What gives? And why? Salaries for PB and other executives in The Episcopal Church.

The salaries for the Presiding Bishop and other executives of the Episcopal Church are posted online for our information. The big five are as follows:

"Presiding Bishop 291,832
Chief Financial Officer  235,448
Executive Officer  213,282
Chief Operating Officer 204,000
President, House of Deputies, Volunteer"

The designation of the PoHD as "volunteer" is really misleading. The PoHB is unpaid, not volunteer. That person may, among several persons, have volunteered to serve. These persons were then candidates for election. But the PoHD was elected by the House of Deputies. That distinction makes it not a matter of personal will alone, but community decision. 
 
A good deal of discussion has gone on regarding a resolution to pay the President of the House of Deputies (PoHD) a salary. The resolution (A028) if passed would require further determination of actual pay and benefits for the PoHD, but up to $900,000 has been earmarked for that from the three year budget proposed at General Convention.

The total paid out per year for the the four already paid, plus something like $250,000 to $300,000 for the PoHD, brings in the annual salaries of these five (if PoHD is funded) at roughly $1,200,000 per year. 

Leading up to the 2015 General Convention there was a study done to "re-vision" the church. While it can be argued that the current Presiding Bishop has re-visioned the Episcopal Church as "a branch of the Jesus Movement," the more prosaic re-visioning has not been as dramatic.  This resolution expands the number of paid chief executive officers soon after the effort was made to reduce the bureaucratic bloat. 

Perhaps a better way to approach the issue of appropriate payment for the DFMS chief officers would be to have a line item for paying chief corporate officers, and let the Executive Council,as the Board of Directors, determine how to use the funds.

From out here in the small town on the bay, by the big water, I fail to see just why the Presiding Bishop ought to receive $290,000 a year or just why we need both an Executive Officer and a Chief Operating Officer, or why the rather sizeable support staff doesn't reduce the work load for the PoHD, thereby making the argument for paying the PoHD upwards to $300,000 a year a bit of a reach (that being the budgeted "outside figure" being proposed).

But I can say this: From here it may smell like the Episcopal Church, but it doesn't smell much like the Jesus Movement.

The House of Deputies Special Committee on Sexual Harassment and Exploitation: A question.

The President of the House of Deputies has appointed a Special Committee on Sexual Harassment and Exploitation. This was announced this past week (February 28th). The Committee will work in several sub-committees to draft legislation on sexual harassment and exploitation for consideration by the General Convention meeting this summer. 

The committee is quite large - 47 members. It is quite a remarkable list and will serve the church well. It will, I hope, provide important proposals to General Convention.

The committee will work in several sub-committees: on Theology and Language, Structural Equity, Title IV and Training, Truth and Reconciliation, and Social Justice for Women.  

There is no question in my mind that each of these areas of concern needs immediate and deep attention, and each will invite us all into a greater common effort  "so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." (Ephesians 4:11-13)

As far as I can tell from an initial read, all 47 of the members of this special committee are women. There is a good mix of ordained and lay, and I presume a wide range of inclusion(s) - persons of color, indigenous peoples, sexual orientation, etc. But there seem to be no men.


Fair enough. The committee needs to be clear that its members are driven by "their determination to change our church for the better." That drive is without question a product of personal experience, and because the matter at hand has to do with sexual harassment and exploitation, women need to be at the center of this work. But is that sufficient reason to not include men in any of the committees? Perhaps it is, but if so it is a sad testament to the level of disunity, fracture and lack of maturity, that keeps us from the "full measure of the fullness of Christ."

The rules of order for the House of Deputies says very little about who may serve on Special Committees. There has been a laudable effort to include on all regular committees and commissions of the General Convention a broadly inclusive membership. This Special Committee has been appointed with the apparent, and if so, notable exclusion of men. 

Perhaps a rationale can be provided.