RETIREMENT RULE FOR MEMBERS OF AN APPOINTIVE CABINET?
The issues in this case, and its ruling are essentially the same as in JCD 1293 above. Same problems of “moot and hypothetical,” having all the documents, etc.
The difference in this question of law was that it addressed retirement from the Cabinet requirements for superintendents and asked if those applied to non-superintendents.
Again, the Council bemoaned the fact that the bishop bothered to answer the questions even though he had already determined that they were moot and hypothetical. I do not know who writes that kind of stuff for the Council but hopefully they will heed the concerns I raised about such treatment of bishops in situations where there was either ambiguity about whether or not to answer and the pastoral need to answer in order to avoid looking autocratic and dismissive.
We urge advocates seeking to bring questions under Paragraphs 2609 and 2610 to meet ahead of time with the bishop to work out the smoothest way to handle the floor “game” of getting the question raised. Under those circumstances, the bishop could point out the problems with the questions re: “moot and hypothetical,” something I hope both sides will find more adequately addressed following revisions of Appendix A of the Council’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The decision was in favor of the bishop in the sense that the majority of the Council agreed that the questions were moot and hypothetical. There are no rules requiring non-superintendents to retire after eight years as superintendents have to.