JCD 1401

 JCD 1401

 

ee.umc.org/decisions/81527

 

Who Investigates Cheating at General Conference?

 

At the 2019 special session of General Conference, in a 402 – 400 vote, the General Conference shifted from a moderate framework for how churches and conferences could separate from the denomination to a framework preferred by conservatives (“traditionalists” who are anti-gay in orientation).  When that became the main motion, it passed with the vote that was similarly extremely close.  

 

After General Conference adjourned, word began circulating that there were irregularities in the voting.  Since General Conference was not in session and would not be until 2020, the administrative body that cares for General Conference matters between sessions investigated the claims.  After six months, the Commission on the General Conference came to the conclusion that there had been cheating.  On the presumption that they could act on behalf of the General Conference just as a church council acts on behalf of the charge conference between its annual sessions, the Commission declared the two motions passed by the close margins null and void.  

 

Even though it had authority to refer their decision to the Judicial Council under ¶2609.4, it chose to request that the Council of Bishops might have more clout and not be questioned as to having standing to bring the commission’s decisions for review before the Council.

 

The Council postponed acting on the request because they did not have enough information and gave both sides time to gather their resources.

 

When they finally dealt with the commission’s ruling, despite apparently having in their hands the evidence of the questionable votes, the Council hid behind their unfortunate thought that they do not have to deal with evidence but only with irregularities of law.

 

I find that counter to JCD 595: “The Judicial Council has the authority to determine factual matters which are essential to decide the legal questions involved.”  It is also counter to the Discipline: ¶2715:7 “a) Does the weight of evidence sustain the charge or charges?”

 

By ignoring these points of law, the Council leaves itself open to ignoring the facts and thus making a bad decision.  I am reminded of another case before the Council some years ago when it ignored the evidence in the record where a woman claimed she had had sex with a pastor on several specific dates and times only to have the phone records she submitted show she was actually on the phone with him from forty miles away each of those times.

 

Justice is lost when the appellate body feels it may ignore the facts.  

 

I do not know how much evidence was available to the Council but it is highly likely that the commission would bring everything it had.  And that would have to be the evidence that led them to their conclusion that the votes had been flawed.

 

The Council has essentially eliminated the commission from being able to do its job of oversight when someone cheated and has left no path for such violations to be dealt with.

 

I have a great deal of respect for the Council’s usual path of going by the book.  In this case as in a few others over the years, it did not open the book wide enough.