ARP Synod 2010: My Thoughts

[sastark]

For anyone interested, I have posted a three-part series on this year's General Synod of the ARP. The series is titled 'The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly'.

Part 1, The Good, is here.

Part 2, The Bad, is here.

Part 3, The Ugly, is here.

 

[Scott1]

This is all hard to understand.

Can you clarify what happens July 1 when the newly elected Board members take office- is this a good thing?

Was it part of the "compromise"?

 

[sastark]

Scott: In my opinion, it remains to be seen whether the newly elected board members are a "good thing" or not. I am of the opinion that the nominees suggested by the Special Committee of Moderators would have been the best, but the men on the Committee on Nominations thought that their slate of candidates for Erskine's Board was the best. There is a series of comments between me and "Eric" on my "Part 2: The Bad" post that tries to clarify that issue.

As I understand, the "compromise" was that the denomination not attempt to restructure the Board (that is, reduce its size as it had resolved to do at the called meeting of Synod in March) and Erskine would withdraw the lawsuit against the denomination. You can read more about this compromise at The Aquila Report (you'll have to scroll down a bit to get to the part about the compromise).

 

[Scott1]

Perhaps this will be helpful to others as well.

From your blog...

Eric said...

So let me get this straight:
-- The Committee on Nominations (CON) has the responsibility of presenting nominees for Erskine's Board of Trustees (BOT) to Synod.
-- The Special Committee of Moderators (COM) was formed in March to suggest nominees for the Erskine BOT to the CON.
-- At the 2010 June Synod, the CON presented to Synod nominees for the Erskine BOT.
-- At the 2010 June Synod, a motion was made to substitute COM's suggested nominees for the BOT for the presented list of CON nominees.
-- At the 2010 June Synod, this motion was defeated and the CON's nominees were presented.
-- At the 2010 June Synod, the presented nominees for the BOT were approved by Synod.

Is all of that correct? Were the CON's nominees presented before or after the motion was made to substitute the COM's list?
June 14, 2010 3:01 PM
Seth Stark said...

Yes, I believe you have the series of events down correctly. Procedurally, it went like this:
1. The CoN presented their report, which contained certain recommendations (as all reports of Committees to Synod do). One of the recommendations was that the nominees listed therein be approved.

2. While that recommendation was being considered, an amendment to that recommendation was made from the floor, substituting the names of the COM suggested nominees for the CoN nominees.

3. Debate ensued, and ultimately, the amendment was defeated.

4. After the amendment was defeated, the original recommendation was voted on and passed. Thus, the slate of nominees from the CoN was approved by Synod.

 

[louis_jp]

Haven't they been going with the nominating committee's nominees for the last 50 years or so? What's different this time around?

 

[sastark]

Well, Louis, that's the million dollar question, now isn't it?

 

[Marrow Man]

The difference this time around is that one of the recommendations passed at the March meeting of General Synod was that the Committee of Moderators submit a list of names to the Nominations Committee for their recommendation. The NC did consider the list and wound up placing 2 men from the COM's list on the NC list. In the process, at least one person (recommended by the Erskine Board) was removed from the slate. One of the delegates to Synod attempted to get that person's name back on the NC list, but that motion was overwhelmingly defeated.

So, the difference is that the NC at least considered the slate from the COM instead of simply passing along the recommended Board list to General Synod.

 

[louis_jp]

I guess that's progress anyway.