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.
No comments:
Post a Comment