Amendment to the Charter of the Synod

Connor L. wrote: I was telling you it was arbitrary... :huh: I thought that was clear.

Yes. I saw that. But thats not what I was asking which is why I asked again. Perhaps if you didn't understand what I was asking then you should have clarified.


I was not asking why it was passed during the meeting. I was asking why that specific time period. What is it about that particular time period that people feel it qualifies it as appropriate. Jamie answered with the response that it is a time period thought to be both generous but fair. Long enough to allow people to resolve any lifestyle issues and make a decision about being ready to return or leave one way or the other. I personally think that its an overly long allotment of time in which to sort oneself out, but I suppose thats not really relevant.

All I wanted to know was why that time frame. Not why it passed or whos idea it was.

So, your answer, despite your assertions that its the same thing, is NOT the same as Jamie's.

It amazes me how someones intention can be lost in semantics - it happens to me all of the time. I'm reminded how I like to use the word interrogate (out of habit for aircraft transponder systems), but everyone thinks I mean torture!!! LOL, ooops, when the intent is actually more like the formal questioning of something. I think some people have walked away thinking I'm a nutjob from things like that
:lol: :pinch:

What is it about that particular time period that people feel it qualifies it as appropriate. Jamie answered with the response that it is a time period thought to be both generous but fair.

What else could have motivated their choice? Irrationality and unfairness?

Jamie answered with the response that it is a time period thought to be both generous but fair.

Ah. Well, that's another matter. Sorry about that. I just figured that since it was not discussed, extrapolating Jamie's answer would be pointless. Nobody ever said "it is a time period thought to be both generous but fair" during the meeting. It was only implied.

Yes. It wasn't addressed. Which is why I asked.

There's no need for that Ren. The answer could just as easily been "Alex read somewhere that 1 year was the average accepted LOA time for a not for profit sub committee in the UK"

This thread was to make an announcement. It was not meant to open a debate.

The debate was done in Clergy General Session. It required really very little "debate" to come to this 'arbitrary' decision on a time that was generous and fair. The decision was made there ; this announcement is simply to let everyone know about it ...

The transcript of the meeting is a public record. The way the decision was arrived at is there.

This is not a debate. Not was it intended to be one. I asked a question. The answer to which I could not divine from the transcript. Hence why I asked.

And it was duely answerd so I'm unsure of why the flapping

Brenna wrote: Yes. It wasn't addressed. Which is why I asked.

There's no need for that Ren. The answer could just as easily been "Alex read somewhere that 1 year was the average accepted LOA time for a not for profit sub committee in the UK"

No need for what? Pointing out the obvious answer to a meaningless question? This isn't about LOA, but the maximum length for a temporary appointment to a secretarial position. The way I see it there is no limit on the number of temporary appointments that can be made, only a limit (of one year and one week) per appointee, if that appointee is a seminarian but not a clergy person... That appointee must still be elected the regular way, and I guess would have the limit lifted by becoming a clergy person within the one year and one week time limit.

Now of course you could ask whether this is what they meant to do when they announced there was a need for an amendment, or forgot what it was supposed to be about, or purposefully chose to make something incredibly simple look incredibly complicated, maybe there's more coming... I don't have access to that public record, so I can't look at the conversation that led to this.

ren wrote: The way I see it there is no limit on the number of temporary appointments that can be made, only a limit (of one year and one week) per appointee, if that appointee is a seminarian but not a clergy person... That appointee must still be elected the regular way, and I guess would have the limit lifted by becoming a clergy person within the one year and one week time limit.

ren, that was also covered: the purpose of the year-and-a-week is specifically and solely to find a permanent applicant for the position. If the lieutenant appointed for the interim expresses an interest, they will apply the same as anyone else. Regardless, after the year-and-a-week, according to the discussion that took place in the meeting, there would be a permanent appointment of someone qualified to that position, and thusly, no more interim replacement.

Whether or not that is accurately reflected in the amendment is something I haven't double checked, because I'm on the wrong side of a long, long day and I'm out of coffee and patience. But that was definitely the discussion that was had, and that was definitely the intent.

As far as Seminarians in positions, that was also addressed--mostly by seminarians themselves--and that has also been resolved to satisfaction, as far as I am aware. We felt that only clerical applicants should be entertained for permanent Synod positions, but that seminarians are appropriate for interim secretarial duties (but not other interim capacities). I brought this up, as a seminarian, and other seminarians agreed with me. Clergy--licensed or ordained--are allowed to submit applications for Synod positions, but seminarians are (as written in bold in the OP) limited to interim secretarial positions.


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

If people wish to have further discussion about absolutely anything to do with the clergy/synod then they are welcome to bring it up at our next clergy meeting or start a thread on here about the issue in particular.