Blue’s Clues: Task Force on the Episcopacy

mitres

This is the twelfth post in Blue’s Clues, a series on the resolutions and reports of the Episcopal Church’s General Convention. The index of posts is here, and my index of resolutions and likely votes is here.

This is our second post on all things bishop. Yesterday, we looked at the report of folks looking to improve the Presiding Bishop election process. Today, we are looking more broadly at issues around the discernment, election, transition, and deployment of bishops. Blue is going to have a purple nose by the end of all this clue-looking among bishopy reports!

I’m pleased to share a happy coincidence. This task force (created because of 2015-D004) generated 34 resolutions. That’s a lot of writing for your author and a lot of reading for you. Fortunately, this task force also offered an exceedingly well-written and compelling report. Normally in these posts, I try to summarize the most important or interesting bits in a report, hoping that this will help you as you wade through the Blue Book. But this time, I’m going to say very little about the report. They cover important stuff, and they do it very well. You really need to make yourself a cup of tea (or coffee, but it should be tea, because bishops) and curl up to read the whole thing.

They’ve addressed several issues. First, our House of Bishops is about as un-diverse as it could be. It’s 90% men and 90% white. The task force proposes some ways to understand how this is happening and what we can do about it. Second, our canons are inconsistent. There are major issues left out (such as consistent background checks) and plenty of places where details in the process need to be filled in. Also, there’s flat-out discrepancy. Which is it, Bishop Suffragan or Suffragan Bishop? The task force endeavors to sort out these and many other issues.

If you were looking for a quick fix for our monochromatic dudefest in the HOB, you won’t find it here. This is more of a long-term systematic approach. Maybe that’s the right approach. But I do want to be clear, we could, if we wanted to, implement immediate fixes.

  • We could say we’re not going to allow men to be on bishop slates until the HOB is ___% women.
  • We could require diversity of particular kinds on slates. And we could require diversity training for electing conventions.
  • We could switch (permanently or for a time) to an appointment process, instead of elections. I’m not the only one who noticed that almost immediately after the Church of England approved women bishops, their HOB become more diverse in terms of sex than our HOB, though we had a 20 year head start.
  • We could establish a centralized discernment system for those who are called to be bishops (a kind of churchwide COM for episcopal elections) and that group could give dioceses slates of qualified and diverse candidates. Being centralized, one could carefully measure along suitable criteria for non-discrimation and diversity provision.

There are other options. The point is, we shouldn’t be saying, “We can’t do anything now.” We can do something, if we choose to.

I have other thoughts on the episcopate, but I want to get right to the 34 resolutions. After I make it through the Blue Book, I hope to get back to this topic. It’s important. We have lots of work to do, and plenty of repentance is in order.

As you read about the next 34 resolutions, I hope you’ll join me in hoping that — before next General Convention — someone clarifies that there’s no prize for the committee with the most resolutions.

With that said, you really want to go ahead and read the task force’s report. Now, on to the many, many, many resolutions.

A138: Transmission of Demographic Data from Episcopal Elections. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution would require the collection of demographic information (“the name, age, race and ethnicity, gender, number of years since ordination, diocese of canonical residence and … other demographic data or other information”). There is a separate resolution which would require the publication of the information. We need to collect information like this, so that we can understand at which point(s) we are failing to honor the diversity of people who might be called as bishops. Is it in the nomination phase? The search phase? The election? Let’s get the info so we know.

A139: Analysis of Data from Episcopal Elections. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution takes the data from A138 and calls for “one or more experts in data analysis to analyze the demographic and other data received from the electing dioceses, and when a sufficient number of electing dioceses have reported, but at least triennially, report the results of the analysis, in such form as the Board shall deem appropriate, to the Executive Council and triennially to the General Convention, the reports to be made public promptly after review by the Executive Council.” Yes, yes, yes. Let’s get the facts out there for all to see.

A140: Diversity Guidelines for Episcopal Elections. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This would require “Section III (Diversity) of the Blue Book Report of the Task Force on the Episcopacy be provided to dioceses at the beginning of their search process along with … other information with respect to diversity…” We need Standing Committees, search committees, and electors to understand the issues at stake. Let’s get them the info.

A141: Training of Transition Consultants. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

In bishop search processes, most dioceses engage search consultants. This resolution encourages dioceses to engage consultants who have been fully trained on diversity issues. It makes perfect sense.

A142: Adoption of Episcopal Election Procedures by Dioceses. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution “recommends that each diocese adopt policies and procedures and, where appropriate, canons, for the election of bishops that are consistent with the principles and values presented in the Task Force’s Blue Book report, to foster diversity across the Church’s leadership, including its bishops.” I’d prefer to see REQUIRES instead of RECOMMENDS, but we don’t live in that church. So I hope this passes as a way of changing the culture to make better practices the norm.

A143: Study Career Development of Female and Minority Clergy. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This is a short resolution with a mighty purpose, “That the issue of how dioceses and the Church can better invest in the career development of women and racial/ethnic minority clergy be assigned to an appropriate interim body for study and consideration, with an analysis and recommendations to be reported back to the 80th General Convention.” This will need committee work to phrase the resolution into proper language to create a task force, but it needs to happen.

Our church’s entrenched sexism and racism is both astonishing and sinful. Let’s have the courage to look into the mirror, as a church, and see where we need to repent. Spoiler alert: we have a lot of work to do. This report will surely report pay discrimination, job placement discrimination, and workplace harassment. Lord, have mercy.

A144: Diocesan Missional Review. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

First of all, I don’t like the word “missional” but I’m willing to own that as my issue. Otherwise, I like this resolution. It would require, before elections, that dioceses take a hard look at themselves for health, vitality, and sustainability. Those are my words, not the words of the resolution. One would hope that this would happen anyway in the course of a bishop search process, but perhaps not to the extent this resolution envisions. There’s no downside to this work, only upside. It makes sense to me.

A145: Urging Adoption of Local Canons Relating to Episcopal Elections. Full text. Likely vote: NO.

This resolution asks that dioceses pass canons to clarify and improve the process of electing bishops. A set of topics is listed, but there are no model canons. More to the point, if we want to enforce a consistent election process across dioceses, let’s fix it at the churchwide level. I don’t see, without specific examples and without a firm requirement, how this resolution will accomplish anything.

Now, that said, I do agree that dioceses should have a consistent, transparent, and clear (as in, clarified) election process, and that is not always the case. So next time around, maybe we can address this at the churchwide level with canons that govern how dioceses elect their bishops.

A146: Revisions to The Raising Up of Episcopal Leadership – A Manual for Dioceses in Transition. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Just before I left the Diocese of Rhode Island, we were embarking on the front end of a bishop election process. I remember the diocesan council meeting where a representative from 815 came to meet with us. He plunked down a giant three-ring binder on the table and said, “This is how you’ll elect your next bishop.”

So, on the one hand, yay? The binder (the inside of which I’ve never seen) apparently governs all the details of how to elect a bishop. But the process there was created by folks without any churchwide accountability and it imposes rules that are made up. “You have to have a discernment retreat of short-listed candidates to decide who is on your slate” or whatever. There’s no canonical mandate for most of it. And most dioceses feel that they must do as their told on this front.

So I’m in favor of this resolution for a number of reasons. It proposes an update to that giant binder. The process of updating the contents will be done with some churchwide accountability. The contents of the binder will, I hope, become public. And it needs to be updated with current and potentially new ways of running search and election processes.

I hope the new process document also makes clear that is required and what is suggested. Anyway, it’s time for an update, so I’ll gladly vote for this. (Note to the legislative committee: make sure you assign accountability here. To whom is this revision to be given?)

A147: Pilot Board for Episcopal Transitions. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution creates a “pilot Board for Episcopal Transitions.” Among other things, it’s the body that would receive and publish the data in resolutions A138 and A139. This board would also look at the whole process, including many of the issues enumerate in the manual revision of A146.

I think I’d prefer to have this group constituted as a task force, with a clear goal to recommend improvements to the process at the next General Convention. Then, if they see a need for an ongoing group, it can be continued. If we think we need a permanent group to be created immediately, and it would not be hard to convince me this is true, then I’d like to see it called a Standing Commission. I think “Board” comes with connotations of independence from other churchwide structures that can be confusing. Example: the former deployment board.

I do agree we need a group of people focused on our episcopal election situation in this triennium, and perhaps beyond. I’m glad to vote for this, whatever the group is called.

A148: Amend Canons III.11.1, III.11.3 and III.11.9(c). Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution gets very specific about requiring thorough background checks of all nominees for bishop, including checks for substance abuse. It governs the retention of data and so forth. This is a good idea, and I hope it passes.

I should note that all of this comes from a reaction to the Heather Cook incident. Here’s the thing. We have identified culpability in Heather Cook. We have identified culpability in our failure to have an adequate background check process. We have, however, failed to acknowledge culpability in the systems of our church. Cook’s substance abuse problem and arrest record were known to authorities in the diocese and the Episcopal Church. We have not held anyone other than Cook (or a generic failure to have a thorough background check) accountable. Until we, as a church, are willing to face our broader complicity here and other times, we will continue to have problems.

Think we learned from Cook? A little over a year ago, I was at a major church-wide conference. There was a reception that had been advertised featuring local beers (probably against guidelines we passed in 2015). At the reception, I asked for a glass of water. “We only have beer.” So much for equally attractive non-alcoholic options. And, yes, I spoke with organizers of the event. My point is, we have a bigger problem than this resolution addresses.

But I will gladly vote for this. It’s a start.

A149: Reorganize the Board of Directors of The College for Bishops. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

The formation of bishops is overseen and led by the College for Bishops. Long story here, but it’s an organization run by bishops for bishops. This resolution would ask the College for Bishops to change their bylaws to make their board of directs not just bishops, but also presbyters, deacons, and lay people. The idea is this bishops are being formed for the whole church, and so their college should have accountability not just to bishops, but to the other orders and to lay people. I wish the resolution “required” instead of “urged.” Glad to vote for this one.

A150: Amend Article I.2 of the Constitution. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This just cleans up language (Bishop Suffragan instead of Suffragan Bishop) and clarified what it means to say that a bishop has jurisdiction. “Bishops who exercise or have jurisdiction are those who exercise ecclesiastical authority in a diocese or other jurisdiction of this Church.” This is the first in a long series of resolutions with clarify language in our constitution and canons. I’ll be voting yes to these.

As an aside, our constitution and canons are a mess. There are probably 100 resolutions at this convention to fix mistakes and tighten stuff up in our canons. What really needs to happen is a fresh start from a blank page. But, for now, let’s fix what we can.

A151: Amend Article II.4-8 of the Constitution. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

More language clean-up and clarification here. Also, there’s the invention of a new category of bishop, “Bishop Diocesan Pro Tempore.” This is for when a Bishop Suffragan becomes temporary head honcho if a Bishop Diocesan leaves. Seems a bit silly to me, but whatever. Given the silly hats bishops wear, no one can possibly object to silly titles.

A152: Amend Article III of the Constitution. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This literally fixes a typo. Canon->Canons. Whatevs.

A153: Amend Article IV of the Constitution. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

You say suffragan bishop, I say bishop suffragan. Tomato, tomato, potato, potato.

A154: Amend Canon I.13.3(a). Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Someone realized that “Diocesan Authority” isn’t a thing. So the change removes the phrase and replaces it with “the Convention of the Diocese.”

A155: Amend Canon III.5.1 (c). Full text. Likely vote: YES.

More language clarification.

A156: Amend Canon III.11.1. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

From the explanation, “The Canons currently provide that, prior to holding an election for a Bishop Coadjutor or a Bishop Suffragan, a diocese must receive the consent of the bishops and Standing Committees; this amendment extends that requirement to other episcopal elections [suffragan, assistant, etc.].” Fine by me. When the dust settles from all these canon changes, if they pass, the current practice of bishops appointing “assisting bishops” will go by the wayside, I believe. Seems fine to me. Let’s have a standardized, transparent process for all bishops assuming leadership position.

A157: Amend Canon III.11.2. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Fixing typos and such.

A158: Amend Canon III.11.3(a)(1). Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Under this canon, if a person elected as bishop is currently a priest, that priest must be in good standing. Makes sense.

A159: Amend Canon III.11.3(a) (third paragraph) and Canon III.11.4. Full text. Likely vote: YES, but hoping for an amendment.

When a diocese elects a bishop, other bishops and standing committees must consent to the election. This resolution changes the time limit from 120 days to 60 days. We live in the age of email, not the age of horse-drawn wagons. Makes sense to me.

Maybe the canons committee is fixing this (I haven’t looked yet), but I’d like to see them also explicitly permit electronic consents and so on.

A160: Amend Canon III.11.9(a). Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Eliminates redundant language.

A161: Amend Canon III.11.9(b). Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Eliminates redundant language.

A162: Amend Canons III.II.9(c)(1) and III.11.9(c)(4). Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution “clarifies the processes for election a Missionary Bishop, including the need to comply with the consent and missional review process” proposed by the task force.

A163: Amend Canon III.11 to add Canon III.11.10. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This resolution temporarily adds language to the canons clarifying what it means to say a bishop has jurisdiction; this will eventually be obviated by the constitution change of A150.

A164: Amend Canon III.12.2. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

At the moment, bishops are required to take advantage of continuing education. This resolution adds a bit of accountability, “Each Bishop shall report all continuing education taken during the calendar year to the Secretary of the House of Bishops, who shall keep a record of the continuing education taken by Bishops.” However, there are no apparent consequences for failing to do so, nor are their provisions for public reporting. Still, it’s a step in the right direction.

A165: Amend Canon III.12.3 to add Section 3(f). Full text. Likely vote: YES.

This one creates another new category of bishops called Supply Bishops, resigned bishops who can help out a bit. (Basically this is the same thing as “Assisting Bishops” do now.) If we’re going to keep creating categories of bishops, I hope we’ll also add one called Bishop McBishopface. I’m not sure what that would mean, but I would LOVE to see it listed in service leaflets.

A166: Amend Canon III.12.4(c) and add Canon III.12.4(d). Full text. Likely vote: YES.

When is an episcopal see vacant? Now we know.

A167: Amend Canon III.12.5. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Assistant bishops would have to be elected rather than appointed, and if they’re coming from other provinces of the Anglican Communion, they have to know stuff about the Episcopal Church. It all makes sense.

A168: Amend Canon III.12.9(a). Full text. Likely vote: YES.

Retired means retired. When bishops reach age 72, they can’t exercise jurisdiction, even if they say “pretty please, with a cherry on top.”

A169: Amend Canon III.12.9(l) and Canon III.12.9(m). Full text. Likely vote: YES.

More language clarification, in coherence with A167 and A168. Makes sense to me.

A170: Amend Canon III.12.12(a). Full text. Likely vote: YES.

If a diocese and its bishop are going through a pastoral dissolution process, the bishop being ousted now will get a copy of notice. Duh.

A171: Amend Canon III.13. Full text. Likely vote: YES.

From the explanation, “Some dioceses have had the Suffragan or other Bishop act [as temporary bishop with jurisdiction] and this amendment provides a Canonical process for these options.” Makes sense.

 

Congratulations, you made it through a marathon of 34 (!) resolutions.

Fin.

Photo by yours truly, from Sé Catedral, Lisbon.

You may also like...

11 Responses

  1. I have to say, I think you’ve hit on something. A TEC commission on ministry comprised of a diverse group of people involved in a discernment process for candidates for the episcopacy, sort of a TEC BACAM as it were, is a brilliant idea.

  2. Thomas C Fitzhugh III says:

    While I recognize the disparity in the gender and race of most bishops. what is our overall ethnic composition? Compelling diversity for its own sake is not especially appealing if our membership is a high percentage of one group or another. And forcing minority candidates who have no chance of being elected is not going to improve the perception of minorities or the electoral process.

    • Scott Gunn says:

      All that is in the report. The Episcopal Church is 55% women, but our bishops are over 90% men. The USA is 73% white, the church in the USA is 87% white, and our bishop are 90% white.

      As for “no chance of being elected,” I think we’d have to examine what that means. WHY do you think someone who is a “minority candidate” has no chance of election? What does our poor record of electing women and people of color on slates say about us?

      Absent racism and other bias, the demographics of leadership and of our church should reflect wider demographics, no? Our 90+% male House of Bishops speaks volumes, and what it says is a call to repentance.

  3. John Miller says:

    “The Task Force considered including in the proposed canonical amendments on background
    screening and evaluations specific requirements covering with whom information about the
    screening and evaluations must be shared at various points in the search and election process.
    However, it became clear that the issues surrounding evaluation and disclosure of such information
    are especially sensitive and potentially complex.” This paragraph and the fact that the committee felt the need to take a pass on it concern me on both ends.

    As we say in the Cook case, her 2010 DUI was known to people in the search process and an intentional choice was made not to disclose that information. There are some things that need to be disclosed and it should be clear what they are.

    On the other hand, I have been the victim of a hostile psych eval by an psychologist with an ax to grind. As a candidate subject to these requirements, one could have slanderous half truths published with no recourse to challenge the misinformation. Particularly in fields as subjective as psychology and medicine, there need to be some standards for presenting a second opinion and correcting factual inaccuracies.

  4. Ronald H Clingenpeel says:

    Your reading of the report assumes that the material included in that report is factual or at least the idea of the committee itself. Unfortunately, information given to the Task Force for study and contemplation (at points) was either ignored or disregarded.

    Here are some examples:

    1. Consultants are trained. They also participate in quarterly teleconferences to talk about issues, concerns, ideas, new methods, etc. The last training was in November 2016, and material was reviewed, etc. Many of the consultants have long tenures as transition ministers or have served on Search and Transition committees before they became consultants. The report assumes that training consultants is a new idea.

    1a: It is up to a Standing Committee to decide about hiring a consultant. Office of Pastoral Development gives them names of consultants who are available, but the Standing Committee an hire whomever they want or no one at all. One diocese chose to hire someone who had no experience in Episcopal elections.

    2. The manual, as it exists, is the child of a long process of ideas, trial and error, and rewriting and editing. The original manual was written with help from NECCA members and laity in cooperation with Bishop Hopkins when he was head of the Office of Pastoral Development. Over the years it has been edited and rewritten. It is given to Standing, Search and Transition committees as a road map. Although your anecdotal story of what happened in Rhode Island may fit your memory, in reality that is not the way the Standing Committee receives initial aid from the Office of Pastoral Development. The initial meeting with the Standing Committee is to go over calendar, processes available, requirements (background checks of which I will comment more later), and the possibility of connecting with a consultant to help with the process. It is the decision of the Standing Committee on how to proceed. Yes, the manual does need to be updated and rewritten — the consultants have been talking with OPD about this for several years.

    3. Resources are collected, organized, maintained and updated by the consultants. This comes under the heading of best practices. The consultants have been gathering materials used by the various dioceses for years — budgets, walkabouts, retreats, interview questions, etc., etc., etc. Those resources are maintained in a Dropbox account and are available to all the consultants to share with a diocese at any time. New resources are added, some are edited and those that no longer aid in elections/transitions are deleted. These resources and , the experience of the consultant are the primary material committees use. Also, in many cases, diocesan committees have developed their own materials that fit best practices. There is a ton of information and resources available to the committees now.

    4. Culture. One has to say this. Every diocese has its own culture. There is no one Episcopal Diocesan Culture. Doesn’t exist. How an election is conducted in Massachusetts and Haiti must be different because of the culture. North Dakota and Kentucky each have cultural differences. In other words, best practices, rather than a “one size fits all” approach works immeasurably better. Good consultants are able to assess the culture of a diocese and in union with the committees move forward on a plan that works for them.

    5. The reality of an election in contrast to the assumption of what it “ought” to look like. a) committees have been very attuned to diversity over the last 10 years. With the exception of one diocese of which I am aware, they have all worked to seek candidates of differing gender and ethnic background. Please don’t assume this has not been the case. I have seen this transformation. It comes from two sources: more candidates from diverse backgrounds offering themselves for the process and the recruitment of a diversity of candidates. b) the real issue is not the Search committees –although anecdotally there are exceptions. It is the electorate who make the decisions. Walkabouts make elections and the voters are mostly influenced by the candidates as they participate in the walkabouts. That is where decisions are made. A great candidate who does poorly during the walkabout (and I’ve seen this) will not be elected. AND, until the laity (mostly) are conditioned to look at all the candidates equally, elections will be determined by them. In the most diverse slate ever in the Episcopal Church, a former member of the Standing Committee told me the moment the slate was announced: “It really doesn’t matter, the laity are going to vote for the white man.” That person was right.

    6. Background checks: The report assumes that these are either being done haphazardly or not at all. Both assumptions are untrue. Everything recommended in the report is currently the standard operating procedure in procuring background checks. The one thing that no one can guard against is lying. People lie on background checks. The background checks cannot be perfect, but they can be diligent and they are. The real problem is when we deal with foreign countries where information may not be as free flowing or accessible. In addition, Search Committees call references during the process.

    7. A huge problem with the ministry team proposed is that it does not seem to have accountability. Is it to General Convention? The GC Office? The Presiding Bishop? The Office of Pastoral Development? It is also not clear who is accountable to it and at what level? Your suggestion of a task force for a triennial period is a much better recommendation.

    I could go on, but suffice it to say that this information was available to the Task Force (and more) while writing the report.

    I learned years ago to fact check reports from interim bodies. Not that they do things intentionally, but that because of the nature of the work, the time from between meetings, the influence of one or a few members, etc., there is often much more to the situation than is reported.

    I am, by no means, recommending the resolutions be dumped, but I would hope the legislative committee with this material seeks adequate information before making recommendations.

  5. Mary Beth Rivetti says:

    Thank you for this detailed work. I have some thoughts on a couple of these resolutions that might be worth discussion.

    On A 156 – I’m not sure that bishops suffragan/coadjutor/assisting fall into the same category (creating the office of a bishop where previously there was none before) as a bishop diocesan (wherein the existence of diocese itself presumes the presence of a bishop). I can understand the need for “missional” analysis, and its benefit to the process for nominating a new bishop, but I would nonetheless strike the bishop diocesan from the text of that resolution, lest we get sidetracked from the effort at transparency and consistency.

    On A 159 – while I look forward to tightening that schedule from 120 days to 60 days, there are some things that move much more slowly than the consent process for the HOB and the several Standing Committees. Before we get to that part, the bishop-elect must be examined by medical and psychiatric professionals designated by the Office of Pastoral Development, with that exam report then reviewed by the pastoral development office. It only takes a few elements (a limited supply of available psychological professionals, a vacation or illness delaying reporting; confusion in the Office of Pastoral Development about the location of far-flung western dioceses) for the time to slip by before the bishops and dioceses set to work. Sixty days would be ideal, but we may need at least 90 to get the work done.

    Again – thanks for this detailed work

    Mary Beth Rivetti
    c3 Spokane
    President, Standing Committee

  6. David Knight says:

    Having just returned from Province IV Synod there was much confusion over A167 – Assistant Bishops being elected. I think this is a terrible idea. The average bishop election costs over 180K! Assistant Bishops are typically what these resolutions now call Supply Bishops and they give the Diocesan freedom to call a Bishop to assist her, from the “pool” of existing Bishops. I think it makes far more sense to do two things: 1) whether we call them Supply Bishops or Assisting, this category should be for calling someone who is already a Bishop to a part time position, and 2) Remove the restriction on the number of Suffragan Bishops (Article II.4 of the Constitution) a diocese can have.
    We were told part of their logic in changing Assistant Bishops to be elected, had to do with a diocese like Texas who needs more than two Suffragans and would like a minority candidate for Assistant Bishop (since they can’t elect any more Suffragans) but the pool is just not there. So let them elect another (or as many as they want) Suffragan, opening it up to a regular election process and not limiting them to existing bishops.

    • Scott Gunn says:

      My assumption is that electing Assistant Bishops would be done the way it is usually done for provisional bishops these days; there is an election with one name. This is not for NEWLY ordained bishops, but when a diocese wants some help from a recently resigned bishop. If I’m wrong about that and an (expensive!) election process is envisaged, then I would agree with you. But if my understanding is correct, there would essentially be no additional expense. The only difference is that a bishop would have to go to the standing committee / convention for approval, and I think that’s not a bad idea.

    • Scott Gunn says:

      Oh, and thank you for your comment. Please do leave more, if you’re so inclined!

Leave a comment!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: