As part of those concrete steps to rebuilding trust, I hope that the CoB is considering these questions:
What is the plan for releasing the Lathrop report? This report examines the Provincial Office’s handling of the disciplinary process for Bp. Stewart Ruch, and its publication (with appropriate redactions) would increase transparency and display a desire for accountability. (Additionally, thoughtful preparation will avoid the problems that plagued the release of the Husch-Blackwell report during the investigation into Bp. Ruch.)
Will the transcripts of the Ruch trial be released? Given the many irregularities in that trial, making the transcripts available would show that the province is willing to be transparent about its own processes.
Will the College release the presentment against Bishop Edgar? As of now, we do not know what charges were brought against Bp. Edgar, nor who brought them, which shrouds the disciplinary process in secrecy and veils potential conflicts of interest on the part of the presenting bishops.
As the province transitions to the new disciplinary process outlined in the recently passed revisions to Title IV of the canons, how specifically does the province intend to care for reporters and whistleblowers? What are the protections against retaliation for those who raise concerns?
What specific steps will the province take to rebuild trust after the Wood trial concludes? Regardless of the outcome, the ACNA must grapple with how to move forward and demonstrate its commitment to caring for reporters and keeping the disciplinary process transparent….
What message does it send to the province that a presentment could be filed so swiftly against Bp. Chip Edgar for blessing a school chapel [as I have noted elsewhere this is NOT the heart of the issue it is participation in and reception of the Eucharist] alongside an Episcopal priest, while it took significantly longer—and much persistence from reporters—for presentments to be filed against Bps. Ruch, Jones, and Wood?
Read it all.
