http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1320&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1101&EN=1200
I’m a devotee of being able to ask questions of law and seeking declaratory decisions to resolve personnel problems.
In the instant case, I wish the request had not been made because it appears the conference was open to granting the pastor’s wish of applying five years of previous service to the two years required after graduation, given the pastor’s impending retirement.
The implications related to pensions, health insurance benefits, and other factors are a little beyond me, though I do not think they would have been affected. It seems the matter is one of appearance rather than substance, though there could be other factors involved not mentioned in the Statement of Facts. Hopefully, the ordination of a retired pastor is not out of the question.
But the Council was drawn in. And the gracious intent of the conference and petitioner was set aside. The simple statement of the law shows that the Council did not trivialize the matter but took it too seriously.
Showing posts with label Retirement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Retirement. Show all posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011
JCD 1203
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1324&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1201&EN=1204
Behind the question of law presented, there must have been a concern about an agency not fulfilling its responsibilities to pay a retired pastor. Unfortunately, the question was not tied to a specific person nor was it tied to a specific action before the conference. Consequently, by rule (JCD 799), the question was judged moot and hypothetical.
In a dissenting opinion, one member felt the bishop failed to offer an answer to the question of law. JCD 799 is clear. “The duty of the bishop is to respond with a ruling to all submitted questions of law. A ruling is required even if the ruling is simply that the question is moot, hypothetical or improperly submitted.” No such response to the question was offered.
Unfortunately, the Council overlooked its own rules (JCD 799 is incorporated into the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Council) and allowed a bishop to get away with refusing to send in her response to the question asked. There is no indication the bishop is unaware of the circumstances that precipitated the question of law. She just refused to answer it.
What if the Council had ruled the question of law was appropriate? That has occurred before when a bishop thought the question was moot and hypothetical. The Council would have to remand the matter to the bishop for an answer and keep jurisdiction until they received it. The bishop would have been in violation of the Discipline, returning the answer well past the thirty day limit. That would also have put off a resolution of the issue, a delay that could have caused harm to the pastor in question.
As the Council said of others in JCD 777 and others, that irreparable harm is done because of failure to follow the Discipline in personnel cases, so it may need to include itself among those required to obey the Discipline.
Behind the question of law presented, there must have been a concern about an agency not fulfilling its responsibilities to pay a retired pastor. Unfortunately, the question was not tied to a specific person nor was it tied to a specific action before the conference. Consequently, by rule (JCD 799), the question was judged moot and hypothetical.
In a dissenting opinion, one member felt the bishop failed to offer an answer to the question of law. JCD 799 is clear. “The duty of the bishop is to respond with a ruling to all submitted questions of law. A ruling is required even if the ruling is simply that the question is moot, hypothetical or improperly submitted.” No such response to the question was offered.
Unfortunately, the Council overlooked its own rules (JCD 799 is incorporated into the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Council) and allowed a bishop to get away with refusing to send in her response to the question asked. There is no indication the bishop is unaware of the circumstances that precipitated the question of law. She just refused to answer it.
What if the Council had ruled the question of law was appropriate? That has occurred before when a bishop thought the question was moot and hypothetical. The Council would have to remand the matter to the bishop for an answer and keep jurisdiction until they received it. The bishop would have been in violation of the Discipline, returning the answer well past the thirty day limit. That would also have put off a resolution of the issue, a delay that could have caused harm to the pastor in question.
As the Council said of others in JCD 777 and others, that irreparable harm is done because of failure to follow the Discipline in personnel cases, so it may need to include itself among those required to obey the Discipline.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)