RECONSIDERATION OF JCD 1230
JCD 1230 was the historic case which clarified Fair Process
requirements in major ways and preserved a bishop’s episcopacy, giving him a
new chance in another conference.
Unfortunately, we are given nothing of the arguments of
those who sought reconsideration.
Ordinarily, only parties-at-interest have the right to seek
reconsideration, though occasionally the Council responds to bishops who are
not parties-at-interest. We do not
even know who brought the request let alone what the substance of their
argument might be. It would be
enlightening to know who brought the request, what their argument was, and how
that argument was viewed by the Council.
The Judicial Council has been posting its dockets on line
for years now. The General
Conference asked them to post the requests for their docket, which means
everyone can see in detail what is being brought to them for their
consideration. In the case of
reconsideration requests, those are not posted unless they are accepted for
reconsideration. When they are
not, as in the four cases here, there is no back-up information posted on the
docket list.
For a complete critique of the article, contact me. But let me note a few things brought
out in the article.
The spelling out of the costs incurred related to Bishop
Bledsoe’s case should shed light on what current church litigation actually
costs. For example, an average
church trial costs a conference $100,000 in housing, transportation, and meals
for the trial court (jury) and the trial staff (presiding bishop, his legal
counsel, and an administrative assistant;
the Counsel for the Church and the lawyer who is assistant counsel; the
secretary and sergeant at arms; the witnesses for the church which may require
experts; and the thirty or so others brought in as the pool for the trial court. The services of the transcriptionist,
custodial services for the site, a stipend for wear and tear on the facilities
used for the trial, and miscellaneous other things add to those costs. The administrative costs for the
hearings for Bishop Bledsoe were not as expensive but they were notable enough
to be included in the article. Has
anyone ever reported such costs to the annual conference where a trial was
held? Has the budget General
Conference passed or audited ever detailed such costs? Church funds pay for the
prosecution.
The pastor facing a major hearing on his/her performance or
character has costs that are often quite close to what the church pays or may
even be more depending on how long the proceedings leading up to the trial
(hearing) and appeals takes.
Bishop Bledsoe’s costs were noted by the Judicial Council and they
ordered that the Jurisdiction pay all of his costs including legal fees. The average pastor trying to survive
the hearings and appeals faces those same costs! The Judicial Council has put a spotlight on them. This is the first time there has been a
serious attempt to make whole a pastor’s life and finances after having a case
against him overturned.
The denomination has hidden the costs it has to prosecute
and never acknowledged the costs to the respondent. No wonder there was so much consternation when the costs
Bishop Bledsoe had came to light and had to be paid for by the Church.
A second concern relates to the “precedent” of having a
third party intervene between the jurisdiction and its handling of
bishops. What is overlooked is
that the Judicial Council is constantly called in to settle other disputes and
has jurisdiction to do it.
A third concern noted in the UM Reporter article was the
fear of involvement of lawyers in church matters. Overlooked by that concern is that the bishops and
denomination have used lawyers for generations but practically disbar use if
lawyers by pastors or laity against the Church. The instant case sheds light on the reality of how one-sided
the upper levels of the Church feel about lawyers. When the upper echelons have the privilege of legal
assistance and the lower levels are not allowed similar possibilities, then
maybe we need to take away the privilege from the elite to level the playing
field.
A fourth concern that may have been raised was conflicts of
interest which I think were not really there in the direct sense indicated in
the article. The Council did not
even agree with much of the argument of the former Council member who
represented the bishop. The
painful problem of the advocate’s legal fees being fully paid by the
jurisdiction from apportionment funding was not contrary to church law. Respondents have been paying comparable
costs out of their own pockets for years and this is the first time those costs
have become public and have had to be reimbursed by the church, as stated
above. The appearance of
“revolving door” politics where a former Council member can invite work from
bishops is novel but the use of former members of the Council to do legal work
in the church is not new.
I do not wish to appear to dismiss possible ethical
questions. My own experience has
been to provide help to people in trouble at no expense other than occasional
costs for things like travel, housing, and printing. Pastors in trouble can rarely afford to pay for church legal
services, though those who push to prove their innocence tend to deplete their
financial future resources seeking justice at the cost levels the bishop
did. The introduction of the idea
of a person seeking business and financial recompense in the church because of
previous experience within the system needs to be given serious review. In addition, the appearance of possible
conflict of interest when the advocate was an instructor of the Council in its
orientation needs to be examined.
Though no cases were discussed at the time, no one knows that for sure
but the advocate and the Council.
What would be closer to ideal would be for the Church to
acknowledge the actual costs of legal actions and seek other ways to resolve
contentious events using alternative dispute resolutions and being willing to
pay for them. Minimize the higher
cost legal action to be genuinely the last resort.
