Re: [LS] 1 more SC needed for Glasspool

[Louie Crew <lcrew@ANDROMEDA.RUTGERS.EDU>]

> Somehow it strikes me as typical that the incoming number of SC votes are
> made public but that so far the incoming number of episcopal votes are
> kept in secreto.

It may be significant, but it is not typical, at least not typical of the
way consents to most other bishops have been reported.

Standing Committees' consents/non-consents go to the electing diocese,
thence to the office of the Presiding Bishop for certification.

The votes of bishops exercising jurisdiction (no other bishops vote) go to
the Presiding Bishop.

It is unusual for any counts to be announced until either the deadline has
passed or sufficient consents have been received from bishops and from
Standing Committees.  There is no rule against doing so, but dioceses
usually do not give running reports.

The PB's office is wise, I think, not to release results piecemeal.   That
office should avoid all appearance of managing a road show.  It would be
especially unfair to be managing a road show only for a lesbian
bishop-elect.

Most dioceses take the same tack, and only a handfull of insiders know the
running tally of Standing Committee responses.  That information is useful
to people in the diocese who notice that some Standing Committees are
delaying who can be counted on to consent.   In our last Episcopal election,
as co-chair of our nominating committee I wrote and called members of
Standing Committees that were lagging behind.   All acted promptly.  One SC
even held a special meeting, at some inconvenience, to rectify their
oversight, even though we already had the minimum consents required before
they met.

I expect Mary to receive consents from Standing Commitees well before the
House of Bishops meeting at Camp Allen in two weeks (March 19-24).   If the
bishops with jurisdiction have not yet sufficiently consented, it will be a
positive boost for any hold-outs to see that the Standing Committees have
consented.

While bishops may network at Camp Allen, they will not hold a vote in the
House.  Bishops vote individually, not as a group.   All bishops may attend
the House meeting, but only bishops with jurisdiction may vote.

I believe the process ought to be thoroughly transparent with all votes
known.  However, I believe it is not necessary (and in some cases possibly
not wise) to reveal how specific SCs or specific bishops have voted until
all consent/non-consent has been determined for the order.

I feel the same way about USA elections.   Results of national elections
should never be declared before the polls have closed in the western-most
time zone.

The TEC process has many flaws.  One of the most notable flaws is the
diverse ways that Standing Committees process their responses.   In my 8
years on the Standing Committee in Newark, consents were the most routine,
non-controversial tasks we did, and if our schedule became crowded, they
sometimes got delayed.

As an officer in the last two elections in our diocese, I noticed that TEC's
eleven non-domestic dioceses had the highest level of non-response, and
friends on other nominating committees have observed the same.   Very likely
language is a primary factor -- one more piece of paperwork not in our own
language -- yet those would be, and should be, quite ready to cry 'foul' if
Standing Committees failed to responded to their elections.   

We need to amend our canons to have the presidents of all 9 provinces 
responsible to monitor the progress of responses and to encourage 
expeditiousness.

Louie