JCD 1234

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1356&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1240

RECONSIDERATION OF JCMS 1176, 1184, 1192 and 1205

For the fifth time, someone in California-Nevada Conference raised a question about the closing of a church without all of the proper steps having been followed.  In two of the four previous Council responses, the argument was that the original request was parliamentary and not a question of law.

The Council resolves this request for reconsideration in the same way.  However, it presents much more of the story so that its decision has that much more historical context.  For one thing, they report that the bishop okayed the closing without there being a vote of the Cabinet as the Discipline requires.  However, at some time, possibly in 2011, the bishop allowed the lay person speaking on behalf of the congregation to make his argument and then asked the conference to vote.  The result was a conference vote to consummate the closing.  That fulfilled an unusual Disciplinary passage which says that the Discipline did not have to be followed in order for the matter to be settled by the conference.  Is that even constitutional?

The history added to this decision (note it is not called a memorandum even though all the Council does is turn down a request for reconsideration) describes a number of breakdowns and conflicts but only from the point of view of the pastor, superintendent, and conference committees involved and not from the church members.  Were the conflicts in the church because of a few people who were trouble-makers and had a disruptive history in that church?  Was there a better way to handle that possibility?  Or was the pastor being arbitrary and heavy-handed in seeking to resolve the problems?  Were the pastor’s actions legal under the Discipline?  Was a bad situation exacerbated by bad appointments to that church where sensitivity to cross-cultural and cross-racial issues were critical?  Did Cabinet members take arbitrary actions that worsened a tough situation?

In some ways, the Council needs to be commended for its patience (five requests for relief based on one event that would ordinarily be cut off after the first request for reconsideration).  In some ways, it appears that the situation was handled badly and the Council’s hands were tied by rules governing their authority.  In some ways, those seeking to resolve the conflicts which arose from processes and attitudes failed in their attempts to get it before the Council in a proper way.  In some ways, it feels like the Council passed up an opportunity to resolve a situation which was not really out of their reach.

Even what seems to be a simple case can be far more complex and far less tractable to our legal procedures.  To me, the more that is actually known about everything, the better chance there is to resolve it justly.  And if there were misrepresentations made, can any resolution by the Council in this case mean anything?  Technically, because the Discipline gives the Council the last word, we all have to move on.  But with what confidence?

JCM 1205

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1326&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1211

CHALLENGING A CHURCH CLOSURE

At General Conference, not all of the Judicial Council decisions were world-shaking, well, denomination-shaking anyway. In this case, reconsideration was sought for JCM 1176, 1184, and 1192, all related to the closing of a local church without consultation, but all based on the fact that the original concern was raised as a parliamentary question rather than as a question of law. This memorandum patiently clarifies why the Council took no jurisdiction. It is as though the Council read my blog post about JCM 1192 and that the one raising the original concern never saw my blog post on JCM 1176. It can be also seen as my failure to contact the concerned parties to consider a petition to General Conference as a means of working on this matter as I promised in my comment on JCM 1184.

For JCM 1192, I chastised the Council for just declining reconsideration without explanation. For JCM 1176, I suggested a question of law that would have engaged the Council’s jurisdiction but apparently no one in California-Nevada Conference followed my suggestion. I need to take responsibility for that because I know pastors in that conference and should have pressed them about my suggestion. And I must thank the Council for its providing a careful rationale for its memorandum

The Council states here as in JCM 1176 that the vote by the conference made moot the challenge that was brought. This might not have been considered final if the proper question had been brought.

Had the following question been asked at the time when the parliamentary challenge was made, “Was the process of closing this church consistent with Paragraph 2548 of the Discipline and if not, is our action to declare the congregation discontinued a valid action?” even a vote by the conference to close the church should not have made the concern moot. Current guidelines for questions of law require an action of the conference in order to provide a non-hypothetical ground to raise the question. The vote of the conference to discontinue the church provided the grounding in conference action that would have supported the Judicial Council taking jurisdiction for that question of law. The Council has previously ruled such conference votes invalid even where the Discipline allowed it when the process leading up to the vote was flawed. JCD 777 is one example.

In this case, the judicial practice that an action by annual conference was made and not properly challenged at that conference session makes moot any such questions of law made one or more years later.

The matter, if I read it correctly, is still devastating to the local church that was closed by fiat of those in power without proper consultation with the church itself. May future closures be done following the Discipline. And if not, then those who are concerned need to be prepared to refer the matter to the Judicial Council at the time of the vote by questions of law or by seeking declaratory decisions.

JCM 1184

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1305&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1189

The Council denied the request for reconsideration of their ruling in JCM 1176, that what a person at California-Nevada Conference asked was a parliamentary matter rather than a question of law.

Drawing the line….

I wish a concurring opinion had suggested that the questioner petition the General Conference to include consultation with participants in a local church being considered for discontinuation. Paragraph 2548 allows for it but then says that failure to do so does not invalidate the conference’s vote. I’ll make it my job to make the suggestion. And I can direct the person to people who can help draft such a petition.

Update as of 8/21/12: I failed to do this simple task.

JCM 1176

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1296&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1189

This kind of situation is so sad. A church is seen by the California-Nevada Conference (though it can happen anywhere) as no longer worthy of being open for whatever reason; it decides to close it without going through all the consulting or prior notice; and someone from the church tries to stop the process. Annual conferences end up facing situations where there is a lonely voice protesting a leadership position and wisely or unwisely makes the choice.

What makes this even sadder is that all the lone voice did was raise a parliamentary question and not a question of law. If he had asked instead, “Was the process of closing this church consistent with Paragraph(s) so-and-so of the Discipline?” the Council would probably have taken jurisdiction.