http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1212&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1118
The Council could have stopped when it ruled it had no jurisdiction to deal with a parliamentary decision. But they reviewed the material involved, a packet which contained observations on a point of law but which asked none.
Where the bishop ruled that no one had formally presented it on the floor of the conference he could make the ruling that it was out of order, the Council may be implying that if such a packet were offered informally to the bishop in writing, if it contained a question of law signed by the questioner, and if it pertained to the business of the conference, they might accept it in a future case.
P 2609.6 does not include phrasing requiring that the question of law by raised verbally during plenary. Some bishops might prefer a simple written submission rather than have floor time given to what might be a minor matter or could be an unnecessarily embarrassing one.
No comments:
Post a Comment