JCM 1382

ee.umc.org/decisions/81148

Another Deferral and a Stay

The Council of Bishops apparently got a request for a declaratory decision in to the Council after the docket for this session had been posted.  Docket No. 1019-19 which is mentioned in this memorandum is not listed in the docket.  There is a chance a minor mistake was made and the intended docket item was 1019-4 (and 1019-3) and resulted in several rulings: JCD 1385, 1386, and 1390.  The Bishops had a lot of questions about the Traditionalists’ Plan (TP), as did everyone else!

So when a question of law was raised at the New England Annual Conference about the legality of a resolution regarding the new legislation on separation of churches from the denomination, the bishop made a ruling.  The Council stayed his decision.  

“Stay” is another new term introduced by this Council.  Every lawyer in the world knows what it means but there are so many possible subtleties that non-layers will be confused.  The other decision where “stay” came into church law was JCD 1361.  Just what is stayed during an appeal to the jurisdictional committee on appeals under ¶ 2718.3-.4?  

I wish the Council has just said, “The ruling doesn’t go into effect now and may not be needed if the Council rules in favor of the Bishops.”

As I sorted through the various docket items relevant to the bishop’s situation, it appears a decision about whether his conference could add to the requirements laid out in the GC2019 separation of local church legislation is held up for now.  It does not appear any particular church was affected at this time so the stay does not cause any difficulties for anyone so far.

JCM 1279

http://www.umc.org/decisions/59640/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6IlwvZGVjaXNpb25zXC9zZWFyY2gtcmVzdWx0cyIsInJhbmdlLWZyb206ZGVjaXNpb25fZGF0ZSI6IjEwXC8yNVwvMjAxNCJ9

DEFERRAL OF QUESTIONS ABOUT NON-SUPERINTENDENTS ON THE APPOINTIVE CABINET 

Following the Arkansas Annual Conference, the Council received a bishop’s rulings and a brief based on a a request for a ruling of law on the matter of the tenure of members of the appointive Cabinets who were not superintendents.

What the Council did not receive was proof that said the request had been received in writing.  I hate it when that happens.

I have no information on the merits of the questions raised.  But I can imagine a Conference Council Director being a bishop’s right hand man and having an undue amount of influence when appointments are being considered.  In my years as a pastor, our conference had some very influential directors but the bishops, in those days, did not include anyone but superintendents to work on appointments.

There might be a real interest in these questions receiving benefit of judicial review.  The bishop lists all of the paragraphs related to appointment making, all referring only to the superintendents.  The one paragraph where he notes an additional person is Paragraph 608.6 which allows the director of connectional ministries with some restrictions.  In  other conferences, I am aware that the bishop’s administrative assistant is a major addition, though I see no disciplinary authority for a bishop to pick anyone s/he wants to sit in on making of appointments.  

In my opinion, limited as that is, I smell a game afoot among the Council of Bishops where the more staff a bishop has, no matter the cost to the respective annual conferences, the more stature s/he attains in the eyes of episcopal colleagues.

I hope a proper question is raised as a way of minimizing such game playing.  

In this case, the Council deferred until April, 2015, any action on this matter.

JCM 1280

http://www.umc.org/decisions/59641/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6IlwvZGVjaXNpb25zXC9zZWFyY2gtcmVzdWx0cyIsInJhbmdlLWZyb206ZGVjaXNpb25fZGF0ZSI6IjEwXC8yNVwvMjAxNCJ9

DEFERRAL OF QUESTIONS ABOUT RETIRING NON-SUPERINTENDENT MEMBERS OF AN APPOINTIVE CABINET

This issue arising from the Arkansas Annual Conference is similar to the questions raised for JCM 1279 but relates to retirement for non-superintendent members of the appointive cabinet.  

It appears from material in the docket of the Council that the bishop handled things the same way as with the other request.  The Council either has a written request in hand for this one or was so strapped for time, it couldn’t even check for that!  Hence the deferral till April, 2015.

JCM 1155

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1275&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1189

A matter from New York Conference related to the legality of same-gender marriages in Connecticut and therefore the opportunity of United Methodist clergy conducting the services in that state was put off until the spring of 2011 session of the Council.

JCM 1136

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1253&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1181

This case from Texas Conference was deferred to the spring session, a sign that the Council needed to preserve time to do its work and chose to hold off on a case not requiring immediate attention.