Roger, thanks for this balanced and informative response. I think all of us would like to see more specifics on the plan for the commission, but I can also understand the difficulty a divided C of B would have had coming up with details overnight. It would have been vastly preferable if they had exercised enough foresight to have worked on a contingency plan in the months leading up to GC and been ready to present it at the appropriate moment. After all, the handwriting on the wall was pretty clear to anyone who was paying attention. It is this lack of proactive foresight that I consider their true leadership failure.
You say the writing of “ such a BIG blank check for an initiative with so few details and no track record of success” is almost unprecedented. But isn’t there a second example of a similar sign of desperation in Donald House’s proposed Standing Committee on Strategy and Growth? Instead of a blank check, it’s filled in for $20 million dollars, but there are few other details being offered beyond this. And delegates will be asked to vote on this tomorrow as part of the quadrennial budget. The message coming from both seems to be “Trust our integrity and good intentions, and we’ll fill you in on the details, as needed, when they’re available.” Not very methodical and more authoritarian than most of us are accustomed to.
So, if you’re right about the passage of the bishops’ proposal as a sign of our desperation, I guess the Growth Committee gamble proves we’re really desperate!