http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1264&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1181
Getting the question of law properly worded makes all the difference in the world when it comes to being sure the issue is reviewed by the Council. In this case, the questioner at the Indiana Conference asked if the matter was properly before the conference, which is a parliamentary procedural question, hence not within the Council’s jurisdiction. The person raising the question could have asked, “Are the provisions of the budget policy on which we voted in violation of the Book of Discipline, Paragraphs (so-and-so)?” I believe a question of that nature would have been taken up by the Council.
Showing posts with label advocacy issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advocacy issues. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
JCD 1124
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1241&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1181
A New York Conference bishop reported to the Council that he had received a letter requesting a ruling of law during a break. The request dealt with a resolution supporting those who dissent with the Discipline, though the issues involved are not noted. The conference secretary submitted nothing so the Council had no information beyond what the bishop told them. The bishop’s ruling that the request was not before the conference was affirmed.
Here again, it does not appear that the Council Secretary chose to make inquiry prior to docketing about the record of the conference session to see if indeed there was no mention of the request. The Council trusted that the bishop was telling the truth about the situation. Since every sitting member of the Council was originally nominated by the Council of Bishops, the appearance of conflict of interest is unsettling, especially since the Council has a clerk who can assist in this small point of administration.
Wise bishops in the past have allowed discreet presentations of written requests for rulings of law and dealt with them. The clear advantage of not having possible dirty laundry aired in public is no small matter. This strategy should require some kind of reasonable acknowledgement to be entered on the record such as the name of the questioner and the specific question raised. With the record showing or not showing the request, the Council would not be vulnerable to the question of conflict of interest.
A New York Conference bishop reported to the Council that he had received a letter requesting a ruling of law during a break. The request dealt with a resolution supporting those who dissent with the Discipline, though the issues involved are not noted. The conference secretary submitted nothing so the Council had no information beyond what the bishop told them. The bishop’s ruling that the request was not before the conference was affirmed.
Here again, it does not appear that the Council Secretary chose to make inquiry prior to docketing about the record of the conference session to see if indeed there was no mention of the request. The Council trusted that the bishop was telling the truth about the situation. Since every sitting member of the Council was originally nominated by the Council of Bishops, the appearance of conflict of interest is unsettling, especially since the Council has a clerk who can assist in this small point of administration.
Wise bishops in the past have allowed discreet presentations of written requests for rulings of law and dealt with them. The clear advantage of not having possible dirty laundry aired in public is no small matter. This strategy should require some kind of reasonable acknowledgement to be entered on the record such as the name of the questioner and the specific question raised. With the record showing or not showing the request, the Council would not be vulnerable to the question of conflict of interest.
JCM 1129
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1245&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1181
From the facts stated in the decision, it appears that someone in Virginia felt that secular law and church law were in conflict over how pensions and benefits were being handled. So a request for clarification was voted and thus forwarded to the Judicial Council.
This is a question more suited to review by the conference chancellor or other legal counsel.
The Judicial Council is not the denomination’s lawyer. So they rightly took no jurisdiction.
If the question behind the request was that someone among the church leadership was not following federal law for handling of one or more particular cases, then seeking a declaratory decision as stated didn’t work. Something was wrong or such a huge conference wouldn’t have backed the request. Matching the possible injustice with the proper legal tool is a real challenge.
From the facts stated in the decision, it appears that someone in Virginia felt that secular law and church law were in conflict over how pensions and benefits were being handled. So a request for clarification was voted and thus forwarded to the Judicial Council.
This is a question more suited to review by the conference chancellor or other legal counsel.
The Judicial Council is not the denomination’s lawyer. So they rightly took no jurisdiction.
If the question behind the request was that someone among the church leadership was not following federal law for handling of one or more particular cases, then seeking a declaratory decision as stated didn’t work. Something was wrong or such a huge conference wouldn’t have backed the request. Matching the possible injustice with the proper legal tool is a real challenge.
JCD 1131
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1248&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1181
Like JCD 1130, this same bishop in her other conference (Rocky Mountain) withheld the questions and her answers from publication and again Jon Gray raised the issue about the necessity of confidences possibly being violated.
I do not have what Judge Gray and the Council had before them. There is only the coincidence of the same bishop ruling in the same way, which to me says more about the bishop and the processes occurring under her administration than they do about the advocates.
Speaking of advocates, it is clear that the questioner did not think through the problem of relating the questions to the business of the conference, especially in light of the various restrictions put on that definition by various JCDs in the past. This is an area where Associates in Advocacy needs to provide guidance for those trying to help pastors in trouble.
This decision warns all those bringing questions of law to be ready to challenge a bishop’s making a parliamentary ruling that the questions of law are out of order and seek a conference vote to overturn that ruling. Preparation for conference requires ascertaining the grounds for the questions to be framed and supported as business of the conference.
Like JCD 1130, this same bishop in her other conference (Rocky Mountain) withheld the questions and her answers from publication and again Jon Gray raised the issue about the necessity of confidences possibly being violated.
I do not have what Judge Gray and the Council had before them. There is only the coincidence of the same bishop ruling in the same way, which to me says more about the bishop and the processes occurring under her administration than they do about the advocates.
Speaking of advocates, it is clear that the questioner did not think through the problem of relating the questions to the business of the conference, especially in light of the various restrictions put on that definition by various JCDs in the past. This is an area where Associates in Advocacy needs to provide guidance for those trying to help pastors in trouble.
This decision warns all those bringing questions of law to be ready to challenge a bishop’s making a parliamentary ruling that the questions of law are out of order and seek a conference vote to overturn that ruling. Preparation for conference requires ascertaining the grounds for the questions to be framed and supported as business of the conference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)