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.

JCM 1342

http://www.umc.org/decisions/71961

Mandatory Sentences for Bishops

During General Conference, three petitions were referred to the Council relating to providing mandatory sentences for certain kinds of Disciplinary violations related to homosexuality.  The Council, in JCD 1318, showed they were invalid.  This particular request dealt with a fourth similar petition that would impose mandatory sentences on bishops for those same offenses.  Since the General Conference voted the petition down, the Council felt it did not need to rule on the petition's merits.

JCM 1325

http://www.umc.org/decisions/69696

Reconsideration of JCD 1321

Silicon based computer chips work very well in binary situations but DNA can be used to store digital information based on more the “0” and “1.”  DNA strands have multiple points that can be used.  Computers of the future will be using “chips” of organic material, be smaller, and be able to handle even more complex things quicker.

Using this as an analogy, there are some of us who can only handle binary matters, yes/no, good/bad, (I’m) right/(you’re) wrong.  So not surprisingly, facing “multiple sources of authority” is incomprehensible to some of us.  In some, our “comprehension” gene is really just a silicon chip. 

I’m saying that as with so many human traits, not all of us have the same genes so some of us get certain kinds of diseases, some of us are right handed, and some of us don’t like coffee.  Those are built into our physiology and there’s not much anyone can do about it.  I think one of those traits is the ability to think in only simple terms without the ability to expand into thinking in complex terms.

I speculate then that those asking for reconsideration in this case cannot make sense out of the original decision.  That does not make them unintelligent.  Intelligence has to do with a different gene.  Hence, black-and-white thinkers can sometimes tolerate or agree to disagree or downplay the importance of a matter they cannot understand.  Similarly, complex thinkers can also tolerate, etc. on some issues and maintain effective relationships with those with whom they disagree.  But once in awhile (and in the Trump era), intelligence is not able to bridge the gap and this difference in ways of comprehending becomes a barrier to community.

Law, then, if respected, keeps us together.  When Law is agreed upon, it bridges the differences and the community is sustained.  When law is abused or some give up on it as having authority, that leads to breakdowns and splintering of relationships.  At least the ones asking for reconsideration were hoping law would work in this case.  That’s a good sign.  If they can live with the result, that is a better sign.

JCD 1310

http://www.umc.org/decisions/67272

Plan UMC Revised

To understand the details of what aspects of the Plan UMC Revised were constitutional and which were not, read the decision.  It is clearly written.

You will find that the cluster of petitions called “Plan UMC-Revised” sent in together in one package violates the separation of powers at some points, violations which would have given bishops more authority over things that the Discipline and constitution do not allow.

Here is a quick history behind this “plan.”  At the 2012 General Conference, it seemed like two-thirds of the plenary session was taken up extolling then arguing the merits of legislation called Plan UMC.  Pushed by the Council of Bishops, it was finally passed two days before the end of General Conference.  Then without discussion, it was referred to the Judicial Council for review of constitutionality.  The Council overturned it, pointing out its flaws of giving authority to bishops that the constitution does not support.  See JCD 1210 and the commentary on this blog for it from 2012.

To avoid that embarrassment, the Council of Bishops first had an individual send in the package over his own name.  Then, the Council of Bishops voted in May of 2015 to request a declaratory decision on the constitutionality of this latest plan.  Despite statements to the contrary, they were hoping to get the Council to accept this new version and grease the skids to get it through the 2016 General Conference.

The balance of powers worked in that case.  In JCM 1303 in November of 2015, the Council pointed out that this was only one of many possible plans that might be before the General Conference and a ruling only on this plan would intrude on the legislative process, appearing to be a preferred option.  So they punted!  They deferred making a ruling until their General Conference session in May, 2016.

But then the Council did just what it said it intended not to do.  It ruled on the constitutionality of Plan UMC Revised the day before the opening of General Conference.  Had they stayed true to their approach, they would have waited until the delegates asked for review.  Hence, the bishops got what they wanted, just not the result they’d hoped for.

For practical purposes, it must be said, Plan UMC Revised ended up “dead on arrival” and never got any real traction as a package.  In fact, the plan was broken up into smaller clusters of petitions by the originator of the package in order to be accepted by the Petitions Secretary since five or so different legislative committees would have responsibility for various portions of the package.  I can’t say which portions were actually passed but the desire of the bishops to marginalize several of the monitoring agencies (Status and Role of Women, et al) and shifting control of certain financial and other functions to a group under the control of the Council of Bishops were not passed, as far as I know.

Now let me beat on a dead horse for a moment.   Over the years, I petitioned General Conference an average of forty per quadrennium since 1976.  Several times, I was chastised for dealing with more than one issue in a petition or addressing more than one paragraph.  Paragraph 507 has been used to prevent individuals like myself from putting together a coherent set of petitions needed to correct flawed systems like the administrative and judicial handling of complaints and personnel.  

Yet every four years, agencies like the General Board of Higher Education and Ministries submit complex packages of petitions which deal with those very systems.  They may do it and I was not allowed to.  

Similarly, the Council of Bishops through whichever agency wishes to help them out, has been submitting clusters of petitions, contrary to Paragraph 507 as long as I can remember.  The Council in JCM 1310 did note the possible violation of Paragraph 507.2 but left enforcement of it to the General Conference rather than include it in its own decision.  Maybe next time the Council will consider disqualifying such packages.  They didn’t need to this time.

JCD 1212

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1333&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1229

BALANCE BETWEEN CLERGY AND LAITY AT ANNUAL CONFERENCE

This matter was deferred from the spring session by JCM 1209. I repeat the summary of the case from my comments on it posted last May.

For years, attendance at annual conference sessions has usually been around sixty percent laity and forty percent clergy. The formula for trying to balance membership between the two has been one lay person for every clergy member. As clergy have lived longer and had resulting health problems which interfere with their attendance, the percentage of laity present at annual conferences has risen.

A petition removing those elderly and infirm pastors had three arguments against counting them toward the balance formula. Clergy have no alternates who may attend in their place if they cannot come; those infirm pastors are still counted toward the balance even though they don’t attend; and the extra lay members add to the cost of annual conferences. This item was quite thoroughly discussed in plenary on Thursday, May 3, the day before the end of General Conference (pages 2730 – 2732) and was passed.

At the beginning of Thursday’s evening session (p. 2737), a motion was made with no discussion to refer the action on this matter to the Judicial Council and it passed nearly unanimously.

But the Council was busy sorting through the very long and involved decision they needed to make about denominational reorganization as well as the matter they were working on for JCD 1208 so they deferred this item to this fall’s session.

When they took up the issue in this fall session, the Council found two other places in the Discipline that relate to the balance between clergy and laity. Neither entered the discussion on the floor but they may have been a part of the discussion in the legislative committee. The request for referral to the Council was made based on the first of the two, P 32 of the constitution. Neither P 32 nor P 334.5 provide for clergy to give up voting rights. They would both have to be changed as well as P 604, subject of the request for a ruling.

There are two parliamentary implications and one of a political nature to this decision.

Parliamentarily speaking, first, the original petition came from an individual and such petitions will not take up the time of the General Conference in the future, thanks to the passing of a petition eliminating an individual’s right to petition. Second, the Disciplinary rule restricting petitions to only one paragraph (P 507.2) needs to be revised to encourage searching for other relevant passages, not just parallel ones.

The political implication is that laity will eventually dominate annual conferences because they will eventually get smart and realize they do not have to take the bishop’s or a big church pastor’s word about what is in the best interest of the laity and conference. They will realize their power and utilize it.

As respect for authority continues to diminish in our culture and church officials are seen to be human and not divine, the laity will become the voice of the conference. Church leaders who love to dominate will think the blind are leading the blind since they will no longer have control! I’m thinking the Holy Spirit will return to where it belongs in the life of the United Methodist Church, out of the Council of Bishops and back into the annual conferences.

Sometimes little “side issue” decisions of the Judicial Council could change the life of the Church.

JCD 1226

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1340&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1229

GUARANTEED APPOINTMENT

This decision was also deferred from the spring session and I repost my comment on JCM 2011 from last May. It deserves repeating:

“Part of the ‘Call to Action’ legislation was getting rid of the guaranteed appointment. For many quadrennia, petitions have been before General Conference to remove the right of pastors to have an appointment if they were in good standing. None had passed before. The Methodist principle that every church shall have a pastor has as its corollary that every pastor shall have a church. On the basis of this contract, every church would have seamless leadership changes and pastors were committed through conference membership to be available to assure that promise.

“In 1956, the General Conference added phrasing to the Discipline that guaranteed appointments for pastors. The purpose of the addition was to support those who were minorities or were women. The impact was significant. The good bishops had been very conscientious about making sure every pastor had a church and they continued to do that as women and ethnic minorities entered their annual conferences. But not all bishops were good. The law was needed.

“Beginning with the Korean War and continued during the Vietnam War, both of which had the draft, a number of people entered annual conferences who were not as competent because they were safe from conscription as long as they could get through seminary. By the late 1970s, their ineptness came to the attention of bishops and efforts were made to remove them.

“Those efforts led to a change in 1980 that allowed superintendents to initiate complaints against pastors and that allowed Cabinets to initiate involuntary leaves of absence. By 1984, as I watched morale plummet in my own annual conference, I realized that their new power changed superintendents from “pastors of pastors” to “enforcers.” The gap between pastors and Cabinets grew immense. The very power to remove incompetent pastors actually produced pastors who pulled back from doing anything that would draw the Cabinet’s attention. As a result, their ministries languished, and Cabinets had even more pastors not being as effective as they could be. Further, the stress of being between critical superintendents and laity who could be antagonistic led to stresses that affected the health of pastors which increased the appearance of ineffectiveness.

“Thus, by 1984, a cycle of destruction of pastors had begun. Standards to enter conference membership were raised and all the new pastors entering the ministry came in with glowing reports of their energy and competence. Those standards have become so high that many seminarians do not even bother to join our denomination. And the bright and promising new pastors disappeared into the ranks. Even with high standards, the talk of incompetent pastors has only grown over the years. See my post of May 4, “A Persistent Theme” under which is an article about “Incompetent Pastors.”

“There have been two demographic twists to this issue. Because of the denomination’s declining size as older people die and younger people do not join as they used to, many conferences have had to close churches and thus have a surplus of pastors to account for at appointment time. The short term fix, of course, would be to drop pastors from having to be appointed. In the Council of Bishops’ view, the only legitimized way to do that was to end the guaranteed appointment system. Transfers to other conferences needing pastors and changing the structures which have destroyed morale and broken trust of superiors in office were not considered.

“The second demographic twist is that older pastors are retiring at an alarming rate, going out early whenever they can. These two lines, closure of churches and high rate of retirement, have not crossed yet. Very soon, in the next few years, there will not be enough pastors for the churches that are still going.

“On Tuesday, May 1, the petition removing guaranteed appointment was passed by General Conference. There was no provision saying it went into effect immediately so it would become effective on January 1, 2013, along with nearly all the rest of the legislation passed this year.

“On the last day in Tampa, a delegate moved referral of the legislation ending guaranteed appointments to the Judicial Council and it passed by a majority vote even though only twenty percent support was needed.. The Council, having barely completed work on the ‘Plan UMC’ decision before the end of General Conference, had no way it could deal with this request so it deferred it to the Fall session.”

Upon careful and educative review last week, the Council declared the changes voted at General Conference to be unconstitutional because as part of itineracy the right of appointment was being removed and the right of trial and appeal were also being removed.

Cabinets are going to have to get smart. In addition to arranging appointments in other conferences needing pastors or offering golden parachutes to get pastors to retire early, they will need to find other positive options.

The chances are that in some conferences, Cabinets will take the low road and continue to take any complaint as an excuse to put a pastor on involuntary leave of absence and then keep changing the requirements to re-enter the ministry as the pastor seeks to return to appointment.

There is an unusual aspect to the full decision. Because the appellants pointed out the interconnection of other legislation passed by General Conference, the Council struck down as unconstitutional a number of other amendments brought through other Calendar Items to Disciplinary paragraphs passed by General Conference that were not directly included in the original request but were Discplinary paragraphs noted in the changes to P 337. The Council agreed with the appellants that those amendments had to be addressed or they would undermine the decision about the change to the paragraph that was addressed. Thus transitional leave remains voluntary, and associate members of the conference remain available for appointment.

As noted by church media, P 338 which allows bishop-initiated appointments to part-time churches, was not noted in the changes to P 337. Under the new law, bishops can make an appointment that was voluntary before but now could be involuntary.

It will be interesting to see which conferences fire off requests for a ruling from the Judicial Council on that. So from January 1, 2013, until late October of next year, bishops will be experimenting with using part-time appointments on “incompetent” pastors.

In conclusion, clergy are only slightly more secure in their jobs than they were before the unconstitutional changes to P 337 and its ancillary amendments that got through General Conference. Bishops still have the authority to appoint pastors to the smallest churches available, take any minor complaint and turn it into a big deal to get rid of a pastor they don’t like, or intimidate a man over 50 or an ethnic or a woman into retiring early or taking leave of absence by designating them as “unappointable.”

Even the Council’s staunch endorsement of fair process as required before a pastor can be left without appointment will not have an impact as long as bishops are not held accountable for such violations.

Update: I have read the Brewington-Nelson-Riss brief which shows they added the other legislation related to Paragraph 337 and have changed the text above to reflect that.

Summary Remarks for JCDs 1212 – 1229

1. The new group seems to have picked up where its predecessors left off, avoiding being factional and sticking with church law pretty rigorously. The new Council has also shown little propensity to side with the bishops automatically and has opened the door to accountability of bishops beyond the cases where one may be involved in sexual misconduct.

2. That objectivity about accountability of bishops will face tests in a special hearing set up in November reviewing an appeal of a bishop who was involuntarily retired and again next spring when a former bishop may seek readmission to being a retired bishop.

3. I personally appreciate the posting of the original requests for Judicial Council rulings as they were sent to the Council.

4. In the past, the Council has been unable to resolve cases because of the lack of needed materials that should have been sent in by appellants and conference secretaries. For this session, the New York Conference (JCD 1218) was alone in not sending in all the minutes that would have helped the Council get the full context of the case from them. Another bishop made assertions that he did not document (JCM 1224), something that was not the fault of the conference secretary. This degree of discipline getting documentation asked for by the Judicial Council is admirable and certainly helps facilitate the Council’s work.

5. With the one exception (JCM 1214), the Council wrote in ways that were good continuing education for those needing to know church law.

6. Consistency is always a goal and some questions about it could be raised on the basis of these decisions from the Council (especially JCM 1214).

7. Because of the absence of a “regular” member for whom an alternate had to sit in, there were three “first-timers” dealing with this very big docket. The overall quality of the decisions approaches the level reached by the previous group who had worked together for four years.

8. Even so, there were some things that will have an impact that cannot be fully anticipated (JCDs 1212, 1215, 1218, 1226, and 1229). And maybe some which I think the Council may need to reconsider or they will leave in place some things that hurt the church (JCDs 1216, 1221, and 1228).

9. Finally, if only the rest of us pay attention and provide insights and information useful to this new Council, the denomination will benefit the most.

Note: Many have honored my request for their critiques of these posts as I worked on them. I take full responsibility for what each of these posts says but much wisdom has been shared to improve them.

Spring 2012 Judicial Council Decisions JCDs 1205-1211

The following observations are intended to encourage you to read the decisions of the Judicial Council for yourself. The observations are in no way church law in any form but could help you understand some important aspects of the decisions. Should you feel I have made an error of fact or interpretation, please let me know so it can be corrected.

I've included the URL for each of the rulings. That should allow you to click it or paste it so you can go directly to the decision. I’ve added subject titles and have continued adding labels that can be picked up by search engines.

Each decision’s commentary is posted separately so this review doesn't seem so long! And by using the list of contents in the left margin, you can go to whichever decision is of interest to you.

Associates in Advocacy publishes updated indexes of all Judicial Council decisions and memoranda. If you are interested, contact Rev. Michael Brown, 158 Saxony Ct.,
Vallejo, CA 94591. The Judicial Council website also offers indices as does the AIA website under “HELPS for the Judicial Council.”

Summary Remarks for JCDs 1205 – 1211

The group forming the Judicial Council for the past four years showed its poise and maturity during their work in Tampa. They were not caught in controversy between the left and the right wings of the church as the previous Council had. However, they faced off with individual bishops and the whole Council of Bishops many times and sustained their stance that reorganization has to remain within the guidelines provided by the Discipline and could not be “streamlined” in ways that put more power into the hands of the bishops. They did it by playing by the book without prejudice.

The group got better and better at getting full disclosure from the respective parties bringing or contesting referrals to the Council. The General Conference has directed them to post all requests for their rulings on line so that everyone can see what has been docketed and would therefore be in a position to aid the Council get adequate information to do their work. The items docketed for the fall session have all been posted. Now everyone can see just how difficult their work can be, especially when all the facts are not available. Hopefully, the Council will get the benefit of friends of the court making sure all the facts are brought forward.

And the group has become adept at teaching the Church through its decisions and memoranda. Church law scholars and advocates have much more specificity, consistency, and clarity with which to work. Hopefully, bishops will avail themselves of this form of “continuing education” that comes to them in the form of rulings to them twice a year. Their track record has been terrible when it comes to knowing about and following Judicial Council decisions.

This General Conference elected two African legal scholars, thanks to the successful caucusing by the delegates from that continent. The Central Conferences provided other gifted candidates as well so there is an enlarging pool of good church law people watching and learning and helping. That should give good support to the new Council and assure competent candidates for future Councils.

A word of thanks needs to be expressed to the outgoing president of the Council, Rev. Susan Henry Crowe whose quiet, patient and professional leadership brought many newly elected members from 2008 into becoming a fine team, despite many bumps in their road. Thanks to Judge Jon Gray for his enthusiastic service on the Council. Rarely did a significant decision come out to which he did not add insightful concurring or non-concurring opinions.

Finally, the coming four years may lead to some interesting decisions. With three members now coming from overseas, visa and travel problems may mean differing mixes of members and alternates at times. Will they vote along conservative lines? Liberal? Will the overseas members help the Council be less susceptible to manipulation by other overseas parties? Chances are greatest that the Council will tend to be cautious about taking jurisdiction and that they will stick with what the Discipline actually says. I believe their work will continue to be educational as well as judicial.

Now if only the rest of us pay attention and provide insights and information useful to this new Council, the denomination will benefit the most.

May 1 - Rare Moment

I have been to General Conference to know that there are special moments that occur that bring a laugh, moisten the eyes, touch the heart that are spontaneous and humanize the whole experience.

Unlike NASCAR where the thought of a crash breaks the monotony of turning left and then going straight for a few seconds at 200 miles per hour, General Conference holds attention by the possibility that humor or goodness can break out unexpectedly.

In Tampa, that did not have sufficient draw for me to keep me in the plenary very long. I know there were many such moments because the DCA said so or someone would comment.

I was up there during one such moment. The break for lunch was called by the presiding bishop. He asked the secretary for announcements and then readied himself to offer the closing prayer. In his clear English, touched only a little by his German accent, he prayed in French.

What They Are Ignoring?

The following post was included in the April 11, 2012 United Methodist Insight, an online weekly collection of essays and articles about the 2012 General Conference. It can be found at

http://um-insight.net/blogs/jerry-eckert/what-umc-restructure-proposals-are-ignoring

The Call to Action and Plan B ignore a pending crisis in pastors available for appointment.

Between 1970 and 1980, around 5,900 full elders were ordained and entered annual conferences in the United States. Now, 32 to 42 years later, only somewhere near 2,500 have already retired. That means that 3,700 pastors will be retiring over the next several years, according to estimates I requested from GCFA. That means that 60 fully trained experienced pastors will, on average, leave your annual conference over the next eight years.

That figure does not take into account the number of pastors who are second career that entered with maybe only ten years to serve before reaching retirement age. It does not take into account the number of pastors being told by their Cabinets that they are unappointable and being forced out of ministry without Fair Process. It does not take into account the increasing number of pastors retiring early. It does not take into account the number of retirees who stay on to serve full or part-time.

With so many factors, most of which only add to the impending crisis, I challenge the General Conference to consider this issue very seriously.

Ah but the wonderful emphasis on seeking young people to come into the ministry will surely more than fill in behind the retiring pastors to provide us with fully trained elders.

At the 2008 General Conference, students and pastors under 35 demonstrated as “Spotted Owls,” an endangered species. Statistics bear up their assertion:

“The percentage of elders and deacons younger than 35 is too low to meet current and future needs for ordained leadership. The percentage of young elders increased to 5.47% in 2010, the highest in over a decade. Clergy aged 35-54 now represent 45% of elders, down from 65% in 1985. In 2010, for the first time, over half of active elders are age 55-72. Deacons show increasing age trends but still have only 9.56% under age 35.”
(2010 Clergy Age Trends Report, Lewis Center for Church Leadership)

And what of the movement encouraged by church leaders to bring in more enthusiastic local pastors to replace the “professional” elders who are blamed for the decline in church membership?

Despite that emphasis since the 1980s, local pastors have not reversed the downward spiral. That could be because when a Superintendent is done with a local pastor, without warning, the local pastor is never again given an appointment, invariably with no explanation.

Every pastor in the denomination is watching all these short term, sometimes cruel, procedures. Morale in most conferences is lower than it’s ever been.

The crisis is further complicated by the immediate problem Cabinets face on the east and west coasts of the United States. Their churches are diminishing in size and closing at an alarming rate. Many of those conferences now have a surplus of pastors.

Unfortunately, Cabinets are taking a short range view by, as I assert above, telling older Anglo pastors in some conferences and women and ethnic pastors in others that they are unappointable, have to go part-time, or are incompetent (allegations usually from prejudiced cliques known as “clergy killers” but who have to be acceded to because “the customer is always right”).

Because of that short-range strategy of dumping Elders who have higher salaries whenever they can get away with it, Cabinets are seen more and more as toxic. And the families and friends of those pastors are often as devastated as the pastors themselves and tend to stop coming to the United Methodist Church.

I hope there have been serious discussions in annual conferences about negotiating equalizing episcopal and superintendent salaries with those of other pastors, facilitating transfers to conferences which do not have a surplus, or other imaginative solutions. I have not seen any sign of such alternatives.

And now comes The Call to Action, basically the Council of Bishops through various agencies, asking for even more freedom to remove pastors.

That will exacerbate the crisis of declining clergy numbers through retirement in the coming years. With unaccountable toxic Cabinets and clergy killer church members, we will end up with too few clergy and no one wanting to enter the awful workplace atmosphere we currently have.

And that will add to the down spiral of our demographics, meaning even more churches will close.

The Call to Action fails to address the real problems facing our Church. Among other things, it gives no heed to the coming crisis of clergy retiring and worsens the prospects of retaining competent clergy. Plan B avoids the pitfall of enhancing episcopal power over employment of pastors but also fails to realize the coming sharp decline in clergy.

Have these two major options come close to dealing with the real issues facing the Church as we meet in Tampa? Are more important issues raised in other petitions (some of mine among them) going to be ignored in the episcopal-centered rush to control the outcome?


While I do not agree with every suggestion made by the Church Systems Task Force, please note that research has supported many of my assertions about the dis-ease among clergy and their families about being between groups not held accountable by anyone, Cabinets and local church antagonists. See Cynthia Astle's article on their report in the next edition of United Methodist INSIGHT.

Opening Plenary

During the worship service, we sang Harry Emerson Fosdick’s hymn “God of Grace and God of Glory”

I have always liked that sung to the Welsh tune. But a different tune with a more meditative melody made certain words come out:

“From the fears that long have bound us,
Free our hearts to work and praise.”

“Cure Thy children’s warring madness,
Bend our pride to Thy control.”

On this one, I wasn’t necessarily thinking Iraq, though that sure felt relevant last night. I was thinking about a hand-out I got from one of the dozens who are on the rim of GC. It concluded, “If none of these work, then we must commit ourselves to disrupting the GC’s business.”

“Save us from weak resignation,
To the evils we deplore. . . .”

I try to avoid the use of the word “evil” because it is so hard to take back if you find out you were wrong about something or someone. But I am very concerned about the evil of “party spirit,” that frame of mind that we must separate if we cannot agree.

I am also worried about the evil of ignoring controversy instead of using problem-solving techniques to explore the parameters and depths of the issue and the people who are involved. Sometimes being nice buys time and maybe the problem will go away without us alienating each other.

But the problem has not gone away since 1972. We have to face it sometime.

So I wondered if this GC would face those two “evils.”

The opening plenary was geared to setting up the ground rules for the next nine days. I knew no serious issues would come to the floor in this initial session.

The parliamentarian issue was modified by the presenting committee so that it would apply to the 2012 GC. One delegate asked whether this GC could obligate the next one.

The parliamentary ruling was that the motion was to allow for planning and training (I laughed about that!) in case the next one upon vote of this recommendation accepted it for 2012. That bought it a pass.

I couldn’t get to anyone to ask the Judicial Council to rule on whether or not the motion violated the separation of powers between the legislative and the administrative branches of the church. But I was not prepared to send a note to someone in the plenary session.

The other major matter that was presented though not for action at this time was the idea that the GC cannot afford the expenses for a thousand delegates. So a petition has been submitted to make the maximum number 600 for our world wide denomination.

The delegates astutely raised excellent questions and brought some helpful motions. All the ones I would have voted for were defeated by wide margins.

If you know of any use a prophet in his own time can have, give me a call.

---

Update: “Human social problems typically don't get solved; they just become irrelevant. A prophet's usefulness is to keep alive the alternative for the time fifty years hence when the issue becomes irrelevant.”

A friend sent that quote from the 1960s as a reassurance that I should persist. Let’s see, I started working on church law issues in 1978. That means I have 20 years to go before I’m irrelevant. Here all this time I thought I was already irrelevant.

Been there, done that

I spent the afternoon walking around the convention center where the General Conference meets.

I wouldn't have made it without the help of two "angels unaware." I went to the train stop but could not get the automated ticket dispenser to work. Just as the train was entering the station, a Hispanic fellow who had been trying to help me get a ticket took me over to the bus stop and told me to ask the bus driver for a ticket (tickets work for both train and bus). He handed me one without charge and I raced over just in time to get on the train before the doors closed.

A third saint awaited me at the downtown station where she was so pleased to hear a good story about the personnel in her transportation system that she didn't charge me either! She sold me the weekly pass for half-price (having a Medicare card gains one that advantage here in Fort Worth).

The convention center as about three blocks from the downtown station. Very handy.

But all around the center is construction. A new hotel and one trying to renovate were both supposed to be done by now They didn't make it. So several thousand beds that were to be available across the street from the center have been replaced by lodging further away. I have no idea how much further. I hope not too far, especially for the international delegates.

The center is a good size. I will get a lot of exercise just going from the plenary area to the bookstore set up by Cokesbury.

There are meeting rooms for all of the various committees, officers of the conference, special groups, etc. Most are still unoccupied today but by mid-day tomorrow, people will be coming in in large numbers to fill the place.

Some 6 to 7,000 are expected, only a fifth being delegates. The rest are guests, lobbyists, spouses of important personages, and support staff. I'm not sure how many visitors are expected and whether or not they fit into that number.

There were a few folks I wanted to see who were already there today. I saw a couple from Wisconsin (my home state). -- The Wisconsin delegation is seated way in the back of the hall. The presiding bishop will need binoculars to see them.

The local volunteers were already organizing their hosting tasks. All that I encountered were gracious and accommodating. As I am glad to be reminded, United Methodists can be extraordinarily kind and helpful. The folks I've met from the Central Texas Conference who are hosting General Conference that I met certainly were.

Hospitality is a major Christian value!

I found the meeting places of most of the groups and officers in whom I am interested.

The one meeting room I could not find is the room where the Judicial Council is to hold its meetings during General Conference. According to the convention center map, the only doors that would appear to have access to that room sound, smell, and announce (with small signs) that they are power plant rooms!

Symbolic?

No. More likely I just couldn't find the right room!

But it will be interesting to see if the Judicial Council can find it . . . .

Update:

I rechecked the map. There was no number on any of the doors past the restrooms. The room assigned to the Judicial Council is in what is being called "The Episcopal Enclave." The men's and women's rooms separate the Council from the Lounge for the spouses of the bishops.

The Judicial Council will find their room. I just couldn't read that map.

Further update:

There are 994 delegates. Those who are absent may or may not have their alternates present Everybody else is staff, support, spouses, observers, and hopeful ones like me who think we can influence this huge rally.

Plan of Organization and Rules of Order

(References in this article are to the Daily Christian Advocate, Volume I, Handbook for Delegates. I think you will see my argument even if you do not have a copy.)


For the 2008 General Conference, there have been some changes offered.

Beware.

The presiding bishop will probably move the passing of these plans and rules to expedite the business of the General Conference. There are two changes that really require considerable discussion. There will be resistance to that discussion because the suggestions below will halt the incursion of episcopal power into the legislative process by the “Bishop Wanna-Be" Party.

At line 945, p. 62, a motion for parliamentarians has been added. It reads:

(c) Parliamentarians. Each legislative committee shall be assigned a parliamentarian by the Secretary of the General Conference. Retired Bishops nominated by the Council of Bishops shall be included in the pool of parliamentarians. It shall be the responsibility of the business manager of the General Conference to develop a pool of other people not currently delegates to serve as parliamentarians. It is preferred that these persons be members of The United Methodist Church and have training in parliamentary procedure. The retired bishops shall be given priority in being assigned to legislative committees. At the invitation of the presiding officer, the parliamentarian advises on matters of parliamentary procedure.

Let me suggest the following:

(c) Parliamentarians. Each legislative committee shall be assigned a parliamentarian by the Secretary of the General Conference. It shall be the responsibility of the business manager of the General Conference to develop a pool of other people not currently delegates to serve as parliamentarians. It is preferred that these persons be members of The United Methodist Church and have training in parliamentary procedure. At the invitation of the presiding officer, the parliamentarian advises on matters of parliamentary procedure.

Notice I plucked out references to retired bishops in the role.

Bishops are valuable resources to the church. But they are part of the “administrative branch.” This role belongs to the “legislative branch” of our denomination.

The proposal for retired bishops to be parliamentarians recognizes a talent good bishops have. But it presents a conflict of interest not unlike asking Al Gore or George H. W. Bush to be parliamentarian in the House of Representatives. Let them use their gifts elsewhere as both Gore and Bush Sr. have done.

Parliamentarians are valuable to a legislative group and the idea has merit, as long as they are fair and knowledgeable.

I urge deletion of the sentences that permit and recommend use of retired bishops for this role.

The second item needing attention is Rule 31 (line 1558, p. 85) that reads:

(2) When a committee presents a report, it shall also list the numbers of all petitions relating to the report on which the committee voted non-concurrence so that all related matters may be considered together. (See Rules 33.3, 34, 36.) Whenever possible, a legislative committee shall recommend for adoption only one calendar item for each paragraph or sub-paragraph in the Book of Discipline. All other related petitions shall be combined for rejection or referral.

This is intended to facilitate the work of the legislative committee. But what it does is permits the parliamentarian (!) or committee presider to accept the one petition on a subject that is allowed to be first presented and sold to the committee and then dump everything else on the subject into non-concurrence. This trick has been used in the past to prevent alternatives to the “party line” from being considered.

Keep old (2), the italicized part, and do not add the sentences in dark print.

These are things that jumped out at me as I read the handbook, pp.26-91. I’m a duffer at this stuff compared to the “Bishop Wanna-Be” folks. But they make mistakes too so don’t let them sway you away from fair procedures and reasonable decisions.

There are other organization issues and rules which should be brought up and discussed. I hope delegates will add my concerns to the rest.