ACC-14: Did the Members Know What They Were Voting On?

A transcript of the proceedings at ACC-14 on May 8, 2009, when the Council voted in conflicting ways on key votes, raises the important question of how many of its members, including officers and proponents of key amendments, understood what they were actually voting on when they narrowly passed an amendment intended to open Section 4 of the Anglican Communion Covenant to "possible revision." The source of the confusion arose from multiple attempts by a minority of members generally opposed to the covenant to derail Section 4, a key section. Their first attempt was a resolution, Resolution A, that would have removed Section 4 and sent the Covenant to the provinces without that section. Resolution A had been debated and was pending before the Council when it broke for lunch. Even supporters of the efforts of The Episcopal Church to remove this section acknowledged at the lunch break that the tide was against The Episcopal Church. (The post acknowledging this has since been removed from the website where it was posted.) Following lunch, a new tactic was unveiled. Duplicative resolutions and amendments were presented to the members, at first simultaneously and later sequentially, to defeat or delay Section 4. But Resolution A had already been introduced by the Chairman of the Resolutions Committee as the proposed vehicle for making the key decision on whether or not Section 4 should be included in the text that would go to the provinces. And when Resolution A was finally put to a vote, it was voted down overwhelmingly. Indeed, after that vote, the Chairman of the Resolutions Committee noted that despite confusion on the multiple other amendments and resolutions, Resolution A was understood: I should thank the house for the debate on the principle of whether we want Part 4 in the Covenant or not and I think until we got confused before lunch we actually had quite a straightforward debate on that issue, and I thank the house for that. Thus, the position of the Council on the necessity of keeping Section 4 was properly debated and decisively expressed. As Chairman Fitchett suggested, the confusion grew worse after a lunch break when Archbishop Aspinall of Australia tried to introduce into the middle of the debate new language variously characterized as a new resolution and as an amendment to one or more pending resolutions. The resolution that was still pending when debate resumed after the lunch break was Resolution A. But without first voting on Resolution A, the members began debating the Aspinall proposal. Some members quickly objected. First, Stanley Isaacs of Southeast Asia objected to the consideration of Archbishop Aspinall's new proposal, referred to both as an "amendment" and "Resolution C", while the original Resolution A was still being debated: So I don't see how we can, we can, we are going in circles.   We really are going in circles.   Let us not play around.   I think we are playing around with the bulk. Archbishop Aspinall - I thank you for your attempt, I am quite sure you are sincerely trying to make an attempt to try and find a way out....Personally Bishop Chairman I would like to suggest- let us just try and get ourselves going. I would like to propose that Resolution A be now put to a vote. Let us just vote on it and if that is carried, then we will just have to look at the next resolution. Thank you very much. The Chairman, Bishop John Paterson of New Zealand, rejected this request and characterized the Aspinall proposal as an "amendment." Although not clearly stated, he apparently meant as an amendment to the pending Resolution A because that would have been the basis for allowing debate on the amendment to continue: It is my judgment that this is an amendment which has been properly moved and needs further debate before it can be put or be moved or put anything at this stage. This led to a point of order from an unidentified member: Point of order. Point of order. Chairman I don't see how we can go for new Resolution C which is really an amendment to B when we haven't resolved A. [murmurs of hear hear] I don't see how we can jump to C. The Chairman rejected the point of order: There is a question before the house and before we decide I think we need to hear some more voices. He then called on Archbishop Mouneer Anis, Primate of the Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East: With all my respect to the wisdom of my colleague Archbishop Phillip Aspinall, I see that Resolution C is also deferring Section 4. In this way I see it not very different from Resolution A - and I am confused. I am confused why Resolution A will be given the priority to be discussed and then now Resolution C will be given the priority to be discussed. Is this an attempt to put aside Resolution B? Why, why we give the priority - why not to discuss Resolution B in the first stage? Why to discuss the contrary first? Janet Trisk of South Africa, who would later propose the amendment to Resolution B that narrowly passed, then characterized that same language, the Aspinall proposal, as an "amendment" not to Resolution A, as did the chair, but to both Resolutions A and B, although she too is clearly confused: I am probably as confused as the rest of you but as I understand this amendment, what it is trying to do is to amend both A and B and incorporate them in a new Resolution C. So we're not losing the issues in A, we're not losing the issues in B, but we are trying to deal with them so that we don't end up with confusion. Then followed another native English speaker, Sarah Tomlinson of Scotland: Um, as well a little overwhelmed by the number of A's B's and C's being, you know, dropped around the room, but regardless of, you know, points of process. Next, Mrs. Jolly Babirukamu of Uganda: I am speaking with pain. Section B - we spent almost a whole day in Joint Standing Committee drafting this resolution and as members of Joint Standing Committee we agreed presenting Section B to the Plenary. Now we are discussing Section A and B and I thought we had the right motion, voting either for A or B. Now comes in Section C. Brothers and Sisters, do we have the spirit of discernment among us?  Is there any kind of the devil trying to craft and change things and some amendments that we take a different direction?   Did we pray to ask God's guidance about this?   I don't know whether this is the devil's plan to make us change everything and I fancy, because this is, some of them are getting angry and getting confused and I just believe Section C is a purpose to bring confusion in the house [murmurs of agreement].   Can I ask that we go back to Section A and B and be more organized and orderly and know what we are doing rather than having more confusion.... Later Archbishop Thabo Cecil Makgoba of Southern Africa tried unsuccessfully to clarify, but he regarded the Aspinall proposal as a separate new resolution, not an amendment: Thank you Chair.  Perhaps in terms of my system, I just want to pause before I say what I want to say so that I allow the spirit of prayer to help us.   The second point is just to support, and I am grateful to Bishop Phillip for this resolution because what it does, it addresses at least what we are raising and it provides the issue of process - and if you look at the new Resolution C quite carefully, the old A is covered by (c) and (d) and the old B is covered by (a) and (b) in the new resolution and the old C is covered by (c) and (d), sorry (e) and (f). Let me start. The old A is covered by (c) and (d), but at least in terms of (c) and (d) we are given process in terms of how to go forward - and the old B is covered by (a) and (b) [voice interrupts (e) and (f)] "¦ yeah (e) and (f) and the old B is covered by (a) and (b).   So there is really nothing new in terms of this it is just the re-organization of the old resolution, but what it does in terms of old A, it helps us in terms of process and so I thank you Bishop Phillip for providing another process for us.   Thank you. To which the Chairman responded: Thank you, we are coming to the point where we do need to decide which Resolution we now focus on, sorry Chris, I didn't spot you there. Then Chris Potter of Wales, another native English speaker: Chair, members of ACC.   I thought I was confused, and I am even more confused now.   I want to go back to Resolution A and propose that we vote it down and go straight to Resolution B. Next, two members spoke to "Resolution C". Bishop Mpango of Tanzania objected because it had not gone through the proper process for producing resolutions, and Kate Turner of Ireland spoke in favor of Resolution C notwithstanding the ongoing debate on Resolution A. Eventually, the Chairman unsuccessfully sought clarification from the Chairman of the Resolutions Committee: Let me just ask for clarification on that question that has been asked: has the Resolutions Committee had a chance over the lunch break to look at this C or not? The reply from Dr. Anthony Fitchett of New Zealand, Chairman of the Resolutions Committee and another native English speaker, indicated that he had no idea even as to what language was being discussed: Mr. Chairman. The Chairman of that Committee has not. [Pause] I think that if I could make a comment on process, Mr. Chairman, we have been talking about this being an amendment. I think we are actually discussing what the process shall be as to whether we consider C in place of considering A then B. It's slightly complicated because we are really part way through discussing A - and I would be interested to hear the wording of the amendment we are said to be discussing. I think it's probably a separate amendment which says we discard A and B and adopt C for discussion, but I would be helped if I, it was clear as to what the precise question is. The Chairman, Bishop Paterson, also of New Zealand, did not share Dr. Fitchett's understanding of the effect of the new material and objected to his use of "discard," but also seemed no longer to maintain the understanding he originally articulated in overruling a point of order that what was being discussed was an "amendment" to Resolution A: I doubt very much that using a word like discard is going to help us. What I understand to be the purport of this proposed C is to keep before us all of the original large B, and to insert, for us to decide whether we want it or not, two small pieces of the former A. So we will not be discarding B. It is all there. The question before us is whether we wish to proceed to take option, Resolution C as the way we will proceed. That's the one we have to decide... Significant is the Chairman's understanding, which he consistently expressed until his ultimate reversal of opinion, that the Aspinall material included "pieces of" Resolution A and that its purpose was to "insert, for us to decide whether we want it or not" those pieces. In other words, two separate steps were signaled: first insertion and then decision as to whether it was wanted. At this point there occurred the first of two key interventions from the Archbishop of Canterbury: It does seem to me that procedurally the simple, huh, simple way of dealing with this - having seen C, what we've seen is effectively two possible amendments to B - two additions to B. Having seen that I think we should vote on A, and then move to B and the extra material in C is moved as an amendment to B. [murmurs of hear hear] Although this was precisely how Archbishop Williams and others later understood the procedural posture at that moment, it was not how the Chairman had earlier framed the debate-that the Aspinall proposal was an "amendment" to Resolution A-when he ruled that the Aspinall material was an "amendment that has been properly moved" to A and overruled a point of order. Moreover, as would become manifest later, it is highly doubtful that the Chairman understood the Archbishop's suggestion the way it was understood by the Archbishop himself because he then framed the question to be voted on neither as a vote on the "amendment" that "had been properly moved" as he had previously characterized the issue before the Council nor as a housekeeping vote that dispensed with Resolution A procedurally but reserved the right of members to re-introduce its substance again as the Archbishop seemed to propose, but as a straight up or down vote on Resolution A: There seems to be a good deal of assent being murmured to the Archbishop's suggestion. I think we should take the advice of our President and move in that direction. So we should resume our discussion on Resolution A and move to see whether Resolution A stands or falls. So this will become Question 12? Question 12, are people clear what I am now asking you to vote on? Question 12 is simply: Do you agree with Resolution A? Are you for or against Resolution A, that we spent some time this morning debating? Are we clear? Does everyone need clarification? OK? Thank you. Question 13 [calls of 12] ..sorry, I am confusing myself, thank you. Question 12: are we in favor of Resolution A or are we against Resolution A? Resolution A was defeated decisively on this question, "for or against," by a vote of 47-17 with one abstention. The debate then moved to Resolution B, which was to approve the Covenant in the form proposed in the Ridley Cambridge draft. Resolution B was introduced by the Chairman of the Resolutions Committee: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Tony Fitchett, Chair of the Resolutions Committee-at the present. I think, I think I should thank the house for the debate on the principle of whether we want Part 4 in the Covenant or not and I think until we got confused before lunch we actually had quite a straightforward debate on that issue, and I thank the house for that ... of course I would expect that after we have got through (a) and (b), that there will be amendments moved perhaps by Archbishop Aspinall regarding the decision about whether we wait a few months before sending it out so that there can be further input from the Provinces. What is clear from Chairman Fitchett's introduction is that he thought Resolution A, just voted down, had dealt with the question of whether Section 4 would remain in the Covenant. Although it is clear that he was expecting a possible amendment from Archbishop Aspinall, there is no indication that he thought such an amendment would permit substantial revision to Section 4 or even do anything more than "wait a few months before sending it out." After votes had been taken on clauses (a) and (b) of Resolution B, Janet Trisk of South Africa proposed an "amendment" that dealt both with two existing clauses in proposed Resolution B and also added two new clauses. These were expressly characterized as an "amendment": I would like to propose an amendment which sounds complicated, but it's not because it follows the wording on the paper that was given to you, big capital C. I propose the following amendment: that the present small clause (c) be renumbered (e) that the present small clause (d) be numbered (f) and that two new clauses be inserted: a small (c) "ask the Archbishop of Canterbury in consultation with the Secretary General to appoint a small working group to consider and consult with the Provinces on Section 4 and its possible revision and to report to the next meeting of the Joint Standing Committee" and (d) "ask the JSC at that meeting to approve the final form of Section 4; and if that is accepted, then the word "at this time" in the new Section (e) will have to be changed to "at that time". The Chairman at once started to rule this out of order on the grounds it replicated the defeated Resolution A. This confirmed that the Chairman's understanding was that he had put the prior question on Resolution A as a straight up or down vote. As already noted this is manifest from his framing of the vote on Question 12: "Question 12 is simply: Do you agree with Resolution A? Are you for or against Resolution A, that we spent some time this morning debating? Are we clear?" No one objected at that time to his framing of the question, which he now recognized disposed completely of matters contained in Resolution A: Thank you Janet. The difficulty I have is that the house has already decided not to proceed along the lines of Resolution A [murmurs of assent] and that this...um The Archbishop of Canterbury... The Archbishop of Canterbury then made a second intervention: Sorry Chair I don't know if this is a point of order or information or what but it did seem to me that the voting on A may very well have been properly influenced by the fact that an alternative form of A was known to be about to be tabled. When I spoke earlier I said that I suggested the new material at C should be moved as part of B. I suspect people may have voted on A with that in view. Anyone reading the transcript can see that Archbishop Williams correctly stated his own view of what he had earlier suggested, but it is equally clear from reading the language of Question 12 and the Chairman's initial ruling that the Trisk "amendment" was out of order that the Archbishop of Canterbury's framing of the earlier question had not been followed by the chair, who framed the question differently without objection, and that the Archbishop was speculating ("suspect") on why people voted as they did on Resolution A. Question 12 was not framed in a way to preserve an "alternative form of A" for further consideration. It was an up or down vote, "for or against" Resolution A. "Are we clear?" It must be emphasized again that those manifestly confused about the framing of Question 12 and its consequences were native English speakers and included the Chairman of the ACC, the ACC's President and the proponent of the controversial amendment. The Chairman promptly reversed himself, however, and accepted the Archbishop of Canterbury's interpretation of the prior vote: Thank you, you often come to our rescue and I am very grateful. He then proceeded with the Trisk "amendment," which proposed to amend two existing clauses of the proposed Resolution B and to add two new ones. The Chairman, like Janet Trisk herself, characterized her proposal as an "amendment": So we turn our attention to the amendment, are there any speakers? [someone says they've already spoken] They've already spoken. Bishop Mouneer I think you have in fact spoken to this material. Then Archbishop Mouneer protests, "Not to this," and the Chairman responds, "Not to this amendment." One of the ironies of these confused proceedings is that the Chairman's remark "So we turn our attention to the amendment, are there any speakers?" is followed immediately by his dismissal of unidentified members on the grounds that "They've already spoken." In fact, no one had yet spoken to this amendment, so the Chairman must have been thinking of the prior discussion of this material in connection with Resolution A. That became clear when the Chairman initially ruled Archbishop Mouneer out of order because he had "in fact spoken to this material," although he then recognized that Archbishop Mouneer had not spoken to this amendment when Archbishop Mouneer protested this very point to the Chairman. Archbishop Mouneer had spoken to "this material" in the context of Resolution A, but he had not yet spoken on Resolution B at all. Janet Trisk had spoken to the same material on Resolution A, immediately after Archbishop Mouneer in fact. Yet even after she was permitted to re-introduce this material into Resolution B, the Chairman's initial reaction was to deny Archbishop Mouneer (and others) the floor to object because he had already spoken to this same material. The Chairman was correct that Archbishop Mouneer had spoken to this material, but he had spoken to it prior to the vote by which it was overwhelmingly rejected. When he was permitted to speak, Archbishop Mouneer objected to this process: I see this as like bringing A again. This is my view. We have already decided against A. That is bringing A again, but in a different form [murmurs of agreement] The Chairman did not acknowledge Archbishop Mouneer's objection: I think that we need to ... there is another speaker, Sarah. [Secretary General Kearon confers with the Chairman] Dr. Sarah Macneil of Australia was the only other person to speak to this amendment: Sarah Macneil, Province of Australia. If introducing (c) and (d) into this draft resolution, what I believe we are doing is offering people the opportunity to take a little more time to look at Section 4. ... This is an opportunity for there to be a little bit longer for those places who feel they need a little bit longer to decide whether they want to say yes or no to the Covenant as a whole based on Section 4, their responses to Section 4. It seems to me that we are doing a disservice to each other if we do not allow this time. Thank you. Two points in her speech in support are important. First, she indicates that the effect of the Trisk amendment is to "introduce" the two new clauses "into this draft resolution." In other words, according to the sole speaker in support of the Trisk amendment, its effect if passed would have been to amend a draft or proposed resolution, not to pass a final resolution. Second, Dr. Macneil's supporting speech indicates that the effect of the two clauses would be to give the provinces more time to consider whether "to say yes or no to the Covenant as a whole based on Section 4." She did not present these clauses as a way to revise section 4, but instead as a way to provide time for provinces to decide how to vote on the Covenant as a whole with Section 4. This, of course, is not consistent with the actual language of these two clauses, but it was how the only supporter, a native English speaker, presented them. The chair then immediately put the question on the Trisk amendment to a vote: Right if there are no further speakers I shall put this as question 15. Question 15, [consults] 16 [someone says taken by a show of hands] Well let's keep the numbering and the bishop happy and make this Question 16. And the question is whether you vote for the introduction, for the amendment or against the amendment, the introduction of those two clauses and the subsequent renumber. Thus, the framing by the chair of the Trisk amendment was that it was an "amendment" that permitted the "introduction" of the two new clauses. He does not indicate into what they would be introduced, but the previous speaker in favor of the amendment had just told the members the clauses would be introduced into a "draft" or proposed resolution. The Trisk amendment passed very narrowly by a vote of 33-30 with two abstentions. Following this vote, there was no vote on actually passing the "draft resolution" as amended by the Trisk amendment, at least with respect to the two new clauses. With respect to the other two clauses also covered by the Trisk amendment, however, debate resumed. For example, a vote was held on Clause (e), which had already been amended, and the question put to a vote was whether that clause "do[es] now stand as amended." The difficulty people had in understanding the texts of these amended clauses is demonstrated by the Chairman and another English speaker. The Chairman: That leaves us with the vote on whether the new Clause (e) which was (c) do[es] now stand as amended, so this becomes Question 18. Another speaker: But please note that there is a revised text in the light of the amendment (c) and (d) which now reads as shown on the screen. The Chairman: I will read it in case it is too hard for others. Unlike clause (e), the two new clauses added by the Trisk "amendment" were never put to a vote as to whether they "do now stand as amended." The Chairman initially thought such a second vote was required. As the Council broke for an extended tea break, the Chairman clarified that another vote was needed on the two new clauses added by the Trisk amendment: Members of the Council - I have been asked to clarify the status of where we have got to and I think it is fair to say that the vote on the amendment to include those two clauses was carried but we still need to commit those clauses to a vote. And I apologize for misleading you on that matter. I have called the adjournment and so I think we have to stay with that. I think we might have to recommit those two clauses - not to recommit just to vote on those two clauses when we reassemble at the plenary at 5. When the break was over, the Chairman reversed himself again, saying no further vote was required as a result of legal advice he had received. Thus, on the two key votes, their eventual interpretation by ACC officials was contrary to the way the questions were actually framed by the Chairman. On the first vote, the question was framed as "are you for or against Resolution A," not as eventually interpreted as "are you in favor of dispensing with Resolution A procedurally while reserving the rights of members to re-introduce its substance at a later time." The second vote was on a question framed as whether a pending resolution should be "amended," not as eventually interpreted as whether two clauses should be finally adopted by the Council. The subsequent defense of these interpretations proffered by ACC officials, that the chair is able to discern the general assent of the meeting, manifestly does not explain why the votes were interpreted differently than the question was framed. In both cases the Chairman initially ruled that the votes should be understood precisely in accordance with his framing of the question. In both cases the Chairman himself was effectively overruled, in the first case by the President of the ACC and in the second by legal advice. The transcript shows that the Chairman was correct in his initial ruling in both cases. One cannot review this sad transcript of the key debate at ACC-14 without concluding that there is little evidence that the members of the Council understood what they were voting on and what the parliamentary effect of their votes would be. Not even the native English speakers who were at the center of this debate could agree on what was happening. Attempts to explain only added to the confusion. The Chairman and the President had differing interpretations of a key vote. The Chairman himself had varying understandings even of what was pending before the Council. The Chairman of the Resolutions Committee did not have the same understanding as the ACC Chairman. The sole speaker in favor of the Trisk amendment described it to the Council in a way inconsistent with its express terms. And the legal advisor had an understanding of the proceedings at variance not only with the Chairman, whom he apparently overruled, but also with the actual language of the question put to the Council and the speeches in support of the Trisk amendment. At a subsequent press conference, the legal advisor explained that the ACC had moved away from a "western parliamentary way of doing our business" and that this placed an "enormous amount of weight on the chair" to discern "the general assent emerging." But the Chairman had discerned a different assent than had the President, and when the Chairman's discernment was different from that of the legal advisor, the Chairman deferred to the legal advice notwithstanding the enormous weight placed on the chair. It is little wonder that many non-English speaking members expressed great frustration with the proceedings. Archbishop Mouneer reported that "many" members had complained to him that they did not understand what had happened. Writing in the Church of England Newspaper, George Conger reported that: Delegates questioned by the CEN appeared confused by the proceedings. One francophone delegate stated he had voted against A, but as Dr. Williams had commended the Trisk amendment, he had switched his vote. A second delegate from Africa told CEN he had understood Dr. Williams as not having commended the Trisk amendment but was offering housekeeping advice to the meeting to straighten out a confused situation, while a third delegate whose native tongue is English said he understood the Archbishop to have switched horses, and was now calling for section 4 to be stripped out of the Covenant. A careful review of the transcript and the votes taken at ACC-14, including how the questions were framed by the Chairman, indicates that there is little evidence that the majority of the Council wanted to revise Section 4 or even understood that that was what they were voting to make possible. In his recent book on the early Church councils, the great historian of Christianity and Rome, Ramsay MacMullen, has made the following distinction: there were "rational" councils and there were "socially determined" councils. The first were "conducted in front of other people" and "they still spoke to reason because everyone in the audience had heard everything that was said; everyone knew the flow of the argument." By contrast, "when participants in [a council's] process had not been personally present, or able, or sufficiently interested to follow the debate" decisions were based on "insistence" by a single powerful group that "everyone" believed in the outcome, whether that was true or not. One could, in this latter case, still speak of "democracy", "but it was no longer rational" (Voting About God in Early Church Councils, 2006, p. 69). How shall we judge the ACC-14 according to this typology? One cannot read this transcript without having considerable sympathy for the efforts in difficult circumstances of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the ACC Chairman. But one's sympathies extend especially to those representing the majority of the world's Anglicans who do not speak English as their first (or often second or even third) language. We regret that the publication of this transcript may cause embarrassment to those involved, but hope that this will further demonstrate to the Communion the corrosive effect the current conflict and the efforts of those who seek to defeat or disable the Covenant are having in the Communion. Note: The transcript referred to above is available in pdf format here. The Anglican TV videos on which the transcript is based are available here: http://anglicantv.org/blog/1, seen here in PDF