JCM 1232

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1354&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1240

RECONSIDERATION OF JCM 1217

This memorandum relates to reconsideration of JCM 1217, a request from California-Pacific Conference.  Again the Judicial Council decided not to reconsider and, as usual, did not offer any rationale that might help us.  At issue in JCD 1217 was the request for recompense for the respondent based on P 2701 during appeal.  In 1984, General Conference voted that the suspension of a pastor lasted through appeal and the pastor was owed his support package until the end of the judicial process.  Some of that wording remains in P 2701 and 2704.3 (2008 BOD).  However, another passage was added to the Discipline more recently which says that a pastor’s rights end upon convection and removal from ministry, thus removing his right to pastoral support during appeal, a financially devastating circumstance to the respondent, especially if the results of the trial court decision was mixed.  The Council ruled the request should have gone to the trial court before the trial ended rather than to the jurisdiction’s appellate committee and then to the Council.

At issue, I suspect, was the mixing of civil and church law.  In civil law there are appellate processes that can be used without completion of a trial, such as possible prejudice of the judge, improper procedures used by the prosecution that are prejudicing a case, and so forth. and I wish the Council would take time to explore the differences so that confusion over them would not persist in our system.  With so many secular lawyers on the Council, it is hoped that there would be serious discussion and review of the differences rather than just allowing the continuation of blurring the two.

In the earlier case in which I participated before the Council, one of the issues was over the necessity of objections in church trials in order for an issue to be subject to appeal.  We argued that in every other appeal situation within the church, objections could be raised after the actions were completed and were not required during the respective processes.  We argued that since our denomination does not have a way to appeal based on incompetent counsel, being a church system of justice, we allowed for objections to be raised after the fact upon reasonable reflection (PP 2706.3, 2708.3, 2715.1, 2715.7, and 2715.9).  Even P 2710.6 does not add that objections are required for appeal.  In our case, counsel chose the strategy to not object.  Being a church trial, even that strategy was thrown to the winds on several occasions and objections were raised during sidebar conferences off the record and then not brought up on the record afterward.  The Council was not convinced by our argument because there was no record and ruled that objections on the record at the moment of the action were required   This uncritical mixing of civil court proceedings and church proceedings is most unfortunate. 

Hopefully, future Council sessions will be wise enough to clarify such differences where it can do so rightly, and the General Conference can do what it must to sort out such differences.

JCM 1217

http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1343&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1229

JURISDICTION OF AN APPELLATE COMMITTEE OVER AN APPEAL RELATED TO COMPENSATION OF A RESPONDENT DURING APPEAL

A counsel for the respondent in a case from California-Pacific Conference requested an urgent ruling on whether the respondent was due compensation during appeal. The Western Jurisdiction, which had not elected a committee on appeals, turned the request over to the committee which was elected in 2004, whose chairperson refused jurisdiction before the urgent request could be argued. The counsel then forwarded his request to the Judicial Council to get them to urge the jurisdictional committee to hear the request and consider it.

The Council also refused jurisdiction and supported the jurisdictional appellate committee chairperson’s right to refuse authority to make a decision.

The Disciplinary issue behind this request is the problem of which paragraphs to take as having priority.

Is the Conference obligated to help a pastor found guilty by a trial court by providing pastoral support during appeal as seems clear from reading P 2701 (“The judicial process terminates at the end of any appeal or right of appeal.”) and P 2403.3c (“…the bishop may suspend the person from all clergy responsibilities pending the outcome of the judicial process”)?

Is the right to pastoral support terminated by the trial court’s finding of guilty as stated in P 2711.3 (“The penalty fixed by the trial court shall take effect immediately unless otherwise indicated by the trial court.”)?

The Council’s decision says that this question, while it clearly shows a difference between the two passages on one side and the passage on the other, is not properly before them or before the appeals committee of the jurisdiction. The ruling is that the question should have been raised with the trial court presider and trial court itself at the time of the trial.

The Council said further that it will not enter into a legislative decision, choosing between the disparate passages, but urged referral of this matter to the General Conference to sort it out through the legislative process.

Meanwhile, the even though the trial court’s decision was mixed like the case in Wisconsin (JCD 1215), the pastor is left on his own with no means of support to be able to afford to appeal, let alone to survive. Something is wrong with this picture.

Note: In a case I worked on, this issue was said to be resolved by a member of the Judicial Council who asserted the priority of P 2711.3. The Council refused to deal with my objections at the time. The counsel in this case is well known to me as one of the most astute advocates for clergy in the denomination. But neither of us thought to consider that part of P 2711.3 which says “unless otherwise indicated by the trial court.”

This is why church law drives many of us crazy. It is a mix of church and civil court practice not always clear in how it is handled.

At least now there is a precedent which directs advocates to the place to raise this issue. In this case, the trial court would have had to face the two alternatives the Discipline provides. It could have deferred to the General Conference as the Council has done here. Or it could have made a decision based on the mixed results of the trial it had just concluded.

Hopefully, advocates will learn from this.