[Magdalen] Search process (was Re: Bishop, please resign)

[Roger Stokes]

On 30/01/2015 00:45, Jay Weigel wrote:
> HIPAA does not extend to legal problems. It's only for medical stuff. Why
> they did not share the information with the electing convention is some
> other business which someone familiar with the situation would have to
> explain, and THAT most definitely should be corrected, IMO.

I think that is now recognized and/or the psychological assessment is 
not rigorous enough.  Basically if her past history had been known there 
would have been enough questions to stop her being elected. Yes, as 
Christians we need to be prepared to forgive but the sinner needs to 
accept that there can be ongoing effects of past behaviour that will 
impact on future prospects.  That is not forgotten.

Here in the UK most criminal convictions can be regarded as spent after 
a certain period.  However for some posts, including all clergy posts, 
what is termed an enhanced clearance is required. Under this procedure 
all convictions, even those which would otherwise be spent, are revealed 
to those responsible for the appointment. In TEC the selection of 
somebody as a bishop is a multi-stage process.

The first stage is getting on the ballot, either through the Nominating 
Committee or by petition. It is probably better that a candidate about 
whom there are serious questions is eliminated at this relatively 
private stage.  It is not unknown for candidates for nominated federal 
office to withdraw their candidature because of issues that would emerge 
in the confirmation process. The knowledge that something which is 
officially in the public domain but not generally known (like a past DUI 
conviction) would receive greater publicity would mean the candidate had 
to confront it.  This could result in either an honest acknowledgement 
of the incident and why it should not disqualify them from consideration 
or their withdrawal.

Once the candidate is on the ballot things become more complicated. How 
much confidential and/or sensitive information about candidates should 
be made known to a large body of electors? If X has been elected then 
they need confirmation of that election from a majority of bishops with 
jurisdiction and of standing committees.  While they can maintain better 
confidentiality than an electing convention might achieve the failure to 
confirm the election would inevitably raise questions about the candidate.

Roger