Before the Companies Act of 2006, the trustees of public charities could have personal liability for the obligations of the charity which they approved. The deficit run by the Lambeth Conference 2008 showed up exactly the dangers to which this kind of liability could have made the trustees of the ACC subject under the former law. This gave impetus to the move to bring the ACC within the ambit of the 2006 law, as well. (The Lambeth Conference charity itself took full advantage of the provisions of the 2006 law to limit the liability of its three trustees — including the Rev. Canon Kennth Kearon, Secretary-General of the ACC — to just £1 each. The new articles of the ACC limit the liability of its Trustee-Members to “a sum not exceeding £10” each.)
Now we have the results of this change in the ACC’s status. A side-by-side comparison of the former constitution with the new articles is instructive. The following are the highlights which this one chancellor has identified….
The previous Constitution was famously ratified by all the Provinces of the Communion. Famously, because one heard from time to time the argument that the ACC was the only Instrument of Communion worth listening to because it was the only one whose role and rules had been formally approved by the whole Communion.
Who ratified the new rules?
My guess would be the Liberals; thereby reinforcing the view that the ACC is worthless.
Right, driver8. It’s likewise often (falsely) claimed that the ACC is most the important of the Instruments of Communion/Unity because it’s supposedly the most representative, since it alone includes clergy and laity and isn’t restricted to bishops and archbishops. But in fact, the ACC is grossly unrepresentative, since the giant provinces like Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, and Sudan are drastically slighted, while teeny tiny provinces like Wales, Scotland, Japan, or Korea have a third as many reps as the big provinces, with less than 1% of their size.
Unfortunately, it seems as if the so-called Standing Committee of the AC is being implicitly treated as a 5th Instrument of Communion, and perhaps even exalted as the new dominant one, when it’s also extremely unfair and very unrepresentative in its make-up too, since membership is based merely on the artificial basis of having all five inhabited continents represented equally, which grossly penalizes Africa, where the vast majority of practicing Anglicans live.
As miserable sinner rightly noted over at Stand Firm, it’s incredibly ironic and scandalous that the process of approving the new Anglican Covenant has been subjected to a very long and public process of open debate and negotiation, while these new ACC bylaws have been stealthily slipped in under the radar. The whole process stinks like a garbade dump.
I think the Curmudgeon is right on, as usual. And he saved the best for last. I love his scathing final comments comparing the rock-solid integrity with which the noble ++Henry Orombi has acted in stark contrast with the underhanded, duplicitous actions of TEC in desperately trying to keep Ian Douglas on the now all important “SCAC.” Shame on the ACO. Is it any wonder that hardly anyone trusts them anymore??
David Handy+
ASH’s sections 9 & 10 are the most revealing: they simply demonstrate how any words (constitutional, whatever) are able to be ‘interpreted’ by actions! This coming w/e should reveal further matters no doubt …