16 Jul GS 2016 art 128

GS 2016 Article 128 – Appeal of Burlington-Fellowship re: GS 2013 Art. 128

1. Material

• 1.1    Appeal from the Burlington-Fellowship CanRC (8.6.5.1)

2. Observations

• 2.1    GS 2010 Art. 177 Rec. 4 states, “That Synod decide to sustain the appeal of Burlington-Fellowship against Article 10, Appeal 1, Ground c of Regional Synod East 2008” was defeated.
  • 2.1.1     RSE 2008 Art. 10 Appeal 1 Ground C reads, “Broader assemblies have determined that the issue of women’s voting is a matter of the churches in common and a number of General Synods have admitted the issue to their agendas, evidencing the same.”
• 2.2    The chairman ruled on the floor of GS 2010 “that by the fact that the Advisory Committee report was defeated, the appeal was denied.”
• 2.3    Burlington-Fellowship submitted its denied appeal to GS 2013 asking that GS 2013:
  • [1.]        Judge that Synod Burlington 2010 (Art. 177) erred when it denied Burlington-Fellowship’s appeal without providing observations, considerations, nor adopting a recommendation;
  • [2.]        Judge that Synod Burlington 2010 failed to do justice to the appeal of Burlington-Fellowship in the manner in which it disposed of the appeal;
  • [3.]        Accept the re-submission of Burlington-Fellowship’s Appeal of 2010 (attached to its letter) for judgment in 2013 on the basis of Article 31 of the Church Order, unencumbered by Article 33.
• 2.4    GS 2013 in Art. 128 adopted a two-part decision as follows:
  • [4.1.]     That Burlington Synod 2010 (Article 177) erred when it denied Burlington-Fellowship’s appeal without providing observations, considerations, nor adopting a recommendation;
  • [4.2.]     That Synod Burlington 2010 failed to do justice to the appeal of Burlington-Fellowship;
  • [4.3.]     To declare the resubmission of Burlington-Fellowship’s appeal against Article 10 in the Acts of Regional Synod East 2008 admissible.
  • and
  • [3.1.]     That Regional Synod East 2008 was correct in stating that “broader assemblies have determined that the issue of women’s voting is a matter of the churches in common”;
  • [3.2.]     To deny the appeal of Burlington-Fellowship.
• 2.5    Burlington-Fellowship appeals a number of considerations of GS 2013 Art. 128 as follows:
  • 2.5.1     That GS 2013 wronged Burlington-Fellowship by giving weight to a defeated motion (Cons. 2.3);
  • 2.5.2     That GS 2013 wronged Burlington-Fellowship by not giving examples to support its claim that past synods have made binding decision beyond those regulated by the Church Order (Cons. 2.5);
  • 2.5.3     That GS 2013 wronged Burlington-Fellowship when on the one hand it judged the idea that women’s voting was a matter for the churches in common while on the other hand in a prior decision it concluded that no such decision had ever been made and that this was simply a commonly accepted practice (GS 2013 Art. 110, Cons. 2.2);
  • 2.5.4     That GS 2013 wronged Burlington-Fellowship when it used a previously held position of Burlington-Fellowship as part of its considerations (Cons. 2.4).

3. Considerations

• 3.1    Defeated motions have no weight.
• 3.2    While it would have been helpful if GS 2013 had given examples to substantiate its claims, the provision of such examples is not required.
• 3.3    The stated contradiction identified by Burlington-Fellowship does appear to be present in the acts of GS 2013.
• 3.4    GS 2013 was wrong to judge Burlington-Fellowship’s appeal using as a consideration their previously held position.

4. Recommendation

• 4.1    That Synod decide to send the above considerations as an answer to the appeal of Burlington-Fellowship.

ADOPTED