I was pleased to see the two pieces, "Advice for Those Searching" by the editor, and "Getting 'Hired' or Being Called" by the Rev. Leo M. Brown [TLC, Oct. 1]. Pleased because both these articles name some of the serious flaws in the way search processes often work. In the case of "Advice for Those Searching," the flaw is the lack of common courtesy afforded to so many candidates by search committees. In the case of the "Getting 'Hired'," the flaw is the dangerous secularization of a search process, by which an important theological framework is lost. As one who has been involved in several search processes in recent years, I can attest to the fact that these things need to be said, and often.

I have two additional observations:

Clergy are often every bit as guilty of failure to afford common courtesy to search committees. Failure to respond to inquiries, thereby necessitating followups; failure to respond to questionnaires, or to submit them on time. And, in my view, a discourtesy I have observed with alarming regularity: failure by a short-list candidate to inform a search committee or vestry that he/she is no longer interested in being considered for the position until a formal call is extended to that candidate.

With respect to both keeping search processes in a theological context (calling versus hiring), and keeping search processes reasonable, appropriate, and courteous for all parties: It is bishops and diocesan deployment officers who have the duty and the clout to articulate these expectations to all concerned, and to hold everyone's feet to the fire as the search progresses. Some enlightened dioceses now have policies whereby both search committees and candidates are told of such expectations up front, and all are held accountable to these expectations by either the bishop or deployment officer. My concern is that if bishops and/or deployment officers do not articulate these things, they may go forever unsaid.

(The Rev.) John T. Arms IV

Naples, Fla.