Also, this makes no sense: “if you think this canon is inadequate, I still encourage you to vote for it and then immediately start saying, “hey, could we tweak it this way? Could we adjust it this way?” Because we’ll continue this conversation into the future and that the Lord has for us.”
Why would you do things backward and approve it BEFORE adjusting it??
Are they counting on status quo bias to quell tweaks once it’s passed?
"Trust the process," they say. "You can raise that later," while bragging that the committee has outright and secretly rejected proposals in the past. Some distinctive organizational pathologies at work. The leadership needs to learn to "trust the process" rather than reducing all organizational questions to what a secret cabal in league with the College of Bishops wants.
Thank you for creating this transcript, Arlie. There were many striking aspects to this session, some already noted in the comments, but I wanted to highlight Canon Rowell saying that the GTF had recieved a proposal for canonical amendment that was not considered at all because it was putatively inconsistent with the ACNA Constitution. Why not just treat such a proposal as a constitutional amendment? Why summarily deny it? And was that denial reported to the Provincial Council and/or the Assembly before this point? It seems like the PCCC could take a page from federal notice and comment rulemaking and 1) receive proposals, 2) ensure they are in the proper form, 3) obtain public comment, 4) take the comments and proposal and circulate to the Executive Committee (not the College of Bishops!!!), and 5) make a recommendation to the PC concerning the proposal at the next annual meeting. Not hard, highly transparent, no secret decisions by the Dean and/or Archbishop, and systemic integrity is retained (established?). Why do you think they do not want to do that?
Am I missing something or does Dobbs call everyone by their proper title except Rev Amanda Rosengren?
Also, this makes no sense: “if you think this canon is inadequate, I still encourage you to vote for it and then immediately start saying, “hey, could we tweak it this way? Could we adjust it this way?” Because we’ll continue this conversation into the future and that the Lord has for us.”
Why would you do things backward and approve it BEFORE adjusting it??
Are they counting on status quo bias to quell tweaks once it’s passed?
"Trust the process," they say. "You can raise that later," while bragging that the committee has outright and secretly rejected proposals in the past. Some distinctive organizational pathologies at work. The leadership needs to learn to "trust the process" rather than reducing all organizational questions to what a secret cabal in league with the College of Bishops wants.
You're not missing anything.
Thank you for creating this transcript, Arlie. There were many striking aspects to this session, some already noted in the comments, but I wanted to highlight Canon Rowell saying that the GTF had recieved a proposal for canonical amendment that was not considered at all because it was putatively inconsistent with the ACNA Constitution. Why not just treat such a proposal as a constitutional amendment? Why summarily deny it? And was that denial reported to the Provincial Council and/or the Assembly before this point? It seems like the PCCC could take a page from federal notice and comment rulemaking and 1) receive proposals, 2) ensure they are in the proper form, 3) obtain public comment, 4) take the comments and proposal and circulate to the Executive Committee (not the College of Bishops!!!), and 5) make a recommendation to the PC concerning the proposal at the next annual meeting. Not hard, highly transparent, no secret decisions by the Dean and/or Archbishop, and systemic integrity is retained (established?). Why do you think they do not want to do that?