davidould.net

non angelus, sed anglus!

A Majority of Bishops?

If you follow all things Anglican you cannot fail to have noticed the current discussion surrounding the deposition of Bishop Schofield of San Joaquin by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (TEC) of America. An article by The Living Church summarises the issue neatly:

Slightly more than one-third of all bishops eligible voted to depose bishops John-David Schofield and William J. Cox during the House of Bishops’ spring retreat, far fewer than the 51 percent required by the canons.
The exact number is impossible to know, because both resolutions were approved by voice vote. Only 131 bishops registered for the meeting March 7-12 at Camp Allen, and at least 15 of them left before the business session began on Wednesday. There were 294 members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote on March 12.

The problem, you see, is that the canons of TEC [pdf], and specifically Title IV, canon 9, sections 1-2, require a majority of those entitled to vote, not just those present. Here’s the actual text of the canon:

If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the Ministry, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or more Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed.

OK, that’s fair enough. Except that TEC are now arguing that it was all legal after all. A good example of such argumentation is a piece entitled “A Whole Lot of Shaking Going On: The Canons and Deposing Persons“ by Mark Harris on his blog, Preludium. Here’s what Mark is arguing:

Here is the wording from the Constitution: Article 1, Section 2 regarding quorum for the House of Bishops Meetings as part of General Convention.
“Each Bishop of this Church having jurisdiction, every Bishop Coadjutor, every Suffragan Bishop, every Assistant Bishop, and every Bishop who by reason of advanced age or bodily infirmity, or who, under an election to an office created by the General Convention, or for reasons of mission strategy determined by action of the General Convention or the House of Bishops, has resigned a jurisdiction, shall have a seat and a vote in the House of Bishops. A majority of all Bishops entitled to vote, exclusive of Bishops who have resigned their jurisdiction or positions, shall be necessary to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.“
At the last General Convention in 2006 (Journal pg 81) a understanding of the meaning of Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution and how to count the quorum was given in a note. It reads, “Note: A quorum is defined by Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution as “a majority of all bishops entitled to vote (281), exclusive of bishops who have resigned their jurisdictions or positions (156)“ Thus the present quorum is 63.“

With it so far? Good. Now consider how Harris continues:

Every session of the House of Bishops, either at General Convention or otherwise, determines to do business on the basis of the bishops entitled to vote and determines that there are enough present to conduct business by determination of a quorum. At that point the “whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” consists of those present and the “whole number” makes it clear that bishops other than those with jurisdiction may vote on the matter. To read “whole number” as meaning a reference back to all the possible bishops (300 or so) absent or present would provide the parliamentary boondoggle of making some votes based not on those present but on those possibly present. One might suppose it would be a virtue of any democratic system to insist that a majority vote ought to be on the basis of the whole body of voters on the rolls, but it would be a virtue that would either require compelling voters to be present or it would be increasingly unmanageable.

This is a good point. To read “whole number” as meaning a reference back to all the possible bishops does lead to a boondoggle (I don’t know exactly what that word means but I get the sense of it entirely). But that’s the problem that TEC has for, curiously, they have decided to use exactly the same language in one place as in another, namely

Bishops entitled to vote

Why does it mean one thing in one place but something different in another? It’s surely a principle of intelligent reading that terms are

used consistently

thus aiding understanding and dispelling confusion.

But more than that. Consider this -

Harris says:

The argument that deposition is a matter so great that a supermajority is required may or may not have merit, but none is to be found in the canons. Those who believe that the Constitution and Canons have this in mind need to show it.

Well, I’ll have a crack. The quorum is calculated as

a majority of all bishops entitled to vote

but the deposition is calculated on the basis of

a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote

The language of the latter is, by any fair reckoning, not just the same as the former but actually more expansive, if that were possible.

One more thought. We quite expect these days to see bishops twist scripture. We’ve been used to that for quite some time and it no longer shocks us. But to now see the TEC hierarchy twisting the sacred polity of TEC. Well, they must be desperate.

UPDATE
jamesw makes a very important observation on the “Let’s get to the Procedural Bottom of this” thread:

Canon III.12.8(d) makes clear what language is employed when a simple majority of those present is required, and that language is “by a majority of those present.”

Indeed, that language is used time and time in the canons. Here are the instances:

The House during its session shall accept or refuse the resignation by a majority of those present. (III.12.8.d p.111)

The House during its session shall accept or refuse the resignation by a majority of those present. (Rules of Order, House of Bishops, Daily Order, VII p.188)

If passed by a two-thirds vote of those present and voting, members of the House will… (HoB General Rules for Meeting V p.189)

ditto 190; XIV, XV, XVII , XVIIIa, p.192, etc (another 6 identical usages - all concerning the business of the House of Bishops)

Thanks for that encouragement to further research, James. Quite clearly, when the canons want a simple majority of those present, they signal so.

Posted by on 03/16 at 08:19 PM

<< Back to main

Statistics

This page has been viewed 107935 times
Page rendered in 0.7453 seconds
Total Entries: 877
Total Comments: 3530
Total Trackbacks: 96
Most Recent Entry: 11/19/2008 01:28 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 11/18/2008 01:54 pm
Total Members: 5
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 8
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 11/20/2008 04:33 pm
The most visitors ever was 96 on 07/01/2007 09:30 am