D070 Amend Canon I.2.(n)
At the 2015 General Convention, all but two Standing Commissions were eliminated, leaving only the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music and a combined Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, Constitution and Canons. We have now had three years of experience with this structure and are able to see its many weaknesses. The work that normally would have been sent to Standing Commissions was either shunted to the Executive Council, already dealing with a full agenda, or taken up by task forces, which are not meant to be permanent committees, but rather short lived, single focus entities. From 14 Standing Commissions and three task forces in 2015, we went to two Standing Commissions and twelve new task forces. Most of the topics assigned to task forces over the last triennium would have benefitted from being considered in the broader context that previous Standing Commissions would have provided, rather than being treated as isolated issues. At least two other resolutions have been introduced to bring back other Standing Commissions because their absence has created obvious gaps in the Church’s ability to discern appropriate responses to the needs of the church and the world. The report of the current omnibus Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, Constitution and Canons demonstrates that its mandate is clearly too broad. It has strained to complete its assignments from the last General Convention; it has had to put off several issues until the next triennium; it has continued to process resolutions after the filing of its Blue Book report (see A179-184). Having served on both the previous Standing Commissions, I can attest that the skills and mindset needed to maintain the Constitution and Canons are different from those relevant to an evaluation of Structure and Governance in the context of the polity of TEC. Although the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, having two separate bodies will facilitate a return to appropriate and timely focus on the details of the two different tasks. In particular, it will free the Standing Commission on Structure and Governance to have, and include the wider church in, the necessary conversations about what we want, need and can support in the form of structural support for increasing ministry demands. World mission is an evolving area which needs deep discernment of new vision and strategies in the face of today’s difficult questions, rooted in history and facing the challenges of the future. A Standing Commission on World Mission is the appropriate entity to gather experience and expertise and engage the wider church in developing the most appropriate responses to the question of TEC’s future role and responsibility. The Executive Council’s Joint Standing Committee on World Mission is not an adequate substitute, as its report reveals. The agenda of the Joint Standing Committee is dominated by urgent challenges and it was necessarily “focused on the committee members’ determination at the start of the triennium to responsibly manage its fiduciary purposes.” leaving it inadequate time for the reflection needed to chart new paths. Some of the pressure on the Executive Council could be relieved by directing longer view issues to the restored Standing Commission with the same mandate as previously set out.
Explanation
At the 2015 General Convention, all but two Standing Commissions were eliminated, leaving only the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music and a combined Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, Constitution and Canons. We have now had three years of experience with this structure and are able to see its many weaknesses. The work that normally would have been sent to Standing Commissions was either shunted to the Executive Council, already dealing with a full agenda, or taken up by task forces, which are not meant to be permanent committees, but rather short lived, single focus entities. From 14 Standing Commissions and three task forces in 2015, we went to two Standing Commissions and twelve new task forces. Most of the topics assigned to task forces over the last triennium would have benefitted from being considered in the broader context that previous Standing Commissions would have provided, rather than being treated as isolated issues. At least two other resolutions have been introduced to bring back other Standing Commissions because their absence has created obvious gaps in the Church’s ability to discern appropriate responses to the needs of the church and the world. The report of the current omnibus Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, Constitution and Canons demonstrates that its mandate is clearly too broad. It has strained to complete its assignments from the last General Convention; it has had to put off several issues until the next triennium; it has continued to process resolutions after the filing of its Blue Book report (see A179-184). Having served on both the previous Standing Commissions, I can attest that the skills and mindset needed to maintain the Constitution and Canons are different from those relevant to an evaluation of Structure and Governance in the context of the polity of TEC. Although the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, having two separate bodies will facilitate a return to appropriate and timely focus on the details of the two different tasks. In particular, it will free the Standing Commission on Structure and Governance to have, and include the wider church in, the necessary conversations about what we want, need and can support in the form of structural support for increasing ministry demands. World mission is an evolving area which needs deep discernment of new vision and strategies in the face of today’s difficult questions, rooted in history and facing the challenges of the future. A Standing Commission on World Mission is the appropriate entity to gather experience and expertise and engage the wider church in developing the most appropriate responses to the question of TEC’s future role and responsibility. The Executive Council’s Joint Standing Committee on World Mission is not an adequate substitute, as its report reveals. The agenda of the Joint Standing Committee is dominated by urgent challenges and it was necessarily “focused on the committee members’ determination at the start of the triennium to responsibly manage its fiduciary purposes.” leaving it inadequate time for the reflection needed to chart new paths. Some of the pressure on the Executive Council could be relieved by directing longer view issues to the restored Standing Commission with the same mandate as previously set out.