text:
Journal of Anglican Studies
The Anglican Covenant and the '...
Core reader
The Anglican Covenant and the 'Puritan' Temptation
Episkopé and the Ordering of Oversight
Anglican Diversity in the Ordering of Episkopé
The 'Puritan' Temptation
Journal of Anglican Studies, Volume 10, Issue 1
30 March 2012 , pp. 13-24
Timothy F. Sedgwick
Copyright: © The Journal of Anglican Studies Trust 2012
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 October 2011
As ecumenical understanding of the formation and development of episkopé has emphasized, there are different ways of structuring episkopé collegially, synodically and personally, each with its own theological basis, strength and weakness. This article argues that the proposed Anglican Covenant assumes a normative understanding of the nature and role of the bishop which carries the danger of a kind of 'puritanism' in which the focus and energy of the churches in the Anglican Communion are narrowly focused, creating a bureaucratic form of governance that vitiates the mission of the church.
Timothy F. Sedgwick is Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Clinton S. Quin Professor of Christian Ethics, Virginia Theological Seminary, Alexandria, VA 22304, USA.
The proposed Anglican Covenant is above all about episkopé and episkopus 2 – the nature of oversight and the ordering of authority for oversight – in order that the church may constitute its life for the sake of the Gospel, to witness and pass on the faith that it has received. The question of bishops is then placed in the broader context of the central questions of the church: How is the church to be faithful to Jesus Christ? How should the church order its life for the sake of the Gospel? What does that mean and what does that require? The answers to these questions tell the story of the church in its development, divisions and reformations. The proposed Anglican Covenant can only be understood as part of this larger story as given and received in the churches that form the Anglican Communion.
As a constructive proposal for ordering the life of the Anglican Communion, the Anglican Covenant has an understanding of episkopé that reflects the understanding and exercise of the episcopate in the Church of England. As the Anglican Roman Catholic International Consultation noted in 1993, in the Anglican Communion 'patterns of synodical government developed in which laity clergy and bishops shared the authority of government'.3 Formed from missionary expansion and the worldwide expanse of the British Empire, churches within a nation or nations formed provincial churches. Each of these postcolonial churches became 'responsible for ordering its own life' with its own 'independent legislative and juridical authority'.4 While these churches share a common understanding of episkopé, the authority of bishops within the churches of the Anglican Communion is understood differently reflecting Anglicanism's Protestant as well as Roman Catholic roots.
The Anglican Covenant with its proposal for the development and exercise of the episcopate is a particular proposal for the ordering of episkopé. It raises the question of the relationship between those churches of the Anglican Communion that may agree to adopt the Covenant and those who do not. This is the same question raised in ecumenical discussion between churches where there are shared understandings of episkopé but differences in the ordering of episkopé and the role and authority of bishops. Only in understanding the different ways episkopé has been ordered historically can the present discussion turn from a narrow focus on 'who's right?' to 'what are the range of ways of ordering the life of the church so as to be faithful to Jesus Christ and the mission of the church?' Only in asking this ecumenical question is it possible to avoid unnecessary division and continue to seek the greatest, possible, visible unity between those churches forming the Anglican Communion.
This essay argues that a normative reading of the history of episkopé only in terms of the specific authority of the role of bishop fails to acknowledge the diversity of ways in which episkopé has been structured. The attempt to concentrate authority in order to resolve difference and insure conformity may be called 'the puritan temptation'. This temptation is not to be identified narrowly with the New England Puritans of the sixteenth and seventeenth century but more generally with all churches that seek to purify the faith. For the sake of purity, however, the consequence may be divisiveness and division. Faith as grounded in charity may be compromised and the larger unity and witness of the church may be lost. This argument requires a brief account of the nature of episkopé, how it became variously structured in the ordering of ministry in the church, and what are strengths and weaknesses or dangers in these different ways of ordering ministry. In this context, the proposed Anglican Covenant may be assessed from one perspective within the Episcopal Church.
The story of bishops begins with the early church. Read backwards, the understanding of episkopé is too easily identified with the development of the ordained office we now call bishop. In the early Church, the gathering of the Christian community was varied. Only over the first three centuries were common writings agreed upon in the canonization of Holy Scripture, common worship established (including baptismal formularies and Eucharistic liturgies), creeds developed expressing the basic tenants of faith, and power and authority ordered in an ultimately liturgically ordained leadership. The office of the bishop only developed over time from elders of the community exercising episkopé in a local community to an office signifying and effecting common faith and communion between local churches as part of a worldwide communion.5
In the development of Christian communities in the first century, episkopé was understood to be exercised by the one who presided at the Eucharist. In obedience to Jesus' command, Eucharist is the central act of worship in which the church is the body of Christ offering itself to God for the sake of the world. In this offering the church marks its fundamental reality as communion (as koinonia), as bound together in the intimate love of God and neighbor. Episkopus (the one who exercises oversight) was the elder in the community who embodied and represented the Christian faith in his life. Like the host or community leader, in calling the community together in celebration of their faith, this person provided oversight.
As a household and school of charity, episkopé was also a matter of teaching what Christian faith meant and required. As a matter of traditioning, of (literally from the Latin) handing over or passing on the faith received from the Apostles, Christian faith is passed on through the life of the community of faith – for example, in the reading of Scripture, in catechetical teaching, in the declaration of baptismal vows and their summary in creeds, in practices of prayer and charity, in practices of repentance and reconciliation, and in worship as given in the structure of prayer and readings and in the actions of gathering together and in going out into the world.6 In the second century, as with Irenaeus' Writings against Heresies,7 those exercising episkopé did so in writings for the broader Christian communities. The one who provides oversight in the teaching of faith is the one who proclaims the faith as apostolic and catholic, as an unbroken tradition that begins with the apostles and which unites the local community with the universal truth of Christian faith.
Moreover, if teaching is about forming new Christians, teaching cannot be separated from discipline. Oversight in this sense is not individual pastoral care but more the role of the shepherd who rules or governs the flock. In this sense the bishop has been understood as the chief pastor who provides the bond of unity and identity for the communities of faith. In response to heresies, bishops as teachers and shepherds gathered in councils as a collegial body, as colleagues, hence the later term 'college of bishops'. In gathering they bring together local communities in relationship to each other in order to inform each other so that they might express and further the church as universal communion.8
These three elements in understanding episkopé – presiding over Eucharistic worship and the community, teaching, and acting as the pastor who judges, admonishes and forgives (or more accurately declares God's forgiveness) – came to be understood as integral one to the other.9 The one who presides is the teacher, the one who embodies the Christian faith in their life and understanding. In turn, the one who teaches is the pastor who shepherds. Understood sacramentally, the bishop is a sign of the unity of the church. The bishop signifies and effects (brings about) the unity of the church as a communion of persons bound together as the bishop presides, teaches and pastors.
The focus and concentration of authority and power in the office of the bishop, what has been called the monarchical bishop, is tied to the development of the priesthood as a separate position or role in the church. Sometime in the second century, given the growth and conflict in the church, bishops assumed regional oversight over a group of local churches and the office of priest developed in which priests exercised episkopé on behalf of the bishop.10 In the further differentiation of office, from the fourth through the eighth century, bishops assumed teaching and governing authority over regional churches, what came to be four patriarchal or metropolitan sees in the East (with oversight over the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople) and one patriarchal or metropolitan see in Rome (with oversight over the churches in Rome). The bishops from within these five sees variously gathered in a series of councils from 325 (the First Council of Nicaea) through 787 (the Second Council of Nicaea) in order to define and form a common faith. Bishops who had oversight over local churches gathered together to consult and address matters of doctrine and discipline. Authority as a whole, though, remained dispersed. Regional churches were left under the authority of their own bishops who sought to teach and discipline in light of the councils in relationship to the practical realities of local congregations. Episkopé was understood as collegial expressed in 'ecumenical councils'. It was also synodical, where the bishops in synod offered authoritative teaching.
By the end of the eleventh century, the power and authority of bishops had developed so that the Bishop of Rome became the final teacher and pastor of Christian faith in the churches of the West as distinct from the Eastern churches with their four Patriarchs. Councils within the Roman Church were not abolished but were largely shaped by papal concerns and questions and so reinforced papal authority. Claims of papal authority were exercised through teachings, the authority of appointments, and the power of absolution and excommunication. Reform movements within the Roman Catholic Church variously sought to balance a monarchical episcopate with a more collegial model.11
Further 'reform' of the monarchical episcopate in the West was at the center of the Protestant Reformation beginning in the sixteenth century. Understanding all human institutions as fallen, the Reformers claimed that the teaching and unity of the church depended upon the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit and in that light Scripture as the Word of God bearing its own witness to the truth. From this foundational claim flowed the development of the doctrines of justification by faith, sola scriptura, and the priesthood of all believers. The reformers, however, did not promote an individualistic approach to salvation. The Protestant reformers believed that Christian faith required episkopé. Far from renouncing church order, teaching and discipline, congregations were to insure the regular reading of Scripture, true worship and right teaching as given in catechisms and confessions of faith. Protestant reformers re-conceived forms of episkopé. Teaching and governance were not to be identified with a monarchical episcopate or even an episcopate balanced by the councils of the church. Rather, episkopé was given in more communal forms of authority. In the Lutheran and Reformed traditions, the bishop and hence episkopé were identified with the ordained minister in the local congregation and with collegial gatherings at the congregational level and at regional levels, variously constituted by those ordained or by ordained and lay persons.12
The historical development of the varied exercises of episkopé in the different Christian churches – the early church, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism – reveals shared understandings of the nature of episkopé.13 History also reveals the dangers in the various ways of structuring episkopé in the church.14Sola scriptura given the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, the priesthood of all believers, and the priority of individual conscience is expressed in dispersed forms of authority. Dispersed authority highlights that the gospel is grounded in the local community and its experience of God in their lives. However, such dispersed authority can give rise to such diversity that the universal character of Christian faith and of the church as a community of faith is lost from view. Episcopal authority as personal given in the office of the bishops, exercised collegially and synodically – and even more so when tied to the primacy of the Pope – makes possible common expressions of faith as a matter of belief and practices. However, the centralization of authority may be imposed and deny the authentic expressions of faith as a life lived by particular people before God. This tension is not new but is present in the early church as raised by Paul regarding whether Gentiles could be Christian (Acts 10–15).15
The ecumenical dialogue on the church and the order of ministry has – as evidenced by Le Groupe des Dombes' 'One Teacher': Doctrinal Authority and the Church and by Walter Kasper's Harvesting the Fruits: Basic Aspects of Christian Faith in Ecumenical Dialogue 16– opened the question of whether, given shared understandings of episkopé, churches can be in full communion if they have ordered episkopé differently. As Le Groupe des Dombes asks,
Can these two structures – Episcopal-hierarchical and presbyterial-synodal – be reconciled in full communion? What is the sacramental deficiency (defectus) and the defect of communion and unity that affects the Reformation churches in the eyes of the Catholic Church? Reciprocally, what is the deficiency of collegial communion and the institutional excess affecting the Catholic Church in the eyes of the Reformation churches?17
As reflected in the ecumenical discussions, reasonable and faithful persons have disagreed about the structuring of oversight for the sake of the mission of the church. Anglican's ecumenical vocation – its role as via media between Catholic and Reformed – has in some sense been due to the fact that it has had in understanding episkopé and in its ordering of ministry been variously Catholic and Reformed, episcopal-hierarchical and presbyteral-synodal. Anglicans have shared the understanding of the centrality of the historic episcopate and the centrality of the person of bishop in both signing and effecting episkopé. At the same time as episkopé is realized and exercised personally, it is always exercised collegially and communally, in relation to other bishops and in relation to the community in synodal and other communal gatherings.18 Within Anglicanism bishops have been variously more or less monarchical in their exercise of episkopé and, in turn, have exercised episkopé more or less communally and synodically.19 Beyond the Church of England, the structure of episkopé in the postcolonial churches was variously ordered.
In the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, the historic episcopate was affirmed and placed in a structure that was Protestant in terms of oversight resting in individual dioceses and a bicameral governing body for the national church, a House of Bishops and a House of Deputies comprised of diocesan delegations of laity and clergy. Moreover, dioceses in the Episcopal Church elect bishops through representatives of congregations, requiring in most cases a majority vote by laity and by clergy (since the Episcopal Church's Constitutional and Canons gives dioceses the freedom to determine the means of election20). Bishops are then ratified by the consent of a majority of diocesan bishops and a majority of diocesan Standing Committees (i.e. governing bodies composed of lay and clergy representatives). Bishops, moreover, having oversight over one diocese, cannot be transferred to assume diocesan oversight apart from the election by another diocese. Given such dispersed authority – for example, in the case of the election of Gene Robinson as diocesan Bishop of New Hampshire or in the election of Mary Glasspool as suffragan Bishop in the Diocese of Los Angeles – the presiding bishop cannot veto or repeal a diocesan election assuming a majority of bishops and Standing Committees consent to the election.21
In the Anglican Communion, other churches vary in their approach to episkopé. The churches that broke from England first – such as the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, the Anglican Church of Australia, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Scottish Episcopal Church, and the Church of South India – differ in order and discipline but in terms of episkopé also lean more towards the collegial-synodical. In terms of governance, these churches are postcolonial in that they have ordered episcopacy apart from the Church of England. They differ significantly from the structuring of episkopé and the authority of the bishop in the Church of England. While the Church of England has become increasingly collegial in receiving input from those involved in and affected by the decisions of bishops, bishops stand at the center of power and authority. Bishops hold the power and authority for the election of new bishops, the appointment of bishops to specific dioceses, and the development of the teaching of the church (which can then be enacted by episcopal election and appointment). In this way, the Church of England insured order and conformity in new missionary churches planted in the worldwide reach of the British Empire.
On a spectrum from episcopal-hierarchical to collegial-synodical, both the Church of England and the Episcopal Church see in the person and office of the bishop the sacramental sign of the unity of the church. In the Church of England power and authority for governance stands on the episcopal-hierarchical end of the spectrum. In the Episcopal Church power and authority governance stands on the more Protestant collegial-synodical end of the spectrum.
The understanding of episkopé and the affirmation of the variety of ways in which episkopé may be ordered within Anglicanism is given in the statement of the Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral, adopted by the Episcopal Church's General Convention in 1886 and by the bishops of the Anglican Communion at the Lambeth Conference in 1888: 'The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.'22 The proposed Anglican Covenant restates this fundamental claim and the corresponding challenge of episkopé to sustain the integrity of faith and unity between local congregations and a worldwide church. Quoting from a statement made by the Primates after their meeting in Alexandria, Egypt, in March 2009, the proposed Anglican Covenant says,
Each Church affirms its resolve to live in a Communion of Churches. Each Church, with its bishops in synod, orders and regulates its own affairs and its local responsibility for mission through its own system of government and law and is therefore described as living 'in communion with autonomy and accountability'.23
The letter goes on to quote from a statement issued by the bishops of the 1930 Lambeth Conference: 'Churches of the Anglican Communion are bound together not by a central legislative and executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference' and of the other instruments of Communion.'24
In terms of the ordering of episkopé for the churches that have formed the Anglican Communion, the Anglican Covenant offers a normative answer. The answer proposed falls along the episcopal-hierarchical lines of authority, as reflected in previous documents for the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission.25 Sections 1, 2 and 3 are deeply informed by the broader ecumenical dialogues on episkopé. Section 4 addresses adoption, maintenance, dispute resolution, withdrawal and the amendment of the Covenant. Section 4 moves from the nature of episkopé to matters of episkopus, in other words, to the ordering or structuring of oversight and the role of bishops.
The proposed Anglican Covenant expresses the ways in which episkopé and the office of bishop must be collegial and conciliar. This is given in commitment to the instruments of unity and to multiple processes of consultation. Power and authority to govern the life of the churches that have constituted the Anglican Communion, however, is centered in the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion, responsible to the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) and the Primates' Meeting. The Standing Committee itself is constituted by seven persons elected by the ACC, the chair and the vice-chair of the ACC (who are also elected by the members of the ACC), and five persons constituting the Primates' Standing Committee. The Archbishop of Canterbury serves as an ex officio member of the Standing Committee and serves as chair when present.26
In considering charges brought to it against actions by churches within the Anglican Communion, the Standing Committee
shall make recommendations as to relational consequences which flow from an action incompatible with the Covenant. These recommendations may be addressed to the Churches of the Anglican Communion or to the Instruments of the Communion and address the extent to which the decision of any covenanting Church impairs or limits the communion between that Church and the other Churches of the Communion, and the practical consequences of such impairment or limitation. Each Church or each Instrument shall determine whether or not to accept such recommendations.27
Here the means of discipline are broadly conciliar and collegial. The Standing Committee is a council and seeks input broadly from others and, in turn, makes recommendations to others having specific authority over aspects of the life of the Communion. This reflects Anglican polity and episkopé but also establishes a form of episkopé tied to an increased centralization of discipline.
The centralization of authority in the proposed Anglican Covenant make possible administratively and juridically a greater agreement on the meaning and practice of Christian faith. This is what Charles Taylor has described as a form of 'puritanization', of purifying Christian faith in seeking a greater unity and integrity of faith through increased specification of belief and uniformity of conduct.28 Ironically, such centralization may result in increased divisions. Jeremy Taylor indicated this problem in the seventeenth century given the bloody divisions between Catholic and Reformed views of the church. As he writes in his sermon, 'Via Intelligentiae':
when truth and peace are brought into the world together, and bound up in the same bundle of life; when we are taught a religion by the Prince of peace, who is the truth itself, to see men contending for this truth to the breach of that peace; and when men fall out, to see that they should make Christianity their theme: that is one of the greatest wonders in the world…. Disputation cures no vice, but kindles a great many, and makes passion evaporate into sin: and though men esteem it learning, yet it is the most useless learning in the world.29
From this perspective, the proposed Anglican Covenant pits puritans of different stripes against liberals accepting or tolerant of differences. Puritans see only a centralized and ultimately bureaucratic form of the Episcopacy – whether constituting a final decision-making body or convening those duly chosen as a final decision-making body – as necessary for the integrity of Christian faith and witness. They seek the integrity of belief and practice at the cost of ever-increasing division. Liberals see diversity in understandings and practices as essential to a faith that is received and lived among different people and across cultures. They court the danger of an acceptance or a tolerance that undermines teaching and witness.
The danger of the loss of integrity in the life and mission of the church is the central problem assumed in the Anglican Covenant. The 'puritan answer' to the problem of diversity, however, is not as self-evident as assumed or at least as offered by the proposed Anglican Covenant. The consequences in terms of time and cost are not considered. However, more significantly than time and cost are the consequences in terms of the attention given to contested differences and to matters of discipline. The danger is that attention to disputation turns Christian faith away from the Prince of Peace whose truth is the way of charity. The matter may be women's ordination, the blessing of the vows of gay and lesbian persons to form a life together, or valid forms of Eucharistic prayer. The danger of centralizing authority, where differences become points of focus, is not only the danger of the loss of charity but also the danger of moving too quickly to structural divisions which make difficult or impossible common life and witness.
2. 'Episkopé is an ecumenical neologism [derived from the Greek noun, épiskopus, translated as one who has oversight or as supervisor, and] introduced in order to discuss the problem of oversight independently of the controversial question of who is invested with it.' See Kasper, Walter, Harvesting the Fruits: Basic Aspects of Christian Faith in Ecumenical Dialogue (New York: Continuum, 2009), p. 156, n. 28. In the ecumenical dialogues (Anglican-Roman Catholic, Lutheran-Catholic, Reformed-Catholic, and Methodist-Catholic), see pp. 119–34.
3. Anglican/Roman Catholic International Commission, Life in Christ: Morals, Communion and the Church (1993; London: Church House/Catholic Truth Society, 1994, and available online), para. 38.
4. Anglican/Roman Catholic International Commission, Life in Christ, para. 39.
5. On the history of the development of episkopéand the office of the bishop, see des Dombes, Le Groupe, 'One Teacher': Doctrinal Authority in the Church (trans. Catherine E. Clifford; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans, 2010), pp. 1–28; Sullivan, Francis A., SJ, From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church (New York: Newman Press, 2001); Richard A. Norris, The Business of All Believers: Reflections on Leadership (ed. Timothy F. Sedgwick; New York: Seabury Press, 2009), pp. 67–74.
6. Norris, The Business of All Believers, pp. 98–104.
7. Irenaeus, , St. Irenaeus of Lyons against the Heresies (trans. Dominic J. Unger; (New York: Paulist Press, 1992).
8. Le Groupe des Dombes, 'One Teacher', pp. 12–13.
9. Norris, The Business of All Believers, pp. 74–80. On the history that results in the 'monarchical episcopate', see Sullivan, , From Apostles to Bishops and his concluding summary and theological assessment arguing for such an ordering of episkopé, pp. 217–230.
10. Norris, The Business of All Believers, pp. 71–74.
11. Le Groupe des Dombes, 'One Teacher', pp. 13–34.
12. See Rohls, Jan, 'Ápostolicity, Episkope, and Succession: The Lutheran, Reformed and United Tradition', Visible Unity and the Ministry of Oversight, The Second Theological Conference held under the Meissen Agreement between the Church of England and the Evangelical Church in Germany (London: Church Publishing, 1996), pp. 93–107.
13. See Kasper, Harvesting the Fruits, pp. 119–25.
14. Le Groupe des Dombes, 'One Teacher', pp. 104–109, 117–22, 141–56.
15. On Acts 10–15, in response to the question of the tension between the universal and the local that gave rise to the Anglican Covenant, see To Set Our Hope in Christ: A Response to the Invitation of the Windsor Report Para. 135 (New York: Office of Communications, Episcopal Church Center, 2005), section 2.10–2.13, pp. 13–17.
16. See nn. 2 and 5 above.
17. Le Groupe des Dombes, 'One Teacher', p. 109.
18. Tanner, Mary, 'The Anglican Position on Apostolic Continuity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement', in Visible Unity and the Ministry of Oversight, pp. 108–119.
19. See Findon, John, 'Developments in the Understanding and Practice of Episcopacy in the Church of England', in Visible Unity and the Ministry of Oversight, pp. 79–92.
20. The General Convention of the Episcopal Church, Constitution and Canons (New York: Church Publishing, 2006), article II, section 1; available online.
21. Constitution and Canons, Article II, sections 1, 3, 8; Title III, Canon 11, sections 1–6.
22. Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral in The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, The Book of Common Prayer (New York: Church Publishing, 1979), pp. 877–78; text from the adopted text of Lambeth 1888, resolution 11. See The Anglican Covenant, 1.1.6, quoting the Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral.
23. The proposed Anglican Communion Covenant, considered at the meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in May 2009, posted at the Anglican Communion official website, http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/final/text.cfm, 3.1.2.
24. Anglican Communion Covenant, 3.1.2.
25. See especially Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), The Gift of Authority (London: General Synod for the Church of England, 2004); Church as Communion (London: Anglican Consultative Council, 1991); Salvation and the Church (London: General Synod of the Church of England, 1989); Authority in the Church: A Statement on the Question of Authority, its Nature, Exercise, and Implications (London: SPCK, 1977). All are available online. See also Kasper, Harvesting the Fruits, pp. 102–10, 119–20, 123–24, 126, 129–34, 138–41.
26. See the Anglican Communion website, Anglican Consultative Council – Standing Committee.
28. See Taylor, Charles, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2007), pp. 541–542.
29. Jeremy Taylor: Selected Works, The Classics of Western Spirituality (ed. Thomas K. Carroll; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1990), p. 355.
Loading article...
Loading image...


Hands-on engineering doesn't always require high-tech materials. Armed with a stack of paper and the steps to folding a basic dart airplane, a volunteer leads a paper airplane station at a local science exposition and realizes, with surprise, that folding planes isn't something all kids know how to do! With guidance, paper airplane folding can lead to some far-flying—and fun—aerodynamics exploration.
Above top: Mary Raven demonstrates folding a basic dart paper airplane at a local Girls Inc. science fair. Bottom: Mary's daughter prepares to launch and test a different plane. How will it fly compared to a dart—and why?
Hands-on Science at Home, School, or After School!
Along with origami fortune tellers and, these days, origami Star Wars finger puppets, paper airplanes are a seemingly eternal and archetypal pastime, a folding activity with a tangible outcome—a plane you can throw across the room or, accidentally, at a sibling. Right? Maybe. Maybe not.
When Dr. Mary Raven, Microscopy Facility Director at the Neuroscience Research Institute and Neuroscience Research Institute & department of Molecular, Cellular & Developmental Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, volunteered at her daughter's after-school program's annual science fair, she set up a paper airplane station so that the girls could experiment with the aerodynamics and physics of different plane designs. To get the most out of a hands-on comparative plane folding experiment, the kids folding the planes need to be comfortable with basic folding steps. Mary assumed most of the girls would have some history with paper airplanes. To her surprise, she discovered that folding paper airplanes was not something with which all the girls had experience. In the end, the girls that visited Mary's station at the Girls Inc. science fair got a crash course in basic folding, a fun dose of engineering, a nifty takeaway (paper airplane), and a great hands-on science experience.
Mary's daughter, now in fourth grade, has been attending a local Girls Inc. after-school program since kindergarten, and Mary has been volunteering, each year, to lead a hands-on exploration with the girls at the science fair. According to Mary, science is typically part of the program schedule at Girls Inc., and when students request their top choice classes, engaging science-themed options like a Mad Scientist club are part of the available offering. But science really heats up with the yearly science expo when the girls get hands-on with a wide range of science and engineering activities.
"When you think science fair, you might think girls calmly presenting their projects" says Mary. "But the Girls Inc. science fair is more of a hands-on science show. Imagine 150 excited girls aged 5-12 running from station to station, and you have our Girls Inc. science fair."
At the science fair, various exploratory stations are set up for the girls to cycle through. This year, Mary says the stations included a math station, one focused on earthquakes, one on rocket launchers, one on hand washing (and visualizing germs with Glo Germ), a microscope-based station, and one featuring an iguana. The diverse offerings give the girls the chance to experience a number of different areas of science—who knows what might catch a young girl's imagination and spark lifelong interest—but as Mary can attest, 150 participants cycling through a hands-on science activity can be a challenge!
"I don't work with children for a living, and having one girl at home in no way prepares you for the experience of 150 excited girls asking every question imaginable," admits Mary. "I've tried several projects with the girls (prism optics, sun-prints, brain dissections), and I'm usually disappointed in my ability to share anything meaningful with a mass of swarming girls."
This year, Mary spotted a project at Science Buddies and thought it might be perfect for the science fair. "When I saw the experiment How Far Will It Fly? Build & Test Paper Planes with Different Drag posted on Science Buddies, I thought, 'hey, that looks like it might adapt to the wild of the Girls Inc. science fair.'"
Having selected her activity for the fair, Mary spent time determining how best to convert the science "project" (something written with a single student performing a science experiment in mind) into a short-term hands-on activity that girls could do on the spot. When converting a full-scale project to an immediate and short-term activity, understanding both the audience and the main science concepts you want to get across is important. You want to craft the activity in such a way that the students are engaged and that there is a clear scientific takeaway.
Knowing in advance that girls would cycle through at varying times and that those at her station would all be in various stages of the activity at the same time, Mary planned ahead. She first made a poster that showed the basic steps for folding a simple dart plane. "I have learned the girls don't stop to read words," says Mary, "but I thought the examples might help."
She then gathered supplies: a stack of paper, a ruler, tape, scissors, and a clipboard for recording results. "I marked off the gym in 5 foot increments," says Mary, "and then with my poster board set up and papers at the ready, I waited for the girls to appear." Mary was ready, but she hadn't counted on the fact that not all of the girls had folded planes before. Even with the steps for folding a dart plane on the poster, folding the plane proved a challenge for some of the girls. "The first few girls trickled into the gym, and I quickly learned I was going to be walking the girls through folding the planes."
On the spot, Mary had to adapt and refocus her hands-on engineering activity. Testing multiple plane designs might not be possible; certainly, building three different planes with each girl was out of the question, says Mary. "I was a little surprised at how unfamiliar the girls were at folding paper. I was also a little disturbed to learn they called lengthwise folds 'hot dog' and widthwise folds 'hamburger,'" recalls Mary. Still, Mary and the girls stuck with it. "Some of the girls wanted me to fold [the plane] for them, but I think folding is a great 3D spatial skill, and using their own hands was important."
Despite the rocky start, "all the girls were able to fold a plane with help," says Mary. Not only were they able to fold a plane, but they were excited when they finished their planes. The immediate satisfaction of the project was evident for the girls who struggled through plane folding at Mary's station. "They were thrilled at how well the dart flew once it was complete."
Rather than building multiple planes each, each girl flew her plane three times, and they took measurements and determined the average. Mary then guided the girls in modifying their original plane. "We added flaps in the back, and I asked the girls what they thought the flaps would do to the plane. None of the girls were certain what would happen, but when they tested the plane, they quickly realized the plane didn't fly well at all," says Mary. "They were able to deduce that the flaps were somehow blocking the airflow, and some girls realized that unfolding the flaps restored the plane's flying capability. I thought that was a great result!"
"I think making the planes was empowering for the girls," says Mary. "It gave them a tool to experiment with. They were excited to try flying it and to determine the best way to launch it. As much as I like the data collection and analysis part of the experiment, my favorite part was how the girls seemed to understand the manipulation. The concept of drag wasn't something they had heard of, and it isn't something they were likely to pick-up from a diagram. Still, after a couple of plane flights, they had a mental image."
And that's what it's all about, seeing the science in action, the cause and effect, the principles of science, like drag, and realizing that changing just one variable can make a dramatic difference. For Mary, this year's event was eye-opening, but she is happy with how it turned out and happy with the project she used as the basis for her activity. "I liked the aerodynamics (activity) because it is mostly hands-on interactive time, and the girls had something they could keep (the plane). Waiting is a killer in this format, and they love having something to take home."
"Overall, I'm very happy with the results although I still haven't achieved my vision of somehow ordering the disorder at my science fair table. If I had 4 volunteers, maybe?"
We can't wait to see what Mary tries at next year's science fair, but we are sure that the girls who passed through her station this year benefited from having an interested adult take time to demonstrate, explain, guide, and encourage them to explore, question, and hypothesize.
"I think it is really important that the girls have contact with female scientist and engineers (or any scientist/engineer)," notes Mary. "Girls are very influenced by the female role models in their life. If you ask them why they are considering the career choice they are exploring, it is usually a female role model or relative that leads them to consider the option."
Note: After the fair, Mary suggested to the after-school program that enrichment programs in origami or in plane folding might be a great addition to the offerings. Do your kids and students fold paper airplanes now and again? If not, or if you are not sure, open up the basic dart instructions and grab a stack of paper. There are planes to be folded!
Interested in supporting and encouraging girls in science and engineering at home, in the classroom, or at a local school? See also: "Girls Explore Engineering with Marble Run Challenge" and "Encouraging and Inspiring Female Student Engineers."
Science Buddies Project Ideas in aerodynamics & hydrodynamics are supported by the Motorola Solutions Foundation.


text:
Democratic Organizational Procedure in Contemporary Lāhui Hawaiʻi
By Keokani Kipona Marciel, Professional Registered Parliamentarian (PRP)
ʻO nā hana o nā hālāwai a pau o ka Hui a me ka ʻAha Hoʻokō e alakaʻi ʻia nō ia e nā rula o nā anaina maikaʻi, a me nā rula maʻa mau o nā ʻAhaʻōlelo.
—Ka Hui Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina. (4 Malaki 1893). Kumukānāwai (Paukū 8, Helu 3). Honolulu, Oʻahu, Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina
Democratic Organizational Procedure in the 19th Century Hawaiian Kingdom
From the unification of the Hawaiian Islands at the turn of the 19th century until the illegal overthrow near the end of the 19th century, governance of the Hawaiian Kingdom was modeled largely after Great Britain. In 1840, the Hawaiian Kingdom became a constitutional monarchy with separation of powers into three branches of government, establishing itself as a conventional nation-state. In 1854, each of the two houses of the Hawaiian Kingdom legislature formally adopted procedural manuals to govern their proceedings. As in other democracies, legislative procedure formed the basis for the common parliamentary law of the Country. In other words, the generally accepted rules of order for meetings of voluntary organizations. These general principles of meeting procedures provide for democratic governance in ordinary societies.
The historical record clearly shows that democratic organizational procedure was widely embraced by Hawaiian patriotic societies and political parties of the 19th century. For example, the men's and women's Hawaiian Patriotic League each adopted provisions in their founding constitutions prescribing parliamentary procedure for both volunteer associations.
All proceedings of meetings of the League and of the Executive Council shall be governed by the usual decorum and rules of Parliamentary Usage.
—Hawaiian Patriotic League. (4 March 1893). Constitution (Article 8, Section 3). Honolulu, Oʻahu, Hawaiian Islands
Democratic Organizational Procedure in 21st Century Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina
In contrast to the Hawaiian Kingdom era, an aversion to parliamentary procedure has developed within the Hawaiian national body of the 21st century. Yet, the historical record speaks for itself: annexation was prevented by a mass petition organized by a joint effort of the three largest Hawaiian patriotic societies at the time. These three societies followed the common practices of formal procedure every step of the way. The magnitude of this historical feat remains unsurpassed.
ʻO nā hālāwai a pau a ka Hui a me ke Kōmite Hoʻoponopono, e alakaʻi ʻia nō ia e nā rula o nā anaina maikaʻi a me nā rula maʻa mau o nā ʻAhaʻōlelo.
—Ka Hui Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina a Hoʻomau Kūʻokoʻa a nā Lede. (27 Malaki 1893). Kumukānāwai (Paukū 7, Helu 3). Honolulu, Oʻahu, Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina
A 21st Century Case Study
In 2015, an effort began to restore one of the major Hawaiian patriotic societies of the Hawaiian Kingdom era. Under the supervision of a credentialed parliamentarian, organizational meetings were held, bylaws were adopted, members were admitted, dues were collected, officers were elected, committees were appointed, regular meetings were established, branch charters were issued, and two annual delegate conventions were held. Also adopted were a code of ethics, strategic plan, standing rules (procedural and administrative), and numerous resolutions for diplomatic action. In effect, it was an experiment to see how well the Lāhui of today can tolerate the organizational procedure of its 19th century ancestors. Ultimately, the socialized aversion to formal procedure prevailed, clearing the way for authoritarianism and the railroading of decisions.
In 2019, the board of directors of this society, in violation of parliamentary law, revolted against the rules and orders adopted by the association. The current bylaws of the association provide for their amendment only by the delegate assembly of the annual convention, following written notice to the entire association at least 60 days in advance. This was willfully disregarded by some of the board members, who covertly conspired to illegally amend the bylaws.
Violation of the Rights of Absent Members
A special meeting was abruptly called without giving notice of the proposed bylaw amendment. This violated the rights of absent members who have a right to know the purpose of a special meeting in advance. Previous notice allows all members to determine if the subject of the special meeting is important enough to make arrangements in their individual schedules to attend.
Not only did the illegal bylaw amendment violate the bylaws, as well as the rights of absent board members, it also violated the rights of the delegates of the annual conventions who adopted the bylaws. Between conventions, delegates are members absent during board meetings, so their rights as absent members were violated.
The Action is Null and Void Under Common Law
When a motion was made to adopt the proposed bylaw amendment during the board meeting, the correct response by the chair would have been to rule the motion out of order because of the aforementioned conflict with the bylaws. Instead, the presiding officer stated the motion, which was to revise the purpose in the bylaws, replacing it with one privately drafted by the conspirators. After discussion, the presiding officer took a roll call vote and the bylaw amendment was adopted by those present. However, since the action is in conflict with the bylaws, it is null and void under parliamentary law, even if adopted unanimously by the assembly of board members. Parliamentary law (democratic meeting procedures established over time by organizations in general) is a branch of common law.
Violation of the Right of the Majority to Rule
Additionally, the bylaws are a codification of the most important rules of the association, adopted by a majority—and amended by a super-majority (two-thirds)—of the registered delegates present and voting at successive annual conventions. Therefore, to violate the bylaws is to violate the rights of the majority of delegates that adopted the bylaws, including the super-majority that amended the bylaws, at the annual conventions. In particular, the board illegally revised the purpose in the bylaws, which had already been amended by the delegate assembly at the 2017 and 2019 conventions. This violated the right of those majorities to rule, to have their decision stand as an official act of the association, which is binding upon the membership. The right of the majority to rule is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, i.e., democratic organizational procedure.
Violation of the Rights of Individual Members
Furthermore, the illegal revision of the purpose in the bylaws, by the board of directors between annual conventions, violated the rights of the individual members who had given written notice, of proposed amendments to the purpose, to be considered at the upcoming annual convention. It violated their right to make motions. Specifically, to have their proposed bylaw amendments considered before those subsequently introduced by the board. In other words, the board cut to the front of the line, and those who had already been waiting in line were thrown under the bus.
Board Decisions Cannot Conflict with Delegate Decisions
Moreover, it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the board cannot adopt decisions in conflict with decisions adopted by the regular convention of delegates. In this case, the board cannot adopt a revision of the purpose, in the bylaws, that was previously adopted and amended by convention delegates, because the bylaws do not delegate this power to the board. The ultimate authority of a volunteer organization resides in the membership, not in the board of directors elected by the membership. For an association of organizations, the voting membership consists of the registered delegates at successive conventions, who are elected by the entire membership consisting of the members of the chartered organizations collectively.
All proceedings of meetings of the Association and of the Managing Committee shall be governed by the usual quorum and rules of similar associations.
—Ladies Hawaiian Patriotic Association. (27 March 1893). Constitution (Article 7, Section 3). Honolulu, Oʻahu, Hawaiian Islands
Can the Illegal Board Action be Ratified?
ʻAʻole. The only actions that the board can legally take are those delegated to it by the membership through the bylaws. In this case, the bylaws do not delegate any power to the board to amend the association bylaws between annual conventions. Consequently, any amendment of the bylaws by the board between annual conventions is null and void under parliamentary law because it conflicts with the previous adoption and amendment of the bylaws by the superior body, which is the delegate assembly.
Boards cannot suspend, amend, repeal or otherwise change any act of a higher body (convention, assembly, etc.) except by express bylaw; ...
—Demeter, G. (1969). Demeter's manual of parliamentary law and procedure: For the legal conduct of business in all deliberative assemblies (blue book ed., § 20, I, p. 270). Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Furthermore, bylaws cannot be suspended under parliamentary law unless a clause provides for its own suspension, which is not the case here. Nor does the clause in question constitute a rule or order (which could be suspended if permitted by the adopted parliamentary authority, or by an adopted rule superseding it).
Rules contained in the bylaws (or constitution) cannot be suspended—no matter how large the vote in favor of doing so or how inconvenient the rule in question may be—unless the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension, or unless the rule properly is in the nature of a rule of order ...
—Robert, H. M., III, Honemann, D. H., Balch, T. J., Seabold, D. E., & Gerber, S. (2011). Robert's rules of order newly revised (11th ed., § 25, p. 263, ll. 1-6). Boston, MA: Da Capo Press.
Moreover, an action taken by the board cannot be ratified by the membership if its governing documents do not authorize the delegation of such action to the board.
An assembly can ratify only such actions of its officers, committees, delegates, or subordinate bodies as it would have had the right to authorize in advance. It cannot make valid a voice-vote election when the bylaws require elections to be by ballot; nor can it ratify anything done in violation of procedural rules prescribed by national, state, or local law, or in violation of its own bylaws, except that provision for a quorum in the bylaws does not prevent it from ratifying action taken at a meeting when no quorum was present.
—Robert, H. M., III, Honemann, D. H., Balch, T. J., Seabold, D. E., & Gerber, S. (2011). Robert's rules of order newly revised (11th ed., § 10, p. 125, ll. 6-14). Boston, MA: Da Capo Press.
The only way for the illegal bylaw amendment to be made legal is to start over and follow the procedure prescribed in the bylaws. First, to provide previous written notice of the proposed bylaws amendments to the entire association at least 30 days before the next annual convention. Second, for the amendment to be adopted by two-thirds of the registered delegates assembled at the business meeting of the convention (with a quorum present).
If it is desired for the board to have the delegated power to amend the bylaws between annual conventions of the branch delegates, then this would require an amendment to the bylaws at an annual convention. There have so far been two annual conventions of the association, at which this could have been proposed but never was. Alternatively, the bylaws could be amended to allow special conventions to be called for emergency purposes between the regular conventions.
As an ongoing conflict with the bylaws, it is never too late for a point of order to be raised against the illegal bylaw amendment during a subsequent board meeting or annual convention. A ruling on the point of order by the presiding officer can be appealed to the assembly for a decision, which, in turn, could not be appealed. However, if unsuccessful, the point of order could be renewed at subsequent meetings due to the illegal bylaw amendment being an ongoing conflict with the bylaws.
Bylaws are rules adopted and maintained by an association to define and direct its internal structure and management. Bylaws may be thought of as terms of an agreement between members and their association. Members, once they have joined an organization, are legally bound by its bylaws.
—American Institute of Parliamentarians. (2012). Standard code of parliamentary procedure (§ 26, p. 237). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Dual Purpose of Meeting Procedures
Parliamentary practice is an application of democratic principles, hence, they are synonymous. Accordingly, the case study described in this article suggests that noncompliance with parliamentary law and procedure can result in less democratic meetings and decisions by an organization, including violation of the rights of members. Rules of order for meetings of an organization exist to expedite business (group decisions made in the name of the organization) while simultaneously protecting the rights of every part of the membership: majority, minority, individual members, absent members, and all of them as a whole. If people are unable to see these dual roles of meeting procedures, then they may not see the value of meeting procedures.
Blinded by a Socialized Aversion to Democratic Organizational Procedure
If people are already prejudiced against meeting procedures to begin with, then they are more likely to have a closed mind to meeting procedures, which, in turn, prevents them from seeing their dual function. Consequently, they may see meeting procedures as obstructive rather than conducive to effective meetings. Then, it can become a vicious cycle, with confirmation bias reinforcing the socialized perception at a group level. This inhibits their motivation to learn meeting procedures in the first place. The result is that democratic organizational procedure (parliamentary law) is never truly given a chance to demonstrate its effectiveness in expediting meetings and protecting member rights simultaneously.
Members are obliged not to oppose decisions already made except through proper parliamentary mechanisms, such as moving to rescind or reconsider them. If the member cannot in good faith abide by a decision, that member must decide between living with it or leaving the organization.
—Lochrie, J. (2003). Meeting procedures: Parliamentary law and rules of order for the 21st century (§ 1, p. 4). Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press.
Can democratic organizational procedure occur spontaneously?
Without adhering to generally accepted practices for meeting procedures, how can an organization expect to hold democratic meetings, or to do so consistently?
Without a basic knowledge of parliamentary principles, how can an organization expedite business during meetings while also protecting the various rights of its membership?
Parliamentary law and procedure took centuries to develop. It stands to reason that this process would not have been necessary if democratic meetings were naturally occurring in human social systems.
Misalignment
In general, the contemporary Lāhui embraces the historical legacy of 19th century Hawaiian patriotic societies, while simultaneously avoiding the common law of meeting procedures that they followed (i.e., general parliamentary law). Therefore, the desire to restore one of these historic societies today is misaligned with the prejudice against parliamentary procedure that is part of the social scripting of the current generation of poʻe aloha ʻāina (Hawaiian patriots). This misalignment decreases the likelihood that an historic Hawaiian patriotic society can be restored to its former level of acceptance without adhering to a similar standard of procedure which got it there. In turn, this lack of formal procedure may contribute to the longevity of the prolonged belligerent occupation of Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina. The alternative is to accept that the procedure followed by the 19th century Hawaiian patriotic societies is "part of the package" if the desire is to fully restore one of them today.
Transplanted Operating System
Parliamentary law and procedure was the operating system used by the 19th century Hawaiian patriotic societies and political parties. Today, social media is the prevailing operating system used by the Lāhui. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether an historic Hawaiian patriotic society of the 19th century can be restored to its former presence by relying primarily on social media in lieu of meeting procedures, i.e., democratic organizational procedure. Social media has existed for two decades. Parliamentary procedure began developing more than seven centuries ago and is rooted in antiquity.
Since written exchanges through electronic mail and social media do not allow for simultaneous communication between everyone participating in a discussion, such asynchronous communication does not qualify as a deliberative assembly. Therefore, without a deliberative character, such group exchange cannot arrive at decisions democratically, nor as efficiently.
While modern communication technology facilitates the exchange of information, it can only host a meeting of the minds when it provides for face-to-face communication. In other words, a deliberative character can be achieved through live video-conferencing, but not by asynchronous dialogue conducted through e-mail, text messaging, and social media.
There can be no action of a deliberative body except when it is in session, whether it is a society, or a board, or a committee. Members, of course, may consult together, but even if the agreement is unanimous the action must be ratified in a formal meeting.
—Robert, H. M. (2001). Parliamentary law (§ XLIII, p. 534). New York, NY: Irvington Publishers. (Original work published 1923)
The will of a body (such as the membership, an assembly of delegates, a board, or a committee) can generally be expressed only through meetings.
—American Institute of Parliamentarians. (2012). Standard code of parliamentary procedure (§ 1, p. 3). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Organizations may take official action only in meetings properly called, and with a quorum of members present, unless applicable law allows for action by unanimous written consent.
—Keesey, R. E. (2018). Modern parliamentary procedure (2nd ed., § 1, p. 15). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
As is the case with postal mail or exchanges of facsimiles, in which members are unable to communicate simultaneously with all other members, Internet or e-mail discussions cannot be easily substituted for traditional meetings and are not meetings in the true sense. Nevertheless, several forms of Internet use, such as e-mail and chat rooms, are useful for rapid exchange of information and ideas. Where the law permits, and the procedures are developed within the organization's documents, decisions may be validated through electronic means.
Is there a Plan B?
Naturally, the goal of restoring an historic Hawaiian patriotic society is to formalize a significant portion of the Lāhui into an organized group (i.e., a grassroots decision-making body) through democratic procedure. However, as the case study in this article demonstrates, it only takes a few misaligned or unethical perpetrators to undermine the effort. This leads to the question of whether there is an alternative, or Plan B, if the formal organizational approach hits a wall?
In my opinion, I now believe that the Hawaiʻi de-occupation movement can and should succeed with or without the formation of deliberative assemblies in the Lāhui that follow best practices for democratic organizational procedure. I see two alternatives for achieving this objective:
Hawaiian language revitalization - ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi is the national language of a Country that has not been extinguished without a bilateral treaty of cession. To the extent that the Lāhui regains the national language fluency of its ancestors, de-occupation of Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina will naturally follow. The more the world sees the Lāhui speaking its national language, the more the world will take the de-occupation movement seriously. The current Hawaiian language revitalization movement, if turned up to full strength, would be a Hawaiian fluency revolution. To restore the Hawaiian language is to restore the national language of the Hawaiian Kingdom. At any rate, Hawaiian language revitalization is a driving force for the growing Hawaiian nationality renaissance. Metaphorically, the genie (Hawaiian national language) is out of the bottle (belligerent occupation) in a positive way.
The struggle against TMT construction on Mauna Kea - The unlawful initiative (without a treaty of cession) to build the proposed Thirty Meter Telescope on the summit of Mauna Kea could perhaps prove to be the most powerful force to galvanize the Lāhui in the modern era. As is true with Hawaiian language revitalization, the TMT conflict is a major issue upon which both the Lāhui Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina (Hawaiian national body) and much of the Americanized Hawaiian movement (status quo Hawaiians) can agree and unite. It is an historic window of opportunity that could potentially surpass the order of magnitude of the successful military de-occupation of Kahoʻolawe in the 1970s.
Returning to the topic of reviving Hawaiian patriotic societies, various logical fallacies are employed to discourage or oppose the use of parliamentary procedure in deliberative assemblies within the Lāhui today.
It is a false dilemma to believe that parliamentary procedure is all or nothing because one of its fundamental principles is that procedures should not be more formal or strict than necessary for a given meeting.
Therefore, it is a strawman fallacy to believe that meeting procedures obstruct rather than facilitate the orderly transaction of business by an organization.
Furthermore, it is a red herring to use parliamentary procedure as a scapegoat for dissatisfaction with a meeting in which members or officers predominantly lack the basic skills for democratic meetings.
Other arguments could be marshaled in favor of approaching a problem-solving or decision-making situation without resorting to parliamentary rules. Such groups probably do, however, use a crude form of parliamentary procedure, and, of course, effectiveness is not assured by abandoning traditional parliamentary procedure. It is possible that this point of view may mask a failure to study the basic rules of procedure and a resulting ignorance of the flexibility possible within good parliamentary practice.
In the interest of orderly procedure, and of self-education in the rules of order in a great democratic nation which abounds in organizations and societies, a parliamentary law book which is authoritative and easy to comprehend and apply at meetings and conventions should be in every club member's home.
—Demeter, G. (1969). Demeter's manual of parliamentary law and procedure: For the legal conduct of business in all deliberative assemblies (blue book ed., p. 3). Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Manuals of Meeting Procedures Recommended for Lāhui Hawaiʻi
Puette, W. J., NeSmith, R. K. (2014). Nā Lula Hālāwai: A Parliamentary Guide to Conducting Meetings in Hawaiian. Honolulu, HI: Hawaiʻi State Association of Parliamentarians.
Keesey, R. E. (2018). Modern Parliamentary Procedure (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
It is recommended to get the procedural manuals spiral-bound so that they remain open when laid on the table in front of you during meetings. Also, so they can be folded in half to take up less room in your workspace. Take the manuals to your local printer to have them spiral-bound.
New Theory Sheds Light on Authoritarian Governance
in Hawaiian Organizations Today

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
ÉvènementsProjet des Appels en Afrique
Par Hailey Shapiro
Former clients John Nthara and Jamu Banda on the day of their release in 2015. John and Jamu spent 21 years in a Malawian prison for a crime they did not commit. They are pictured with prison officer Andrew Dzinyemba, who supported their release.
2019 World Justice Challenge Winners Discuss the Impact of Twin Crises
Last year, the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide won the World Justice Project's 2019 World Justice Challenge for the Malawi Resentencing Project. On August 5, 2020, the World Justice Project invited representatives of the Malawi Resentencing Project and the other four winning projects to an online webinar to discuss their projects' recent changes and challenges.
Sandra Babcock, the faculty director of the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, and Chimwemwe Chithope-Mwale, the Chief Legal Advocate and Head of the Malawi Legal Aid Office in Mzuzu, attended the webinar as representatives of the Malawi Resentencing Project. They explained the origins of the Resentencing Project, which Professor Babcock initiated in 2014 in response to the Malawian High Court's 2007 decision to strike down the mandatory death penalty. The Resentencing Project brought together a coalition of public and private sector organizations, including Reprieve UK, Malawi Legal Aid, the Malawi Human Rights Commission and the Paralegal Advisory Services Institute. These organizations worked to obtain reduced sentences for death row prisoners who, under the Court's 2007 decision, were entitled to present new evidence that courts had never before considered. The Resentencing Project's tireless work saved hundreds of lives. Of the 169 prisoners who were eligible for a sentence rehearing, 156 received reduced sentences and 146 were released. None were resentenced to death. The Resentencing Project continues to work with local organizations to reintegrate the formally incarcerated people into their communities, and helps Malawian lawyers and paralegals provide quality legal representation to prisoners facing the death penalty. In 2017, the Project expanded into a wide-ranging Africa Appeals Project that replicates the Malawian collaborative model with partners in Tanzania and with the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights.
Representatives from three other winning projects also attended the online event and explained the background of their work. The Equality Effect's 160 Girls Access to Justice Project aims, through police trainings, education, and legal advocacy, to protect children in Kenya from sexual assault and to attain justice for survivors. An organization in India, Nazdeek, helps women learn about their rights and seek redress for maternal and child health problems. The Instituto Socioambiental's Riverine People and the Right to Full Reparation project helped implement an adequate reparation policy for traditional populations impacted by large infrastructure projects in Brazil. The fifth winning project, the Alaska Legal Services Corporation's Partnering for Native Health project, delivers health-impacting civil legal assistance to economically vulnerable indigenous individuals. Representatives from The Alaska Legal Services Corporation prepared a podcast about how the coronavirus pandemic has affected indigenous communities around the world.
The webinar participants also discussed how their projects have been affected by the twin crises of the coronavirus pandemic and declining rule of law. In response to the pandemic, courts have closed down and prisons have closed off, leading to stagnant court proceedings and deepening isolation for prisoners. Additionally, governments around the world increasingly demonstrate a lack of respect for the rule of law. In Brazil, the new government supports unsustainable development projects, such as deforestation and mining in the Amazon. In Malawi, however, the rule of law triumphed when the Supreme Court nullified the 2019 elections, leading to new elections that ushered in the opposition party.
Representatives at the webinar explained how they have modified their projects' approaches and goals to adapt to these challenges. Several projects have embraced virtual alternatives to their regular programs. In Tanzanian prisons, for example, the Resentencing Project now informs prisoners of their rights through "info-comics," which are also accessible to illiterate people. Additionally, the 160 Girls project has launched a virtual curriculum on young people's rights and started printing a biweekly newsletter written by young people. The projects have also modified their activities to address the pandemic. The Resentencing Project is now seeking clemency for at-risk clients by strategically collaborating with the government. Nazdeek and Instituto Socioambiental have devoted themselves to providing accurate information about the coronavirus pandemic to the communities they work with, and are working to ensure that communities have access to adequate services such as food and water.
Near the end of the online discussion, audience members asked how they could support the four projects. Several of the representatives, including Professor Babcock and Mr. Chithope-Mwale, said that the public can support their projects by offering financial support and increasing awareness of the issues their projects address. Click here to support the Center's work in these unprecedented times.


Unique God Made Everything Coloring Sheet is free HD wallpaper. This wallpaper was upload at January 11, 2019 upload by lovespells in Coloring.
Description: Unique God Made Everything Coloring Sheet from the above 694x902 resolutions which is part of the Coloring. Download this image for free in HD resolution the choice "download button" below. If you do not find the exact resolution you are looking for, then go for a native or higher resolution.
Illustration Primary 6 Lesson 3 The Creation Adult Coloring the most beautiful for you from god made everything coloring sheet , god made cowboys, god made him who had no sin, god made you for me, source: pinterest.com.
Illustration God Made Trees Coloring Page Sketch Coloring Page cmd special specifically for you from god made everything coloring sheet , god made donald trump, god made women special poem, god made who i am lyrics, source: pinterest.com.
Photograph Teacher Turned Momma God Made Everything Color Book noblest specifically for you from god made everything coloring sheet , god made, source: teacherturnedmomma.blogspot.com.
Illustration 6 days of creation pictures superior just for you from god made everything coloring sheet , source: pinterest.com.
Figure God Made Me Coloring Page the latest specifically for you from god made everything coloring sheet , source: danielrobbins.co.
Portrait God Made Me Coloring Page most popular for you from god made everything coloring sheet , god made me special, god made man lyrics, god made heavy metal, source: danielrobbins.co.
Images God Coloring Pages Luxury God Coloring Pages Awesome to Coloring the most beautiful specifically for you from god made everything coloring sheet , source: canallaamuerte.com.
Images Color It God Coloring Pages Awesome to Coloring Page Awesome the most beautiful for you from god made everything coloring sheet , god made bears, god made low sovereign grace chords, god made doctors, source: sikic-rab.com.
Illustration The Creation Coloring Pages for Children Unique Coloring Page for special just for you from god made everything coloring sheet , god made, source: osvehprint.com.
Photo God Made Me Coloring Page best for you from god made everything coloring sheet , source: danielrobbins.co.
Photograph Creation Coloring Pages Luxury graphy Dltk Coloring Sheets Dltk the best for you from god made everything coloring sheet , source: mercerepc.com.
Illustration God Made Me Coloring Page the best for you from god made everything coloring sheet , source: danielrobbins.co.
Images God Made Me Coloring Page selected for you from god made everything coloring sheet , source: danielrobbins.co.
Portrait God Made Me Coloring Page most popular just for you from god made everything coloring sheet , source: danielrobbins.co.
Snapshot God Made Me Coloring Page Free Unbelievable Pages Veggietales special specifically for you from god made everything coloring sheet , source: bureauoffriends.com.
So, if you wish to acquire all these outstanding pics about (Lovely god made everything coloring sheet), click on save link to store the photos for your laptop. They are all set for obtain, if you'd rather and wish to take it, click save badge in the web page, and it will be instantly saved to your desktop computer.
Lastly if you need to receive unique and latest image related to (Luxury god made everything coloring sheet), please follow us on google plus or save this page, we try our best to give you regular up grade with all new and fresh shots.
We do hope you enjoy keeping here. For many updates and recent information about (Luxury god made everything coloring sheet) pictures, please kindly follow us on twitter, path, Instagram and google plus, or you mark this page on bookmark section, We attempt to offer you up grade periodically with all new and fresh pics, enjoy your searching, and find the perfect for you.
Here you are at our website, articleabove (Unique god made everything coloring sheet) published by at . At this time we are pleased to declare that we have found an incredibly interesting nicheto be reviewed, that is (Luxury god made everything coloring sheet) Most people trying to find info about (Luxury god made everything coloring sheet) and certainly one of these is you, is not it?
Download Unique God Made Everything Coloring Sheet with original resolution Click Here!
15 Photos of "Unique God Made Everything Coloring Sheet"
Related Posts of "Unique God Made Everything Coloring Sheet"


text:
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations;
using System.Linq;
using System.Web.Http.ModelBinding;

namespace Orders.com.Web.Api
{
    public static class ModelStateDictionaryExtensions
    {
        public static ModelStateDictionary ClearFirst(this ModelStateDictionary modelState)
        {
            modelState.Clear();
            return modelState;
        }

        public static ModelStateDictionary ThenAddRange(this ModelStateDictionary modelState, IEnumerable<ValidationResult> validationResults)
        {
            foreach (var error in validationResults)
            {
                if (error.MemberNames.Any())
                    modelState.AddModelError(error.MemberNames.First(), error.ErrorMessage);
                else
                    modelState.AddModelError(string.Empty, error.ErrorMessage);
            }
            return modelState;
        }
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


An old soldier from out of the past stepped carefully aboard the World War II submarine Pampanito at San Francisco's Fisherman's Wharf to relive a day he can never forget.
His name is Harold Martin. They used to call him "Curley" after his thick blond hair back when he was an Australian soldier, back when he was a prisoner of the Japanese, working as a slave laborer on the infamous ''railway of death" in the jungles of Thailand.
It was his fair hair that saved Martin and 72 of his comrades who had been left to die in the South China Sea after the American submarine Sealion sank the ship carrying them to work in the coal mines in Japan.
Seeing the fair-haired man on a raft with others convinced Paul Summers, skipper of the Pampanito, that the men in water were not Japanese. The Pampanito was part of a submarine wolfpack; the American sailors were prepared to fire on the men in the water.
But instead, the sub picked up the men - exhausted, covered with fuel oil - and gave them their lives back.
Martin, who is 92 now, came back to the Pampanito for the first time in 65 years on Tuesday. He wanted to see the submarine, now a museum ship, one last time.
He is tall and spare, a bit deaf, and bald now, but still limber enough to climb down a vertical ladder to the interior of the submarine. "That bunk there," he said softly, pointing to a top bunk, one of 36 spots in the crowded crew's berthing area. "That is the one where they put me."
"A heartwarming experience to be back after 65 years," he wrote in the Pampanito's guest book. "Thank you."
Martin's long journey began when he enlisted in the Australian army not long after Australia entered World War II in 1939. "It was the thing to do," he said.
Then, in December 1941, Japan launched a surprise attack against the United States and the British.
Now the war was very close to Australia, and Martin and thousands of Australian troops were sent to Singapore to defend the Malay Peninsula.
He was there only a week or so when the Japanese slashed down through the jungles and laid siege to Singapore. The British surrendered, and Martin, like thousands of others, was a prisoner.
He and thousands of British, Australian, Dutch and a few American prisoners, along with more than 100,000 Asians, were put to work building a railway from Burma to Thailand.
The workers were starved, worked almost to death. It was said that a man died for every crosstie on that railroad.
"We had rice about the size of a tennis ball to eat. It was wet rice in the morning, dry at noon and night."
The Japanese had a timetable to finish the railway, Martin said. "We did it in two and a half years," he said. "The Japanese were bastards."
After the railway was finished many prisoners were selected to be shipped by sea to Japan to work in the coal mines. Martin and his mates were loaded aboard a transport called the Rakuyo Maru and sailed in convoy with other ships from Singapore. Not far from Hainan Island, an American wolfpack hit and the Rakuyo Maru was sunk.
Martin was adrift for three nights and four days. Some of the men sang at first, some went mad, some drank seawater. "We were at rock bottom," Martin said.
On the afternoon of Sept. 15, 1944, the men on the raft saw what they thought was a fishing boat. It was a submarine, moving close, stopping. They saw men on the forward deck with guns.
The men shouted and yelled, Martin took off his hat and waved. The Americans saw his fair hair, but still ... it might be a trap. They took aboard one man, a schoolteacher named Frank Farmer. "Thank you," he said.
The Pampanito took 73 men aboard; one died on the way to the American base at Saipan, but the rest lived. Only a few are left now. "Not many," Martin said.
Martin got out of the Army when the war ended, still a private. "Not much chance for advancement where I was," he said.
He ran a garage, prospected for gold. "I found a good lot," he said. He pursued his hobbies, old cars and motorcycles. He still drives.
He's told his story many times, especially in Dylan's at the Terrace, a coffee house in Albany, Western Australia, where he lives.
His friend, Gwen Blake, co-owner of Dylan's, decided that Martin should go to the United States and see the submarine that saved his life. She brought him to San Francisco.
"If you get to live to be 92, and survive the war and the Burma railway, and are as sweet as Harold is, you deserve the opportunity to see the submarine again," she said.


text:
Comparison Between Android Gingerbread And Ice Cream Sandwich
Android has been around since 2008 but till date the most famous android OS that has captured most attention is none other than Gingerbread.
It was the most revolutionary version of the android OS since the launch of the cupcake which introduced many new features including the ability to use widgets.
Similarly Gingerbread introduced many new features to the android system and also made the OS more streamlined and battery friendly. Various bugs that plagued the previous version were addressed in Gingerbread.
According to the latest which was carried out recently showed that there are almost 50.6% of devices are out there that are running Android Gingerbread while Ice cream Sandwich is slowly and steadily gaining ground.
Now after the release of Ice cream sandwich which revamped the entire android platform with many new features that again revolutionized the entire android system. Ice cream sandwich was mostly designed to bridge the gap between the tablets and phone.
It unifies both the platform just like what Apple did with their iOS. Now slowly majority of the devices are being upgraded to the ICS and so in this article we will compare two best android OS Gingerbread and Ice Cream Sandwich.
1. User Interface Comparison:
The user interface of Gingerbread was very simple and mostly was carried over from Froyo. But with ice cream sandwich Google have made it easier to be used by putting the commonly used buttons right in front.
Even more animations were added to UI which was designed keeping in mind the 720p HD display of the devices. With ICS google have introduced a new Roboto font which makes reading easier and gives a cool and modern look. The entire ICS UI is very smooth and intuitive.
2. Multi-tasking:
Gingerbread had good multitasking capabilities and was able to manage the background resources very efficiently. You could select to end the entire task by the touch of a button.
With ICS Google have taken multitasking one step further by introducing the screenshot of the open apps in the task manager moreover you can now close the individual open apps with a swipe to the right. That's a new gesture that Google have introduced in the ICS.
3. Network And Data Manager:
In ICS Google have introduced the network and data manager which was missing from the Gingerbread. This is a very useful feature because it allows you to monitor your data over your 3G network making sure that you do not exceed the limit of your data plan.
In gingerbread you would have had to install an app that would have allowed you to do the same but now it is directly available in the UI.
4. Sharing Files:
Within Ice cream sandwich Google have introduced a host of new features that will enable you to share files very easily and effortlessly. Now you get the option of WI-FI direct options directly in the OS without the need for a third party app.
You also get NFC capabilities right in the OS if your device supports it which most device of 2012 bound to have then you can use it directly. In gingerbread these features weren't present in the OS so you needed third party apps to use these features.
5. Speed:
Gingerbread was a huge update in terms of speed as compared to previous android OS. Gingerbread was fast and there weren't any lag in any part of the OS. Even the launching of the apps was fast and smooth.
With Ice cream sandwich Google have managed to make it faster and snappier so much that in benchmarks you get 220% improvement over Android 2.3. Even the android stock browser saw a speed bump.
After comparing the features of both these OS's you can say that Ice cream sandwich is a major improvement over the Gingerbread and has revolutionized the android world.
If you have come across some other Ice cream sandwich features that improves the user experience then do let us know.
xtr3mz says:
speed is based on hardware and os.