After all the dedicated work of the bishops and deputies at General Convention, Straub reports that only 19 resolutions were not acted upon at the General Convention 2009.
Of the 19, Straub said, most were duplications of those that had been submitted and parts had been incorporated into resolutions that were considered. “Legislative Committees routinely ask to be discharged from considering further this kind of resolution, but by the end of Convention, committees are meeting only to vote on resolutions that have been amended by the other house,” he explained. “These were left behind.”
He added, “Five resolutions were incomplete: that is, they were perfected by a legislative committee, debated and voted on in one house of convention, but for one reason or another (usually time), the matter never came to the second house.”
This is disconcerting.
[blockquote]“General Convention passed a resolution authorizing the secretary to refer incomplete resolutions to an interim body,†Straub, who serves as secretary, explained. “It is my decision to forward resolutions that have been perfected by a legislative committee and debated and passed by one house to a Standing Committee of Executive Council.â€[/blockquote]
That’s scary.
What a great way around GC! This is sure to be a hit with EC who don’t need GC approval to turn the ECUSA/TEC into pro-abortion groupies! http://www.rcrc.org/about/members.cfm
Now, the only limit is what resolutions can’t get time at GC! Watch out for the back door at next GC – now it’s swung open wide and inviting like!
#2 – this is not a new idea; it is the standard operating procedure to ensure that all gc resolutions are dealt with. hence, to trumpet it as a sneaky new tool to pass controversial resolutions seems fairly asinine, since all gc attendees know that difficult and hot-button resolutions are given the most time on the floor and have special orders written to ensure that they are adequately addressed during the convention proper.
Yes, #3, like allowing the evaluation of the EC decision on ECUSA/TEC involvement with the RCRC to come under GC consideration post facto being squashed. It is the further usage and encouragement of SOP to achieve ends beyond the pale even for the radical lefties of the GC “delegates” whose consciences form a barrier to the more “justice”-minded. I’m not trumpeting it, I am observing what has happened. Thucydides et alia.
i think it’s a bit dramatic to imagine that there is a covert conspiracy to save up all the radically liberal resolutions to the end in hopes that executive council will move on them unopposed.
1) gc elects members of executive council, so why should they choose people who would support these radical resolutions which they themselves might oppose?
2) again, controversial resolutions which stand a chance to pass have specific special orders devoted to them, they aren’t saved for the last moment unnecessarily.
3) the same argument could be made to suggest that a vast right-wing conspiracy should save up all their pet resolutions for the end in hopes of them passing without reaching the house floor, but that doesn’t happen either.
I haven’t imagined it. I merely note that the EC is given to handling things as it wishes without regard to GC, in the face of GC, and to the detriment of a large number of fetuses. They would act differently in the future on similarly liberal biases? Based on what? Based, indeed, on whom on the EC? Enjoy the unique polity to the max!