JCD 1285

http://www.umc.org/decisions/59646/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6IlwvZGVjaXNpb25zXC9zZWFyY2gtcmVzdWx0cyIsInJhbmdlLWZyb206ZGVjaXNpb25fZGF0ZSI6IjEwXC8yNVwvMjAxNCJ9

WERE PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES DISCRIMINATORY?

The Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference used a discussion technique of breaking into small groups to discuss a variety of social issues.  The body then, havng voted to lay aside normal rules of parliamentary processes, voted on and passed all of the resolutions.  A pastor, concerned about the lack of opportunity to amend any of them, raised questions of law to see if that process had been in compliance with the Discipline because of not having the right of amending first.  

Without any true grammatical connection, Paragraph 604.1, which relates to discrimination, was noted on the written text.

The Council often is asked to resolve a parliamentary dispute, which this clearly is.  That is not one of the things about which General Conference has given them authority, as they have just as often responded.  

Because the written question included the phrase “request for a ruling of law,” the bishop dealt with it accordingly.  The Council then chose to look at it and respond.  Instead of saying the request was just parliamemntary, as it could have, given the lax addition of an irrelevant passage of the Discipline, the Council showed its respect and patience.  After due analysis, it showed the paragraph had not been violated since no one was left out of the process leading up to the vote.

The questioner should have raised his concern about amending when the motion to suspend the rules came up.  If the bishop had made the parliamentary ruling that under the suspended rules, no amendments would be heard, the questioner could have amended the motion to suspend the rules by adding the possibility to amend.  He failed to do that.  That made his “after-the-fact” request moot.  

When the questioner could not find a relevant disciplinary passage, he pulled something  out the air in hopes it would validate his question.  The Council actually honored it, though, of course, showing it had no impact on the actual behavior of the conference.

I hope only one of the Council members was required to handle the preparation of this decision.  The docket was exhaustingly full and had some very important cxhallenges to resolve!

JCD 1286

http://www.umc.org/decisions/59647/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6IlwvZGVjaXNpb25zXC9zZWFyY2gtcmVzdWx0cyIsInJhbmdlLWZyb206ZGVjaXNpb25fZGF0ZSI6IjEwXC8yNVwvMjAxNCJ9

DISSENTERS ON THE BOARD OF ORDAINED MINISTRY?

At the Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference, members of the Board of Ordained Ministry included several pastors who were reported to be willing to do same sex marriages.  Someone raised a question of law based on his reading of JCD 980 that those pastors unwilling to obey the Discipline on that matter should not be allowed to be on the Board.

The bishop offered the opinion that JCD 980 related to judicial processes and not to nomination processes, though he suggested that those in disagreement with the Discipline on same sex issues should consider not accepting nomination to groups where their opinion might not lead to following the group’s disciplinary responsibilities.  He added that nominations cannot be arbitrarily limited.

Remember that the members of the Council giving JCD 980 strongly leaned against same sex issues.  The current Council has to be ready with legal arguments fully weighted to give rulings that legitimately change those precedents,

This docket item was not such a case. 

There were several problems with this case.  There were no elections or other actions of the conference to which to tie the request for a ruling.  That made the questions hypothetical.  

Further, the Council points out, the question was based on reports of previously held opinions of people on the Board.  This is as close to  the Council considering a matter being based on hearsay as any decision of which I am aware.  The Council rejected the questioner’s use of such a basis for his questions.  

Finally, the Council said none of the people in question was under complaint for any action and could not be put under complaint for something they had not yet done.  That made the request hypothetical as well.

The bishop also was chastised on two points: One, he should have recognized the questions as hypothetical and so ruled.  Second, his response to the questions bore the weight of law for his conference and if upheld by the Council, it would be the law  of the church, and not just an opinion.

Under stress of time and not being present at the annual conference session led the Council to again be short with a bishop caught in the dynamics of the annual conference (see JCD 1284 above).  The tone of the questioner was “bold” (I’d say he was angry and even defiant) so the bishop, following the universal rule of lowering the “temperature” when there was a confrontation, chose to soften his response to be pastoral and parliamentary.  And seeking to avoid the appearance of disrespecting the questioner, the bishop sought to provide a reasonable answer.

Previous Councils dismissed many questions as moot and hypothetical without explanation and refused jurisdiction.  This Council noted the procedure for submitting a question of law had been followed, and when the bishop ruled, the conference was asked to vote the question and rulings to be reviewed by the Council.  

My fussing about some concern or other with Council actions should be considered as relatively minor compared to the Council’s usual patience and clarifications in decisions like this one.

JCD 1287

http://www.umc.org/decisions/59648/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6IlwvZGVjaXNpb25zXC9zZWFyY2gtcmVzdWx0cyIsInJhbmdlLWZyb206ZGVjaXNpb25fZGF0ZSI6IjEwXC8yNVwvMjAxNCJ9

ACCOUNTABILITY PROCESSES IN PARAGRAPH 413

In JCD 1275, the Council called on General Conference to revise Paragraph 413 so it would be more complete.  However, here in JCD 1287, it appears to find no flaws in it when, as I suggest in the commentary on JCD 1275, Paragraph 413 is read “in toto” with Paragraph 363 ff and 2701 ff.

It appears to me that the Western Jurisdiction’s College of Bishops was in a real bind about how to proceed with a complaint against one of their number who conducted a same sex marriage in another jurisdiction.

At issue seems to be the meaning of “forthwith” in Paragraph 2704.1.  That directs sharing the complaint immediately with the other bishops in the college, and with the church counsel as well the bishop under complaint.

Paragraph 413 calls for a confidential supervisory response to occur before distributing the complaint beyond the respondent bishop, especially before a church counsel even had to be selected.

The Council resolved this by comparing Paragraphs 413 and 363 and ruling that the pattern in Paragraph 363 supercedes Paragraph 2704.1’s hastier timeline.

While I agree with the decision, I wonder if the real concern among the bishops was what a church counsel would do with the complaint as far as investigating and writing up a judicial complaint before the supervisory response resolved the case.  I do not think anyone doubted the College of Bishops would obtain a “just resolution” so that the bishop would not be tried in a trial that would be in the public eye for a long time.  The just resolution was to occur within the confidential context of the supervisory response.  While there would be no transparency that way, there would be a much smaller public profile of the event than a trial, even if the result was questionable.  

This case is simple in that it did not require comparing all of Paragraph 413 with other sections on fair process.  I see no bias in this decision.  Law can be so arcane, so dull, at times.

But the right of an accused person to seek just resolution before the complaint becomes public in any sense is an important right for all of us, including bishops.  Now if we can only keep complaints from getting out to the whole Cabinet before the supervisory response is concluded, we might be better off.

JCM 1288

http://www.umc.org/decisions/59649/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6IlwvZGVjaXNpb25zXC9zZWFyY2gtcmVzdWx0cyIsInJhbmdlLWZyb206ZGVjaXNpb25fZGF0ZSI6IjEwXC8yNVwvMjAxNCJ9

This matter is deferred to the April, 2015 docket of the Council.

JCM 1289

http://www.umc.org/decisions/59650/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6IlwvZGVjaXNpb25zXC9zZWFyY2gtcmVzdWx0cyIsInJhbmdlLWZyb206ZGVjaXNpb25fZGF0ZSI6IjEwXC8yNVwvMjAxNCJ9

This matter is deferred to the April, 2015 docket of the Council.

JCM 1290

http://www.umc.org/decisions/59651/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6IlwvZGVjaXNpb25zXC9zZWFyY2gtcmVzdWx0cyIsInJhbmdlLWZyb206ZGVjaXNpb25fZGF0ZSI6IjEwXC8yNVwvMjAxNCJ9

This matter is deferred to the April, 2015 docket of the Council.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ON THE 2014 FALL SESSION

The amazing scope of concerns from elections to property to judicial events to merging conferences to same sex issue resolutions to international concerns is mind boggling.  But this Council seems to be handling it quite well.  

The session included a great deal of discussion of what is moot and hypothetical.  Seven of the decisions deal with them.  They are something I have been fretting over for years because they seemed to always be asserted in cases where pastors were being mistreated by their leaders.  Thanks to this session’s efforts, most of my questions have been answered so I am ready to offer a revision of Appendix A for the Council’s  consideration. 

This session showed respect for precedent and continues to show the difference in resolutions which call for violating the Discipline (prescriptive) and those suggesting to change the Discipline and the Church’s behaviors (aspirational).  Not everyone seems to be willing to recognize that difference but at least the Council is consistent.

This session reveals how we as a denomination are becoming more open to our international nature by having significant decisions on everything from impact on election of delegates to General Conference to working justice across continental boundaries.  We have always been an international church so we are not just now becoming internationalized.  We are learning how to be less paternalistic and more in equal community with one another.  The Council is helping bridge that gap.

Though I have been critical of details in a number of the decisions, my main concern this time is that, in the Council’s haste to do as much as it can in its limited amount of time, it might want to consider assigning someone they trust to review each decision in order to provide two functions: consistency, and “quality control.”  

It is not uncommon that the Council actiually says two different things about the same issue in different decisions done during the same session.  For example, clarity of Paragraph 413 differs between JCDs 1275 and 1287.

With respect to “quality control,” one of the strengths of this Council has been its grace in respecting the parties of the cases before them and being patient enough also to educate so their decisions help parties and interested readers to understand the grounds for the decisions.  

In my commentaries, I referred four or five times to impatience and disrespect that I perceived in decisions this time around.  Both impatience and disrespect (and abruptness) are symptoms of exhaustion more than anything else, though I do think some people are just that way.  Someone needs to help the Council spot those moments or those whole decisions that contain a negative tone and “clean them up.”  That does not mean there would be a change in the law.  It would just mean a better manifestation of the grace with which I associate this Council.  An individual good at such editting (perhaps the one who did JCD 1285?) would be one means.  Another is that the whole body of the Council use self-discipline in each working committee as well as  in whole Council sessions.  Whatever device or procedure is chosen, it will be helping make God’s grace more clear in what the Council does.

As a postscript, let me add this:  The track record of complaints against bishops continues to be dismissal unless the accusation of sexual misconduct was the complaint.  Misuse of funds, undermining the ministry of pastors, violations of the Discipline with respect to personnel and fair process actions all tend to disappear, even those related to the highest profile controversy of same sex issues.  If the Council intends to be objective and not be the “bishops’ best friend,” this session has not aided holding bishops accountable.  On questions of law in some cases, the Council called out the bishop for inappropriate understandings of church law.  But that is as far as accountability has been going.  

The Council has occasionally been creative within church law in order to right some wrongs (JCDs 1131, 1156, and 1244 to name some).  I hope it will be so in future cases where bishops face complaints of doing harm and appear to be allowed at lower judicial levels to just “walk.”