection of bishops should continue to be by an election process for

which the electing diocese is primarily responsible. C; need to define

“primarily.”

d. General Convention can provide limited canonical guidance to the electing

dioceses without transgressing upon the longstanding polity of the church that

makes the electing diocese primarily responsible for the election of its

bishops. C – subject to revising language of D.

e. General Convention should adopt a canon requiring each diocese to adopt

adequate local canons6 that, among other things, require the election of those

who will vote to select a bishop within ninety (90) days after the bishop

diocesan has announced his pending resignation. NC

Formatted: No Spacing, Indent: Left: 0", Space Before: 0pt, Line spacing: single

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman



f. There needs to be new, more detailed medical and psychological tests and

protocols, and new and more detailed background information requests. C

g. There needs to be new requirements related to the distribution of the results

of these tests, protocols, and other vetting information that will improve

transparency and get essential information to those voting for the selection of

the bishop. C

h. In the Best Practices Manual

i. Add as a third major committee the Education Committee with

responsibility for pProvideing more robusteducation directly to the

voters about the work of bishops, information helpful to discern who

should be elected, and diversity information and training. C; “beef up”

this type of education.

ii. Clearly present allthe three options available to an electing diocese

without a bishop (or expecting to be without a bishop) for obtaining

episcopal services, including the three types of obtaining a bishop

diocsan or a non-diocesan bishopfor the conduct of the election. C

iii. More clearly identify

1. Alternative procedures and ways for the Episcopal election

process to be more flexible. C

2. Ways to accomplish cost-savings. C

3. Whether, how and whenAdvantages to useing Consultants. C

4. Specific tasks for which assistance from Consultants is best

suited.

i. Identify ways to use technology to advantage, for example

i. Search/Transition interactive web page with live links. C

ii. Ability to submit names electronically. C

iii. Conduct of initial interviews. C

1. Advanced preparation, e.g., use of forms to insure same

material covered with each person. C

iv. Develop means for secure email communications with individuals

in the process. C


j. Provide clearer guidance about the handling of individual’s confidential

information while providing greater transparency for the benefit of the voters.

C

k. Provide greater detail on how to exclude from the search/nomination process

persons desirous of leading the diocese out of TEC. C

l. Consnider rRevisinge timelines in light of the following considerations

i. To accommodate use of availability technology. NC

ii. The need to begin much earlier in the process making arrangements

for the Discernment Retreat (should the diocese desire to have

one). NC

iii. Presentation of slate to the Standing Committee. NC

iv. Publication of the slate. NC

v. Allow for petition candidates. NC

vi. Allow for expanded time for education for voters. NC

m. Invite representative Consultants to participate in the revision of the Best

Practices Manual. C

n. Provide greater emphasis upon screening those being considered for

nomination, including C

i. Reference checks.

1. Include all former bishops. C

2. Include all transition ministers for dioceses in which the

person has served. C

ii. Expand and modernize background checks, including legal,

financial, civil, criminal, and vehicular. C

iii. General internet searches. C

o. Avoid archaic institutional language by the use of more user-friendly

language.

Cp. Update all resource material, C including, but not limited to


i. Materials made available to electing dioceses.

ii. Materials to be used in by the more robust diocesan eEducation

processCommittee covering:

1. Historic role of the Episcopate. C

2. Changing roles of the Episcopate. C

iii. Diversity training that will be helpful to the voters as they decide

how they will each cast their vote. C

q. Draft a separate document covering the selection, the roles and

responsibilities, and the training of Transition Consultants. C

i. Selection should be by OPD with input from existing Consultants in

good standing and such other sources as may be appropriate. NC

1. A list of approved Consultants should be maintained by OPD.

NC

2. Only those on the list should be recommended to electing

dioceses. NC

ii. Roles and responsibilities.

1. Specific tasks identified in the Best Practices Manual. NC

2. Consultants can only make recommendations to the electing

dioceses. They are not allowed to make decisions for the

electing dioceses or its committees. NC

3. Assist in the recruiting and recommendations for selection of

other Consultants. NC

4. Have representative consultants participate in the revisions of

the Best Practices Manual. NC

5. Provide feedback to OPD. NC

a. The conduct of each Episcopal election process on

which they work. NC

b. Changes/deletions/additions to the Best Practices

Manual. NC


c. The training they receive. NC

d. Performance of other Consultants (based observed

facts). NC

iii. Training should be by OPD. NC

1. It should include both initial training and continuing training.

2. Funding will have to come from General Convention.

iv. Evaluation can come from dioceses being served, from OPD

observations, and from other consultants. C

v. A form contract between a using diocese and a consultant should be

provided. C

vi. Fees should be consistent among the Consultants and a record of

them kept by OPD. NC

r. General Convention should provide adequate funding for a successful

transition process, at a minimum, the following funding: C

i. To OPD to discharge its responsibilities for the Episcopal elections

process. NC

ii. Tool kit supporting women and other underrepresented groups

seeking to advance in the church. NC

iii. Support for completion of the Episcopal Transitions and Election

Project. NC

iv. Revision of the Best Practices Manual. C

v. Support of the Transitional Consultants in the Episcopal elections

process. NC

Task No. 5 – “Explore . . .” NOTE: This task includes four separate subjects. Each subject will

be listed separately with the comments made about that subject from TF members and without

the sub-classifications.


Item #1 – “The roles and responsibilities of the Office of Pastoral Development” All of Item # 1,

1-6 (h), are IS, as part of the Office of Pastoral Development discussion.

1. Regardless of issues about its origin or location within TEC structure, is OPD’s

work

a. Helpful to the ministry of bishops?

b. Helpful to the ministry of TEC?

2. Does its work require canonical authority? If so, which ones?

3. Role as Title IV intake officer should be removed.

4. Has the TF completed its required “work with OPD” concerning development of the

Best Practices Manual and educational materials to be published electronically?

6. College for Bishops

a. Is/was it properly organized by OPD and PB’s office?

i. Is this within the scope of D-004?

b. If not, what action should be taken to organize it properly within OPB?


c. Should it be moved from OPB?


d. If so, why should it be moved and to what location in TEC?


e. Should its governance be reorganized?


ii. If so how should its governance be re-organized?

f. Should CfB be allowed to seek funding for its various missions in addition to

the funding it receives from the General Convention budget?

i. If yes, what authorization, if any, is required?


ii. Is this within the scope of D-004?

g. Have the efforts of the CfB to obtain funds to supplement funds received

from the General Convention budget damaged any other recipient of General

Convention budgeted funds?

i. If yes, which ones?

ii. Is this within the scope of D-004?

h. Has CfB moved without authority (stolen) or received stolen intellectual

property belong to TEC?


Item #2 – Selection of roles and responsibilities of Transition Consultants

All of Item # 2, 1-8, are IS, as part of the best practices and processes discussions.

1. Recruiting, training and maintenance of the records of Transition Consultants should be the

responsibility of OPD.

2. Selection should be by OPD with input from existing Consultants in good standing and such

other sources as may be appropriate.

a. A list of approved Consultants should be maintained by OPD.

b. Only those on the list should be recommended to electing dioceses.

3. Roles and responsibilities include, but are not limited to,

a. Specific tasks already identified in the Best Practices Manual.

b. Assist in identifying sources for potential nominees

c. Emphasize the importance of diversity both in the search process and in the

results.

d. Suggest ways in which to increase diversity in the search processes.

e. Provide suggestions about vetting potential nominees


f. Consultants can only make recommendations to the electing dioceses. They are

not allowed to make decisions for the electing dioceses or its committees.

g. Assist in the recruiting and recommendations for selection of other Consultants.

h. Have representative consultants participate in the revisions of the Best Practices

Manual.

i. Provide feedback to OPD.

i. The conduct of each Episcopal election process on which they work.

ii. Changes/deletions/additions to the Best Practices Manual.

iii. The training they receive.

iv. Performance of other Consultants (based observed facts).

4. Training should be by OPD.

a. It should include both initial training and continuing training.

b. Funding will have to come from General Convention.

5. Evaluation can come from dioceses being served, from OPD observations, and from other

consultants.

6. A form contract between a using diocese and a consultant should be provided.

7. Fees should be consistent among the Consultants and a record of them kept by OPD.

8. General Convention must pay for the expenses and maintenance of the Transition Consultant

program, but not for their specific services to the electing diocese, which is to be paid by the

electing diocese.

Item #3 – Aid from adjoining dioceses in the transition process IS.

1. Not yet addressed.

2. Defer? Probably.

Item #4 – Required Constitutional and Canonical changes IS


1. These can be addressed as the remaining issues are resolved or eliminated.

1 The Synthesis and Overview memo contains a list of Conclusions on pages 14 – 16. Each of

those has been included in this list by placing it under the “major topic” to which we felt it was

most related. Additionally, throughout pages 1 – 14 there are ideas/tasks/suggestions contained

in the text. Those have been identified and placed under the “major topic” to which we felt it

was most related.

2 In compiling the list, where necessary, we summarized the lengthy ideas/task descriptions and

we consolidated where we found duplication.

3 An alternative to having a General Convention “nudge” to the local dioceses would be to

include these items in the recommendations found in the Best Practices Manual.

4 Reference here should include the Education Committee if it is added as one of the major

committees.

5 Because of the polity issue of keeping the Episcopal election process at the local diocesan

level, it might not be prudent to use canons as the vehicle for taking these actions. Even so,

whether to act by canon on some, if not all, of these actions presents a separate polity issue that

might require discussion and decision.


6 See, e.g., the canon recommended by the HOB Committee on Pastoral Development found in

the 2015 Blue Book at pages 55-56. While it requires additional editing, it can serve as the

starting point for a recommended canon.

Documents

TO: TASK FORCE ON EPISCOPACY