JCD 1375

www.umc.org/decisions/79285

The Bishops Strike Early

The Council’s Fall 2018 session pretty much shot down most of the Calvinists’ (most would say “traditionalists” but I like my terms of Arminian and Calvinist better since both have long traditions in the UMC)  petitions in JCD 1366.  There are very gifted church law people in the Calvinists’ group and they went to work to try to work around what the Council pointed out were unconstitutional in their plan.  The Council of Bishops (hereinafter the Bishops) met just before GC2019 and requested declaratory decisions related to some of the Calvinists’ revised petitions.  This request dealt with two elements of that plan, streamlining the process for dealing with allegations related to homosexuals and setting up an international tribunal for homosexuality allegations against bishops under the Council of Bishops.

The  Calvinists saw a pattern in how allegations were handled over the last couple quadrennia.  Those conferences and jurisdictions where the Arminians predominated, the allegations tended to be dropped somewhere between the supervisory response to a written complaint from a Calvinist and a trial.  

So one petition to the GC2019 cut out practically everything from the complaint to the trial at the conference level and tried to establish a special committee on investigation on the General Conference level..  The Council jumped on that one, saying it removed the right of the annual conference to process the complaint, a violation of the constitution (Par. 33).

The other petition wanted to set up an international judicial committee of bishops under the Bishops in an attempt to get away from how Arminian jurisdictions could slow walk or drop homosexuality-related complaints.

The Council clobbered that petition because the constitution (Par. 50) gives accountability to the jurisdictions where the bishops are elected.

That ruling was shared with GC2019.  The related petitions were dropped.

Was the Council supporting the Arminians?  I do not think so.  The constitution is clear on both counts.  This was a by-the-book decision.

JCD 1310

http://www.umc.org/decisions/67272

Plan UMC Revised

To understand the details of what aspects of the Plan UMC Revised were constitutional and which were not, read the decision.  It is clearly written.

You will find that the cluster of petitions called “Plan UMC-Revised” sent in together in one package violates the separation of powers at some points, violations which would have given bishops more authority over things that the Discipline and constitution do not allow.

Here is a quick history behind this “plan.”  At the 2012 General Conference, it seemed like two-thirds of the plenary session was taken up extolling then arguing the merits of legislation called Plan UMC.  Pushed by the Council of Bishops, it was finally passed two days before the end of General Conference.  Then without discussion, it was referred to the Judicial Council for review of constitutionality.  The Council overturned it, pointing out its flaws of giving authority to bishops that the constitution does not support.  See JCD 1210 and the commentary on this blog for it from 2012.

To avoid that embarrassment, the Council of Bishops first had an individual send in the package over his own name.  Then, the Council of Bishops voted in May of 2015 to request a declaratory decision on the constitutionality of this latest plan.  Despite statements to the contrary, they were hoping to get the Council to accept this new version and grease the skids to get it through the 2016 General Conference.

The balance of powers worked in that case.  In JCM 1303 in November of 2015, the Council pointed out that this was only one of many possible plans that might be before the General Conference and a ruling only on this plan would intrude on the legislative process, appearing to be a preferred option.  So they punted!  They deferred making a ruling until their General Conference session in May, 2016.

But then the Council did just what it said it intended not to do.  It ruled on the constitutionality of Plan UMC Revised the day before the opening of General Conference.  Had they stayed true to their approach, they would have waited until the delegates asked for review.  Hence, the bishops got what they wanted, just not the result they’d hoped for.

For practical purposes, it must be said, Plan UMC Revised ended up “dead on arrival” and never got any real traction as a package.  In fact, the plan was broken up into smaller clusters of petitions by the originator of the package in order to be accepted by the Petitions Secretary since five or so different legislative committees would have responsibility for various portions of the package.  I can’t say which portions were actually passed but the desire of the bishops to marginalize several of the monitoring agencies (Status and Role of Women, et al) and shifting control of certain financial and other functions to a group under the control of the Council of Bishops were not passed, as far as I know.

Now let me beat on a dead horse for a moment.   Over the years, I petitioned General Conference an average of forty per quadrennium since 1976.  Several times, I was chastised for dealing with more than one issue in a petition or addressing more than one paragraph.  Paragraph 507 has been used to prevent individuals like myself from putting together a coherent set of petitions needed to correct flawed systems like the administrative and judicial handling of complaints and personnel.  

Yet every four years, agencies like the General Board of Higher Education and Ministries submit complex packages of petitions which deal with those very systems.  They may do it and I was not allowed to.  

Similarly, the Council of Bishops through whichever agency wishes to help them out, has been submitting clusters of petitions, contrary to Paragraph 507 as long as I can remember.  The Council in JCM 1310 did note the possible violation of Paragraph 507.2 but left enforcement of it to the General Conference rather than include it in its own decision.  Maybe next time the Council will consider disqualifying such packages.  They didn’t need to this time.

Lobbying - Petitions

The primary task of a lobbyist is to provide grist for the legislative mill so that there are specific opportunities for an idea to be processed by the General Conference. I’ve been doing petitions (additions or corrections to passages in the current Book of Discipline) since 1976.

Last fall, I turned in something like 68 petitions ranging from finessing some paragraphs of the Discipline to complete rewrites to satirical ones to recommendations on theology.

I did not try to send any through Annual Conference because the committee that reviewed them and recommended them invariably recommended non-concurrence. No one on those committees had ever been through a personnel process against them to realize what was actually going on. Discussion on the floor of my petitions invariably was either done when everyone was tired or was not done at all.

I also was very aware that the General Conference rarely had time to consider any petitions but the ones from the boards and agencies of the denomination and those from the Council of Bishops. Even petitions from annual conferences seldom got consideration.

Rather than waste our annual conference’s time, I just sent in petitions on every paragraph I believe needed to be changed, based on my years of experience as an advocate. My hope was that someone would actually read them when they were printed in the Advanced Daily Christian Advocate. And maybe something would stick with someone. And maybe someday someone would include it in a board or agency petition as their idea.

Having gone to most of the General Conferences since 1984, I have seen that happen. So I once again cast my bread upon the waters.

April 25 - Rigging the Legislative Process

What few people understand about the legislative process at General Conference is that it is subtly rigged.

First, a large number of those who belong to the board or agency whose petitions are being considered seek to be on the legislative committee that is considering those very petitions. No one stands up to this conflict of interest.

Second, since that group tends to know each other, they are quick to nominate people they expect to help get their petitions in. Most committee members do not want to be an officer because it is genuinely demanding. So while they squirm hoping they will not be chosen, the “controllers” jump in. The nominations are made and closed and the officers are in place within minutes.

Third, the order of evaluation of petitions is predetermined. On the top are those known to be the favorites of the bishops. Second are the favorites of the board or agency. Third are those from annual conferences, and fourth, at the bottom of the pile, are those from individuals. That order is followed when the petitions are divided up among the sub-committees that deal with petitions related to a particular paragraph or concern. So every petition is read by someone. If that one person who happens to be reading those from annual conferences and individuals is on the Board or agency sponsoring the other petitions, the prospects of those lower priority petitions are nil.

There are two hedges against losing those bottom petitions completely. One is an active lobbyist who has gotten to key people about their significance. The other is that the Advanced DCA prints every petition. Curious and conscientious legislative committee members will read them and may be motivated to support them.

Fourth, as General Conference is adding more and more Orders of the Day and special events, legislative time for the committees and for the plenary is more and more restricted. Conference rules now include concluding times for such work and allow that there is no requirement for either to finish deciding about everything. Rules 25 and 35 clearly state “legislation not acted upon . . . shall remain unfinished.”

Fifth, by going slow, presiders cut into precious time needed to consider all the issues before them and poor parliamentary work wastes even more time. That works in favor of the petitions on the top.

And sixth, there is the rule that allows no related petition to be considered once a petition on that issue has been passed. See Rule 31 (2).

What keeps General Conference from irrelevance is that good people can work around these rules and practices and still get something important done. While the odds are hugely against that, I have seen it happen at every General Conference.

The only other thing that saves General Conference is that the changes rarely are big enough to make a major difference in what happens at the local church level.

The problem is that there can be accumulative effects of minor changes which finally become significant on Main Street. Every General Conference is up against that and sometimes has the vision to avoid disastrous decisions, no matter how rigged the process is designed to be.

That’s a good reason to believe there is a God.

May 4 - The End of Individual Petitions to General Conference

After doing my entering routine Friday morning, the last day of General Conference, I hit the plenary hoping to find the Korean alternate with whom I’d spoken the day before. I learned later that he had left early that morning so I was not able to follow up on something I’d meant to discuss with him. On my way down to find him, the following happened:

Writing Petitions

(Written 5/4 and submitted to UM-Insight but not published)

I arrived a little late this morning. As I walked along the edge of the bar with my red jacket and pulling my travel case looking for a friend, one of the delegates jumped up from his seat and came over to me.

"Aw, Jerry, I wish you'd have been here just ten minutes ago. I was all set to introduce you to the plenary," he said.

I gave him my traditional ethnic (Norwegian) response: "Oh?"

"Yeah," he said. "The petition limiting individual petitions was brought up. One delegate complained about there being two people from Florida who put in 91 petitions. And I was all set to introduce you as one of them."

I was honored! Imagine being a poster child for seeking to provide ideas to the legislative body known as the General Conference!

In 2008, a delegate who knew me well said, "If it weren't for you, Jerry, we'd have been out of here two days ago!"

I enjoy such moments of recognition, because of their good humor.

Those of us who petition individually do so because we love the church and because we have had the democratic privilege of doing so. Up until this morning, similar attempts to get rid of individual petitions in the past have been voted down. It was a great surprise to me that democracy lost out this time.

Okay, so what are the implications of this turn from our long-held open tradition?

First, there will be fewer petitions, you know, the short ones, the one what provide one idea to change one paragraph, as the rules provide. Delegates will still receive the monstrosities that are pages long from official bodies of the church which are complicated and supposedly comprehensive. The little ones usually don't get attention nor get adopted because they are crowded out by the ones from the "much more important people."

Second, petitions are the raw materials that are needed for the legislative process to produce something for the good of the church. So the only raw materials that will be allowed will be those which are vetted by conferences or agencies which do not always have the time or the expertise to realize what is before them.

In my home conference, they are accustomed to my offering petitions. Whether I provide a very few or a whole lot, what invariably happens is that a committee not trained in the intricacies of the legalities I'm trying to address urge non-concurrence. Since mine are not the only ones before the annual conference, the bishop opens the floor to their consideration. Mine are usually about fourteenth or fifteenth. By the time the discussions of the first ten have occurred, the time allotted for the petitions by the agenda committee has been used up.

There is no time for me to explain anything and no patience among the conference members to sit through what would sound arcane. Few of those present have been through the processes I'm trying to improve with my petitions. There is little existential interest, believe me!

There was always one thing that could be said when individuals' petitions were turned down by the conference, "You can always send them in as individuals." Not any more.

Third, petitions provide a variety of ways to help the legislative process. Instead of simply offering an alternative that could be substituted for what is in the Discipline, a petition can do other things.

One, they can be a venue for showing the inconsistency of a point of view (see petition 20582-FO-P304).

Two, they can sometimes point out a painful truth (see petition 20550-JA-P2701-G).

Three, they can offer a chance for a legislative committee to have a way to accomplish something they cannot initiate (see petition 20598-JA-Non Dis). In 1988 a similar petition opened the door for the legislative committee and ultimately the General Conference to set up a study commission, not on the subject of the original petition, but a significant amending of it. That led to Fair Process and a major change in the handling of troubled pastors.

As I've observed General Conferences from close up through petitioning, I've seen how the legislative committees have been manipulated to avoid dealing with an individual's petitions. I've seen the rules tightened to restrict ideas not coming from "the important people." If the rules had allowed for individuals to write comprehensive petitions in the same way agencies are allowed to, I would have turned in only about five petitions this year.

So now the rules are changed again to diminish democracy.

I always wondered how the early church with loose egalitarian affiliations turned into a hierarchy with a Pope. I never would have guessed that in my lifetime I'd get a chance to see how that could have happened.

Update:  On October 29, 2013, Jim Allen, former General Counsel (top lawyer) for the General Council on Finance and Administration, responded to an inquiry from me.  Despite the clear intention of the votes taken that I describe above, there was no change in the 2012 Discipline.  Paragraph 507 still allows individual petitions.  Here is what he thinks happened:

"1.       The text that begins on page 2761 had to do with a GCFA report.  Lonnie Chafin offered an amendment to GCFA Report 6 (p.2761) that they/we/someone needs to study the system and look at it again in 2016.  Debbie McLeod insulted you as wasting the church’s time and money because you offered many petitions, and then she moved to add the language of petition 20318 to Lonnie’s amendment.  Her amendment passed (p. 2762), then Lonnie’s amendment (with Debbie’s additional verbiage) passed (p. 2764), then Reports 4,5,6, 7, and 9 were passed as a group (p. 2764).  So that language is in a GCFA Report, which is very different from becoming church law and being in the Discipline. 

"2.       It looks to me like the petition itself was one of the gazillion that was not on a consent calendar (possible because of the 1 voting against) and therefore never made it to the floor and was never voted upon.  http://calms2012.umc.org/Menu.aspx?type=Calendar&mode=Single&number=514

 "So, it ended up as wasted verbiage tacked onto the end of a report that will probably never be read again, outside of GCFA." 

Democracy survives another four years.