B030 Review of Nominations for Trustees of The Church Pension Fund
This Church relies on The Church Pension Fund (CPF) to provide pensions and other benefits to our clergy and lay employees, so the governance of CPF and the integrity of the process for nominating and electing its Trustees are of utmost consequence. The significance of CPF to the Church explains why Canon I.8 requires that candidates for the CPF Board of Trustees must be nominated by a committee representing both Houses of General Convention (i.e., the Joint Standing Committee on Nominations). This canonical requirement has served the Church well for over 100 years. The Joint Standing Committee on Nominations has been extremely successful in identifying, evaluating and proposing nominees for CPF Trustees who have the qualifications required to provide effective governance and make important decisions involving CPF and its affiliated companies – decisions that impact our clergy, lay employees and the Church as a whole. Particularly in light of this success, the process for nominating CPF Trustees should not be changed without careful consideration by both Houses of General Convention, and compliance with the established rules of this Church for canonical changes. However, the House of Deputies accepted nominations from the floor for CPF Trustees at the 78th General Convention, and its Rules of Order for this 79th General Convention again permit nominations from the floor before any election by the House of Deputies (regardless of canonical requirements). In fact, the President of the House of Deputies announced to Deputies in April that “advance notice of nominations from the floor” would be accepted at any time, even before General Convention convened, until July 6. By accepting nominations from the floor for CPF Trustees, the House of Deputies has changed the nomination process, disregarding the requirements of Canon I.8 as well as the concerns expressed by the House of Bishops at the 78th General Convention in Resolution 2015-X035. This resolution does not seek to amend Canon I.8; it simply directs the Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, Constitution and Canons to address inconsistencies in the Canons and rules.[1] If, however, after careful consideration, the Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, Constitution and Canons concludes that CPF Trustees should be nominated using a process that is different from that required by Canon I.8, it should recommend amendments to Canon I.8 and give the CPF Trustees ample opportunity to be heard on the proposed amendments, as required by that Canon. Both Houses of General Convention would then have an opportunity to consider whether the proposed amendments are appropriate. [1] In particular, the Joint Rules of Order of the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies describe the procedures for nominations by the Joint Standing Committee on Nominations, and notes that those procedures should not preclude nominations from the floor. (Section VII.20) However, there should be no question that the Joint Rules do not override canonical requirements so either the Joint Rules or the Canon should be amended to ensure consistency.
Explanation
This Church relies on The Church Pension Fund (CPF) to provide pensions and other benefits to our clergy and lay employees, so the governance of CPF and the integrity of the process for nominating and electing its Trustees are of utmost consequence. The significance of CPF to the Church explains why Canon I.8 requires that candidates for the CPF Board of Trustees must be nominated by a committee representing both Houses of General Convention (i.e., the Joint Standing Committee on Nominations). This canonical requirement has served the Church well for over 100 years. The Joint Standing Committee on Nominations has been extremely successful in identifying, evaluating and proposing nominees for CPF Trustees who have the qualifications required to provide effective governance and make important decisions involving CPF and its affiliated companies – decisions that impact our clergy, lay employees and the Church as a whole. Particularly in light of this success, the process for nominating CPF Trustees should not be changed without careful consideration by both Houses of General Convention, and compliance with the established rules of this Church for canonical changes. However, the House of Deputies accepted nominations from the floor for CPF Trustees at the 78th General Convention, and its Rules of Order for this 79th General Convention again permit nominations from the floor before any election by the House of Deputies (regardless of canonical requirements). In fact, the President of the House of Deputies announced to Deputies in April that “advance notice of nominations from the floor” would be accepted at any time, even before General Convention convened, until July 6. By accepting nominations from the floor for CPF Trustees, the House of Deputies has changed the nomination process, disregarding the requirements of Canon I.8 as well as the concerns expressed by the House of Bishops at the 78th General Convention in Resolution 2015-X035. This resolution does not seek to amend Canon I.8; it simply directs the Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, Constitution and Canons to address inconsistencies in the Canons and rules.[1] If, however, after careful consideration, the Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, Constitution and Canons concludes that CPF Trustees should be nominated using a process that is different from that required by Canon I.8, it should recommend amendments to Canon I.8 and give the CPF Trustees ample opportunity to be heard on the proposed amendments, as required by that Canon. Both Houses of General Convention would then have an opportunity to consider whether the proposed amendments are appropriate. [1] In particular, the Joint Rules of Order of the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies describe the procedures for nominations by the Joint Standing Committee on Nominations, and notes that those procedures should not preclude nominations from the floor. (Section VII.20) However, there should be no question that the Joint Rules do not override canonical requirements so either the Joint Rules or the Canon should be amended to ensure consistency.