The “Sentence of Deposition” does not reflect, however, her interpretation of the canon. It includes the recitation “a majority of the members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote having consented to this Deposition at a meeting of the House of Bishops in Salt Lake City , Utah , on 18 September, 2008”¦.” That is, the Sentence does not read, following the Presiding Bishop’s own memorandum and ruling, “a majority of the members of the House of Bishops present,” nor does it recite the actual language of the relevant canon. Instead, the Sentence adopts the plain reading of the canon the Presiding Bishop overruled: “a majority of members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote having consented”¦”
Surely one thing all parties can agree on is that this did not happen in Salt Lake City . There are close to 300 members of the House of Bishops “entitled to vote.” Only 88 consented to the purported deposition. Far from a majority, this is fewer than a third of the bishops entitled to vote. So why does the “Sentence of Deposition” now concede the legal point made by bishops and others who requested canonical integrity? Is it because an accurate recitation, one using the Presiding Bishop’s own words, “a majority of bishops present at the meeting,” would be invalid on its face? This Sentence of Deposition only confirms ACI’s stated concern that the legitimacy of the House’s action and the Presiding Bishop’s leadership has been placed in serious question by this proceeding.