JCD 1275

http://www.umc.org/decisions/59636/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6IlwvZGVjaXNpb25zXC9zZWFyY2gtcmVzdWx0cyIsInJhbmdlLWZyb206ZGVjaXNpb25fZGF0ZSI6IjEwXC8yNVwvMjAxNCJ9

COMPLAINTS AGAINST AN AFRICAN BISHOP

Evidence is clear that a bishop misused funds sent by Western Pennsylvania Annual Conference a few years ago.  The Council has had this matter before them in JCD 1238 and JCM 1241.  At the time, the bishop was facing charges before the Central Conference College of Bishops and was having his salary cut by GCFA because of serious irregulariities in the bookkeeping.  It was pretty clear that the bishop preferred the African cultural approach rather than the more strict rules of the UMC most in Africa follow.  A retired missionary decribed it this way:

“There are others who follow African cultural standards which, in my experience, are 1) people with power are expected to take care of their own—first their extended family, then their tribe, then the rest of the populace, and 2) use the resources you have today for today’s needs and trust God or the ancestors to provide for tomorrow.”

Even though there was no evidence that there had even been a hearing with the bishop within the Central Conference, the bishop had assured the Council that there had been a hearing and that they had exonerated him.

The Council said in JCD 1238 church law was not sufficient to cover the fund handling, asked the bishop to pay one of the mission gifts that was clearly designated, and considered the complaint process against the bishop ongoing. 

Reconsideration was requested in JCM 1241 and the Council denied it.  However, in a concurring opinion, all parties were reminded that the Council retained jurisdiction.

The matter before the Council in this case is whether proper procedures had been followed in handling the complaint of the Western Pennsylvanbia complaint against the African bishop.

The Council’s response is that the text if Paragraph 413 is too vague and contradictory to provide guidance for the African Central Conference College of Bishops to follow and that the General Conference needs to address this inadequacy in church law.  The Council identified the only group that can dismisss a complaint, that being a Committee on Investigation.  However, they noted that since no complaint had been referred to either the judicial track nor to the adminsitartive track to further process the complaint, it was “effectively dismissed.”

Not considered by the Council in this matter is a JCD 331, which provides “basic rules” by which the application and interpretation of the Discipline can be aided.  In this case, the first of the three could have been used: “Acts in relation to the same subject or object should be construed together.”

In this case, that would mean that where Paragraph 413 was not clear, it could be compared with the appropriate sections of administrative fair processes (mainly Paragraphs 362-363) and judicial fair processes (mainly Paragraphs 2701-2719)..

The advocate for Western Pennsylvania Conference began that comparison.  I am not ready to do that for this writing so there is no sure conclusion that I can offer that the result would differ in all points from what the Council has said.  But those who made the request for a ruling obviously felt such a comparison could have led to a more definitive evaluation of what has or has not happened in the handling of the complaints in this case.

Update:  The Council ruled in JCD 1281 its jurisdiction was ended on this case.

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.