Committee 7: Social justice and United States policy

5 Responses

  1. SarahELawton@gmail.com says:

    Hi again, Scott. A few thoughts about these (you knew I would).

    As you know, I appreciate our policy resolutions. Our Office of Government Relations does effective coalition work in Washington DC with other faith groups, and has productive conversations (and prayer!–they offer morning prayer for the Episcopalians on the Hill) with policy makers in both the legislative and executive branches, even in this time of polarization. Along with many other Episcopalians, I always respond to the action alerts put out by the Episcopal Public Policy Network based on our resolutions, and I read the thoughtful educational materials they put out with the alerts. I frequently refer to these actions and resolutions in my own local community work, and I know others do as well.

    I also know our Office of Government Relations is careful not to go outside the bounds of our resolutions in the work they do, so our policy resolutions enable our very dedicated staff to speak for us when they would not otherwise be able to do so. When I write a resolution I usually ask OGR to look at it to identify any concerns–they don’t make the policies, obviously, but I want our resolutions to be helpful for them. I try to fill in policy gaps.

    Along those lines, with regard to the traffic fatality resolution, it’s my understanding from talking with OGR staff that there indeed are opportunities to engage with some of these issues at the federal level now, but OGR has not been able to respond to these requests because neither General Convention nor Executive Council has ever addressed this issue. At the local level, lots of us are involved in local advocacy as individuals and even congregations in issues of traffic calming, support for pedestrians and cyclists, and support for public transit as a justice issue; it would be great to be able to cite this resolution and possibly OGR materials in this work, to have moral language, not just pragmatic language, on the issue. (By the way, this is a very personal issue for me since my parents were killed in a car crash 33 years ago on a terrible undivided highway that is known for its many fatalities; while I didn’t write or submit the resolution, I encouraged my DioCal deputy colleague to do so.)

    With regard to the child labor resolution, which I did write, you asked about the Executive Council Committee on Corporate Social Responsibility, which I happen to chair right now. The answer is yes, CCSR has received direction from the General Convention and the Executive Council many times over its 50+ year history! We’ve been asked to advocate as a shareholder with companies on many issues, and in some cases to set up screens to divest from companies on issues such as tobacco, private prisons, fossils fuels, militarism, and human rights.

    Here’s why we need resolutions like this one to guide our work. Each year CCSR creates a big workplan, including a plan for proxy voting (which we do in partnership with CPG); a plan for about 40 advocacy actions–letters to circulate, meetings with companies, etc.–to be carried out with our consultants, Mercy Investments and Heartland Initiative; and, to a much smaller degree, we may propose to add some companies to our No Buy list based on the screens that we have been directed to set up by General Convention. We then submit our annual workplan to the Executive Council for approval. We have to justify this workplan based on the resolutions passed by General Convention and Executive Council–we are not making up Episcopal Church corporate advocacy policy on our own! CCSR works very closely with the director of OGR, who sits on the committee as a staff liaison, to understand our policy resolutions and what we can and cannot say based on the policy resolution given to us by General Convention and Executive Council.

    It’s true that CCSR already has some very general General Convention policy language on labor violations in the supply chain to work with, but I can tell you it would be helpful for us as a committee to have stronger and more specific language (which we can use in the advocacy work, in the meetings and letters, etc.) regarding the surge of child labor violations and the well-funded and coordinated attempts by some industries and companies to change the laws at the state and ultimately federal level. And it is a surge: since 2021, twenty-eight states have introduced bills to weaken state laws regulating child labor, and twelve states have enacted them as of February 2024. As you know, in my secular life I work in at the intersection of research and labor (hence my role in Frances Perkins winning the Golden Halo in Lent Madness in 2013, as you may recall) so I’ve been following the child labor surge with great concern. I highly recommend reading Hannah Dreier’s series in the NYTimes (gift link below) to understand the surge in harm being done to children right now, involving products we all purchase:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/25/us/unaccompanied-migrant-child-workers-exploitation.html?u2g=c&unlocked_article_code=1.xE0.yuLL.kTmfQb48skOn&smid=url-share

    Guantanamo: I wrote this one as well. It’s been a long time, almost two decades, since we said anything at all, and never at General Convention; and while I agree it’s not helpful to reiterate policy positions over and over, the situation on the ground in Guantanamo has changed: quite simply, most people have forgotten about it; they think the Obama Administration took care of it, or they want to forget, so the early momentum from the Obama years to resolve the situation has slowed. This is a case where a little attention is good. I mentioned the work of OGR because they have been among the only faith voices still speaking (on our behalf) on this issue in Washington, in collaboration with the National Religious Campaign Against Torture. Guantanamo detention center, the torture that happened there and the men still held without charge, is a moral stain on the United States.

    I don’t expect this resolution to take much time in legislative committee and probably none on the floor, but I think it’s worth registering after all these years that we are not forgetting the men who are languishing there, and and to say that we uphold their dignity and the rule of law. It will give a boost to those who are still working on this issue, after all these years.

    Finally, regarding prison abolition. Yes, it’s a complex issue, and a complex industry, but worth grappling with at a deeper level than just passing this and that resolution. Jesus actually talked about prisoners. What is the Gospel call here to us as disciples? I would call attention to the recent essay in The Living Church by Hannah Bowman, who is not a deputy but is one the authors of the resolution. Yes, she is involved in this work on a deep level: https://livingchurch.org/covenant/abolition-is-gospel-work/. I think she raises important Gospel questions and I hope this resolution will push us to engage in them more deeply.

    Okay, this was a responsa-palooza to your post! As always (how many years now?), I appreciate the opportunity to engage on these topics, even when we disagree. For me, this work is part of my discipleship. I can’t separate from my prayer life, from my congregational life (we’re a very active, largely LGBTQ urban church in the anglo-catholic slum church tradition; or from works of service and mercy (my church is open from early in the morning to evening to serve our unhoused neighbors, so we are deeply involved in service as well as advocacy). It’s Christian life for me, to bring these concerns forward. I’m always happy to have conversation about them, and I’m willing to learn from the other deputies and bishops in the room.

    Faithfully,
    Sarah Lawton
    Lay Deputy, California

    • Scott Gunn says:

      Dear Sarah,

      Thank you! I *knew* you’d have something to say about these resolutions, and I’m grateful for your time in sharing your comment.

      It’s interesting that CCSR has received direction over the years from GC. I makes senses, given the way we’ve done things. One of the things that I think we disagree about is that when we DO take policy decisions, my sense is that we’d be better off with the smallest group possible doing that work, because I think it’s more likely people will have time to do the in-depth work. At GC, I worry that many deputies and bishops don’t make time to do much homework, and we are more likely to weigh in unhelpfully. But, as you say, I’m ready to learn from deputies and bishops in the room.

      In a time of strident disagreement and dehumanization, I’m especially thankful for your gracious comments and for your efforts to educate me and others. If we could all learn to speak with graciousness more often, our church and our world would be better off.

      Peace,
      Scott

      • SarahELawton@gmail.com says:

        Thank you, Scott.

        I will say that the public testimony I’ve heard this year, even though only two minutes, is often quite thoughtful as well as passionate — and I do appreciate zoom hearings for public testimony. What I miss is the committee deliberations together in person; I think we’re missing something important by not being in the same room. I recall a labor resolution I brought forward in 2018, on just transition / decarbonization issues; even though I wasn’t on that committee that year, I ended up going for coffee with a subcommittee member of that committee who was focused on this resolution, who was from Pittsburgh. He had a perspective on fossil fuel extraction as a driver of the economy, and he also had a perspective on the importance of labor. He wanted to understand the reasoning behind some of the specific policies in my resolution. We had a lovely conversation, batted around some phrasings and ideas, and the resolution ultimately passed in a perfected version that was made better by his amendments. We had enough spaciousness and openness to have that conversation, and it was good. That’s I missed in the Covid convention of 2022. I’m missing it now in our online deliberations (not the testimony, but the committee conversations).

        Anyway, thank you for your kind words. Graciousness is something I value in many of my interactions at General Convention and I hope to model it.

        Blessings,
        Sarah

  2. SarahELawton@gmail.com says:

    Also – for more on CCSR’s work over 50+ years, we have a video! Just 30 minutes but lots of info:
    https://www.episcopalchurch.org/video/the-ccsr-story/

    It did take a policy resolution to move our Church forward on opposing apartheid – and we helped to kickstart a faith-based investor movement in corporate shareholder advocacy.

  3. Sandy says:

    I very much appreciate your focus on the efficacy of resolutions and supporting resolutions that involve action over stating opinions. This perspective is badly needed in today’s world.

Leave a comment!

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