Tuesday, 23 February 2010

General Synod - electronic voting

The detailed results of the electronic voting at this month’s General Synod are now available. These include the votes of each member who took part.

Here are the details for the two controversial items.

Anglican Church in North America

This is the final version of the motion (Item 14 as amended by Items 55 and 59):

That this Synod, aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada:
(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.

It was carried by these votes:

In Favour Against Recorded
abstentions
309 69 17

Here are the electronic voting results for this item.

Parity of pension provision for surviving civil partners

This is the motion (Item 22):

That this Synod request the Archbishops’ Council and the Church of England Pensions Board to bring forward changes to the rules governing the clergy pension scheme in order to go beyond the requirements of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and provide for pension benefits to be paid to the surviving civil partners of deceased clergy on the same basis as they are currently paid to surviving spouses.

It was carried by the following votes after a Division by Houses.

 In FavourAgainstRecorded
abstentions
Bishops1223
Clergy972310
Laity78599

Here are the electronic voting results for the above motion.

There was an amendment (Item 64) moved to the above motion:

Leave out everything after “That this Synod” and insert:
“recognise that it will be some considerable time before surviving civil partners’ pension rights reach parity with those of spouses, and in the light of that note the helpful confirmation from the Pensions Board that surviving civil partners of deceased clergy are eligible to be considered for hardship grants if they meet the same qualifying conditions as apply to surviving spouses.”

This was lost by the following votes.

In Favour Against Recorded
abstentions
110 154 15

Here are the electronic voting results for the amendment.

Other electronic votes

The other electronic votes are linked here.

Posted by Peter Owen on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 at 11:28pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England | General Synod
Comments

Interesting to note that BOTH Primates voted for pension equality.

Also not surprising was to see my old friend Robert Patterson voting against.

I suspect that with a diocese titled Sodor and Mann - this Rt Revd prelate will do all he can to make sure people know he is NOT sympathetic.

Still, I wrote to him today congatulating him on making his mark and so brazenly opposing both Primates!

Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 at 3:47pm GMT

'Twas good to note that both English Primates voted in favour of the Motion. All is not lost!

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 at 9:26pm GMT

Well, Lorna Ashcroft voted in favor of it, too, and so did +Winchester and Sugden+ and a host of others. I don't know that voting for the final motion indicated approval of it, exactly; once it was clear that this is where things were going, there may have been a desire to coalesce around the final motion.

Was +Durham not present for Synod?

Posted by: Charlotte on Thursday, 25 February 2010 at 9:45pm GMT

Tom Wright (+Durham) was on sabbatical IIRC

Posted by: David Walker on Friday, 26 February 2010 at 8:22pm GMT

Charlotte, Wright was probably somewhere in the U.S., wagging his fingers at the naughty colonials.

That seems to be how he spends an awful lot of his time.

Posted by: JPM on Saturday, 27 February 2010 at 7:57pm GMT

"Wright was probably somewhere in the U.S., wagging his fingers at the naughty colonials'
- JPM, on Saturday -

What! is +Durham still jet-setting? I wonder if he pays for his contribution to Global Warming? Like certain other prelates of the Communion, he will soon become known as The Bishop IN Durham, rather than The Bishop OF Durham. Anyway, who's looking after the princely pile while he's away?

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Sunday, 28 February 2010 at 3:31am GMT

Ron, word on the street is that they are going to sell Auckland Castle and just rent the good bishop a motel room when he happens to pass through Durham.

Posted by: JPM on Sunday, 28 February 2010 at 5:22pm GMT

I think these voting figures show that a July vote on women bishops will not pass in the house of laity by the necessary two thirds majority.

Posted by: Robert Ian williams on Sunday, 28 February 2010 at 10:34pm GMT

Surely, Ron, that should be "Bishop Rarely In Durham."

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Monday, 1 March 2010 at 4:12am GMT

Or even, Malcolm+: "The Bishop OUT OF Durham?"

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Monday, 1 March 2010 at 9:49am GMT

Or perhaps "The Bishop who has been seen in the vicinity of Durham from time to time, but not often."

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Tuesday, 2 March 2010 at 12:51am GMT

The question now is: "Was the Bishop 'out of' Durham when the Civil Partneships debate was satisfactorily concluded in the House of Lords?" He may be flagellating himself if he were absent because of ACNA's demands on his time in the US.

At least, I do know where the Archbishop of York was - he was here in Down-Under New Zealand! I'm going to meet up with him next week at our Diocesan Meeting. I may yet be able to challenge him on his real attitude towards the new legal right for religious input into the Civil Partnership celebrations of same-sex couples.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Wednesday, 3 March 2010 at 11:24pm GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.