16 Jul GS 2016 art 129

GS 2016 Article 129 – Synod Guidelines

1. Material

• 1.1    Letter from the Dunnville CanRC organizing committee (5.1)

2. Observations

• 2.1    The organizing committee of the Dunnville CanRC brings the following to the attention of Synod:
  • 2.1.1     “All electronically submitted documents to Synod should include a file name that makes it distinguishable e.g. The file name of the document should include the name of the submitting church and the topic of the submission. As an example a letter would have been easier to organize with a filename like Langley Letter to Synod 2016 re CWeb
    • Rationale: Many submitted documents simply name the topic which makes it difficult to properly file and organize especially when there are several churches submitting on the same topic.”
  • 2.1.2     “We would discourage the use of spiral bound or comb bound paper copies of a submission.
    • Rationale: The five paper copies are placed in binders. Removing the sheets from a bound submission creates significant additional work. Duo-Tang or similar type paper folders made of cardstock paper or 3 ring binders are preferred.”
  • 2.1.3     “We recommend that if a submission is 15 pages or less no hard copy will be required.
    • Rationale: It is much easier and cost effective to print the hard copies from an email than to receive the documents, which often are folded papers, in an envelope. Subsequently trying to insert folded papers into a binder is cumbersome and unwieldy.”
  • 2.1.4     “If submissions are scanned copies it is highly recommended that submissions dealing with separate topics be scanned as separate documents.
    • Rationale: To separate topics that have all been lumped into one scan creates extra unnecessary work.”
  • 2.1.5     “All scanned submissions should be in .pdf, .doc. or .docx. file format.
    • Rationale: Some scanned copies were in formats that needed to be converted from photo and other picture formats. This creates extra unnecessary work.”
  • 2.1.6     “Proper electronic signatures will be accepted as a suitable means of verifying the authenticity of a submission.
    • Rationale: A proper electronic signature created with a trustworthy software program designed with the capabilities to create a verifiable signature will diminish the need for scanned copies.”
  • 2.1.7     “If at all possible and feasible submitters should stick to one topic in each of their submissions.
    • Rationale: We received submissions that covered more than one topic making it difficult to file and find an appropriate placement on the agenda.”
• 2.2    Synod Guideline J reads, “These Synodical Guidelines may be suspended, amended, revised or abrogated by a majority vote of Synod.”

3. Considerations

• 3.1    The experience of the organizing committee of Dunnville should not be lost. It has done well to bring this to the attention of the Synod.
• 3.2    The current officers of synod are best placed to judge how to implement the desires of this Synod with respect to these observations.
• 3.3    It is not clear why hard copies are needed, other than for archiving purposes. Hence it makes little sense to set a limit on the size of submissions as they would not require printing beforehand.

4. Recommendation

That Synod decide:

• 4.1    To mandate the officers of this Synod to take the necessary measures to have these suggestions acted upon.

ADOPTED