JCD 1124

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1241&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1181

A New York Conference bishop reported to the Council that he had received a letter requesting a ruling of law during a break. The request dealt with a resolution supporting those who dissent with the Discipline, though the issues involved are not noted. The conference secretary submitted nothing so the Council had no information beyond what the bishop told them. The bishop’s ruling that the request was not before the conference was affirmed.

Here again, it does not appear that the Council Secretary chose to make inquiry prior to docketing about the record of the conference session to see if indeed there was no mention of the request. The Council trusted that the bishop was telling the truth about the situation. Since every sitting member of the Council was originally nominated by the Council of Bishops, the appearance of conflict of interest is unsettling, especially since the Council has a clerk who can assist in this small point of administration.

Wise bishops in the past have allowed discreet presentations of written requests for rulings of law and dealt with them. The clear advantage of not having possible dirty laundry aired in public is no small matter. This strategy should require some kind of reasonable acknowledgement to be entered on the record such as the name of the questioner and the specific question raised. With the record showing or not showing the request, the Council would not be vulnerable to the question of conflict of interest.