JCM 1309

http://www.umc.org/decisions/67271/decision_number

Review of JCD 1300 and Archiving Records

Requests for reconsideration are usually turned down, as was this one.  Left undetermined (legally speaking) is the fate of the superintendent a Philippines bishop “unappointed” by email.

I have no idea what additional materials may have been sent along with the request.  Those are in the files of the Judicial Council, probably sent along to the United Methodist General Commission on Archives and History library at Drew Seminary.  I have not visited the Council’s archives to know how well they are cared for and how accessible the files are for research.  I heard many years ago that they were unavailable for 25 years.  Informally, I heard they were not kept in good order at the time.

The General Council on Finance and Administration has been excellent in their keeping of statistics.  I have had the privilege of researching records there (early 1980s).  I was able to look at the actual reports from annual conference Boards of Ordained Ministry.  Unfortunately, those original records were discarded once the data was taken from them and after they were compared with the succeeding year’s report.  The historical phenomenon I researched was the transition from transferring troubled pastors to other conferences to give them a new lease on life to using cabinet-initiated leave of absence to punish them.  Such record keeping really helps those who want to understand a lot about our history and denomination.

Getting back to judicial records, I tried to research the records from jurisdictional appellate committees which might be needed for appeals, according to Paragraph 2609.8 of the Book of Discipline.  Should a decision of one jurisdictional committee on appeals differ on the same issue from that of another jurisdiction, that is grounds for appeal.  When I sought out the records of a different jurisdiction to see if I could find such a discrepancy, the secretary of that jurisdiction said he had no idea whatever happened to appellate records from his jurisdiction.  When I checked with Archives and History, at that time, they had no records of any jurisdictional appellate committee.

But that was many years ago.  I hope someone else may wish to explore whatever extant records are available to gain insight into some of the Council’s cases about which there is no substantive public record and have better luck than I did.

JCM 1300

 HYPERLINK "http://www.umc.org/decisions/64863/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6IlwvZGVjaXNpb25zXC9zZWFyY2gtcmVzdWx0cyIsInNlYXJjaDpkZWNpc2lvbl9udW1iZXIiOiIxMzAwIn0" http://www.umc.org/decisions/64863/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6IlwvZGVjaXNpb25zXC9zZWFyY2gtcmVzdWx0cyIsInNlYXJjaDpkZWNpc2lvbl9udW1iZXIiOiIxMzAwIn0

DUMPING A SUPERINTENDENT

A District Conference in the Middle Philippines Annual Conference voted to petition the Judicial Council to review the firing of their superintendent.  

The facts of the case are very incomplete.  For example, the bishop emailed the superintendent and told him he was no longer one.  There is nothing in the record which says to what appointment he had been assigned in place of the appointment to the Cabinet.  It also appears that the fired superintendent presided at the District Conference where the petition idea originated.

Questions were devised and forwarded to the Council but the Council could not take jurisdiction.  For one thing, they said, no questions of law were asked on the record at the district conference nor of the bishop at the annual conference.  Hence there was no access to the Council under ¶¶ 2609.6 or 2609.7.  Nor, I might add, did the District Conference vote a request for a declaratory decision under ¶2610.2(i) –“any body authorized . . . by a central conference. . . ,” if that even applies.

The appointment of a superintendent is at the final discretion of a bishop so even if proper questions had been handled correctly, the Council would have called them moot.  The challenge to the bishop’s actions should have been to the College of Bishops of the Philippines Central Conference in the form of a complaint and not to the Judicial Council, another way the petition was moot.  Unless the Philippines is totally different from other Colleges of Bishops, and past rulings by the Council on matters coming from there indicate it is not, such a complaint would have fallen on deaf ears.  Colleges of Bishops NEVER challenge a bishop for any Disciplinary violation except sexual misconduct (whether true or false).

There is a chance this case may be brought back to the Council in other ways.  The Council will need far more information and a proper approach under ¶¶ 2609, 2610, or 2715 to deal with it.