Colossal stupidity

I hope we all know that with anyone being able to post there, Wikipedia is not considered an always reliable source of information. Nonetheless, group watchfulness and other procedural safeguards nudge it toward reasonable reliability in most instances. I would never use it to buttress a legal argument but I do refer to it many times a day for general information. In areas where I know a topic and am using Wikipedia for a refresher or summary, I have found it both useful and accurate. That's the disclaimer and you should apply it to any information on this blog that is sourced to Wikipedia.

Now, what does Wikipedia have to tell us about DUE DILIGENCE?

The term "Due Diligence" first came into common use as a result of the US Securities Act of 1933.

The US Securities Act included a defense referred to in the Act as the "Due Diligence" defense which could be used by Broker-Dealers when accused of inadequate disclosure to investors of material information with respect to the purchase of securities.

So long as Broker-Dealers conducted a "Due Diligence" investigation into the company whose equity they were selling, and disclosed to the investor what they found, they would not be held liable for nondisclosure of information that failed to be uncovered in the process of that investigation.

The entire Broker-Dealer community quickly institutionalized as a standard practice, the conducting of due diligence investigations of any stock offerings in which they involved themselves.

Due diligence in capstone refers to performing the needful amount of effort, as in 'doing diligence'

Originally the term was limited to public offerings of equity investments, but over time it has come to be associated with investigations of private mergers and acquisitions as well. The term has slowly been adapted for use in other situations.

I am familiar with the phrase from the business world and the time I have spent tracking down accounting records in conjunction with due diligence. The whole process is a combination of prudent action and serious ass-covering.

And why am I bringing this to your attention today?

Well, The Livid Church has a new article.

The newly available English-language translation of the canons and constitution of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone indicates several inconsistencies with moves by dioceses to switch their affiliation from The Episcopal Church to the South American-based province.

The situation seems especially complicated for the Diocese of San Joaquin which already approved the switch at its annual convention last December. Article two of the Southern Cone constitution limits membership in the province to dioceses “that exist or which may be formed in the Republics of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay and which voluntary declare themselves as integral diocesan members of the province.” Article four of the constitution requires that amendments “be submitted to the Anglican Consultative Council for consideration and then to each diocesan synod for approval.”

...

Another complication involves a Southern Cone canon on bishops which states they “should definitely retire by 68 years of age.” In a recent interview with TLC, Bishop John-David Schofield, who will turn 70 in October, said he had been previously been informed by the Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone that the primate could waive the mandatory retirement age requirement on a year-to-year basis, but there is nothing in the constitution or canons to suggest the possibility of such an exception.

The Rev. Van McCalister, public relations officer for the Diocese of San Joaquin, said Bishop Schofield and the delegates to the diocesan convention operated in good faith.

“From our perspective we were invited to join unanimously by the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone,” he said. “We proceeded under the assumption that they had the authority to invite us and that they knew what they were doing.”

From a secular, business perspective one can only note that it takes more than operating in good faith. One reads the incorporating articles and by-laws of the company one does business with; one does not assume anything. One not only reads past financial statements, one investigates the figures underlying them.

From a secular, business perspective those who do not perform due diligence can be culpable of malfeasance.

But let's be charitable here. I'm just going to accuse them of colossal stupidity.

Is it stupid to trust your bishop? (Am I being too harsh here?)

No to the latter and yes to the former.

When I was a Baptist preacher I encouraged "Bible-believing" congregations to look at the text being quoted in sermons and never trust the preacher (including me when I was the preacher). Verify for yourselves that the preacher is not misquoting or taking out of context or twisting words around to violate common sense. Put another way, it is YOUR responsibility to read the labels of the food you eat.

I have not abandoned that principle and I apply it now to far more than preaching.

This is a rare instance in which I will agree with the late Ronald Reagan: "Trust, but verify." Good advice.

Can you imagine attempting an action as radical as grand theft diocese, accomplished over two diocesan conventions (not to mention the years of laying groundwork), and NOT KNOWING in advance the full text of the canons of the province you are playing with (including doing your own translation with native speakers)?

Granted, this is coming from someone who read the C&C of TEC before joining. Which makes me unusual but also inclines me to hold groups attempting something more far-reaching to the same standard. If I could do it then, they could certainly have done it over the past few years.

Jesus wept. And weeps.

Map of the Province of the Southern Cone
courtesy of the Mothers' Union
--the BB