JHYPERLINK "http://www.umc.org/decisions/64864/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6IlwvZGVjaXNpb25zXC9zZWFyY2gtcmVzdWx0cyIsInNlYXJjaDpkZWNpc2lvbl9udW1iZXIiOiIxMzAxIiwiZXhhY3QiOiJzZWFyY2g6ZGVjaXNpb25fbnVtYmVyIn0" http://www.umc.org/decisions/64864/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6IlwvZGVjaXNpb25zXC9zZWFyY2gtcmVzdWx0cyIsInNlYXJjaDpkZWNpc2lvbl9udW1iZXIiOiIxMzAxIiwiZXhhY3QiOiJzZWFyY2g6ZGVjaXNpb25fbnVtYmVyIn0
DEFINING THE APPOINTIVE CABINET
The Arkansas Annual Conference bishop has been challenged regarding his use of non-superintendents when appointments are being considered. The Discipline does not contain the phrase “appointive cabinet” even though many bishops now bring their administrative assistants, conference program directors, or others chosen by the bishops to sit in with voice and vote on appointments.
Revisions of the Rules were passed by the annual conference among which was one small section to define the appointive cabinet and someone asked the bishop a question of law related to the legality of that small section.
The bishop ruled it violated the Discipline and the Council agreed. Interestingly, the problem was that the Rules’ terminology differed slightly from that of the Discipline, that being the “violation.” As one might expect in our bishop-centric denomination, a major change in conference rules would not occur without the full support of the bishop. Whether or not the Rules were Disciplinary, who he added to the “appointive cabinet” was not affected. The new rules did not deny or abridge the bishop’s freedom to add anyone he wanted. So it is interesting that he ended up in the position of being against a rule he probably favored and could show it violated the Discipline while, at the same time, not interrupting his stacking the appointment process with anyone he chose.
This commentary presumes this case is related to other Council cases related to the Arkansas “appointive cabinet.” See JCDs 1279, 1280, 1293, 1294, and 1307.
Labels:
No comments:
Post a Comment