Care with the Blue: Joint Standing Committee on Governance and Administration for Mission

Continuing my series on the Blue Book, we now come to the Executive Council (EC) Joint Standing Committee on Governance and Administration for Mission.

Summary of the Report

The mandate of the Joint Standing Committee on Governance and Administration for Mission (GAM) is, you guessed it, matters of governance and administration. Specifically, they focus on the functioning of EC as a corporate board, the operations of the Episcopal Church Center and other administrative tasks. They also are responsible for reorganized and renewing dioceses in our church.

During this triennium GAM sought to bring "a more regularized corporate style" to the functioning of EC. They proposed revisions to the bylaws to cover issues of conflicts of interest and other aspects of administrative functioning. They also brought more plenary time to EC agendas, adding a day to their meetings.

They participated in the creation of the job description and the calling of Fr. Geoffrey Smith to the position of Chief Operating Officer and the calling of Douglas Anning as Chief Legal Officer. The participation of EC in both of these calls was reflective of changes made at the 2015 General Convention in response to the original changes proposed by the Task Force for Reimagnining the Episcopal Church (TREC). You can read the new process online here, along with the other changes General Convention approved in the area of restructuring.

They also participated in the work that reviewed the culture of the Episcopal Church Center, work led by Human Synergistics. They participated in Mutual Reviews of EC, the Presiding Bishop, and senior staff (another new process brought about by the General Conventions response to TREC). They created protocols for the screening and qualifying for nominees for church wide officers with a significant level of fiduciary responsibility. They worked with the Joint Standing Committee on Finances for Mission (my review of their report is here) on a new budget process, consulted regarding issues of litigation, and reviewed the questions of outstanding loans to the continuing diocese of San Joaquin.

They took on the work of three resolutions from General Convention 2014. Their report includes much of what they did with resolution A004 (the one which restructured EC). They forwarded B021 which dealt with funding to Finance for Mission. Interestingly, together with Finance for Mission, they decided not to take up resolution A032, creating a Coordinator Position for Women's Ministries Network. (They number is at A023, but that is a typo, they mean A032).

Response to the Report
Though this report seems pretty basic, I see three separate significant actions this Committee has taken on. First off, the facilitation of giving EC a greater role in the oversight and hiring of three senior staff is significant, as is the creation of Mutual Review processes with those staff and the Presiding Bishop. At times these relationships have been fraught—and anyone who has been in a parish where the Vestry and Rector are not working as a team knows how painful and detrimental to the mission of the church that is. By working more collaboratively, and engaging in regular mutual reviews of ministry (note: that is different than just reviewing staff, it is instead a mutual review), my hope is that we will have a stronger relationship between EC, the Presiding Bishop, and the senior staff which help lead the work of the church.

Second, the review from Human Synergistics about the workplace culture at the Episcopal Church Center was a devastating review. As one article on the report notes, it has a culture marked by "fear, mistrust and resentment." Clearly, significant work needs to be done. I've had the blessing of working with staff from the Episcopal Church Center and have always found them to be remarkably helpful and committed Christians who are giving everything they can to the thriving of TEC. We need to do better.

That said, I watched the live webcast of the report from Human Synergistics and though I found their findings to be tremendously troubling, I found their prescriptions significantly less helpful. I hope that the work this Committee is doing is, nonetheless, cultivating a better relationship and working environment for the dedicated staff at our church wide office.

Finally, I'm a bit puzzled by their decision not to take up resolution A032. Together with Finance for Mission, their report says the two, "determined this triennium was not the time to establish this position." I find their decision not to do this work troubling because the resolution passed by General Convention itself in 2015 was rather clear:

Resolved, That the 78th General Convention direct the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society to establish an independent contract employee or staff position for women’s ministries and networks in the amount of $150,000 for the triennium; and be it further

Resolved, That this person be empowered to serve as a network catalyst to existing movements and programs across the Church, mobilizing women leaders, both lay and ordained; and be it further

Resolved, That the 78th General Convention request the Joint Standing Committee on Program, Budget and Finance to make available sufficient budgetary monies to the Executive Council Committee on the Status of Women to provide additional seed money to be used to create a self-sustaining model for a vibrant network of women’s ministries across the Church.

This was a resolution which, when first proposed, Fr. Gunn indicated was one to which he was likely to vote no. He said so because he believes that the problem identified is real but the creation of a staff position was not the best way to deal with the problem. I am likely sympathetic to his view: staffing a problem is indeed often a reactive fix that doesn't acknowledge true systemic issues that the organization itself needs to address.

However, I find myself scratching my head because the resolution didn't ask the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society (DFMS) or the EC to consider this idea. The Convention directed this position to be established. That means a majority of the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops concurred that this position was needed in our church. I am uncomfortable with a committee (or two committees) of Executive Council refusing to do the work that General Convention directed them to do.

I am particularly uncomfortable with it when the issues is as important as this one. We have been ordaining women to the priesthood for over forty years. And yet, if you spend some time with the latest Episcopal Church Compensation Report, you will notice that though women make up a little more than 37% of the clergy of our church, they only makeup 23% of senior clergy positions in parishes. Conversely, they make up nearly 53% of assistant positions. They also make, on average only 88% of what their male colleagues make.

We have been ordaining women to the episcopate for nearly thirty years. And yet, the current make up of the House of Bishops is largely the same as it was twenty years ago—particularly when you look at diocesan bishops. Well-qualified women who would serve as excellent bishops are put on slates but then diocesan conventions, more often than not, elect male candidates. We even have tried to create a program, Cast Wide the Net, to remedy this reality.

In my own life, some of the most effective priests I know are among my female colleagues. It grieves me that they are not afforded the same opportunities and the same respect as male clergy. And even when they are able to serve, they are often subjected to jaw-dropping sexual harassment (see some examples online here).

In our #MeToo era, the failure of the EC to heed the strong voice of General Convention is entirely unacceptable. I hope a similar resolution is put forth once more this summer and that it is taken seriously this time.

Note: You can click here for a list of all Blue Book Reports & Resolutions that have thus far been reviewed.