Author Topic: Election of Bishop in MD-DE Synod Postponed  (Read 6387 times)

jrubyaz

  • Guest
Election of Bishop in MD-DE Synod Postponed
« on: December 22, 2009, 01:07:04 AM »
It appears a constitutional snafu has been noted, and after consultation with the Presiding Bishop,  the special assembly called for the election of a new Bishop in MD-DE Synod has been cancelled. The Synod will wait until June 2010, it seems that something in the constitution indicated the same voting members to last years assembly in June would have to elect the new Bishop.  Upon further reading , it appears the Articles of Inc. supersede the constitution and bylaws, which is odd.

It does appear this was a wise call, as pastors new to synod and those not seated in the last assembly but eligible for next June regular assembly would not have been able to vote.

Someone didn't proofread very well........... :'(

http://www.demdsynod.org/news/transitionsbishop/transitionbishop.html
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 01:12:16 AM by jrubyaz »

James_Gale

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
    • View Profile
Re: Election of Bishop in MD-DE Synod Postponed
« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2009, 01:18:50 AM »
This document in particular explains the decision:  http://www.demdsynod.org/news/transitionsbishop/nancyofficialnotice.txt.


Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42647
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Election of Bishop in MD-DE Synod Postponed
« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2009, 11:07:43 AM »
It appears a constitutional snafu has been noted, and after consultation with the Presiding Bishop,  the special assembly called for the election of a new Bishop in MD-DE Synod has been cancelled. The Synod will wait until June 2010, it seems that something in the constitution indicated the same voting members to last years assembly in June would have to elect the new Bishop.  Upon further reading , it appears the Articles of Inc. supersede the constitution and bylaws, which is odd.
Articles of incorporation rank higher than constitutions and bylaws. If there are differences between the documents, the Articles win.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Dissenter

  • Guest
Re: Election of Bishop in MD-DE Synod Postponed
« Reply #3 on: December 22, 2009, 11:11:37 AM »

  Sounds like someone had a shot of smarts to the head.  Perhaps it came about from constitutional picking of nits.  I'm thinking someone figured out how many people couldn't be there and decided it wasn't a wise move to exclude them.


James_Gale

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
    • View Profile
Re: Election of Bishop in MD-DE Synod Postponed
« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2009, 11:14:55 AM »
It appears a constitutional snafu has been noted, and after consultation with the Presiding Bishop,  the special assembly called for the election of a new Bishop in MD-DE Synod has been cancelled. The Synod will wait until June 2010, it seems that something in the constitution indicated the same voting members to last years assembly in June would have to elect the new Bishop.  Upon further reading , it appears the Articles of Inc. supersede the constitution and bylaws, which is odd.
Articles of incorporation rank higher than constitutions and bylaws. If there are differences between the documents, the Articles win.

Pr. Stoffregen is right.  Under the law, Articles of Incorporation rank highest in authority among governance documents.  They always and without exception take precedence over corporations' constitutions and bylaws.

George Erdner

  • Guest
Re: Election of Bishop in MD-DE Synod Postponed
« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2009, 12:14:20 PM »
I wonder what would happen if enough of the people who were voters at the previous assembly had left the ELCA and they couldn't muster a quorum?

James_Gale

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
    • View Profile
Re: Election of Bishop in MD-DE Synod Postponed
« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2009, 12:25:56 PM »
I wonder what would happen if enough of the people who were voters at the previous assembly had left the ELCA and they couldn't muster a quorum?

This is an interesting question.  I'd have to see the governing documents at issue here.  But one possibility is that voting members from the last regular assembly retain their status irrespective of whether they remain within the ELCA.  They are, after all, "voting members."  They are not delegates. 

That aside, if an assembly cannot muster a quorum, it obviously cannot conduct business (aside from taking one of a small number of procedural steps).  The synod council then would have to take any necessary steps to permit the synod to operate until the next regular assembly, for which new voting members would be selected.

racin_jason

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1171
    • View Profile
Re: Election of Bishop in MD-DE Synod Postponed
« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2009, 12:40:53 PM »
Given this priority, we are guided by the Holy Spirit to make the difficult decision to cancel the special election.

Here we go again, saying the Spirit has spoken regarding an ELCA assembly, this time weighing in on cancelling one.

I commend the synod for doing the right thing, but putting this kind of language in the announcement begs questions of whether or not the spirit was speaking when they called the assembly to begin with, or how the spirit confronted anyone with their own short-sightedness, be it boldly or gently.

It is an issue of piety and writing style, but I grow weary of reading communiqués of this nature.

 
Recipient of the official Forum Online Get Us Back on Topic Award

pastorg1@aol.com

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1009
    • View Profile
Re: Election of Bishop in MD-DE Synod Postponed
« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2009, 12:52:14 PM »
"Given this priority, we are guided by the Holy Spirit to make the difficult decision to cancel the special election."

Giving the Holy Spirit due respect is a faithful piety- but can quickly lead us- in our hunger for self-respect- to consuming the Spirit, "feathers and all," as Luther said of the Enthusiasts.

Too, when Joan D'Arc mentioned during her trial that God spoke to her directly, the court scribe noted by her remark, "responsio mortifera," the death-dealing remark which would lead to her martyrdom. In her Catholic piety, she blamed the saints speaking to her directly- Lutherans have only the Spirit to blame.

Peter (Do I smell smoke?) Garrison
Pete Garrison, STS

Mike Bennett

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
    • View Profile
Re: Election of Bishop in MD-DE Synod Postponed
« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2009, 03:56:50 PM »
Given this priority, we are guided by the Holy Spirit to make the difficult decision to cancel the special election.

Here we go again, saying the Spirit has spoken regarding an ELCA assembly, this time weighing in on cancelling one.

I commend the synod for doing the right thing, but putting this kind of language in the announcement begs questions of whether or not the spirit was speaking when they called the assembly to begin with, or how the spirit confronted anyone with their own short-sightedness, be it boldly or gently.

It is an issue of piety and writing style, but I grow weary of reading communiqués of this nature.


Seems to border on violation of the Second Commandment.  The decision was driven by adherence to the organization's own Articles of Incorporation (a good and proper manifestation of the left kingdom). 

Perhaps an early order of business of the next Synod Assembly should be to amend the Articles of Incorporation to say what the Synod had meant to be its practice all along.
“What peace can there be, so long as the many whoredoms and sorceries of your mother Jezebel continue?”  2 Kings 9:22

Dissenter

  • Guest
Re: Election of Bishop in MD-DE Synod Postponed
« Reply #10 on: December 22, 2009, 04:26:41 PM »
Given this priority, we are guided by the Holy Spirit to make the difficult decision to cancel the special election.


 The recently retired Bishop from that synod didn't talk like this. He was also the only sitting Bishop who signed CORE's pre-CWA open letter.


James_Gale

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
    • View Profile
Re: Election of Bishop in MD-DE Synod Postponed
« Reply #11 on: December 22, 2009, 04:31:01 PM »
Given this priority, we are guided by the Holy Spirit to make the difficult decision to cancel the special election.

Here we go again, saying the Spirit has spoken regarding an ELCA assembly, this time weighing in on cancelling one.

I commend the synod for doing the right thing, but putting this kind of language in the announcement begs questions of whether or not the spirit was speaking when they called the assembly to begin with, or how the spirit confronted anyone with their own short-sightedness, be it boldly or gently.

It is an issue of piety and writing style, but I grow weary of reading communiqués of this nature.


Seems to border on violation of the Second Commandment.  The decision was driven by adherence to the organization's own Articles of Incorporation (a good and proper manifestation of the left kingdom).  

Perhaps an early order of business of the next Synod Assembly should be to amend the Articles of Incorporation to say what the Synod had meant to be its practice all along.

The Synod's decision process involved more than mere "adherence to the organization's own Articles of Incorporation."  The Articles would have permitted the Synod to hold a special assembly.  However, the voting members at such an assembly would have been those who attended the last regular assembly.  Congregations would not be able to elect new or replacement lay voting members.  Moreover, those added to the Synod's rostered ministry since the 2009 regular assembly would be precluded from voting.  

The Synod therefore had two alternatives.  It could hold a special assembly with the voting members from the 2009 regular assembly.  Or it could delay the election of a new bishop until the 2010 regular assembly, which will include newly appointed lay voting members and all persons then on the Synod's rosters.  Leadership selected the second option.  

Was that decision guided by the Holy Spirit?  I don't know.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 04:52:20 PM by James_Gale »

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42647
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Election of Bishop in MD-DE Synod Postponed
« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2009, 04:39:31 PM »
I wonder what would happen if enough of the people who were voters at the previous assembly had left the ELCA and they couldn't muster a quorum?

This is an interesting question.  I'd have to see the governing documents at issue here.  But one possibility is that voting members from the last regular assembly retain their status irrespective of whether they remain within the ELCA.  They are, after all, "voting members."  They are not delegates.
When voting members of a congregation leave the congregation, they lose their voting status.

Quote
That aside, if an assembly cannot muster a quorum, it obviously cannot conduct business (aside from taking one of a small number of procedural steps).  The synod council then would have to take any necessary steps to permit the synod to operate until the next regular assembly, for which new voting members would be selected.
The model constitution for synods states:
S7.14. One-half of the members of the Synod Assembly shall constitute a quorum.

"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

James_Gale

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
    • View Profile
Re: Election of Bishop in MD-DE Synod Postponed
« Reply #13 on: December 22, 2009, 04:42:30 PM »
I wonder what would happen if enough of the people who were voters at the previous assembly had left the ELCA and they couldn't muster a quorum?

This is an interesting question.  I'd have to see the governing documents at issue here.  But one possibility is that voting members from the last regular assembly retain their status irrespective of whether they remain within the ELCA.  They are, after all, "voting members."  They are not delegates.

When voting members of a congregation leave the congregation, they lose their voting status.


Pr. Stoffregen --

You may well be right.  We don't have the MD-DE Synod governing documents, so we can't be absolutely certain.  The model constitution for synods seems to confirm what you're saying.  But the Articles of Incorporation might provide otherwise. 

Jim
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 04:51:13 PM by James_Gale »

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10214
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: Election of Bishop in MD-DE Synod Postponed
« Reply #14 on: December 22, 2009, 05:08:21 PM »
I'm pretty sure that the Model Synod Constitution provisions of calling a special assembly is in line with the Synod's articles of Incorporation.  I know the ELCA Constitution is.  However if would seem to me that, as with the ELCA's CWA, if an elected voting member resigns, he can be replaced by the appropriate authority. 

I wonder is anyone uses Common Sense any more?

Pax, Steven+
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog