When I joined the Wisconsin Annual Conference in 1962, there was quite an amazing feeling of closeness among the pastors. I learned one of the things which led to that was the support they gave each other back during the Depression, almost a quarter of a century before. Although it later seeped away as those older pastors retired, that "institutional memory" of the better off pastors contributing to a fund so that the pastors of very poor churches got financial help to survive the economic problems of that time was a very powetrful community builder in its day.
There are two signs of some serious financial problems ahead.
One is the huge national debt resulting from our war in Iraq, a debt that will be far more of a problem than the current mortgage problem.
The other is the diminishing size of local church budgets in most places at the same time that salaries of church officials and pastors have grown to where they can no longer be afforded in many places.
When I came into the ministry, I expected it to be a lifetime employment right on into retirement. But withn a few years, it became obvious that pastors had better have skills that could help them get jobs if the church could no longer afford them. That reflected the real situation of everyone else: have more than one marketable skill and expect to change jobs several times during your career.
Seminary students had better be aware of this dynamic. Many are coming over from other employment as mid-career changees. They would be wise to keep their certifications for employment in their former fields.
Other pastors need to be thinking about what kind of work they could do to support themselves and their families as the churches diminish in their financial capacities.
BUT ALL OF US BETTER BE READY TO HELP ONE ANOTHER JUST AS DID THE GENERATION THAT SUFFERED THROUGH THE DEPRESSION . . . TOGETHER.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Judicial Council Ruling
October 31, 2007
--From the blog "Kairos and Ambiguities" at http://zilhaver.typepad.com/ by permission--
Yesterday the Judicial Council posted its decisions on line. There are many that are interesting and will have impact on the church (I may comment on them at another time), of course I am most interested in reflecting on the questions of law I submitted during the clergy session at our last annual conference.
Judicial Council Decision 1077 is the Judicial Council’s direct response to my questions, but these answers must also be understood in light of the Judicial Council’s response to a similar Clergy Study Team in the Memphis Annual Conference Judicial Decision 1082. Both of these actions dealt with Clergy Study Teams appointed by their respective bishops to come up with a plan to define and deal with ineffective clergy in a streamlined process.
This is not surprising, as both Bishop Bickerton of the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference and Bishop Wills of the Memphis Conference have collaborated together on many good projects even before they became bishops. Most recently they shared together at the "Clergy Get Away" for the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference. So, it is not surprising to see two parallel clergy study teams in their respective conferences.
The Judicial Council chose to address all the issues raised about the WPA Clergy Team and the ad hoc process (aimed at exiting pastors) in the Memphis decision. It did so for two main reasons, first it is easier and provides more freedom for the Judicial Council to speak clearly on a subject from a Declaratory Decision rather than from a Question of Law. Second, the Memphis Clergy Study Team had completed a full report, whereas in Western PA these things were still in a more formative stage.
The Judicial Council has set excellent standards to which any Clergy Study Team seeking to streamline exiting procedures must meet, whether that team function in Western PA, Memphis, or any other annual conference in the connection. Here is a summary of the problems found in this clergy team/ad hoc process.
The deficiencies in the policy include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. The policy circumvents fair process as defined in the 2004 Discipline and prior Judicial Council decisions. The policy provides no means for the clergyperson to challenge the determination of ineffectiveness or to have access to all records that were relied upon in making that determination.
2. The policy does not provide for the clergyperson to be informed in writing of the problems or issues which caused the cabinet to determine ineffectiveness.
3. The policy does not allow the board of ordained ministry and its executive committee to carry out their disciplinary responsibilities for dealing with clergy ineffectiveness as provided in ¶ 362 of the 2004 Discipline.
4. The policy does not provide adequate pastoral care and support to the clergyperson who has been declared ineffective, nor is there any mention of pastoral care and support for his or her spouse and family.
5. The twelve month whirlwind process for dealing with a clergyperson’s ineffectiveness and the number of times the clergyperson is offered the opportunity to exit suggests that the primary purpose of the policy is to weed out ineffective clergy rather than developing the skills and abilities which would enable them to become effective.
6. The policy supplants the disciplinary provisions for dealing with clergy incompetence, ineffectiveness and unwillingness or the inability to perform ministerial duties as provided for in ¶ 362.2, .3, and .4 of the 2004 Discipline by establishing its own process for dealing with these issues. According to the policy, the initiation of an administrative complaint will be done only if the ineffective clergyperson fails to exit voluntarily.
7. The policy limits the range of remedies available in response to an administrative complaint as provided for in the 2004 Discipline.
8. Specific disciplinary paragraphs are not cited in the policy.
Having dealt with the Judicial Council on several other occasions, I was pleasantly surprised yesterday afternoon with a call from a member of the Judicial Council. They may not talk to anyone prior to the announcement of the decision and normally they make no contact (this was this persons first time, as well as mine). I was humbled that this person felt that the brief was the best the person had seen during the person’s tenure on the Judicial Council. There was an expression of thanks for the good work and encouragement to keep up the good fight.
Knowing that God’s providence works all things for good, I rejoice that I may play a small part in the Kingdom of Heaven. May you know that joy in your heart as well.
Until next time…Grace & Peace
Rev. Robert Zilhaver
--From the blog "Kairos and Ambiguities" at http://zilhaver.typepad.com/ by permission--
Yesterday the Judicial Council posted its decisions on line. There are many that are interesting and will have impact on the church (I may comment on them at another time), of course I am most interested in reflecting on the questions of law I submitted during the clergy session at our last annual conference.
Judicial Council Decision 1077 is the Judicial Council’s direct response to my questions, but these answers must also be understood in light of the Judicial Council’s response to a similar Clergy Study Team in the Memphis Annual Conference Judicial Decision 1082. Both of these actions dealt with Clergy Study Teams appointed by their respective bishops to come up with a plan to define and deal with ineffective clergy in a streamlined process.
This is not surprising, as both Bishop Bickerton of the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference and Bishop Wills of the Memphis Conference have collaborated together on many good projects even before they became bishops. Most recently they shared together at the "Clergy Get Away" for the Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference. So, it is not surprising to see two parallel clergy study teams in their respective conferences.
The Judicial Council chose to address all the issues raised about the WPA Clergy Team and the ad hoc process (aimed at exiting pastors) in the Memphis decision. It did so for two main reasons, first it is easier and provides more freedom for the Judicial Council to speak clearly on a subject from a Declaratory Decision rather than from a Question of Law. Second, the Memphis Clergy Study Team had completed a full report, whereas in Western PA these things were still in a more formative stage.
The Judicial Council has set excellent standards to which any Clergy Study Team seeking to streamline exiting procedures must meet, whether that team function in Western PA, Memphis, or any other annual conference in the connection. Here is a summary of the problems found in this clergy team/ad hoc process.
The deficiencies in the policy include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. The policy circumvents fair process as defined in the 2004 Discipline and prior Judicial Council decisions. The policy provides no means for the clergyperson to challenge the determination of ineffectiveness or to have access to all records that were relied upon in making that determination.
2. The policy does not provide for the clergyperson to be informed in writing of the problems or issues which caused the cabinet to determine ineffectiveness.
3. The policy does not allow the board of ordained ministry and its executive committee to carry out their disciplinary responsibilities for dealing with clergy ineffectiveness as provided in ¶ 362 of the 2004 Discipline.
4. The policy does not provide adequate pastoral care and support to the clergyperson who has been declared ineffective, nor is there any mention of pastoral care and support for his or her spouse and family.
5. The twelve month whirlwind process for dealing with a clergyperson’s ineffectiveness and the number of times the clergyperson is offered the opportunity to exit suggests that the primary purpose of the policy is to weed out ineffective clergy rather than developing the skills and abilities which would enable them to become effective.
6. The policy supplants the disciplinary provisions for dealing with clergy incompetence, ineffectiveness and unwillingness or the inability to perform ministerial duties as provided for in ¶ 362.2, .3, and .4 of the 2004 Discipline by establishing its own process for dealing with these issues. According to the policy, the initiation of an administrative complaint will be done only if the ineffective clergyperson fails to exit voluntarily.
7. The policy limits the range of remedies available in response to an administrative complaint as provided for in the 2004 Discipline.
8. Specific disciplinary paragraphs are not cited in the policy.
Having dealt with the Judicial Council on several other occasions, I was pleasantly surprised yesterday afternoon with a call from a member of the Judicial Council. They may not talk to anyone prior to the announcement of the decision and normally they make no contact (this was this persons first time, as well as mine). I was humbled that this person felt that the brief was the best the person had seen during the person’s tenure on the Judicial Council. There was an expression of thanks for the good work and encouragement to keep up the good fight.
Knowing that God’s providence works all things for good, I rejoice that I may play a small part in the Kingdom of Heaven. May you know that joy in your heart as well.
Until next time…Grace & Peace
Rev. Robert Zilhaver
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Another power of the episcopacy
The bishop was so angry with me for raising a question of law that he sent the dean of the Cabinet to excoriate me for disrespecting his authority. The superintendent was an old friend. But he was very serious. It was obvious that he felt I had stepped over the line.
Ordinarily, that would have frightened me.
This was the umpteenth time a superintendent had made his (I didn’t have a woman superintendent up to that time) anger with me known for my various challenges. This time, God’s grace stuck. Previously, the fear had taken over and I couldn’t respond. But this time I actually laughed. The superintendent did not take that well either. So I explained.
“Jim, all I did was ask a straight-forward question of law. The bishop got to answer it and establish his answer as law for our conference until October when the Judicial Council meets. Who knows, they may support his decision. Everything is cool. We both got what we wanted,” I said.
Jim was not very happy because I had gotten what the bishop did not want. And, despite being an "extension of the episcopal office," he had not successfully persuaded me to withdraw my question of law.
How did it come to this?
Pre-conference materials showed no line items in the proposed budget. There was just a single figure for all the mission agencies of the conference, a kind of block grant. I wrote the bishop that I didn’t think that satisfied the Disciplinary requirements for a budget. The day conference met, he called me in to meet with him about my concern. He made it clear that he was interpreting a line item as the total to be authorized for the category of missions in the budget. Even the 2004 Book of Discipline carries the same language as the 1988 Discipline did. Nearly every paragraph describing the budget and how it is built implies that the budget must have line items to be voted by the Conference which represented the expenditure each group, program, or agency could expect to have for the year. See Paragraph (P) 613.3a) as one such description.
For several years, this bishop and several church officers, mainly the treasurer and program director, had spoken of how difficult it was in the middle of the conference year to be sure incomes to cover all those line items would be met. A number of times, agencies and groups were asked to pare down their budgets and expect to not be able to spend the amounts identified by the budget. There often ended up being a surplus left because of unspent funds about which those leaders did not complain.
Then the bishop asked that we budget for a two year period in order to save time at annual conference for something besides arguing about the budget.
What struck me was that all the concern about fulfilling the budget was coming from just the three people. Midyear budgetary slumps were common and the end of the year contributions usually brought us to within a percentage point or two of the anticipated incomes.
Then the bishop argued how expensive it was to borrow money in midyear to cover until the churches paid up their apportionments in November and December. Previous budgets had built up a fund to cover that exigency but the bishop still complained.
When I met with the bishop before that “fateful” 1991 annual conference, it was clear the bishop wanted no line items. That surprised me because he knew church law very well. I went over all that the Discipline said about the necessity for them. When he insisted he was not changing his definition, I said I would have to ask a question of law to challenge that. He turned red in the face and said the conversation was over.
When the budget was presented with seven general categories (that was quite a concession, I thought, but not true to the Discipline) under the benevolence budget, I took the floor with the following question:
"In light of Judicial Council Decisions 5, 8, 400, 521, 539 and others, is the Annual Conference giving up a right reserved to it by describing the seven items on the 1992 budget request of the Board of Global Ministries as 'line items'" rather than the items listed under 'line items presented for information only?'"
The bishop ruled:
”It is the judgment of the Chair that this budget is properly before the Annual Conference through the recommendation of the Council on Finance and Administration, that the attached 'For Information Only' document was clearly introduced and discussed as an informational document and was not properly before the Conference as a budget recommendation, that the seven line items of the proposed budget are in fact operational line items for this agency, that the Conference members demonstrated their understanding of the nature of the budget by their discussion of it and the nature of several attempted amendments, that the budget as presented was approved by vote of a large majority of the Conference members, and thus, that the budget and its seven line items is in order and the Annual Conference has not given up any right reserved to itself.“
These are quoted from JCD 663.
The Judicial Council affirmed the bishop’s decision. He finally got what he wanted.
That decision changed the United Methodist Church.
From that time on, annual conferences all over the country found ways to fill time with Bible studies, preaching, banquets, award programs, and special events celebrating something or other because they no longer had to argue the budget.
Several things happened because of that.
One, bishops got considerable control over how much of the budget was spent. They could be sure programs they championed were funded fully and thus were more likely to be successful no matter what the priorities of the conference might be.
Two, lay members of conference who understood spreadsheets and budgets, often because they managed much larger ones in their own businesses, were frustrated because they never saw enough information to be able to understand the budget or the accounting.
Three, lay and clergy who were on the various program and mission projects were no longer called upon to discuss their efforts. That meant there was no chance to do more than put up booths outside the plenary area. Since conference members no longer made any decisions about those agencies or programs, they didn’t need to know about them. Because they no longer knew much about them, they had little reason to talk to their local churches about all the good things the conference was doing. Younger people never realized that their denomination was doing things that used to excite earlier generations.
That set of breakdowns in the life of annual conferences was a real loss because the conference was further away from the local church. The motivation to support apportionments declined. Many mission projects disappeared as a result because conferences had less money with which to work. Younger people had no reason to be loyal and supportive of their denomination because it had receded into the mists.
One more aspect of that 1991 event struck me. It expanded the power of the bishops.
I’ve been fussing for months about this kind of accumulation of power in their hands.
Look at the letters of bishops about the Virginia case where a pastor allegedly refused church membership to a gay man. You will find a sentence which says something like, “That pastor disobeyed his bishop.” So now the bishops want to be the gatekeepers of who joins the church rather than allow the pastor who is right there working with those folks?
Some of those who are and who want to be bishop are tempted to keep episcopal salaries and perks as high as possible despite other financial priorities will be the most potent “party” at the coming General Conference.
Bishops have led the fight in church law and in their actual behavior to take over the hiring and firing of pastors, ignoring and intentionally avoiding the directions of the Book of Discipline related to Fair Process.
Now we add this incursion into the expenditure of the conference finances which occurred in 1991.
I believe the fruit of it are manifest in a declining denomination.
I have submitted a petition to General Conference. The two sentences I pray will be added to Paragraph 613 are these:
“The council shall prepare, as noted below, a budget for the annual conference which includes line items, that is, specific amounts for administrative and program costs for every board, agency, cause, program, institution, mission and conference benevolence. Line items shall be before the annual conference prior to its vote on the whole conference budget.”
This is the rationale (had to be under 50 words!) that I gave:
“The current pattern of offering a general budget and trusting conference officers to take care of the details provides no protection from their neglecting, jeopardizing, and excluding ministries desired by the annual conference, contrary to Paragraph 613.3a) which demands ‘that none may be neglected.’”
Will this petition be passed at General Conference? We’ll see. Will it lead to positive changes if passed? It will help.
Ordinarily, that would have frightened me.
This was the umpteenth time a superintendent had made his (I didn’t have a woman superintendent up to that time) anger with me known for my various challenges. This time, God’s grace stuck. Previously, the fear had taken over and I couldn’t respond. But this time I actually laughed. The superintendent did not take that well either. So I explained.
“Jim, all I did was ask a straight-forward question of law. The bishop got to answer it and establish his answer as law for our conference until October when the Judicial Council meets. Who knows, they may support his decision. Everything is cool. We both got what we wanted,” I said.
Jim was not very happy because I had gotten what the bishop did not want. And, despite being an "extension of the episcopal office," he had not successfully persuaded me to withdraw my question of law.
How did it come to this?
Pre-conference materials showed no line items in the proposed budget. There was just a single figure for all the mission agencies of the conference, a kind of block grant. I wrote the bishop that I didn’t think that satisfied the Disciplinary requirements for a budget. The day conference met, he called me in to meet with him about my concern. He made it clear that he was interpreting a line item as the total to be authorized for the category of missions in the budget. Even the 2004 Book of Discipline carries the same language as the 1988 Discipline did. Nearly every paragraph describing the budget and how it is built implies that the budget must have line items to be voted by the Conference which represented the expenditure each group, program, or agency could expect to have for the year. See Paragraph (P) 613.3a) as one such description.
For several years, this bishop and several church officers, mainly the treasurer and program director, had spoken of how difficult it was in the middle of the conference year to be sure incomes to cover all those line items would be met. A number of times, agencies and groups were asked to pare down their budgets and expect to not be able to spend the amounts identified by the budget. There often ended up being a surplus left because of unspent funds about which those leaders did not complain.
Then the bishop asked that we budget for a two year period in order to save time at annual conference for something besides arguing about the budget.
What struck me was that all the concern about fulfilling the budget was coming from just the three people. Midyear budgetary slumps were common and the end of the year contributions usually brought us to within a percentage point or two of the anticipated incomes.
Then the bishop argued how expensive it was to borrow money in midyear to cover until the churches paid up their apportionments in November and December. Previous budgets had built up a fund to cover that exigency but the bishop still complained.
When I met with the bishop before that “fateful” 1991 annual conference, it was clear the bishop wanted no line items. That surprised me because he knew church law very well. I went over all that the Discipline said about the necessity for them. When he insisted he was not changing his definition, I said I would have to ask a question of law to challenge that. He turned red in the face and said the conversation was over.
When the budget was presented with seven general categories (that was quite a concession, I thought, but not true to the Discipline) under the benevolence budget, I took the floor with the following question:
"In light of Judicial Council Decisions 5, 8, 400, 521, 539 and others, is the Annual Conference giving up a right reserved to it by describing the seven items on the 1992 budget request of the Board of Global Ministries as 'line items'" rather than the items listed under 'line items presented for information only?'"
The bishop ruled:
”It is the judgment of the Chair that this budget is properly before the Annual Conference through the recommendation of the Council on Finance and Administration, that the attached 'For Information Only' document was clearly introduced and discussed as an informational document and was not properly before the Conference as a budget recommendation, that the seven line items of the proposed budget are in fact operational line items for this agency, that the Conference members demonstrated their understanding of the nature of the budget by their discussion of it and the nature of several attempted amendments, that the budget as presented was approved by vote of a large majority of the Conference members, and thus, that the budget and its seven line items is in order and the Annual Conference has not given up any right reserved to itself.“
These are quoted from JCD 663.
The Judicial Council affirmed the bishop’s decision. He finally got what he wanted.
That decision changed the United Methodist Church.
From that time on, annual conferences all over the country found ways to fill time with Bible studies, preaching, banquets, award programs, and special events celebrating something or other because they no longer had to argue the budget.
Several things happened because of that.
One, bishops got considerable control over how much of the budget was spent. They could be sure programs they championed were funded fully and thus were more likely to be successful no matter what the priorities of the conference might be.
Two, lay members of conference who understood spreadsheets and budgets, often because they managed much larger ones in their own businesses, were frustrated because they never saw enough information to be able to understand the budget or the accounting.
Three, lay and clergy who were on the various program and mission projects were no longer called upon to discuss their efforts. That meant there was no chance to do more than put up booths outside the plenary area. Since conference members no longer made any decisions about those agencies or programs, they didn’t need to know about them. Because they no longer knew much about them, they had little reason to talk to their local churches about all the good things the conference was doing. Younger people never realized that their denomination was doing things that used to excite earlier generations.
That set of breakdowns in the life of annual conferences was a real loss because the conference was further away from the local church. The motivation to support apportionments declined. Many mission projects disappeared as a result because conferences had less money with which to work. Younger people had no reason to be loyal and supportive of their denomination because it had receded into the mists.
One more aspect of that 1991 event struck me. It expanded the power of the bishops.
I’ve been fussing for months about this kind of accumulation of power in their hands.
Look at the letters of bishops about the Virginia case where a pastor allegedly refused church membership to a gay man. You will find a sentence which says something like, “That pastor disobeyed his bishop.” So now the bishops want to be the gatekeepers of who joins the church rather than allow the pastor who is right there working with those folks?
Some of those who are and who want to be bishop are tempted to keep episcopal salaries and perks as high as possible despite other financial priorities will be the most potent “party” at the coming General Conference.
Bishops have led the fight in church law and in their actual behavior to take over the hiring and firing of pastors, ignoring and intentionally avoiding the directions of the Book of Discipline related to Fair Process.
Now we add this incursion into the expenditure of the conference finances which occurred in 1991.
I believe the fruit of it are manifest in a declining denomination.
I have submitted a petition to General Conference. The two sentences I pray will be added to Paragraph 613 are these:
“The council shall prepare, as noted below, a budget for the annual conference which includes line items, that is, specific amounts for administrative and program costs for every board, agency, cause, program, institution, mission and conference benevolence. Line items shall be before the annual conference prior to its vote on the whole conference budget.”
This is the rationale (had to be under 50 words!) that I gave:
“The current pattern of offering a general budget and trusting conference officers to take care of the details provides no protection from their neglecting, jeopardizing, and excluding ministries desired by the annual conference, contrary to Paragraph 613.3a) which demands ‘that none may be neglected.’”
Will this petition be passed at General Conference? We’ll see. Will it lead to positive changes if passed? It will help.
Monday, October 1, 2007
A Bridge
Ever since our Union in 1968, our denomination has been split over many issues and each General Conference since has seen many wondering if we would come out whole at the end.
We’ve limped along and held together.
In the field of advocacy and care-giving, we have discovered that split is irrelevant to our work. Most of us have clear opinions on all the controversial issues the Church faces and yet we find the greater concern to be a lack of commitment on the part of too many of our church leaders to follow the Discipline.
As you can imagine, that statement means some different things to various associates. But that still means we can work together to counter the institutional culture that allows Cabinet members to treat clergy and laity shabbily. We are still a part of the same denomination and so working together has been an energizing and helpful process.
Perhaps the denomination will allow a split. We hope not but should it happen, I fully expect that AIA will still bridge that for a generation since the lessons we have learned about how the arrogant want to handle their power and how church law and advocacy can counter that will be an ongoing struggle in both. Since we will each claim the same tradition, there is every likelihood that the segments of the split denomination will start out with the same polity. Hopefully, we will be able to influence how Fair Process is to be handled, and even then I expect we will be very similar or want to be!
The other thing I’ve noticed is that autocratic attitudes are not peculiar to one end of the political spectrum. They come from any theological background and use that background to justify their behavior. No wonder Jesus emphasized, “By their fruit ye shall know them!” He had friends and enemies among all the factions that made up the Judaism of his day. Why should we expect anything different in our day?
John Wesley may have been fussy about who stayed in the Classes but he never removed them from church membership nor did he care from what theological background others came who wanted to work with him. “If your heart is as my heart, give me your hand.”
So AIA will not take a stand on the unity or split of our denomination. We are here to serve anyone and we are willing to work together in hopes for a humane and just future based on things like the Golden Rule rather than on who our theological gurus may be.
Jerry Eckert
10/1/07
We’ve limped along and held together.
In the field of advocacy and care-giving, we have discovered that split is irrelevant to our work. Most of us have clear opinions on all the controversial issues the Church faces and yet we find the greater concern to be a lack of commitment on the part of too many of our church leaders to follow the Discipline.
As you can imagine, that statement means some different things to various associates. But that still means we can work together to counter the institutional culture that allows Cabinet members to treat clergy and laity shabbily. We are still a part of the same denomination and so working together has been an energizing and helpful process.
Perhaps the denomination will allow a split. We hope not but should it happen, I fully expect that AIA will still bridge that for a generation since the lessons we have learned about how the arrogant want to handle their power and how church law and advocacy can counter that will be an ongoing struggle in both. Since we will each claim the same tradition, there is every likelihood that the segments of the split denomination will start out with the same polity. Hopefully, we will be able to influence how Fair Process is to be handled, and even then I expect we will be very similar or want to be!
The other thing I’ve noticed is that autocratic attitudes are not peculiar to one end of the political spectrum. They come from any theological background and use that background to justify their behavior. No wonder Jesus emphasized, “By their fruit ye shall know them!” He had friends and enemies among all the factions that made up the Judaism of his day. Why should we expect anything different in our day?
John Wesley may have been fussy about who stayed in the Classes but he never removed them from church membership nor did he care from what theological background others came who wanted to work with him. “If your heart is as my heart, give me your hand.”
So AIA will not take a stand on the unity or split of our denomination. We are here to serve anyone and we are willing to work together in hopes for a humane and just future based on things like the Golden Rule rather than on who our theological gurus may be.
Jerry Eckert
10/1/07
Friday, September 28, 2007
A 9/28 letter to the bishops
Dear Bishop,
You may be aware that Associates in Advocacy has had a website and hopefully, you may have used it.
You may also be aware that we lost it due to circumstances beyond our control and have had to rebuild it.
This letter is to announce that the website http://www.aiateam.org/ is open for business.
Our intention is to provide help to anyone who is concerned about a personnel action in the church. That includes Cabinet members as well.
You will soon note a bias against authority in many of the articles. I earned that the hard way, reading documents signed by church leaders, watching them operate at General Conference, talking with those who would talk with me. I am not completely cynical about those in authority because I had Ralph Alton as my bishop. I have come to know William Boyd Grave and Leroy Hodapp well enough to know there are real princes among the "perfumed princes."
I also know that I probably never will hear from pastors in many active bishops' conferences because those bishops are doing a good job. My intent is to provide them with good ideas to supplement what they are already doing. My hope is to hear back from you if you have any better ideas than mine or if you have any problems with things said in the articles.
Our website is not only open for business. It is also open for improvement.
In the covenant of the clergy,
Jerry
You may be aware that Associates in Advocacy has had a website and hopefully, you may have used it.
You may also be aware that we lost it due to circumstances beyond our control and have had to rebuild it.
This letter is to announce that the website http://www.aiateam.org/ is open for business.
Our intention is to provide help to anyone who is concerned about a personnel action in the church. That includes Cabinet members as well.
You will soon note a bias against authority in many of the articles. I earned that the hard way, reading documents signed by church leaders, watching them operate at General Conference, talking with those who would talk with me. I am not completely cynical about those in authority because I had Ralph Alton as my bishop. I have come to know William Boyd Grave and Leroy Hodapp well enough to know there are real princes among the "perfumed princes."
I also know that I probably never will hear from pastors in many active bishops' conferences because those bishops are doing a good job. My intent is to provide them with good ideas to supplement what they are already doing. My hope is to hear back from you if you have any better ideas than mine or if you have any problems with things said in the articles.
Our website is not only open for business. It is also open for improvement.
In the covenant of the clergy,
Jerry
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
A Little History
A LITTLE HISTORY
Between 1976 and 1980, Bishops Jack Tuell and Leroy Hodapp, DS David Lawson (later to become a bishop), and lawyer Jack Stone, with the help of Donald Treese of the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry (GBHEM) developed an administrative process to handle pastors who performed poorly, either because of incompetence or ineffectiveness.
Up until then, they reasoned, bishops had two choices in how to deal with pastors. The committee felt there had to be an alternative between going to trial and having the bishop confront the pastor and literally take his Elders Orders certificate off the wall.
Actually, Bishops had other options that they used. One was to “trade” such pastors with another bishop. Experience had shown that some pastors blossomed in a different place. That technique was prevalent until 1983.
Another was to just move the pastor from one small church to another. Pastors were not always in great supply and preserving those ministries was better than leaving small churches without a pastor.
A third was putting the pastor on disability if there was an incapacitating or enervating medical or psychological problem.
Finally, the last option was for the DS to sit down with the pastor and go over the pastor’s record and see if there was another vocation for which the pastor might be suited. At that time, when a pastor lost the respect of his superintendent, that meant something and the pastor would look at other options and voluntarily seek other employment.
PROTECTION FROM AT-WILL FIRING OF PASTORS
For the 1980 General Conference, the Tuell committee developed a new track to use. It was to allow the Cabinet to initiate leave of absence to relieve a pastor of office. It also allowed the Cabinet members to initiate complaints that would then be processed by a committee made up of Board of Ordained Ministry (BOM) and Cabinet members (the Joint Review Committee) to examine complaints and work toward a forced removal, if necessary, but preferably a voluntary leave of absence.
The petitions were sold as a way to minimize authoritarian bishops from swooping in and firing pastors on the spot.
This package passed General Conference in 1980.
It was tested before the Judicial Council in 1982 who ruled that it could be allowed (see Judicial Council Decisions 524 and 530 – note the bishop involved in the case was Bishop Tuell. A member of the Judicial Council told a group of us that the Cabinet-initiated leave was a quiet means of removing homosexual pastors.) Church statistics show that midterm transfers between annual conferences dropped precipitously and midterm leaves of absence rose precipitously in 1983.
Bishops stopped transferring pastors and were now laying them off mid-year by use of the Cabinet-initiated leave of absence. The “swooping” bishops now had a covering mechanism to make it look like pastors had a chance to defend themselves. It only took a little longer and required the cooperation of a handful of pastors they nominated to the BOM.
THE NEW POWER OF CABINETS COUNTERED
By 1988, abuses of this new power of the Cabinet were causing law suits against the denomination (one bishop had no less than eight and maybe as many as sixteen suits against him during that period). The 1988 General Conference established the “Chapter VIII Study Commission” which was called upon to revise the complaint process.
On that sixteen member commission were Bishops Jack Tuell and Leroy Hodapp and Donald Treese from GBHEM.
They not only reviewed the judicial process (Chapter VIII) but the administrative process (Chapter III) since it was where the judicial process began. Besides tweaking the various steps from the 1980 work of the Tuell committee, they added what are now known as Fair Process rights and applied them to both the judicial and administrative tracks.
Instrumental in that direction were lawyers Craig Hoskins of GCFA, Paul Webb, and John Stumbo under the guidance of Bishop William Boyd Grove who was chair. Under Bishop Grove, Dr. Treese was largely quiet but Bishops Hodapp and Tuell were with the group. Practicing advocates were allowed to speak during discussions of most issues.
The petitions from the study commission were accepted by the 1992 General Conference. The Judicial Council enforced the provisions of the changes between 1993 and 1996.
The Council of Bishops set up a revision committee which then began to dismantle some of the feature of the 1992 Fair Process. And, on top of that, an annual conference lost a major law suit because its bishop knew a pastor was a pedophile but trusted the therapy programs had restored him. When the pastor fell off that wagon, the family sued and won.
That added impetus to the Council of Bishops’ urgent desire to be able to freely fire a pastor immediately. That way they could control problems that the Roman Catholics failed to deal with.
What stood in their way was an obstreperous Judicial Council and Fair Process.
Since they are the primary nominators for Judicial Council posts, the Council of Bishops were able to get a swing vote that retreated from the positions taken by the Judicial Council in the just ended quadrennium. The Judicial Council left with this parting shot from JCD 777:
“It should be emphasized that both the administrative and the judicial processes in the Discipline are carefully and specifically designed to protect the rights of clergy and of the church. The steps set forth there must be followed carefully and explicitly or injustice results. Lack of diligence, integrity, care, or compassion in dealing with a case almost always results in irreparable harm to both individual and church. That has usually happened by the time a case of this nature gets to the Judicial Council.”
The Council of Bishops’ committee, the existence of which was not public knowledge until just before the 1996 General Conference, successfully ramrodded through changes that tempered Fair Process and made it easier for Cabinets to slip through the loopholes in the law.
But then by 2000, a new process called “Just Resolution” was taking shape and added what appeared to be a complicating option between the bishops and their desire to fire pastors at will.
AN AD HOC PROCESS
Since 2004, a number of bishops have devised and used what is being called the “ad hoc” process for handling complaints. Its intention is to be modernize and be far simpler than Fair Process and Just Resolution.
1) The DS orally confronts the pastor with allegations of misconduct or unsatisfactory performance. At the discretion of the DS, the names of the complainers may or may not be mentioned.
2) DS offers resolution to be removal from office, normally voluntary leave, within twenty four hours.
3) DS offers a written or oral request to the executive committee of the BOM to support the DS’s request for an outcome (discontinuance, leave, administrative location, etc.). Documentation is not required at this point but is kept in the supervisory file where it is not available to the pastor for later use. The pastor is not even invited to the meeting.
4) The committee accepts the DS’s recommendation and the pastor is notified of their decision.
5) If the pastor rejects the decision and seeks an appeal, the Discipline provides that the appeal is to the executive committee who just made the decision against the pastor. There is still no written complaint against the pastor even if there is documentation including a written signed complaint from someone. The result is assured because the committee is not likely to change its mind.
6) Prior to the appeal, the DS shares the documentation with the committee but not always with the pastor.
7) The appeal meeting is held. Since the process starts with no written complaint, none of the meetings are subject to Fair Process so there are no “persons” helping the pastor nor witnesses. No verbatim record is made so there is no record of the grounds for the decision. The BOD does not require that the Administrative Review Committee do any more than confirm that the necessary meetings were held.
8) With the executive committee of the BOM making the recommendation to the whole BOM, who usually goes along with it to save time and avoid confrontation with an angry pastor for whom no hearing is required before them, the matter is put on paper for the clergy session. With the administrative review committee also going along with the process, the pastor faces the daunting task of arguing his case over a complaint he does not have in a context where the Cabinet sees and remembers who stood up against them.
No complaint, no hassle, no Fair Process. The result is assured.
The only difference between the old confrontation/grab the ordination papers off the wall is that there is a buffer, a committee who finds that truth is in the words and opinions of the Cabinet and not ever in the words of the pastor. Thus, instead of the bishop dirtying his/her hands, the job is done in a meeting of the pastor’s peers so it can be called a hearing and before the same group so it can be called an appeal.
If any Cabinet or BOM members were treated that way, they’d scream bloody murder. But they are higher on the totem pole and they are less likely to be caught up in being accused of anything. Besides, thanks to Paragraph 362.3g, there is little chance that messing up a little on handling a complaint can be seen as “committed knowingly in bad faith.” They are following church law by avoiding it. And it was usually the bishop’s idea. The bishop has the last word in the conference on anything that is appealed under P 2718.
Such a deal!
There has to be a better way.
(9/25/07)
Between 1976 and 1980, Bishops Jack Tuell and Leroy Hodapp, DS David Lawson (later to become a bishop), and lawyer Jack Stone, with the help of Donald Treese of the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry (GBHEM) developed an administrative process to handle pastors who performed poorly, either because of incompetence or ineffectiveness.
Up until then, they reasoned, bishops had two choices in how to deal with pastors. The committee felt there had to be an alternative between going to trial and having the bishop confront the pastor and literally take his Elders Orders certificate off the wall.
Actually, Bishops had other options that they used. One was to “trade” such pastors with another bishop. Experience had shown that some pastors blossomed in a different place. That technique was prevalent until 1983.
Another was to just move the pastor from one small church to another. Pastors were not always in great supply and preserving those ministries was better than leaving small churches without a pastor.
A third was putting the pastor on disability if there was an incapacitating or enervating medical or psychological problem.
Finally, the last option was for the DS to sit down with the pastor and go over the pastor’s record and see if there was another vocation for which the pastor might be suited. At that time, when a pastor lost the respect of his superintendent, that meant something and the pastor would look at other options and voluntarily seek other employment.
PROTECTION FROM AT-WILL FIRING OF PASTORS
For the 1980 General Conference, the Tuell committee developed a new track to use. It was to allow the Cabinet to initiate leave of absence to relieve a pastor of office. It also allowed the Cabinet members to initiate complaints that would then be processed by a committee made up of Board of Ordained Ministry (BOM) and Cabinet members (the Joint Review Committee) to examine complaints and work toward a forced removal, if necessary, but preferably a voluntary leave of absence.
The petitions were sold as a way to minimize authoritarian bishops from swooping in and firing pastors on the spot.
This package passed General Conference in 1980.
It was tested before the Judicial Council in 1982 who ruled that it could be allowed (see Judicial Council Decisions 524 and 530 – note the bishop involved in the case was Bishop Tuell. A member of the Judicial Council told a group of us that the Cabinet-initiated leave was a quiet means of removing homosexual pastors.) Church statistics show that midterm transfers between annual conferences dropped precipitously and midterm leaves of absence rose precipitously in 1983.
Bishops stopped transferring pastors and were now laying them off mid-year by use of the Cabinet-initiated leave of absence. The “swooping” bishops now had a covering mechanism to make it look like pastors had a chance to defend themselves. It only took a little longer and required the cooperation of a handful of pastors they nominated to the BOM.
THE NEW POWER OF CABINETS COUNTERED
By 1988, abuses of this new power of the Cabinet were causing law suits against the denomination (one bishop had no less than eight and maybe as many as sixteen suits against him during that period). The 1988 General Conference established the “Chapter VIII Study Commission” which was called upon to revise the complaint process.
On that sixteen member commission were Bishops Jack Tuell and Leroy Hodapp and Donald Treese from GBHEM.
They not only reviewed the judicial process (Chapter VIII) but the administrative process (Chapter III) since it was where the judicial process began. Besides tweaking the various steps from the 1980 work of the Tuell committee, they added what are now known as Fair Process rights and applied them to both the judicial and administrative tracks.
Instrumental in that direction were lawyers Craig Hoskins of GCFA, Paul Webb, and John Stumbo under the guidance of Bishop William Boyd Grove who was chair. Under Bishop Grove, Dr. Treese was largely quiet but Bishops Hodapp and Tuell were with the group. Practicing advocates were allowed to speak during discussions of most issues.
The petitions from the study commission were accepted by the 1992 General Conference. The Judicial Council enforced the provisions of the changes between 1993 and 1996.
The Council of Bishops set up a revision committee which then began to dismantle some of the feature of the 1992 Fair Process. And, on top of that, an annual conference lost a major law suit because its bishop knew a pastor was a pedophile but trusted the therapy programs had restored him. When the pastor fell off that wagon, the family sued and won.
That added impetus to the Council of Bishops’ urgent desire to be able to freely fire a pastor immediately. That way they could control problems that the Roman Catholics failed to deal with.
What stood in their way was an obstreperous Judicial Council and Fair Process.
Since they are the primary nominators for Judicial Council posts, the Council of Bishops were able to get a swing vote that retreated from the positions taken by the Judicial Council in the just ended quadrennium. The Judicial Council left with this parting shot from JCD 777:
“It should be emphasized that both the administrative and the judicial processes in the Discipline are carefully and specifically designed to protect the rights of clergy and of the church. The steps set forth there must be followed carefully and explicitly or injustice results. Lack of diligence, integrity, care, or compassion in dealing with a case almost always results in irreparable harm to both individual and church. That has usually happened by the time a case of this nature gets to the Judicial Council.”
The Council of Bishops’ committee, the existence of which was not public knowledge until just before the 1996 General Conference, successfully ramrodded through changes that tempered Fair Process and made it easier for Cabinets to slip through the loopholes in the law.
But then by 2000, a new process called “Just Resolution” was taking shape and added what appeared to be a complicating option between the bishops and their desire to fire pastors at will.
AN AD HOC PROCESS
Since 2004, a number of bishops have devised and used what is being called the “ad hoc” process for handling complaints. Its intention is to be modernize and be far simpler than Fair Process and Just Resolution.
1) The DS orally confronts the pastor with allegations of misconduct or unsatisfactory performance. At the discretion of the DS, the names of the complainers may or may not be mentioned.
2) DS offers resolution to be removal from office, normally voluntary leave, within twenty four hours.
3) DS offers a written or oral request to the executive committee of the BOM to support the DS’s request for an outcome (discontinuance, leave, administrative location, etc.). Documentation is not required at this point but is kept in the supervisory file where it is not available to the pastor for later use. The pastor is not even invited to the meeting.
4) The committee accepts the DS’s recommendation and the pastor is notified of their decision.
5) If the pastor rejects the decision and seeks an appeal, the Discipline provides that the appeal is to the executive committee who just made the decision against the pastor. There is still no written complaint against the pastor even if there is documentation including a written signed complaint from someone. The result is assured because the committee is not likely to change its mind.
6) Prior to the appeal, the DS shares the documentation with the committee but not always with the pastor.
7) The appeal meeting is held. Since the process starts with no written complaint, none of the meetings are subject to Fair Process so there are no “persons” helping the pastor nor witnesses. No verbatim record is made so there is no record of the grounds for the decision. The BOD does not require that the Administrative Review Committee do any more than confirm that the necessary meetings were held.
8) With the executive committee of the BOM making the recommendation to the whole BOM, who usually goes along with it to save time and avoid confrontation with an angry pastor for whom no hearing is required before them, the matter is put on paper for the clergy session. With the administrative review committee also going along with the process, the pastor faces the daunting task of arguing his case over a complaint he does not have in a context where the Cabinet sees and remembers who stood up against them.
No complaint, no hassle, no Fair Process. The result is assured.
The only difference between the old confrontation/grab the ordination papers off the wall is that there is a buffer, a committee who finds that truth is in the words and opinions of the Cabinet and not ever in the words of the pastor. Thus, instead of the bishop dirtying his/her hands, the job is done in a meeting of the pastor’s peers so it can be called a hearing and before the same group so it can be called an appeal.
If any Cabinet or BOM members were treated that way, they’d scream bloody murder. But they are higher on the totem pole and they are less likely to be caught up in being accused of anything. Besides, thanks to Paragraph 362.3g, there is little chance that messing up a little on handling a complaint can be seen as “committed knowingly in bad faith.” They are following church law by avoiding it. And it was usually the bishop’s idea. The bishop has the last word in the conference on anything that is appealed under P 2718.
Such a deal!
There has to be a better way.
(9/25/07)
Sunday, September 9, 2007
If the DS calls
What should you do
if you get a call
from the Bishop or D.S.?
The traditional role of your District Superintendent is to provide counsel and support for every pastor and congregation within his or her District. As such, occasionally a DS might give you a call for a variety of positive reasons.
However, there are moments when the DS is pursuing a complaint against you. It is therefore important that you find out the purpose of the call.
Ask, “Is this routine or do you have some sensitive matters to discuss?"
Hopefully, the call is about something where you can help the DS. If the reason is appropriate for the meeting (clearly not about a complaint) and is not vague, continue the call.
If it is about a complaint, DSs don’t like to have to say so. They tend to not be very straight forward about what they want. They usually say something like “I’d like to talk with you about career goals,” or “We are updating our files on appointment preferences.”
If you get a call something like that, here’s what you do:
Say you will call back in a few minutes. If you have to make an excuse, tell him/her that you have diarrhea or that someone’s at the door. And hang up.
CALM DOWN AND REREAD THIS ARTICLE.
Then read in its entirety Paragraph (P) 362 of the 2004 Book of Discipline (BOD).
When you call back, let the DS say whatever he/she will.
If there is no mention of a complaint but there is an insistence on meeting with you, say nothing about your fear or anger or guilt or grief (see the article on "Emotions" at our website*). The DS will ask for a meeting as soon as possible, usually at a place and time convenient for him/her. Do not make a fuss about it unless you have a serious prior commitment such as a funeral or treatment for a medical problem for you or for a family member. Quietly negotiate what you can, which may be very little.
If the subject of a complaint comes up,
1. Ask for a copy of the complaint and any supporting materials for it.
2. Ask for time to get a "person" and to study the complaint.
3. Ask if the complaint could end up in civil or criminal court so that you will know whether or not you will need a lawyer.
4. Ask who else will be coming to the supervisory response meeting.
5. Ask for twenty days minimum to prepare for it.
Cabinet officers ordinarily deny most of those requests even though P 362.1b states the interview is "administrative" and Fair Process is required in all "administrative" hearings.
Some cabinets prefer to get you by yourself, unprepared for a complaint, so they can apply intimidation and your ignorance of Fair Process for complaints. Then they can blind side you and make it easier on themselves by tricking you into confessing and/or within 24 hours giving up your credentials without a fight.
However, there are moments when the DS is pursuing a complaint against you. It is therefore important that you find out the purpose of the call.
Ask, “Is this routine or do you have some sensitive matters to discuss?"
Hopefully, the call is about something where you can help the DS. If the reason is appropriate for the meeting (clearly not about a complaint) and is not vague, continue the call.
If it is about a complaint, DSs don’t like to have to say so. They tend to not be very straight forward about what they want. They usually say something like “I’d like to talk with you about career goals,” or “We are updating our files on appointment preferences.”
If you get a call something like that, here’s what you do:
Say you will call back in a few minutes. If you have to make an excuse, tell him/her that you have diarrhea or that someone’s at the door. And hang up.
CALM DOWN AND REREAD THIS ARTICLE.
Then read in its entirety Paragraph (P) 362 of the 2004 Book of Discipline (BOD).
When you call back, let the DS say whatever he/she will.
If there is no mention of a complaint but there is an insistence on meeting with you, say nothing about your fear or anger or guilt or grief (see the article on "Emotions" at our website*). The DS will ask for a meeting as soon as possible, usually at a place and time convenient for him/her. Do not make a fuss about it unless you have a serious prior commitment such as a funeral or treatment for a medical problem for you or for a family member. Quietly negotiate what you can, which may be very little.
If the subject of a complaint comes up,
1. Ask for a copy of the complaint and any supporting materials for it.
2. Ask for time to get a "person" and to study the complaint.
3. Ask if the complaint could end up in civil or criminal court so that you will know whether or not you will need a lawyer.
4. Ask who else will be coming to the supervisory response meeting.
5. Ask for twenty days minimum to prepare for it.
Cabinet officers ordinarily deny most of those requests even though P 362.1b states the interview is "administrative" and Fair Process is required in all "administrative" hearings.
Some cabinets prefer to get you by yourself, unprepared for a complaint, so they can apply intimidation and your ignorance of Fair Process for complaints. Then they can blind side you and make it easier on themselves by tricking you into confessing and/or within 24 hours giving up your credentials without a fight.
Do not be defensive or hostile during this phone call. Do not give them something else to charge you with. Just put off the meeting with the superintendent for as long as you can so that you have time to get someone to go with you.
Basically, say as little as possible. All pastors have things about their ministries for which they feel great guilt. Take those up with a professional counselor. This is no time to hope the DS will be wearing his counselor’s hat. He’s the sheriff in our system.
DSs may realize this is their only chance to get you alone and they will want you to say something that they can use against you. Hang up as soon as you can.
YOU CANNOT TALK YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS!
*Go to our website http://.www.aiateam.org/, click on "Search" and type in "AFTER the DS calls" and click on the article of that title and begin the preparations suggested there.
(9/28/07)
Basically, say as little as possible. All pastors have things about their ministries for which they feel great guilt. Take those up with a professional counselor. This is no time to hope the DS will be wearing his counselor’s hat. He’s the sheriff in our system.
DSs may realize this is their only chance to get you alone and they will want you to say something that they can use against you. Hang up as soon as you can.
YOU CANNOT TALK YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS!
*Go to our website http://.www.aiateam.org/, click on "Search" and type in "AFTER the DS calls" and click on the article of that title and begin the preparations suggested there.
(9/28/07)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)