[Magdalen] for Christopher

[Christopher Hart]

I believe that at one time consents were all done at General Convention and
consents by Standing Committees came later, but I can't cite the
exact history. Interestingly, the voting by bishops is the same in either
case, i.e. only bishops with jurisdiction have a vote, not the entire House
of Bishops.

My objection to the change made in 2012 is that the consent process at
General Convention allowed for a very open and frank opportunity to meet
and greet the bishop-elect and discuss any concerns, and all of those
charged with consenting got to see and hear the same things together. It
worked IMHO very well. I believe that we discarded a better process in name
of an unnecessary consistency.

Standing Committees working independently of each other, and possibly
responding to concerns raised via the Internet, will not generally be
sharing all the same information and/or perceptions about the bishop-elect.
There has been a proposal to develop some sort of virtual interview using
modern technology, but so far that has gone nowhere.

Christopher

On Saturday, May 23, 2015, Grace Cangialosi <gracecan at gmail.com> wrote:

> I just realized that I phrased my question to Christopher backwards when I
> referred to "the former." I thought having confirmations done at GC was
> unfair, for the reasons I mentioned.
> OTOH, if the 2003 elections hadn't gone to GC for consent, Gene Robinson
> probably wouldn't have been confirmed.
>
> > On May 22, 2015, at 9:37 PM, Grace Cangialosi <gracecan at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > Christopher, why do you regret the decision to leave the consent
> decisions to standing committees instead of GC when the elections come too
> close to the time of GC? I always thought the former procedure was unfair,
> in that it could make a real spectacle of the consent process, as it did
> with Gene Robinson. I don't even remember who else was approved at that
> time; their names kind of got lost in the shuffle, and that seems a shame.
> >
> >> On May 22, 2015, at 7:43 PM, Judy Fleener <fleenerj at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>
> >> when I read he Episcopal Cafe I noted that.  Thanks, Christopher
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Christopher Hart <cervus51 at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Much to my regret the last General Convention did away with the
> process of
> >>> consents to Episcopal elections at Grneral Convention. They all go
> before
> >>> standing committees now. The only consent in the House of Deputies is
> >>> to the election of a Presiding Bishop.
> >>>
> >>>> On Friday, May 22, 2015, Judy Fleener <fleenerj at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I am reading about the Bishop-elect in the Diocese of Dallas.  My
> >>> question
> >>>> is will his election come before General Convention or Standing
> >>>> Committees.  I want to be prepared if it comes to our standing
> committee.
> >>>> Otherwise, I'll lobby a few deputies I know, one very well, who is
> >>> closely
> >>>> related to me.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Judy Fleener, ObJN
> >>>> Western Michigan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Christopher Hart
> >>>
> >>> List Mail Address: cervus51 at gmail.com <javascript:;>
> >>> Personal Mail: cervus at veritasliberat.net <javascript:;>
> >>> Twitter: @cervus51
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Judy Fleener, ObJN
> >> Western Michigan
>


-- 

Christopher Hart

List Mail Address: cervus51 at gmail.com
Personal Mail: cervus at veritasliberat.net
Twitter: @cervus51