An Excel Table with the Roll Call of the Deposition Vote - UPDATED

Posted by The_Elves

We've created an Excel Spreadsheet with the details of the Duncan Deposition Vote. This way you can sort the results by diocese, name, vote, position, etc.

http://kendallharmon.net/t19/media/Duncan_Deposition_Vote.xls

-----------------------
Update:
We've revised the spreadsheet this morning to add a few more absent diocesans we missed last night, and to clarify which dioceses are vacant. The second and third pages of the spreadsheet are entirely new.

The second page lists every TEC diocese, and how the bishops in that diocese voted.

The third page was my attempt, using Louie Crew's House of Bishops data, to list the TOTAL number of bishops that were entitled to vote at the HoB meeting. If my understanding is correct, I came up with 290 eligible bishops. Only 127 bishops attended the HoB meeting, not even 50% of eligible bishops.

You'll find all the details here:
http://kendallharmon.net/t19/media/Duncan_Deposition_Vote_(rev).xls

The revised table makes one thing clear: the diocesan bishops of ONLY 56 TEC dioceses -- exactly 50% of the 112 TEC dioceses -- voted YES to depose Duncan. The bishops of the remaining 56 dioceses either voted No, abstained, were absent, or the see of the diocese was vacant.

Also, something else is very striking, a few dioceses had extraordinary of clout in the vote. A mere 6 dioceses (Los Angeles, New York, Washington, Connecticut, Chicago, North Carolina and Maine) accounted for 21 of the 88 YES votes (nearly 1/4 of the total Yes votes). Wow.

Comments and quetions welcomed, but I'll be traveling for 2 days and will not be able to reply quickly. --elfgirl

Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal- Anglican: Primary SourceEpiscopal Church (TEC)TEC ConflictsTEC Conflicts: PittsburghTEC Data* Resources & Links

19 Comments
Posted September 20, 2008 at 8:10 am

To comment on this article: Go to Article View

The URL for this article is http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/16322/



1. RickW wrote:

I count 88 yes.  What is the number for the majority - 72% of those who voted said yes, but what is the rule?

September 19, 8:43 pm | [comment link]
2. The_Elves wrote:

Rick, the rule in Canon IV:9 is that a majority of bishops entitled to vote is needed for deposition.

As of about April (deposition of +Cox and +Schofield) there were 294 bishops entitled to vote, since retired bishops are included.

The canon clearly required about 148 Yes votes to depose (assuming a deposition vote was even legal, which in this case it was not, since Bp. Duncan had NOT been inhibited first.)  There were not even 148 bishops who attended the meeting.

KJS’ ruling was that a simple majority of bishops attending the meeting was all that was needed.  There were 127 attendees, meaning 64 votes were sufficient for a majority under her disputed rules.

Got questions about T19? E-mail us! .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

September 19, 8:49 pm | [comment link]
3. The_Elves wrote:

P.S. to my #2—to learn all you need to know about the deposition canons and rules, see Anglican Curmudgeon’s blog
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/

Got questions about T19? E-mail us! .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

September 19, 8:52 pm | [comment link]
4. mark harris wrote:

Thank you for putting this in this format. Very helpful.

September 19, 8:55 pm | [comment link]
5. writingmom15143 wrote:

i’m not sure of the reason for this, but over the years there have been a lot of bishops who have had ties to west virginia ( “almost heaven” perhaps?) and i have counted many as friends…there are five of them on this current list… i’m grateful to the two who voted “no” yesterday.

September 19, 10:14 pm | [comment link]
6. mark harris wrote:

Delaware is not on the list.

September 19, 11:02 pm | [comment link]
7. MikeS wrote:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I just noticed that the overseas bishops all voted no with but a single exception who abstained.

I may have missed someone, but I find that very interesting for bishops who are reportedly dependent on 815’s financial largess.  They apparently are willing to vote their conscience in serious matters.

September 20, 1:35 am | [comment link]
8. The_Elves wrote:

Mark Harris, that seems to be true about +Delaware.  I checked the original list published at Episcopal Cafe.  Not there.  Must be among the absences.  I’m sorry I didn’t notice and record Delaware as absent.  I will probably revise the table shortly to make a few slight modifications.  I will note Delaware absent.

Mike S., many of the overseas bishops also voted NO in 2003 on the question of consent of VGR.  I can find and post the details in a little while.

Got questions about T19? E-mail us! .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

September 20, 7:27 am | [comment link]
9. mhmac13 wrote:

I read somewhere that Lillibridge of West Texas voted Yes.  What is the story on that?

September 20, 9:46 am | [comment link]
10. David Wilson wrote:

+ Henry Scriven Assistant of Pittsburgh is not listed as being absent as he was.

September 20, 10:25 am | [comment link]
11. Jeremy Bonner wrote:

#9,

I, for one, misinterpreted an early statement that he issued. The vote tallies that came out later indicated that he voted no (which makes much more sense).

http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com

September 20, 10:51 am | [comment link]
12. The_Elves wrote:

#9 Lillibridge and Reed both voted No.  It’s all there in the table.  Please try reading the post before you post incorrect information!

Got questions about T19? E-mail us! .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

September 20, 12:48 pm | [comment link]
13. The_Elves wrote:

#10, I did not try to list every absent Bishop.  That would have required me to list nearly 160 absent bishops.  There were about 290 bishops eligible to vote.  128 Bishops voted.

I listed the absent DIOCESANS.  I missed a few and will be updating the table in just a few minutes.

Got questions about T19? E-mail us! .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

September 20, 12:50 pm | [comment link]
14. The_Elves wrote:

BREAKING NEWS!  Half of TEC Diocesans did NOT vote to depose Duncan!

I’ve done some serious spreadsheet work and number crunching this morning.  By my count, there are 112 TEC Dioceses (counting all overseas dioceses and Churches in Europe)

56 Diocesans (or acting diocesans) voted YES to Depose.

Of the other 56 Dioceses:
29 Diocesans / Acting Diocesans Voted NO
4 Abstained
17 diocesans were absent (TEC only counted 15 as absent, not sure why the discrepancy)
(including at least 4 who would have almost certaily voted No (Ackerman, Iker, Duncan, Wimberly)

6 sees are vacant with no acting bishop (including PA since Bennison is inhibited and couldn’t vote)

Among “Acting Diocesans” I’ve included: Lamb (San Joaquin), Frey (Rio Grande), MacDonald (Navajo), Buchanan (S. Virginia)

So the diocesans of 56 of 112 TEC diocese voted Yes.  But there are 56 other dioceses who either did not have a diocesan bishop vote, or whose bishop voted No or abstained.

You can find all the details on the second page of the updated table I am about to post.

Got questions about T19? E-mail us! .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

September 20, 12:51 pm | [comment link]
15. francis wrote:

Well, one thing is for sure.  Because only 50% + 1 of an acceptable quorum is needed to depose a Bishop in TEC without previous notification or inhibition (a relatively small number), this should radically increase participation at HOB meetings!  This should build community wink.  I can’t believe they ate the whole thing!

September 20, 1:27 pm | [comment link]
16. francis wrote:

As we think about it in the aftermath and we do math afterward,  it would only take about 15-16 dioceses voting with the PB to get rid of whatever troublemaker raises his or her ugly head.  What a precedent.

September 20, 1:37 pm | [comment link]
17. mhmac13 wrote:

Hey elves, I really appreciate the table- I was asking for clarification AFTER I had read the table, because I wanted to get correct information.  Thanks for yoyur hard work.

September 20, 2:32 pm | [comment link]
18. Ross wrote:

As a side remark to the Elves, I would suggest that when you post Excel spreadsheets you consider saving and posting them as CSV files.  The CSV format is just a text file with all the fields separated by commas, and as such it can’t carry macro viruses; but it can still be opened in Excel as a spreadsheet.

It’s the same reason that most sites avoid posting Word documents—better to turn it into a PDF or an HTML document and post that, rather than any word processor format.  Cautious net denizens tend to be wary about downloading Office documents from the web.

———————————————————————-
Who am I?  Visit my web page or my blog  to find out.

September 20, 3:47 pm | [comment link]
19. State of Limbo wrote:

Thank you for taking the time to post this spreadsheet.  I work better with visuals.

September 20, 7:37 pm | [comment link]


© 2017 Kendall S. Harmon. All rights reserved.

For original material from Titusonenine (such as articles and commentary by Dr. Harmon) permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com


<< Back to main page

<< Return to Mobile view (headlines)