http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1312&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1101&EN=1200
This memorandum notes that concerns left over from JCD 1156 have been resolved. Although it is not clear from what this statement says, apparently the conference has paid the pastor for time lost due to the incorrect application of the 2008 Discipline. Apparently the proper minutes and other documents have clarified what actually happened.
I have no independent confirmation that is what happened but the upshot of this ruling is that JCD 1156 stands.
One hopes this effort by the Council shows they can sort out the sometimes murky personnel actions of the Church and resolve them.
Showing posts with label Baltimore-Washington Conference. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baltimore-Washington Conference. Show all posts
Monday, November 21, 2011
Sunday, November 20, 2011
JCD 1202
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1323&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1204
The statement of facts about this case does not include the bishop’s ruling. Even though the Council vacated it, one wonders how a bishop could justify telling a pastor in any circumstance, without prior fair process (JCD 702), that s/he was unappointable.
In the cases of Revs. Winslow Wilson and Nathaniel Grady, both of whom were in prison, were put on leave of absence. Their respective conferences felt that they had each been incarcerated unjustly. Their appointability was never seriously in question. If church complaints were initiated against either pastor, no committee on investigation forwarded it to church trial.
In the instant case, after the bishop put in writing to the imprisoned pastor that he was unappointable, the formal complaint process has been begun. Appointability is a determination to be made by the conference, as I understand it in church law, and is not the prerogative of a bishop to determine. I do not know who advised the bishop to write such a letter or who gave him the impression such a letter was appropriate. I can guess, based on how frequently I have heard about bishops who thought they could make that determination on their own.
The Judicial Council, on the grounds of separation of powers, has stood up to the incursion of episcopal authority into employment matters. I hope their ruling receives better attention than has the Council’s rulings on some other matters (for example, JCD 1200 and its predecessors).
The statement of facts about this case does not include the bishop’s ruling. Even though the Council vacated it, one wonders how a bishop could justify telling a pastor in any circumstance, without prior fair process (JCD 702), that s/he was unappointable.
In the cases of Revs. Winslow Wilson and Nathaniel Grady, both of whom were in prison, were put on leave of absence. Their respective conferences felt that they had each been incarcerated unjustly. Their appointability was never seriously in question. If church complaints were initiated against either pastor, no committee on investigation forwarded it to church trial.
In the instant case, after the bishop put in writing to the imprisoned pastor that he was unappointable, the formal complaint process has been begun. Appointability is a determination to be made by the conference, as I understand it in church law, and is not the prerogative of a bishop to determine. I do not know who advised the bishop to write such a letter or who gave him the impression such a letter was appropriate. I can guess, based on how frequently I have heard about bishops who thought they could make that determination on their own.
The Judicial Council, on the grounds of separation of powers, has stood up to the incursion of episcopal authority into employment matters. I hope their ruling receives better attention than has the Council’s rulings on some other matters (for example, JCD 1200 and its predecessors).
Saturday, May 14, 2011
JCD 1189
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1310&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1189
Officers of the Baltimore-Washington requested reconsideration of JCD 1156. They felt the Council was confused over two different cases and some other errors based on errors of fact about the case which the Council said occurred.
The Council did not really need to respond because they have usually not done so in the past.
But having gotten more (and confusing) statements of facts, they leaned back on the official minutes which gave one narrative compared with the multiple stories the Council received from the many briefs sent in.
It takes a real lover of church law to get inside the tight and extended argument prepared in the analysis. In effect, the analysis is a “How To" manual for Cabinets and Boards of Ordained Ministry on the changes in involuntary leave of absence that occurred in 2008’s Discipline.
The upshot is that the Council did not change its mind about what it said in JCD 1156: that the pastor be reinstated and have all pastoral support repaid from when the whole mess began. Then they added what was a real joy to my eyes: “We retain jurisdiction in order to monitor Annual Conference compliance with this decision. Evidence of compliance should be transmitted to the Secretary of the Judicial Council by July 15, 2011.”
You go, Council!
Officers of the Baltimore-Washington requested reconsideration of JCD 1156. They felt the Council was confused over two different cases and some other errors based on errors of fact about the case which the Council said occurred.
The Council did not really need to respond because they have usually not done so in the past.
But having gotten more (and confusing) statements of facts, they leaned back on the official minutes which gave one narrative compared with the multiple stories the Council received from the many briefs sent in.
It takes a real lover of church law to get inside the tight and extended argument prepared in the analysis. In effect, the analysis is a “How To" manual for Cabinets and Boards of Ordained Ministry on the changes in involuntary leave of absence that occurred in 2008’s Discipline.
The upshot is that the Council did not change its mind about what it said in JCD 1156: that the pastor be reinstated and have all pastoral support repaid from when the whole mess began. Then they added what was a real joy to my eyes: “We retain jurisdiction in order to monitor Annual Conference compliance with this decision. Evidence of compliance should be transmitted to the Secretary of the Judicial Council by July 15, 2011.”
You go, Council!
JCD 1156
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1277&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1189
The Council assigned some of its most assiduous members to review a case from Baltimore-Washington Conference. A pastor in trouble worked out a just resolution and avoided being forced onto involuntary leave of absence. When she requested return to appointment status believing that she had fulfilled the requirements laid on her under the just resolution, the bishop’s assistant determined that she needed to do more to get back in. Her advocate submitted a request for a declaratory decision, despite what JCM 1048 said.
The Council tends to go along with what happens at the annual conference level so it was a moment to rejoice when they clearly ruled in favor of the pastor.
This decision is clear. Conditions set prior to a leave of absence may not be amended by the Cabinet at the end of the leave to prevent a pastor from returning to appointment status. The only way to add new terms is to restart the supervisory process and follow fair process.
Unfortunately, that can be done in conferences where the bishop’s influence over the Board of Ordained Ministry is very strong. After all, most Cabinet members are appointed from the ranks of the BOM. All on the BOM were nominated by the bishop in the first place with no nominations from the floor possible. And all are subject to the appointive power of the bishop so their careers are on the line when Board members balk at what the bishop wants.
This decision points out the separation of powers that the Council perceives to be in effect. In this case, the Council enforced it. Hopefully, it will continue to do so.
The Council is to be commended in this case for the care they took to identify the polity properly and save the Conference from further embarrassment for their treatment of the pastor.
I wish the Council had asked for the Conference to report back on what happened. Frequently, in these kinds of cases, conference leaders find ways to punish the pastor rather than follow up in a reasonable way.
The Council assigned some of its most assiduous members to review a case from Baltimore-Washington Conference. A pastor in trouble worked out a just resolution and avoided being forced onto involuntary leave of absence. When she requested return to appointment status believing that she had fulfilled the requirements laid on her under the just resolution, the bishop’s assistant determined that she needed to do more to get back in. Her advocate submitted a request for a declaratory decision, despite what JCM 1048 said.
The Council tends to go along with what happens at the annual conference level so it was a moment to rejoice when they clearly ruled in favor of the pastor.
This decision is clear. Conditions set prior to a leave of absence may not be amended by the Cabinet at the end of the leave to prevent a pastor from returning to appointment status. The only way to add new terms is to restart the supervisory process and follow fair process.
Unfortunately, that can be done in conferences where the bishop’s influence over the Board of Ordained Ministry is very strong. After all, most Cabinet members are appointed from the ranks of the BOM. All on the BOM were nominated by the bishop in the first place with no nominations from the floor possible. And all are subject to the appointive power of the bishop so their careers are on the line when Board members balk at what the bishop wants.
This decision points out the separation of powers that the Council perceives to be in effect. In this case, the Council enforced it. Hopefully, it will continue to do so.
The Council is to be commended in this case for the care they took to identify the polity properly and save the Conference from further embarrassment for their treatment of the pastor.
I wish the Council had asked for the Conference to report back on what happened. Frequently, in these kinds of cases, conference leaders find ways to punish the pastor rather than follow up in a reasonable way.
JCM 1157
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1276&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1189
A policy on sexual conduct of the Baltimore-Washington Conference was the subject of a request for a declaratory decision on its effect and application in light of Paragraph 605.8. The conference voted to forward the request to the Council. The Council held a hearing with the parties at interest.
The analysis was not of the issue in question but of what allows the Council to have jurisdiction. This is the longest discussion of their criteria I have seen in one place.
They ruled they had no jurisdiction!
It appears there was no specific case on which to base the request. I think the Discipline allows requests for declaratory decisions that could have an effect on someone but so far, the Council has not agreed with me. My argument goes back to their JCM 1048. (See my argument related to that on this blog dated January 11, 2011.)
A policy on sexual conduct of the Baltimore-Washington Conference was the subject of a request for a declaratory decision on its effect and application in light of Paragraph 605.8. The conference voted to forward the request to the Council. The Council held a hearing with the parties at interest.
The analysis was not of the issue in question but of what allows the Council to have jurisdiction. This is the longest discussion of their criteria I have seen in one place.
They ruled they had no jurisdiction!
It appears there was no specific case on which to base the request. I think the Discipline allows requests for declaratory decisions that could have an effect on someone but so far, the Council has not agreed with me. My argument goes back to their JCM 1048. (See my argument related to that on this blog dated January 11, 2011.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)