BREAKING: D025 from HOB Approved By HOD, Litigation Expense Debate—Live from the Floor of the HOD
Now debating received amended from the HOB:
[Unknown deputy] I hope to be a priest in this church. I am very worried about this church. I say hope to be a priest since I am not sure. So many people have left this church. Don’t leave me and my generation with half a church of none at all.
Upper South Carolina, Linder—I rise to speak in favor of D025.
In 2006 I voted in support of B033—every age has had its issues—sexuality has certainly been ours. I am fatigued with all of the time that our church has been consumed with human sexuality. Yesterday I saw our passage of D025 as acknowledgement of where we are. I believe that we have turned a major page in going forward at this 76th General Convetnion and we have done so in a most Anglican way. It is an extremely holy time that we have consensus in both houses on this issue, and I strongly believe that we should pass this unamended.
Southwestern VA: It is time to move past this resolution—this house has already decisively spoken. We have delayed this long enough. The debate is over and it’s time to vote.
[Deputy asks for an amendment—others speaking against amendment because of time constraints]
Clark, Central Florida—requests vote by orders on final resolution—SC, Central Florida and ???
Russell, San Diego—rises to support D025—not far enough or clear enough but a statement of where we are right now.
Pool, Massachusetts—As a young person, I feel the moral compass that is guiding our young people has changed from the past. And we need to align our church with that. For while we are losing some, we are also not gaining so many who are looking for something. 66% of young people support gay and lesbian rights. 91% of the young people not attending church see it as anti-gay. 82% of the attenders still see it as anti-gay. The church is there to help tend to the flock of God and we are sending the message all to often that we are not accepting gay and lesbian people. We can send a message to the entire world that all are welcome in the kingdom of God.
Maryland—I rise in support—to everything there is a season. B033 like a stomach virus has run its course. It seems to me that it is time for the shackles of B033 to be ended. [missed] Jesus calls us to love one another as He loves us. Love is patient . . . If we adopt this resolution, the Anglican Communion and TEC will continue to exist. Love is not bad it is from God.
Upper South Carolina, Zach Brown—I speak against this resolution. I have deep fears. This house is not balanced, you see that on the voting screen. My fear is that more parishes and more dioceses will leave this church. Please don’t vote on this in a way that makes more conservatives feel the way I feel now—that I’m the only one left.
SW Florida, Lewis—motion to extend debate?
Out of order—time to make that motion was before time expired.
Swan, Springfield—The president on the floor from this morning told us we could use the red and green cards to achieve balance even when not in special order.
President: I’ll confer with him later to make certain we are on the same page.
A095 voting results announced
A095 voting results [vote by orders]
6 deputations divided
Carries by 94%
6 deputations divided
Carries by 94%
D025 voting results [vote by orders]
Carries by 72%
Carries by 72%
Now debating C067—litigation expense disclosure
[Note—the HOB wishes it referred to committee; the resolution is to concur with that action recommendation by the HOB]
Lewis, SW Florida—we have urged transparency—I know as a rector of a parish my vestry seeks financial transparency, we should know more about how money is being spent
Logan, SC—reject sending to committee, vote in favor of original resolution and not recommendation
Albany—seeking transparency and openness, sharing information so that trust can be built—I don’t see how we can vote against trust, transparency, and openness . . .
Haskell, Albany—offer a substitute resolution—how to get onto the floor rather than refer to a CCAB Stewardship and Development committee
Glasspool, Maryland—asking a parliamentary question—would like to have this referred to Program, Budget, and Finance
Parliamentarian: There are two possibilities. We could propose to amend that portion of the resolution that deals with what committee to which this would be referred. The second choice would be to propose to adopt a substitute motion, and the text would be the original resolution. If we were to vote against that resolution, the deputy is correct—that resolution would die a terrible death.
Deputy—move the previous question.
Motion to terminate debate fails.
West Texas—rise to speak against the motion; it deserves to die a horrible death; put the PB and Executive Committee in a bad spot because it perhaps violates their fiduciary duty to continue the lawsuits. This is nothing more than people trying to find out about how much money we are spending, which is a strategic problem, and if people had not tried to take our property, we wouldn’t have this resolution in the first place.
Another deputy moves the question and terminate debate.
Motion succeeds—debate terminated.
Logan, SC—A rule has been violated—against ad hominem attacks. Members of this church have been referred to as robbers. That is certainly an ad hominem attack. Others have been referred to as liars. I ask for a ruling from the chair.
President: So noted.
Albany: The deputy was given wrong instructions by the chair—should he not have further time?
Parliamentarian: We follow Roberts Rules and the C&Cs—deputies should come prepared.
Seitz, WV: Was the number 555 that was needed to terminate debate? I don’t believe that number was displayed on the screen.
President: Of the people who voted [some 700] was a 2/3 majority.
Pritchard: What in the point is having the secretary read the number of votes required for a 2/3 majority at the beginning of a session if that is not the number?
President: We have a 2/3 majority of those who voted.
Pritchard: I appeal the ruling of the chair.
Parliamentarian: Rule 43 states 2/3 majority shall be construed to mean the affirmative vote of 2/3 of the house present and voting. The reason you are informed of the number at the beginning is because we are canonically required to vote. The 2/3 applies to those who have voted.
President: “I need the house to know that the chair is losing patience. If you have a parliamentary question I ask that you turn to a senior deputy. It is slowing down the house.”
C067 voted no—voted not to concur with the HOB. Resolution dies.
D037 under debate [make sure you read that resolution]
??? Deputy: 5/6 of the budget of Episcopal Communications is for Episcopal Life.
Albany: Sounds like an expensive resolution they are asking for.
???: Want to continue Episcopal Life—recent proposal from the Episcopal staff would eliminate that publication and turn it into a quarterly publication; church would be best served to have a survey decide what basis for making a decision; Episcopal Life a valuable source of connection to larger life
Rhode Island: Member of board of governors of Episcopal Life—speak in favor of resolution—talked through some initial differences with director of communications
Newark: We have to be careful not to create straw men easy to attack. This resolution does not micro-manage—it simply provides that information will be collected—it does not provide the decision that will be reached—must understand audience and what their needs are
Churches in Europe: Speak against resolution—most people not as privileged as we are to have a computer to find information if they are not provided hard copy
Move the question.
Currently discussing A052.
[Blogger’s note: The house adopted a rule that no amendments should be taken in the first five minutes of debate, since often all time is taken up with amendments rather than debating the substance of the resolution. However, there are challenges with this rule. For one thing, most of the revisionists are “calling the question” very soon in order to cut off debate. 2/3 of the house than votes to cut off debate. Thus the five minute rule for not submitting amendments then means that no amendments get submitted before the question is called. During discussion of A052, a person approached the podium to offer an amendment. He was sent back, and he then raised a point of order that he would not be able to submit the amendment before the question was called. The chair informed him that he would be the first one called once the time for amendments occurred.
Sure enough, the question was called. The President then raised her hand at the deputy wishing to offer the amendment, and informed him that if the House does not like the rule they need to change it. The vote was not in favor of ending debate, and he was then allowed to present his amendment. The exchanges were . . . tense.]
[Much of the debate centers around a belief that retired bishops do not wish to vote anyway.]
Melnyk of Florida: I have spoken with several retired bishops who ask why would they go to the expense and time of attending GC if they cannot vote. The Episcopal Church has never been for disenfranchising people and should not start now.
Question called on amendment.
Question called on motion.
President: Vote by orders because it is the second reading of a constitutional change.
Share this story:
Recent Related Posts
- Taking up the Fiddle While Rome Burns
- Don’t say I didn’t warn ya
- It’s a girl!
- A Canonical Joke
- The State of the Church - The Rev. Dr. Kendall S. Harmon at St. Paul’s, Summerville in May 2012
- ECUSA Walks Apart, Where the Faithful Cannot Follow
- [MidWeek Refresher] Taiwan Jones Jumps Out of Pool Backwards
Are you reading this?
Advertising on Stand Firm works!
Click here for details.