JCM 1137

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1254&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1181

The Council chose not to reconsider their ruling in support of the Bush institute at SMU. One of the details they indicated in that earlier decision was significant, the price of the lease. They were not for anything less than market value of the property:

“The question posed alleges that the lease agreements were negotiated at less than fair market value. Nothing in the record, other than the question itself, makes reference to fair market value. Because the Judicial Council is not a fact-finding body, we cannot determine whether that portion of the question is true or untrue. The allegation that the lease agreements were negotiated at less than fair market value is not a self-proving assertion. There are portions of the question that neither the presiding bishop nor the Judicial Council can or should answer. Stripped to its essence, however, is a question that could have and should have been answered:” (JCD 1113)

After that ruling came out, the following information about the lease was passed on to the Council: For approximately $10 a year for 99 years, with the possibility of renewing for another 150 years, the Bush Foundation signed a lease with SMU. This information comes from a Feb. 28, 2008, copy of THE DAILY CAMPUS, an independent SMU campus newspaper.

If that information is correct, the Council had serious grounds to reconsider JCD 1113. They must have decided it was too late to overturn the project because ground was already broken. It is not hard to speculate that there would be huge financial problems for SMU and the UMC if the Council did act. Some of the donors to the Bush project are big donors to the university and the Church.