http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1273&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1189
The Council chose not to reconsider JCM 1145 in which a personnel matter from the California-Pacific Conference was at issue. Where is the flexibility the Council shows on property and polity matters? They chose not to give attention to one of the most effective advocates with many years of experience before the Judicial Council. He is well aware of the rules and all the mistakes that could be made.
Could there be a growing incompetence on the part of conference secretaries? This is not the only case where inadequate minutes caused a matter to fail the Council’s jurisdiction requirements.
Showing posts with label personnel issue. Show all posts
Showing posts with label personnel issue. Show all posts
Saturday, May 14, 2011
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.
JCD 1162
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1282&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1189
The Philippines case returned in the form of a request for reconsideration. Usually such requests get no space in the memorandum. In this case, it appears the interim bishop may have not been truthful about having met on Feb. 3, 2010, with the Cabinet to get them to change the site for the annual conference. He answered the request for reconsideration of JCM 1152 and in his argument said that the Cabinet had not responded to his requests for meetings. That raises the issue of the credibility of the interim bishop. The chances are that he did not meet the Cabinet on February 3 as the statement of facts in both 1152 and 1162 provide but unilaterally changed the site of the conference for his own convenience. He had to appoint new superintendents in order to finally get the "Cabinet" authorization on February 18. If he already had the old Cabinet's support for changing the site, why did he need to appoint new DSs to get that vote?
The Council did not sense that possible question when it considered the case in JCM 1152 and despite being told by the brief from the opponents of the interim bishop for this docketed action, they found nothing egregious about the interim bishop’s actions and ruled he operated within church law.
One party seeking reconsideration was chastised for not copying his request for reconsideration to the other parties at interest.
The Council was in a situation where they did not know for sure who to believe.
Over the years, Councils have tended not only to believe the bishop’s side of the story but rarely ever have acknowledged anything said from the pastor’s side. Decisions like JCD 1156 occur about once a decade.
In this case, there was some acknowledgement that there were issues against the episcopal rendering of the situation. I appreciate that whenever the Council does it.
The Philippines case returned in the form of a request for reconsideration. Usually such requests get no space in the memorandum. In this case, it appears the interim bishop may have not been truthful about having met on Feb. 3, 2010, with the Cabinet to get them to change the site for the annual conference. He answered the request for reconsideration of JCM 1152 and in his argument said that the Cabinet had not responded to his requests for meetings. That raises the issue of the credibility of the interim bishop. The chances are that he did not meet the Cabinet on February 3 as the statement of facts in both 1152 and 1162 provide but unilaterally changed the site of the conference for his own convenience. He had to appoint new superintendents in order to finally get the "Cabinet" authorization on February 18. If he already had the old Cabinet's support for changing the site, why did he need to appoint new DSs to get that vote?
The Council did not sense that possible question when it considered the case in JCM 1152 and despite being told by the brief from the opponents of the interim bishop for this docketed action, they found nothing egregious about the interim bishop’s actions and ruled he operated within church law.
One party seeking reconsideration was chastised for not copying his request for reconsideration to the other parties at interest.
The Council was in a situation where they did not know for sure who to believe.
Over the years, Councils have tended not only to believe the bishop’s side of the story but rarely ever have acknowledged anything said from the pastor’s side. Decisions like JCD 1156 occur about once a decade.
In this case, there was some acknowledgement that there were issues against the episcopal rendering of the situation. I appreciate that whenever the Council does it.
JCM 1167
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1286&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1189
The text for this memorandum responding to questions of law from Rocky Mountain Conference is the boiler plate used in JCM 1166. And another pastor’s attempt to seek justice is blocked by JCD 799.
The bishops have a successful anti-pastor deal going here….
The text for this memorandum responding to questions of law from Rocky Mountain Conference is the boiler plate used in JCM 1166. And another pastor’s attempt to seek justice is blocked by JCD 799.
The bishops have a successful anti-pastor deal going here….
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
JCM 1145
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1265&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1181
A request for a declaratory decision from the California-Pacific Conference came to the Council in two alternative wordings, neither of which was recorded in the conference minutes. The Council chose not to make a ruling. Even taken together, the materials did not satisfy the requirements for the Council to take jurisdiction. It is too bad because the clarification sought relate to personnel processes.
A request for a declaratory decision from the California-Pacific Conference came to the Council in two alternative wordings, neither of which was recorded in the conference minutes. The Council chose not to make a ruling. Even taken together, the materials did not satisfy the requirements for the Council to take jurisdiction. It is too bad because the clarification sought relate to personnel processes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)