Committee 18: Title IV disciplinary canons

5 Responses

  1. Paul Ambos says:

    I think A052 is intended to create an Accord with no disciplinary content.
    A105 fixes a hangover from elimination of Provincial Courts of Review that was overlooked because that section didn’t contain the word Province. Better late than never.
    Other similar errors on other resolutions should have been caught by Legislative Committees but weren’t. Maybe in 2027.

  2. Thank you for you thoughtful commentary. Will you (or someone) do a scorecard indicating how each of these resolutions made it through the process? Which ones made it out of committee and on to the floor, and then how each house voted? Again, thanks!

  3. Paul J Stephens says:

    Having received input and drafting assistance from my Province IV colleagues, at General Convention in Austin I introduced D064 which was adopted. It amended Canon IV.14.12(a) and (b) so that disciplinary matters would be included and disclosed in a clergy person’s OTM. At the time of my retirement from active ministry in early 2023, The Office of Transistion MInistry had yet to implement this Resolution in the OTM system. It would appear that A026 is somewhat duplicative of D064; however, if A026 is adopted, I hope that it will cause the OTM system to be promptly updated so disciplinary matters would be disclosed.

    • Scott Gunn says:

      But the problem with updating the OTM system is its absolutely atrocious security. If we put confidential information there, we are essentially publishing it for all to see. We need to take the time to design a more secure system — and to rebuild the OTM site from scratch. As I keep saying, I don’t blame current staff. We have not been willing to spend the money to fix this. And we seem to lack technology expertise at the churchwide level. Probably ought to fix that, too.

Leave a comment!

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