From Frank Lockwood, the BibleBeltBlogger via TitusOneNine:
UPDATED June 7, 2009 at 7:05 a.m. with Episcopal Church response:
Facing criticism for withholding information from its 2.3 million members, the Episcopal Church has quietly removed from its new IAmEpiscopalian.org website assurances that the church is committed to openness and transparency in government.
Anne Rudig, director of the Episcopal Church’s office of communications, says the transparency pledge was removed to free up space so that there would be room on the page — at some future date — for the church to add a message in Spanish and (eventually) French.
The page also needed “freshening and perhaps some specificity for seekers” she added.
For months, the site had proclaimed on its home page: “Our controversies and conversations have been public. Our governance is tranparent. You are free to see our imperfections…” (See a copy of the original message here.)
But sometime this week, after the church was repeatedly criticized for concealing key governance decisions from the people in the pews, the “transparency” and “openness” message disappeared.
In related news, the Episcopal News Service reported Friday on a survey by the (Little Rock) Arkansas Democrat-Gazette showing that a majority of the church’s standing committtees have vetoed the bishop-elect of Northern Michigan, the Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester.
The Episcopal News Service, which (like the denomination) is based in New York City, could not independently confirm the Democrat-Gazette’s report because top church officials in New York City and leaders of the Diocese of Northern Michigan have declined to release their own counts.
Meanwhile, Episcopalians who support full-inclusion for gays and lesbians are calling on the church to release the names of a secret committee which is studying the theology of same-sex relationships. They say the secrecy is an insult and contradicts the church’s commitment to “transparent governance.”
But the transparent governance pledge is no longer on the church’s electronic welcome mat — the first thing visitors see when they type in either IAmEpiscopalian.org or EpiscopalChurch.org.
On the Preludium website, Episcopal Church communications director Anne Rudig explains why the transparency pledge was dropped, writing:
“Hi -
We shortened the copy so that there will be room for the Spanish translation (coming soon) below it. It is part of our effort to welcome in many languages. French will be next. We just thought the page needed freshening and perhaps some specificity for seekers. Sorry if you liked the first copy better. Don’t worry - it will change again.
People were always invited to submit their videos. They are still invited to do so. We are our shooting now and adding more ourselves soon, and there will be ample opportunity to create your own and post if you come to General Convention.”
2 comments:
Anne Rudig's explanation for why the transparent governance pledge was taken down raises new questions, according to readers at Preludium.
1.) She says a new statement was created to save space on the site, so that there'd be room for a Spanish translation. Only one problem: The old statement (with the pledge) and the new pledge (without the pledge) are nearly identical in length. So if the goal was to save space, the revision seems to have been unsuccessful. The "saving space" rationale, you'll note, is the first one cited.
2.) She says the extra space was needed because at some point in the future -- it's not clear precisely when, although she says "soon" -- the church is going to be adding Spanish and French translations. Presumably, the spokesperson hasn't spent a lot of time creating and overseeing websites. If she had, she'd know that web czars don't typically cut copy from a page to clear up space for additional copy that is going to be available at some hazy point in the distance. Usually, when the new copy is ready, web creators hit cut to take out the stuff that's no longer needed and then hit paste to add the new, improved copy.
That's how it works: Cut. Paste. Cut Paste.
For your readers who say: "I don't have a blog or a website. How would I know if the spokeswoman is offering a plausible explanation" for why the transparency pledge was removed, let me put this another way:
Talk to somebody who has a Facebook page. Chances are, you have one or your kids have one. Ask them two questions: 1.) How often do you delete stuff from your Facebook page? (Depending on the person, the answer may be "never" or it may be "ALL THE TIME."
Now comes the key question: 2.) How often have you taken down stuff from your Facebook page to clear up room for other stuff that isn't ready yet, but may be ready in a week or two or three? My guess is, not often.
A question for DCNY: Have you ever, in the entire history of this blog, removed copy to "free up room" so that it will be available sometime down the road in case you need it? Does this justification pass the straight face test? I'd enjoy hearing what you think.
First, Anon., thank you for your strongly reasoned questioning of the transparency excuses from pecusa.
Next: A question for DCNY: Have you ever, in the entire history of this blog, removed copy to "free up room" so that it will be available sometime down the road in case you need it? Does this justification pass the straight face test? I'd enjoy hearing what you think.
Answer: I've never removed copy to free up room - there's no need to do so as you state. I have taken down comments that are either business-related spam and not germane to any of the posts on DCNY and I once took down a short rant supporting the non-Christian Mormon religion. As far as down the road is concerned, the archives serve as a historical record and so there is no need to save anything from past postings for future use.
No, as with all too many pecusa statements, this one doesn't pass the straight face test.
Post a Comment