ee.umc.org/decisions/81534
Was a Petition Late?
When the Commission on the General Conference moved the next meeting of the General Conference to 2022, the issue of whether a petition for the Alaska Missionary Conference to be given full annual conference status was late or not was taken care of (moot). The Council ruled it was not late but nearly two years early, thanks to the rescheduling due to the pandemic.
The two signing the dissenting opinion did not want to allow the bishop’s decision to be made moot. It was effective church law at the time and, they assert it still is. This could be a matter of the word “moot” having a second meaning: “irrelevant because of circumstances.” Ordinarily, the word “moot” relates to a question of law being resolved by a decision of law from another appropriate legal source (court, legislature, etc.).
What I’m wondering is did the bishop have any jurisdiction over the question? She could render an opinion but would it have the force of law since the question of lateness was really to be made by the petitions secretary of the General Conference.(¶507.6 – “[petitions] must be in the hands of the petitions secretary no later than . . .”).
These matters may not be important in the overall picture and the precedent may never come up in a different case when compared with the significance to Alaska becoming a full fledged annual conference.
No comments:
Post a Comment