JCM 1138

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1255&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1181

The Council chose not to reconsider its ruling on the questions related to the closing of a California-Nevada church. That ruling was JCM 1112.

In my commentary on that memorandum, I assumed the matter of the closure was before the conference when the questions were raised. I missed one little detail: The vote had occurred the year before so my comments were in error on the matter being part of the business of the 2009 conference and the possibility that the questioner was still an active member of the conference. The way for the questions to have been raised in 2009 were to have someone who voted for the closure to ask for reconsideration of that vote. If the conference voted to reconsider, then the matter would have been the “work of the conference” that year and the questions raised by an active member of the conference would have been in order.

My earlier conclusion that superintendents might pull the same stunts in the future as the one did in that case still stands. However, the advocates trying to bring justice erred and the Council had no other way to follow through than by telling the history in the concurring opinion. That does not have the authority of a decision of law but it does shine a light on what happened. Hopefully, those who read JCM 1112 and its concurring opinions will see and work to stop such tricks in the future.