Among other remarks about the Virginia consents issue, Jan Nunley, Deputy Director for Communication for the Episcopal church, stated this:
“The additional irony, of course, is that it turns out that South Carolina and Virginia both used that same abbreviated form. As have most dioceses, apparently, for the last ten or so years.* So if Virginia has to conduct a do-over, so does South Carolina…and so do most Episcopal dioceses for the past decade or so, more than 90 possible elections in more than 80 dioceses, by my count.”
Setting aside the fact that South Carolina apparently did not use the “short form”, for which Ms. Nunley has issued a correction, all of us are now wondering just how many dioceses have used the short form.
Is it indeed “most Episcopal dioceses for the past decade or so”?
Not according to “jim” over at Midwest Conservative Journal who not only attempted to post his comment over at the Episcopal church’s blog, but also surfed over to Chris Johnson’s blog and posted it there as a “safekeeping backup”. [Nice call, Jim! . . . “That’s a nice comment you got there, Jim. Hate for anything to happen to it, know what I mean?”]
Here is the comment in full:
“Jan, thank you for correcting one of the inaccuracies in your original post. However you still have an incorrect and rather inflammatory projection of ” more than 90 possible elections in more than 80 dioceses, by my count” as the number of elections that would require the “do-over”. I asked you to provide evidence of widespread use of the defective form. You have not provided any proof to support your claim and you haven’t corrected your outrageous projection. A quick check would have shown only 11[4 in ‘07] out of roughly 40 elections since 11-2000 used or attempted to use a defective form. A lot of numbers between 11 and “more than 90”. Remember these are only elections consented to by Standing Committees not GC. The Canon you cite [III.22.3] does not exist in the current canons. In the 2003 canons that section dealt with a Bishop’s resignation procedure…not consent during a GC. The correct canon for consents during GC are III.11.3.(b,c,d). There is no required language for this type of consent. Your reference to Article II.sec. 2 of the Constitution only reference the requirement for consent…without the procedure or requiring specific language. Did you send your readers off on a wild goose chase into the canons in order to clarify or confuse? Anyone who has read the canons would know there are different rules & requirements for General Convention consent [resolution for consent] which require a ballot and the consent from Standing Committees which requires compliance with III.11.4.b. The words in Canon are important [as well as signatures, of course]. When a bishop-elect requires consents from Standing Committees [III.11.4.b] the words in the Canons are printed in double bold & inset. The canon is specific & states that evidence SHALL be a testimony IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS. There is no room for any other words, any other form. The PB did not have any “evidence” of consent from the Standing Committees in order to determine if the standing committees had consented [remember evidence of canonical consent is defined in III.11.4.b in specific words, with no leeway for presumed ‘intent’]. Jan, why is 815 putting out so much misinformation and so many inaccurate, inflammatory statements? I was hoping for truth & integrity. It is distressing to see the Deputy Director for Communications of TEC spin so wildly out of control to use untruth, exaggeration, condescension, and now canonical wild goose chases in an attempt to cover up verifiable actions of the Presiding Bishop, her staff, and various dioceses.”