JCD 1256

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1377&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1259

EMERGENCY ACTIONS

The Greater New Jersey Annual Conference made an aggressive response to the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy.  To do it required many decisions be made between annual conference sessions to line up strategy, funding, and staff to meet the emergencies caused by the storm.  Building on a conference committee already in place and collaborating with the Conference Council on Finance and Administration, the new program was implemented.  News reports in church media indicate the plan’s impact has been positive and significant if inadequate compared to what could be done by an open and effective governmental program.

When the procedures followed to set up the plan and the plan itself were dealt with, most of its action had to be passed after the fact.  The Annual Conference plenary supported the whole thing.

Questions were brought related to possible violations of the Discipline about the handling of finances, staffing, and shifting or responsibilities between Annual Conferences.  The bishop realized after conference that the submitted questions were not just discussion concerns but requests for rulings.  Because there had been no motion from the floor (see JCD 1244) to send them on the Council, he held back dealing with them until he realized that no matter what, a response from him was required, after which he complied.  His late response generated an amicus brief and he was allowed to respond to that as well prior to the Fall session of the Council.

In his response, he concurred that there were violations of the Discipline regarding the interim reallocation of funds but he found no violation in the other interim shifts.  The Council concurred.  I’m sure that the emergency nature of Hurricane Sandy influenced nearly everyone in the conference and on the Council to support the steps actually taken (no sanctions were provided by the Council for the reallocation of funds).

A dissenting opinion was not as flexible, even though the dissenter’s home conference has experienced hurricanes as well, including a superstorm this week.  However, his point is that the conference may have set in place far more flexibility than the Discipline allows with respect to future functioning of the new policies set up under emergency situations.  The dissenter’s warning will need to be heeded by watchdogs in the conference.  If someone gets an undue advantage, they will take it.

JCD 1189

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1310&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1189

Officers of the Baltimore-Washington requested reconsideration of JCD 1156. They felt the Council was confused over two different cases and some other errors based on errors of fact about the case which the Council said occurred.

The Council did not really need to respond because they have usually not done so in the past.

But having gotten more (and confusing) statements of facts, they leaned back on the official minutes which gave one narrative compared with the multiple stories the Council received from the many briefs sent in.

It takes a real lover of church law to get inside the tight and extended argument prepared in the analysis. In effect, the analysis is a “How To" manual for Cabinets and Boards of Ordained Ministry on the changes in involuntary leave of absence that occurred in 2008’s Discipline.

The upshot is that the Council did not change its mind about what it said in JCD 1156: that the pastor be reinstated and have all pastoral support repaid from when the whole mess began. Then they added what was a real joy to my eyes: “We retain jurisdiction in order to monitor Annual Conference compliance with this decision. Evidence of compliance should be transmitted to the Secretary of the Judicial Council by July 15, 2011.”

You go, Council!

JCD 1156

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1277&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1189

The Council assigned some of its most assiduous members to review a case from Baltimore-Washington Conference. A pastor in trouble worked out a just resolution and avoided being forced onto involuntary leave of absence. When she requested return to appointment status believing that she had fulfilled the requirements laid on her under the just resolution, the bishop’s assistant determined that she needed to do more to get back in. Her advocate submitted a request for a declaratory decision, despite what JCM 1048 said.

The Council tends to go along with what happens at the annual conference level so it was a moment to rejoice when they clearly ruled in favor of the pastor.

This decision is clear. Conditions set prior to a leave of absence may not be amended by the Cabinet at the end of the leave to prevent a pastor from returning to appointment status. The only way to add new terms is to restart the supervisory process and follow fair process.

Unfortunately, that can be done in conferences where the bishop’s influence over the Board of Ordained Ministry is very strong. After all, most Cabinet members are appointed from the ranks of the BOM. All on the BOM were nominated by the bishop in the first place with no nominations from the floor possible. And all are subject to the appointive power of the bishop so their careers are on the line when Board members balk at what the bishop wants.

This decision points out the separation of powers that the Council perceives to be in effect. In this case, the Council enforced it. Hopefully, it will continue to do so.

The Council is to be commended in this case for the care they took to identify the polity properly and save the Conference from further embarrassment for their treatment of the pastor.

I wish the Council had asked for the Conference to report back on what happened. Frequently, in these kinds of cases, conference leaders find ways to punish the pastor rather than follow up in a reasonable way.