(a) Was the consultation held at St Andrew's House in 1999 to discuss people's views concerning cost recovery bills an independent investigation or was it conducted and its format determined by diocesan officials and others committed to the proposals of Standing Committee, and if not an independent investigation, why not?

(b) Did the appropriate diocesan staff and individuals involved in promoting the cost recovery bill afford Dr Romberg every assistance and facility requested and possible in preparing and presenting to Synod his proposed amendment?

(c) Under his amendment, would 137 parishes with incomes below $167,000 have received a larger reduction in their charges than under the ordinance, particularly parishes at the low end of the scale, and would 60 parishes with incomes above $167,000 have had their reduction in charges of up to 29% trimmed to 8%?

(d) Has the Standing Committee, the Social Questions Committee, or any other official diocesan body yet presented any justification of the cost recovery or user-pays policy on the grounds of the teachings of the great Hebrew prophets and of our Lord regarding the use of money, social equity, and the divine requirement that we act with justice?

To which the President replied -

I am advised the answers are as follows -

(a) The consultation was an independent consultative process designed and run by 2 persons who were not on the staff of the Secretariat.

(b) Yes.

(c) Dr Romberg's amendment is not available for recalculation and we cannot say one way or the other.

(d) Not to my knowledge.