Who thought this one up???

According to one of the resolutions coming to the Convention, if a person nominated and elected does not pass a background check, that office is declared vacant. [Perhaps someone with a better memory than I possess could give me the resolution number from the Proceedings book?] We could spend a lot of ink on the reason for background checks but the more important issue is who wrote this misguided resolution?

If you must have background checks, they belong at the time of nomination NOT after election.  If something of a confidential nature is revealed at the background check, that person is publicly exposed when his or her election is declared null and void and another is appointed to fill the spot.  That betrays the very nature of pastoral discretion that is the hallmark of good pastoral judgment.  Never make public that which need not be made public.

Those nominated already fill out several forms.  Why not authorize a background check at that point?  If the person does not wish the background check, the nomination is withdrawn.  That does not mean that issues found out on a background check or the circumstances that may lead someone to decline one are simply forgotten.  It means that they are handled as they should be -- with quiet discretion and pastoral judgment.

Whoever wrote what is in the proceedings has obviously not thought this through and left us with the terrible circumstance of having to announce to the Church that a person did not pass the background check and therefore cannot be placed into the position to which he or she was elected.  Really?  That is the best we can do.