tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post8332220747266474680..comments2024-03-07T17:08:03.583-05:00Comments on Lionel Deimel’s Web Log: GS 1878Lionel Deimelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-13963174553886067442012-10-11T12:54:24.018-04:002012-10-11T12:54:24.018-04:00You can find a searchable version of the General S...You can find a searchable version of the General Synod’s Standing Orders <a href="http://deimel.org/commentary/b_pages/gen_synod_standing_orders.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Warning: This is a big file.Lionel Deimelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-18833274563527614972012-10-11T12:39:32.570-04:002012-10-11T12:39:32.570-04:00Dear Peter,
Thanks for the clarification. Sounds ...Dear Peter,<br /><br />Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like a fairly typical English "complexity"! We have similar Standing Orders in the two houses of the General Convention; but each includes a "covering clause" to refer any unanswered question to Robert's Rules.<br /><br />Do you have a finger on the pulse of how likely a reintroduction is to come prior to 2015?Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-51783397400457214852012-10-11T12:18:11.046-04:002012-10-11T12:18:11.046-04:00Yes we do do things differently in England. Subjec...Yes we do do things differently in England. Subject to some general constraints set by its constitution the procedures of General Synod are governed by its standing orders (SOs). Synod itself determines these SOs. There is no English equivalent of Roberts’ Rules and Synod would at most look to parliamentary standing orders (which are different for the two houses) for guidance in setting its own SOs.<br /><br />Moving to the particular proposal to adopt the Covenant, this was to be done by passing an Act of Synod.<br /><br />SOs specify that certain things cannot be re-introduced within the remainder of the lifetime of a Synod. But the problem is that SOs only specify what cannot be re-introduced (and there is no consolidated list of such things). So in this case the evidence that an Act of Synod can be re-introduced is the absence of an SO forbidding this. But I have searched SOs for the word "lifetime" and found four instances, none of which refer to Acts of Synod or anything similar.<br /><br />There is also an SO (number 24) that prevents matters being re-introduced after less than eleven months. In this case the relevant motion was debated in November 2010, so the 11 months has long passed.<br /><br />Because of this I am confident that the statement in GS 1878 that the procedure for adopting the Covenant could be restarted at any time is correct. But it would have to start again at the beginning; it cannot at this stage be sent back to the dioceses with a request for them to think again. The full procedure starts with the introduction into Synod of a draft Act of Synod to adopt the Covenant and a debate on this motion: "That the draft Act of Synod adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant be considered". If that is passed, any proposed amendments (to the Act - not to the Covenant) are dealt with. Only then is the matter referred to dioceses. If a majority vote in favour the draft Act then comes back to Synod for final approval.<br /><br />If anybody wants to check this you can download the SOs from here.<br /><br />http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1219440/standing%20orders%20june%202012.pdf<br /><br />Unfortunately you cannot search that version, although I used a searchable version that used to be on the CofE website.<br /><br />The Constitution of General Synod is online here:<br /><br />http://peterowen.org.uk/articles/gs-constitution.html<br /><br />Peter Owen (former member of General Synod)<br />Pythagorashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13804252456384898923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-79595054733628145882012-10-11T10:17:09.800-04:002012-10-11T10:17:09.800-04:00My understanding of basic parliamentary law (inclu...My understanding of basic parliamentary law (including Roberts' Rules) is that once a resolution has been defeated, no resolution identical to it in form or substance my come up at the same session of the body, except by a form of motion to Reconsider. This requires a 2/3 vote. The point is that the body has made its mind known, and it is dilatory to keep bringing up things it has rejected, unless there is a groundswell to do so, at least in the same legislative session.<br /><br />The English may do things differently in this regard, as they do in so much else; but the silence of the Synod's Constitution on this point should, I hope, defer to some more general Rule of Order or basic principle of parliamentary law. Otherwise someone who wanted to tie an assembly in knots could just keep introducing the same failed motion again and again. There will be plenty of time to reconsider the Covenant in 2015 -- both in the C of E and TEC -- if there is a desire so to do at that time. There will be significant water under several bridges by then, and haste seems pointless.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-69084088862183863312012-10-11T09:02:46.778-04:002012-10-11T09:02:46.778-04:00"The Covenant would ensure that the Anglican ..."The Covenant would ensure that the Anglican Communion would not rest content with the sort of autonomous ecclesial units that favour unilateralism" (Sentamu)<br /><br />The kind of unilateralism that gave us, say, the ecclesiological innovation (and enormity) of flying bishops?Alan T Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11700037716579004059noreply@blogger.com