JCD 1132

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1249&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1181

This case from California-Pacific Conference was carried over from the previous session of the Council (JCM 1116). The bishop followed through on the Council’s remanding request.

For those who love to read about pensions and stuff, this is a good case. Both the bishop and Council make helpful distinctions and provide useful information. For those like me, it is a struggle to get inside the questions but I will try.

The questioner challenged two aspects of the health insurance program: one, it not being handled like apportionments; two, allowing the Board of Pensions to do something the Conference should be doing, assigning the amounts to be paid some months after conference has been held.

The responses were that, one, health insurance is a benefit and could therefore be handled differently. A special situation for the conference was that it had a surplus it could apply to the premiums of the retired and incapacitated and that was best handled outside of apportionment formulas. Two, the formula for the premiums had been set by the conference and the Board then just applied it when the bills were sent out, thus not violating the principle of one agency taking another’s responsibilities.

The reader is warned to discuss the ruling with someone who knows this stuff, such as people working for the Board of Pensions and Benefits or are on the conference pensions and benefits committee.