JCD 1298

http://www.umc.org/decisions/61967/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6IlwvZGVjaXNpb25zXC9zZWFyY2gtcmVzdWx0cyIsInJhbmdlLWZyb206ZGVjaXNpb25fZGF0ZSI6IjEwXC8yNVwvMjAxNCJ9

LEGALITY OF GCFA SANCTIONS AGAINST AFRICAN BISHOPS

The back story on this case is quite complex.  The Council had been dealing with the handling of complaints against the bishop of the Burundi and East Africa Annual Conferences (JCDs 1238, 1275, 1281).  At the same time, the General Council on Finance and Administration had put that bishop on notice that proper bookkeeping was not occurring and had taken punitive steps because the bishop refused to cooperate.  I am told there were two other major actions, one civil and one from another church agency about which I have no first hand information.  

The bishop fought back every time and finally won at the Judicial Council on the complaints (JCD 1281).  

A resolution was passed by a joint session of the bishop’s two conferences asking the two conferences’ Committees on Episcopacy to request a ruling from the Council on the legitimacy of GCFA’s punitive actions.  The Council accepted jurisdiction by ignoring the fact that a Committee on Episcopacy is not one of the listed entities that may petition the Council directly.  In other JCDs, the Council had not allowed one body to transfer its authority to another body.  

The only document that was actually sent to the Council, apparently, was the motion passed by the joint session of the two annual conferences and thereby did indeed come from a listed entity with the right to approach the Council, weirdly worded as it was.  The Council could have chosen not to take authority if it were really strict in its interpretation of law but in this case, they let it come through.  .

The Council then became strict in its reading of the Discipline and pointed out that GCFA had no authority to withhold salary because it was an “entitlement.”  However, the Council ruled that GCFA could reduce housing and office expenses because the Discipline gave them the authority to determine that.  The bishop still got a financial sting out of this ruling.

The Council pointed out that only an action under fair process could lead to a loss of salary (GCFA had cut it to 0% last year).  However, the Council appreciated GCFA’s deep concern about protecting moneys given to the church.

One precedent that may have been set is that only in those areas under the authority of an agency as defined by the Discipline could that agency sanction someone under its authority for any reason.  

I ran into a “gray area” action where another agency settled out of court with a staff member who had misappropriated funds.  Those outside the agency who were hurt by those misappropriations learned too late about the legal settlement to bring complaints 

of their own.  Did that agency have the authority to sanction (in a small way) the staffer (who moved on to an appointment in a church)?  

How does that issue get to the Judicial Council?  If anyone has a suggestion, I’d love to hear it.  The commentary for JCD 1295 contains the thinking several of us considered but we could not find a motion to bring before an annual conference that could become the channel for a proper request.

Precedent or no, the bishop in question in this East African case has been left to his College of Bishops for accountability, which they chose not to do officially (JCD 1281).  

Will that lead to less interest in mission giving?  

Update: While Bishop Wandabula is out from under most of GCFA’s sanctions and no longer faces the complaints from Western Pennsylvania, he still is under complaints and sanctions from the General Board of Global Ministries and possibly a civil suit.

JCM 1241

 http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1363&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1259

RECONSIDERATION OF JCD 1238

This memorandum deals with the decision made last spring (JCD 1238) where the Council ruled on three items, accountability for use of funds contributed by Western Pennsylvania Conference; accountability for passing along a specific payment to a particular pastor; and accountability for handling of a complaint.  

The Council ruled that there was no way they could determine who was telling the truth about a breakdown in communications between the African bishop and the American group in Western Pennsylvania, something they might have been able to handle had the funds gone through either the Board of Global Ministries or General Council on Finance and Administration where accounting is more tightly handled.

The Council ruled that the pastor should be paid and would follow up on that.

The Council felt it was in no position to deal with the complaint issue because it had no way to determine the truth where the two parties differed about what happened to the process.

See the posting on this blog about JCD 1238 of last spring.

This memorandum states the Council will not go beyond its previous decision.  The concurring opinion, signed by a minority of the Council, states the Council will continue to take responsibility for the second and third issues which supports the call for payment to the pastor and adds a little more assurance that the complaint will be dealt with.

JCD 1238

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1360&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1240

CONTROL OVER MISSION GIVING AND HANDLING COMPLAINTS

More than a decade ago, Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference entered into a working relationship with the East Africa Annual Conference over projects in Uganda.  The one working with them from the beginning was Rev. Daniel Wandabula.  When members of the American conference toured the sites of the projects, they found incomplete work at one, no financial payment at the second, and a well bored in the wrong place.  During the years of attempting to sort out what happened, Rev. Wandabula became bishop and there was no resolution of the problem over the projects, despite Bishop Wandabula’s promises.

The Judicial Council responded to three issues raised by the Western Pennsylvania group.  With respect to the funding of a church building, the Council felt it had no way to resolve the problem under church law, citing that the funds were handled by the annual conference and not through the General Board of Global Ministries.  Without saying it, the Council was telling Western Pennsylvania, “Buyer beware.” 

There was sharp disagreement as to why so little was done on the church building.  The bishop said there was no response from the Americans when problems arose at the site.  The Americans said there were no communications about the problems prior to their trip to see what was happening.  The Council did not try to resolve that dispute but basically went along with the bishop.

The Council did demand a payment be made to a particular pastor because some records were found that showed the cash had made its way to Uganda and had just not been used for that purpose. 

The third issue had to do with whether or not the complaints brought by the Americans had been processed.  The bishop said they had been dropped and the Americans said they had heard nothing whatever about what happened to the complaints.  The Council ruled that the process was still open until they heard otherwise but did not order anything be done to conclude the process or to have a report forwarded to them about the case.  They will wait for an appeal at the conclusion of the process in order to take a look at the matter.  In practice, that means that the complaints are dead in the water.  If the African Central Conference refuses to act one way or another, the complainants have no recourse.  They cannot appeal something that did not happen nor can they appeal since they are being represented by the Church who cannot appeal a judicial decision except in extraordinary circumstances (usually meaning the matter related to homosexuality).

In effect, the Council found no way to hold the Africans accountable in this case other than to be sure a pastor was paid.  The two African members of the Council were not involved in the East African Conference in any way so they did not need to recuse themselves in this case.

The upshot is that the enthusiasm of the American church to work hand-in-hand with churches and conferences outside the United States may dwindle.  The Board of Global Ministries and the General Council on Finance and Administration are trying to deal with the accountability issues in the financial realm just to minimize discouragement of our desire to help in mission projects.  To see more on that, read the side bar to the article written about this case in the UM Communications article at

http://umcconnections.org/2013/04/21/in-split-decision-churchs-top-court-rules-on-western-pennsylvaniaeast-africa-dispute-2/

As a point of disclosure, Associates in Advocacy was asked to provide an advocate for Bishop Wandabula before the Judicial Council’s hearing.  We were able to offer an experienced pastor advocate and he was present, working with the bishop’s group.