Colleagues:

I am grateful to Davida for initiating a conversation about Mike Downs' letter.  I will be responding later today after taking some time to reflect on it.  Much of it will echo what Davida has already said to us.  I also plan on writing Lillian Daniel, chair of the committee, discussing the process.  (Peter did have a conversation with her Tuesday morning to alert her to the substitute.)  And I appreciate Jane's encouragement that we not lose track of the substance of this resolution.  In that regard, Don Hart has already asked for a conference call with Bennie, Peter, Lydia, and me to talk about implementation.  While Don has his concerns with the process, and has shared them privately with Peter and me, he is clearly prepared to discuss how we move forward.  For that I am grateful.

First, let me say that I am dismayed that Mike has chosen to begin this conversation in such a broad and public way.  He and I, in a brief hallway conversation after the vote, agreed that we would talk as soon as possible after Synod about this.  I deliberately decided not to try to have this conversation yesterday as I was dealing with a number of things on my first day back and, as you might imagine, was rather tired.  Our private conversation never happened and now I feel the need to respond more publicly to his letter with its allegations.  This is unfortunate.

Second, I regret that I did not have a conversation with Mike in advance of the plenary discussion.  This all developed very late on Monday evening, and I was occupied with responsibilities early Tuesday morning.  Synod, particularly on the last day, is not a good venue for attempting to fulfill all our covenantal expectations.  I'm sorry the conversation didn't happen.  Given the circumstances, I don't feel apologetic.  I could share with you a number of instances where Mike's alleged transparency on these matters over the last months has been less than fully transparent and where I have been blind-sided.  That will not be helpful at this point, but suffice it to say we have all been less than perfect.  It is worth noting that the committee, during its own late night drafting on Sunday, invited Mike to share language for their final proposed action, something that was not requested of Peter, Lydia, Bennie or me. 

Third, it is absurd to claim that there is something illegal about this process.  Substitute resolutions are in order, as are amendments from the floor of the plenary which potentially alter a committee's recommendation.  At this Synod major challenges were made to the Executive Council's recommendations on the bylaw revisions.  A challenge to one of the central elements of the Form and Function Committee's was proposed and adopted by the Synod.  During the marriage equality debate, two attempts were made to fundamentally alter the committee's recommendation:  substituting "covenanted relationships" for "marriage," and deferring action for two years.  While both were defeated, these amendments from delegates were perfectly in order, most appropriate, and a helpful way during the deliberation to test the mind of the Synod.

Fourth, we were made aware immediately following the release of the Committee's report that a number of delegates were very unhappy with the recommended action.  They approached staff and collegium members for advice as they began work on amendments.  In response to this, Bennie Whiten and I were involved in the "late night discussions."  We were accompanied by key staff resourcing this issue:  Peter Makari and Lydia Veliko.  Bennie and I are voting delegates to the Synod.  The four of us have leadership responsibility on an issue of enormous sensitivity in terms of our global partnerships and our interfaith relationships.  We participated for two reasons:  First, we concurred with the delegates who believed the committee's recommendation was severely flawed and would be injurious to our relationships with Palestinian partners.  In addition, we felt it would send the wrong signal to the Jewish com

Fifth, while Mike feels this process dishonored the Committee's work, his critique implicitly dishonors the role of the plenary.  Our committee process is always an important and crucial first stage of discernment and deliberation.  It is never the last word.  Committee members understandably have great ownership of their work; most of us can remember being on a GS committee and feeling uncomfortable when the plenary began to alter what we had painstakingly crafted.  But once the Committee's work is reported to the Synod, it belongs to the plenary.  On Tuesday the plenary had before it two coherent and thoughtful alternatives:  the Committee's recommendation and the substitute.  To imply that the plenary was coerced or tricked is to dishonor its work.  Given a clear choice, and after hearing the debate, the plenary voted almost 4-1 to support the substitute.  Mike does not like the action that was voted.

Finally, am I sorry that this issue has, at least for some, tainted what was in fact a marvelous Synod.  I am sorry that it has led to such a significant breach, at least for the moment, between Mike and others of us on the Collegium.  We'll all need to address that in the coming weeks.  I'm sorry that committee members feel abused or disregarded.  I am not sorry that delegates, including Bennie and me, helped to facilitate the opportunity for the plenary to consider an alternative to the committee's work.  On crucial matters, where so much is at stake, this is the kind of thing I presume leadership is expected to do.  I will take responsibility.  But I will not apologize.

Later today I will be preparing a response to Mike, sharing many of this points though perhaps in more diplomatic language.  Following that I trust this conversation can move toward a more private set of interactions.  However, since you were all invited into this discussion through Mike's wide cc list, I wanted you to hear my own candid response.  As you no doubt understand, I hope you will keep this email confidential.   (I will share a copy of this with Peter, Lydia, and Bennie in a separate mailing without the confidential CCM mailing address.) The response I write to Mike will be cc'd to you and is something you should feel free to share with others who have concerns.

I hope you're getting some rest, though I know that matters like this and marriage equality are likely intruding.  Thank you for your good leadership this past week and, above all, for your collegial friendship.

John