Now, almost one year after having left The Episcopal Church (TEC), we look back at our experience and some frequently asked questions regarding our departure.
Now, almost one year after having left The Episcopal Church (TEC), we look back at our experience and some frequently asked questions regarding our departure.
How very sad that, for whatever reason, the Diocese of Virginia abandoned the honorable and Christian approach they had begun with these parishes. Truly tragic that such an opportunity to set a high standard for dioceses across the country was thrown away. It appears the blame probably lies with KJS and Mr. Beers.
[blockquote] I do not know what happened to cause the diocese to renege on its prior agreement. Some people suggest that they have come under last minute pressure from the national Church. I do believe that there are still good people at the center of the diocese administration and that common sense will return. There was no reason for the diocese to initiate legal proceedings against these congregations, or for the national church to insert itself into the negotiations.
…Church of the Word, like the other congregations, acted honorably by first negotiating an agreed upon process for departing congregation with the diocese and then we followed the process faithfully. The diocese began honorably by negotiating and approving the same process but later reneged on this agreement, perhaps under threat or pressure from the national church. We pray that the diocese will keep its word and return to the protocol. [/blockquote]
The $64,000 question: Did 815 so meddle in the protocol that it had the net effect of the diocese reneging on it? Here’s a smoking gun for the attorneys.
“After we had voted to receive the protocol a discussion then ensued as to whether to ‘receive’ a report, was the same thing as to ‘accept’ or ‘approve’ one. The general sentiment expressed was that there was no practical differences in the use of the words receive, accept or approve and that the diocese was going to provide resources for its part of the agreement.”
This is the part that has continued to confuse me, when reappraisers state bluntly that the protocol was only ‘received.’ If the diocesan leadership meant that the protocol was only valid as long as the discerning parishes voted the way the Diocese wanted, then that was disingenuous. Bishop Lee and the Standing Committee were both free to reject the report as the basis for negotiation. When they began contributing pro-diocesan materials to the discernment process they implicitly – if not legally – endorsed the protocol.
[blockquote]’Question: Why do you “adopt” the Auditor’s Report instead of “accepting” or “receiving” it, or does it make a difference?
Answer: Yes, it makes a difference. RONR says that “to adopt” or “to accept” are equivalent terms and the effect is identical. Adopting or accepting an Auditor’s report means that the assembly has become accountable for the report and is in agreement as to its accuracy. That is very different than just casually saying, “Okay, thank you, that was an interesting and informative report.”, which is really all that is done with most reports during the year that are just “received” and “placed on file”.'[/blockquote]
Refer to Roberts Rules of Order (RONR pp. 490-401); from [url=http://www.parlipro.org/mindbenders/mindbender0505a.htm]ParliPro[/url]
However, the issue is complicated by a couple of other facts:
(i) If, as reported here, there may have been unethical or mistaken behavior – preferably the minutes corroborate the discussion, demonstrating that acceptance of the report was the intent.
(ii) The internal mechanism of approval for the diocese may be irrelevant. The diocese, a legal entity, was in discussions with this church, another legal entity (though possibly not incorporated in VA). Execution of a stand still contract, or other indicia of acceptance of an agreement by the diocese – such as supporting actions, may provide evidence of diocesan agreement.
Thus, wrt point (ii), parliamentary procedure may be relevant for the internal governance of the diocese – but it may not be relevant as to whether the diocese had entered into a binding agreement, or had somehow otherwise induced reliance upon its words and actions.
Just for completeness’ sake, here is [url=http://www.thediocese.net/News_services/property_dispute.html]the Diocese of Virginia version,[/url] with supporting documentation.
That is a very interesting link, DR, with all the court filings, not just those of the Diocese. (Or I assume all. Maybe the lawyers will note if there are any significant ones missing.) Thanks.
However, the facts still seem to support that the “we received it but never really accepted it” argument was only ginned up after they decided to renege. Maybe we’ll have to wait till we see the depositions and discovery. Wonder if they will post those.
Not doubting in the least that this is what Adams+ heart of hearts believes to be true. But, wouldn’t the Diocese merely agree that here may have been confusion among the Exec Committee and Standing Committee regarding the “reception” of the report. The standing committee and bishop “clarified” what this meant through several press releases and statements culminating in the bishop’s letter of Dec 1, 2006. By then it was clear to all, if you take the property with you there will be consequences.
Agreeing to disagree,