An Open Letter to TED President Daniel Duda

Dear President Daniel Duda,

On 21 August, a letter from you to the delegates of the 41st Session of the Icelandic Conference was published in Kirkjufréttir (KF), the weekly newsletter of the Icelandic Conference (IC). Your letter raises some questions on two accounts that I hope you will be willing to clarify.

The Delay

Delegates concluded the first half of the Session in September 2022 with two motions.

First, they voted to ask the Trans-European Division (TED) to create a neutral commission that would investigate the facts and circumstances of the mining operation of the Conference’s two gravel mines. Second, they voted to reconvene on 11 December 2022 to finish the Session agenda which would include the mining report. The date was your suggestion and before the vote you assured delegates more than once that this period would be sufficient for the commission to write its report.

On 24 November 2022, however, you wrote to delegates in KF and told them that “because of unforeseen circumstances” the report was not ready and that the second half of Session would be delayed. Delegates and other church members protested twice to this unilateral decision of TED: according to them, delegates at Session are the highest authority in the Conference and TED had no legal right to delay the Session. But what they felt was worse was that the reasons for the delay were not stated. On 17 March 2024, you and another TED Officer came to Iceland to explain the delay to the Conference board. And yet neither the board nor you shared that explanation with church members in Iceland. I am sure that the delegates appreciate your apology for the delay, but considering the “great harm done due to the lengthy delay in activating the Commission,” don’t you feel that you should explain the reasons for the delay to the delegates? Wouldn’t that contribute to reconciliation if they knew why it happened? Usually if one apologizes for causing someone harm, one explains or admits at the same time why one did it.

The Report

In your letter, you state that TED Officers “accept [the report’s] findings and are committed to implementing the recommendations.” What is perplexing about this statement and the sentiment of the entire letter is that by the letter, TED Officers have made public their view of the commission’s report before delegates have even had the opportunity to discuss it at Session. As you remember, right before the first part of Session another delegate sent an open letter to the delegates with his views about another mining report (the one by the IC EXCOM). Some recipients of that letter felt strongly about this public expression of views on a Session agenda item yet to be discussed because they believed the delegate was thereby trying to influence the opinions and votes of other delegates. In fact, delegates took a vote on whether that delegate should be dismissed from Session. While the motion failed, TED Officers present saw no reason to object to the attempt. Can you see how it is unfortunate when TED then, right before the second part of Session, publishes an open letter to delegates where they express their views on a report on the same issue and how that open letter could be seen as not neutral but as leading or even as an attempt to sway the views of delegates when it comes to the report?

What is even more worrisome about this second point is that in your letter you affirm that TED will commit themselves to follow the advice of the mining commission. But the commission’s report is written to delegates at Session of the Icelandic Conference, and thus mainly for the purposes of the IC. How can TED Officers commit the Division to follow through with counsel that is addressed to the IC and not to TED?

Concluding Request

As you know, tensions among delegates are high so I think that the concerns expressed in my letter are not trivial matters but substantial issues worthy of careful consideration. I think that if you would clarify the issues that I raised it would be a concrete step in showing Icelandic church members that TED Officers are impartial and that they genuinely regret the delay they have caused.

Sincerely,

Jón Hjörleifur Stefánsson

Member of the Conference Church, Icelandic Conference