The 158th Convention of the Diocese of California, held at San Francisco's Grace Cathedral on Friday and Saturday, October 19 and 20, passed nine resolutions, and elected diocesan officers and deputies to the 2009 General Convention of the Episcopal Church to be held in Anaheim, California.

The week leading up to convention included a Taizé service for diocesan unity held at St. Paul's, Walnut Creek, and town-hall meetings around the diocese featuring the Most Rev. Njongonkulu Ndungane, Archbishop of Cape Town, and primate of the province of Southern Africa. Members of St. Paul's, Walnut Creek, held a reception following the Taizé service welcoming Ndungane to the diocese. The reception included proclamations from the mayor and Contra Costa County supervisors, and a short speech by the archbishop.

The 158th Convention of the Diocese of California will provide a notable change from conventions of the recent past, and events throughout the week preceding convention promise to inspire and enliven members of the diocese while calling all into a deeper sense of community.

The Rt. Rev. Marc Andrus, Bishop of California, has invited his friend the Most Rev. Njongonkulu Ndungane, Archbishop of Cape Town and Primate of the Province of Southern Africa, to be present with the diocese during the week leading up to convention, and to preach the homily at the convention's opening Eucharist to be held on Friday night, October 19, at 7:00 p.m. The entire week leading up to the convention's day of business on Saturday, October 20, will feature regional appearances by Ndungane, with opportunities to engage him on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the continuing scourge of HIV/AIDS in Africa, and his perspective on the Anglican Communion.

Questions concerning the proposed new governance structure were solicited at Annual Convention on October 20, 2007, and given to the Governance Committee for response. Some questions have been combined or shortened.


Please explain the difference between the “Board of Directors,” “Diocesan Council,” and “Executive Committee.”

Under our current structure, the Board of Directors and Diocesan Council are separate decision-making bodies. Council’s powers, enumerated in Canon 8.06, include approving the Bishop’s appointments and (in connection with its Division of Program and Budget) developing and proposing the annual budget. The Board of Directors is primarily dedicated  to controlling and managing  Diocesan funds other than the operating fund— which is the responsibility of Council. (See Canon 16.03).

Under the proposal, the two bodies would be merged into a single Executive Council, which would have increased enumerated powers, as well as all powers given to corporate boards of directors by California statutory and decisional law. However, routine management of  investments would be the function of Executive Council’s Investment Committee; members of the investment committee would have appropriate expertise.

How does the possible appointment of an assistant Bishop affect or impact the governance plan and structure?

The current proposal does not refer to a possible assistant Bishop, and we do not expect his or her appointment to have any effect on the proposed plan.

Why give the Standing Committee power to revamp deaneries? Why not leave it to Diocesan Convention? Besides, we need to maintain the integrity of our geographical boundaries, don’t we?
The Diocese of California is unique among large dioceses in having geographically-based deaneries defined in the Canons. It is usual in other large Dioceses for the Bishop and the Standing Committee to have authority to determine the number and membership of Deaneries. (Sometimes these changes occur in response to parish requests.) This proposal would bring the Diocese of California into line with general practice.

Adoption of the proposal will facilitate change in the structure of the Deaneries, but any change would likely only be undertaken after extensive consultation. No plans for change exist at present.

Note that the proposal requires a 2/3 supermajority of the Standing Committee to effect a change; this majority amounts to six out of eight Standing Committee votes. In the event of controversy, Convention could overrule any Standing Committee action. Likewise, the supermajority requirement could, as a practical matter, induce Standing Committee to take any proposal to Convention for action.

Why is there no proposal to extend the franchise of electors for Executive Council beyond deanery representatives? What about the religious communities in the diocese?

Council membership is currently determined by the Deaneries. The proposed Executive Council has a broader membership, and includes members elected at large by Convention, more ex officio members (the Chancellor, Treasurer, and Secretary of Convention join the Bishop as members) and the Bishop’s appointees in addition to members elected by Deaneries. Members of religious communities could be elected by Convention and the Bishop can select his appointees to include any otherwise underrepresented constituency (e.g., geographic or ethnic groups, or Diocesan organizations). Further, it should be remembered that Convention may also approve changes to Council membership in the future, as appropriate.
The working group did not consider religious communities directly; one reason is that they fall under the care and supervision of the Bishop and are not among those primarily impacted by the decisions of Council.

Will there be a call for volunteers to be part of a new task force? How do the deaneries participate in the ideas for reorganization? Is there a budget for this study?

If you would like to make your voice heard in connection with the current proposals, you should be active in your deanery. Deaneries are forming their own task forces to study and comment on the proposals. The deaneries will report their suggestions to Standing Committee by the end of January, and these suggestions, of course, will form the basis for proposed additions, deletions and other amendments to the current draft. The Spring Convention will vote on the proposed amendments as well as the underlying draft. An additional budget line for this deanery work is unnecessary.

The proposed structure seems to reduce lay representation. Can you speak to this concern?

Under the current canons, the deaneries elect 18 members to the Diocesan Council. Of these, 6 must be clerics, while the remaining 12 are lay members. Under the proposal, the deaneries would elect 12 members to the new Executive Council, equally divided between clerical and lay representatives. An additional six members would be elected by convention, at least half of whom must be lay. We expect that many, perhaps all, of these at large candidates would be recommended by deaneries.

Thus, while up to six lay positions might be lost, a majority (or even all) of the members elected by convention could be lay. Beyond this, the Bishop has the right to appoint up to an additional five members. Clergy-lay balance on Council is a factor that he may consider.

The membership of the Executive Council received extensive discussion in the development of the proposals. The number of members has to balance broad representation with the effective and efficient transaction of business. The difficulty is that a large membership may be inclusive, but it seldom works smoothly: the result is the “real” decisions may end up being taken by an Executive Committee of the Council that is less representative than the whole.

The “mission of the diocese” is mentioned in the summary. Where is this mission detailed and discussed?

The proposals set out the elements of a governance process. It is the responsibility of the individuals and bodies in the process to define a mission of the Diocese-- if they think it’s a good idea! The governance process should be neutral in influencing substantive decisions.

How will the new governance structure increase the expectations of potential vestry candidates that they should be aware of?

The proposals have no direct effect on any vestry candidate. However, under the proposals, vestries would timely receive the Diocesan Budget and have a better opportunity to participate in the process of comment. Further, given the increased responsibilities of the Executive Council, we hope that Vestry members (and others) will see Deanery and Council positions as more interesting and attractive than in the past.

Why use the term “Executive Council,” which would create confusion with the National Church’s body of the same name?

The name was much debated, and “ Executive Council” was suggested by the Bishop. The Standing Committee concurred.

How would the Bishop’s responsibility to the Episcopal Homes Foundation and similar organizations change under the proposal?

The Bishop’s responsibility to the Episcopal Homes Foundation and other 501(c)(3) organizations affiliated with the diocese would be unchanged.

Will the assessment formula be reviewed as part of the governance review?

No.

How will the proposal impact paying for the Beloved Community?

The Executive Council will be responsible for funding the efforts. Our hope is that the Council will be more effective and efficient than our current processes.

Currently, the corporation sole has legal responsibility for maintaining mission properties, among other matters. How will this be accomplished under the proposed structure?

Although the corporation sole holds title to certain mission and other properties, operational responsibility for them rests in the Diocesan Department of Missions. Executive Council will oversee the Department of Missions and the department will continue its role in relation to mission properties. However, title to mission properties would be held in the name of the diocese.

Can the incorporation of the corporation sole into the diocese actually be accomplished?

The final determination rests with the Bishop. There are many advantages to effecting the change including a reduction in audit expense.

If a gift restriction prevented the transfer of a particular asset to the diocese, some vestige of the corporation sole might have to remain to hold that asset for the benefit of the diocese.

The graphic of the organizational structure poorly illustrates feedback lines, especially from mission churches. Will a more complete graphic be prepared?

The lines in the graphic should imply two-way communication. It is possible that we could develop a matrix approach that would show interactive patterns more clearly.

 

Supporting material for the 158th Annual Convention of the Diocese of California, October 19-20, 2007

• Bishop's Address
• Archbishop Ndungane's Sermon 

Financial Reports

• The Episcopal Bishop of California, A Corporation Sole: 2006 Independent Auditor's Report & Financial Statement

Convention Booklets (PDF format) 

Note: Background page colors will display on screen but will not print.

• Convention Booklet (2 MB)
  
• Day Of Convention Materials (420 KB)
• Survey of Global Relationships (supporting material for the companion diocese resolution; 2.8 MB)
• Convention Booklet in Spanish (2 MB)
  

Please be mindful of paper usage and do not print extraneous materials. If you need a paper copy, several are available from Diocesan House; please contact Monica at 415.869.7814.

Additional Reports

• Report of Commission on Marriage and Blessing (PDF, 3.77MB)
• Episcopal Diocese of California: 2006 Independent Auditors Report and Financial Statements (PDF 66kb)
• The Episcopal Bishop of California, a Corporation Sole: 2006 Independent Auditors' Report Financial Statements, and Supplemental Information (PDF 64kb)