For those watching, the first vote tallies on the amendment to the diocesan constitution were just read. If I heard correctly they were: lay order 177 voters present, 118 yes, 58 no, 1 abstention, in the clerical order 133 voters present, 109 yes, 24 no, no abstentions.
Jeffersonian,
To answer from someone who is in a diocese that did this very thing last year:
DP’s Resolution One is the first reading of a constitutional amendment changing the usual accession clause. A second (and final) reading will have to be passed at a subsequent diocesan Annual convention for the amendment to be final. This action today brings Pittsburgh up to speed with San Joaquin, at least until December, when DSJ deals with their second reading of the same.
As noted by Bp Duncan and in the diocesan FAQ’s, the matter of actual realignment will be dealt with in a separate resolution (amendment, really) AFTER the second reading is passed (“tentatively” next November).
Well, I didn’t exactly forget, Cennydd. I just didn’t want to add in any more details to what is a complicated process (not that you couldn’t handle it, Jeffersonian!)
But now that Dee and Connecticutian have raised the issue, here are some other details. The timing of the subsequent convention is defined by the diocesan canons. And then it will focus around the canonical requirements for getting resolutions posted to the diocese prior to that convention. For instance, San Joaquin requires 90 days. So conceivably the 2008 diocesan convention could be moved up (by valid action) from its usual October time to, say, March. My guess is Pittsburgh could do the same; maybe Quincy. But who knows.
Jeremy,
Forgive me for asking since I am not in DP, nor was I there at the convention visiting, nor do I have a copy of DP’s Canons. But isn’t the requirement for the first reading of a constitutional amendment only a simple majority? Then the second reading must be the super-majority? Or were you instructed to understand the necessity of a 2/3 majority the first time around?
I erred on this point. We only need a simple majority on both votes (which seems odd to me, but there you are).
Jeremy
Article XV
Alteration of the Constitution
This Constitution, or any part thereof, may be altered in the following manner only: The proposed alteration or amendment shall be submitted in writing to the Annual Convention, and if approved by a majority of each Order, shall lie over to the next Annual Convention, and if again approved, by a majority of each Order, the Constitution shall then stand altered or amended as proposed.
For those watching, the first vote tallies on the amendment to the diocesan constitution were just read. If I heard correctly they were: lay order 177 voters present, 118 yes, 58 no, 1 abstention, in the clerical order 133 voters present, 109 yes, 24 no, no abstentions.
Kendall, was that the resolution regarding realignment?
Jeffersonian,
To answer from someone who is in a diocese that did this very thing last year:
DP’s Resolution One is the first reading of a constitutional amendment changing the usual accession clause. A second (and final) reading will have to be passed at a subsequent diocesan Annual convention for the amendment to be final. This action today brings Pittsburgh up to speed with San Joaquin, at least until December, when DSJ deals with their second reading of the same.
As noted by Bp Duncan and in the diocesan FAQ’s, the matter of actual realignment will be dealt with in a separate resolution (amendment, really) AFTER the second reading is passed (“tentatively” next November).
RGEaton
Just asking, is it possible for this convention to change the convention date of 2008 to an earlier month in 08? Like January
Dee, they have some flexibility, but not that much. Maybe October-ish.
Fr Eaton forgot to mention that our second vote requires a two thirds majority, versus the simple majority of last year’s vote.
Thank you, Father Eaton.
Well, I didn’t exactly forget, Cennydd. I just didn’t want to add in any more details to what is a complicated process (not that you couldn’t handle it, Jeffersonian!)
But now that Dee and Connecticutian have raised the issue, here are some other details. The timing of the subsequent convention is defined by the diocesan canons. And then it will focus around the canonical requirements for getting resolutions posted to the diocese prior to that convention. For instance, San Joaquin requires 90 days. So conceivably the 2008 diocesan convention could be moved up (by valid action) from its usual October time to, say, March. My guess is Pittsburgh could do the same; maybe Quincy. But who knows.
Kendall,
Those are the figures that I have too, so it all hung upon a single vote in the lay order (we needed a two-thirds majority).
My report is now up for those who are interested.
http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com/2007/11/diocese-of-pittsburgh-convention.html
Jeremy,
Forgive me for asking since I am not in DP, nor was I there at the convention visiting, nor do I have a copy of DP’s Canons. But isn’t the requirement for the first reading of a constitutional amendment only a simple majority? Then the second reading must be the super-majority? Or were you instructed to understand the necessity of a 2/3 majority the first time around?
Rob,
I erred on this point. We only need a simple majority on both votes (which seems odd to me, but there you are).
Jeremy
Article XV
Alteration of the Constitution
This Constitution, or any part thereof, may be altered in the following manner only: The proposed alteration or amendment shall be submitted in writing to the Annual Convention, and if approved by a majority of each Order, shall lie over to the next Annual Convention, and if again approved, by a majority of each Order, the Constitution shall then stand altered or amended as proposed.