http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1183&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1110
The Council clarified that the constitution does not list local pastors not under appointment as members of the annual conference and therefore the General Conference cannot give them that membership without changing the constitution.
That would have to be brought in 2012.
Local pastors who have retired or were not appointed may attend annual conference as visitors (lobbyists!) or they may be elected to come as lay members from a local church.
Local pastors are extremely vulnerable in our system and can be dropped from appointment and thereby automatically from being licensed either by the district committee’s removing the license (and hence removing appointability) or by the Cabinet failing to give an appointment. Fair Process rights are given to local pastors by several paragraphs but they only count when there is a written complaint. Cabinets can easily avoid bringing forward a written complaint (even when there is one) by not treating it properly but simply using these other two ways to arbitrarily drop the local pastor.
Local pastors are presumed to have another vocation and thus are not necessarily seen as being hung out to dry, despite the fact that many give up their secular employment to be pastors. Further, Cabinets use local pastors as fillers for situations where no ordained clergy can be brought in (salary too low or no ordained clergy are available). Valuable as local pastors are, Cabinets are glad to have them be expendable and not on the list of those for whom appointments have to be made.
Once local pastors can become annual conference members upon retirement, they would be in a position to vote for legislation that could put them on the guaranteed appointment list.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Re: JCM 1102
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1184&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1110
The annual conference secretary failed to forward the minutes and other documents directly related to the request for a declaratory decision so the Council had no choice but defer until those documents were sent in. Despite saying the secretary had thirty days, the Council does not meet again until next spring.
The Council should be fussy about Conference officers who fail to follow the rules. The Judicial Council has sent out copies of the requirements to conference secretaries prior to each annual conference for many years.
In a case like the Alaska request for clarification on church membership and the pastor’s discretion, it does not change much by having a decision put off.
It would be most unfortunate if the Council were so strict in cases where the failure of the conference secretary actually caused harm in a personnel case. That can be avoided by a persistent Council Secretary or by the acceptance of documentation sent by the appellant in cases where the conference secretary fails to follow protocol.
The annual conference secretary failed to forward the minutes and other documents directly related to the request for a declaratory decision so the Council had no choice but defer until those documents were sent in. Despite saying the secretary had thirty days, the Council does not meet again until next spring.
The Council should be fussy about Conference officers who fail to follow the rules. The Judicial Council has sent out copies of the requirements to conference secretaries prior to each annual conference for many years.
In a case like the Alaska request for clarification on church membership and the pastor’s discretion, it does not change much by having a decision put off.
It would be most unfortunate if the Council were so strict in cases where the failure of the conference secretary actually caused harm in a personnel case. That can be avoided by a persistent Council Secretary or by the acceptance of documentation sent by the appellant in cases where the conference secretary fails to follow protocol.
Re: JCD 1103
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1185&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1110
In a case from California, three questions were brought in the form of requests for declaratory decisions. The questions were related to a personnel matter. The Council took jurisdiction without documentation from the conference beyond a copy sent by the one requesting the ruling,
The case involved a person facing discontinuance from probation so the consequences of the decisions were time sensitive.
I commend the Council for taking jurisdiction.
The Council clarified that a hearing before the executive committee of the Board of Ordained Ministry does not count under the Discipline (Paragraph 20 – 2004 BOD) as the “appeal.” The appeal called for under Paragraph 20 comes before the annual conference clergy session.
The Council also clarified that it takes a three fourths vote of the BOM but only a majority vote of the clergy session to drop someone from probation.
The third question, unfortunately, did not identify any one Disciplinary passage so they did not take jurisdiction. The question intended to clarify whether or not the ruling of the chair on objections could be overruled by the committee.
As things stand, I would recommend that advocates (counsels for the respondent) should operate under Paragraph 2718. The chairperson of every group that is next in line to hear the matter should receive a copy of the objections and be asked to rule on them before the actual hearing. This routine comes from JCD 830. That keeps the objections alive so that no appellate body may say the objections were given up during the process.
However, as the current administrative procedure goes, the chairperson of the executive committee is the chair of the BOM. In the instant case, someone may have tried to use a Robert’s Rules of Order to overturn the chairperson’s rulings (or lack of rulings) in either or both contexts. That could mean a possible decision sooner than later. Time is a major issue in personnel matters. However, the Judicial Council has no jurisdiction over parliamentary decisions so it can provide no relief based on Robert’s Rules of Order.
I hope the matter returns for clarification so that the right of appeal of objections cannot be broken by obstreperous or biased chairpersons or committees and that those rights are preserved by being brought in the proper places.
In a case from California, three questions were brought in the form of requests for declaratory decisions. The questions were related to a personnel matter. The Council took jurisdiction without documentation from the conference beyond a copy sent by the one requesting the ruling,
The case involved a person facing discontinuance from probation so the consequences of the decisions were time sensitive.
I commend the Council for taking jurisdiction.
The Council clarified that a hearing before the executive committee of the Board of Ordained Ministry does not count under the Discipline (Paragraph 20 – 2004 BOD) as the “appeal.” The appeal called for under Paragraph 20 comes before the annual conference clergy session.
The Council also clarified that it takes a three fourths vote of the BOM but only a majority vote of the clergy session to drop someone from probation.
The third question, unfortunately, did not identify any one Disciplinary passage so they did not take jurisdiction. The question intended to clarify whether or not the ruling of the chair on objections could be overruled by the committee.
As things stand, I would recommend that advocates (counsels for the respondent) should operate under Paragraph 2718. The chairperson of every group that is next in line to hear the matter should receive a copy of the objections and be asked to rule on them before the actual hearing. This routine comes from JCD 830. That keeps the objections alive so that no appellate body may say the objections were given up during the process.
However, as the current administrative procedure goes, the chairperson of the executive committee is the chair of the BOM. In the instant case, someone may have tried to use a Robert’s Rules of Order to overturn the chairperson’s rulings (or lack of rulings) in either or both contexts. That could mean a possible decision sooner than later. Time is a major issue in personnel matters. However, the Judicial Council has no jurisdiction over parliamentary decisions so it can provide no relief based on Robert’s Rules of Order.
I hope the matter returns for clarification so that the right of appeal of objections cannot be broken by obstreperous or biased chairpersons or committees and that those rights are preserved by being brought in the proper places.
Re: JCM 1104
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1186&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1110
Again, the annual conference secretary failed to provide documentation of the request for a ruling made at the annual conference session. The matter was carried forward to the Spring session of the Council. And annual conference secretary was to send copies of the request to other affected parties at interest so they could speak to the matter in briefs to the Council.
That’s a great move.
Again, the annual conference secretary failed to provide documentation of the request for a ruling made at the annual conference session. The matter was carried forward to the Spring session of the Council. And annual conference secretary was to send copies of the request to other affected parties at interest so they could speak to the matter in briefs to the Council.
That’s a great move.
JCD 1105
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1187&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1110
This case involves a pastor cleared by church trial but who has not been cleared under a state agency’s policies of alleged complaints.
The Council ruled in the pastor’s favor because the church trial had authority to acquit the pastor and therefore restore him to full appointment and pastoral support.
The bishop had refused to return him to ministry because of a conference rule which he felt required passing muster with the state on the allegations. The Council ruled that the Discipline superseded the conference requirement.
A concurring opinion contained a statement that the trial court did not hear all of the evidence even though they agreed with the majority opinion.
I have no doubt that fear of any pastor causing harm (and a subsequent law suit against the conference) underlies both the bishop’s actions and the concurring opinion.
It needs to be pointed out that the Church has reason to doubt the adequacy of state investigations into criminal allegations. In one of several cases I know about, the case against a pastor in another state that caused him to be incarcerated was found by the church to be spurious and he was returned to ministry as soon as he was released from prison.
It appears that the state did not make its criminal case in the matter behind JCD 1105 but left the complaint on the books of a state agency. Expunging those kinds of records is not always easy for a wide variety of reasons.
However, I believe that, despite the concern of the bishop and the concurring Council members, the church really cannot act against a pastor based on the possibility of future transgressions (JCD 725). Nor can they presume the result of how the trial court would have voted had they had other information. Not everyone would agree with the judgment of the bishop and the three Council members. In fact, six other Council members did not agree or they would have co-signed the concurrence.
One member who presented a dissenting opinion raises some important thoughts relevant to the requirements for persons seeking ministry in that conference. But the church really needs to be sure the state has substantiated the allegations through due process before it accepts the state’s “listings.”
I hope that the Cabinet will think creatively rather that retributively under these circumstances and work with the pastor on a supervisory plan that is unobtrusive but provides protection for those in the church and protection of the pastor who will be vulnerable to false allegations.
This case involves a pastor cleared by church trial but who has not been cleared under a state agency’s policies of alleged complaints.
The Council ruled in the pastor’s favor because the church trial had authority to acquit the pastor and therefore restore him to full appointment and pastoral support.
The bishop had refused to return him to ministry because of a conference rule which he felt required passing muster with the state on the allegations. The Council ruled that the Discipline superseded the conference requirement.
A concurring opinion contained a statement that the trial court did not hear all of the evidence even though they agreed with the majority opinion.
I have no doubt that fear of any pastor causing harm (and a subsequent law suit against the conference) underlies both the bishop’s actions and the concurring opinion.
It needs to be pointed out that the Church has reason to doubt the adequacy of state investigations into criminal allegations. In one of several cases I know about, the case against a pastor in another state that caused him to be incarcerated was found by the church to be spurious and he was returned to ministry as soon as he was released from prison.
It appears that the state did not make its criminal case in the matter behind JCD 1105 but left the complaint on the books of a state agency. Expunging those kinds of records is not always easy for a wide variety of reasons.
However, I believe that, despite the concern of the bishop and the concurring Council members, the church really cannot act against a pastor based on the possibility of future transgressions (JCD 725). Nor can they presume the result of how the trial court would have voted had they had other information. Not everyone would agree with the judgment of the bishop and the three Council members. In fact, six other Council members did not agree or they would have co-signed the concurrence.
One member who presented a dissenting opinion raises some important thoughts relevant to the requirements for persons seeking ministry in that conference. But the church really needs to be sure the state has substantiated the allegations through due process before it accepts the state’s “listings.”
I hope that the Cabinet will think creatively rather that retributively under these circumstances and work with the pastor on a supervisory plan that is unobtrusive but provides protection for those in the church and protection of the pastor who will be vulnerable to false allegations.
Re: JCM 1106
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1188&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1110
This is the most disappointing decision of this Judicial Council session.
At issue, from the point of view of the one raising the questions of law, is whether or not the Cabinet can ignore the consultation process for appointments specified in the Book of Discipline.
The bishop changed the subject by hiding behind JCD 799, saying the issue was whether or not the questions were hypothetical.
When a nearly whole new Council was elected at General Conference, many of us wondered if the new members looked upon the whole church as its constituency or just the bishops who nominated them.
This is a largely new group who are seeking to find their way through how to apply justice and church law to the various questions brought. They are stuck with a bunch of bad precedents, in my mind. I really think JCD 799 is badly flawed as is the precedent established in JCD 75 discussed above in the observations on JCD 1099.
Hopefully these and other bad precedents can be shown to be unjust and inimical to a healthy church in cases yet to come before this Council. - Could the Council be signaling that it might rule differently if the bad elements of JCD 799 were brought before them?
As this ruling stands, its effect is that bishops are free for now to ignore the Discipline on handling appointments.
Unfettered bishops tend to be a downer for a conference. It won’t be long before there will be stories about bishops making appointments using a map of the conference and a dart.
I don’t think this Council wants to be seen as the facilitators of a return to the days of Bishop Angie Smith who was observed making appointments that way.
This is the most disappointing decision of this Judicial Council session.
At issue, from the point of view of the one raising the questions of law, is whether or not the Cabinet can ignore the consultation process for appointments specified in the Book of Discipline.
The bishop changed the subject by hiding behind JCD 799, saying the issue was whether or not the questions were hypothetical.
When a nearly whole new Council was elected at General Conference, many of us wondered if the new members looked upon the whole church as its constituency or just the bishops who nominated them.
This is a largely new group who are seeking to find their way through how to apply justice and church law to the various questions brought. They are stuck with a bunch of bad precedents, in my mind. I really think JCD 799 is badly flawed as is the precedent established in JCD 75 discussed above in the observations on JCD 1099.
Hopefully these and other bad precedents can be shown to be unjust and inimical to a healthy church in cases yet to come before this Council. - Could the Council be signaling that it might rule differently if the bad elements of JCD 799 were brought before them?
As this ruling stands, its effect is that bishops are free for now to ignore the Discipline on handling appointments.
Unfettered bishops tend to be a downer for a conference. It won’t be long before there will be stories about bishops making appointments using a map of the conference and a dart.
I don’t think this Council wants to be seen as the facilitators of a return to the days of Bishop Angie Smith who was observed making appointments that way.
Re: JCM 1107
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1190&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1110
This decision is also a disappointment. It gives us a clue as to how hard it is to raise questions about behavior of church leaders, particularly bishops.
Looking at the background material given in this memorandum and its predecessor, JCM 1106, it is clear that some people see that bishops are ready to disobey the Discipline whenever it suits them.
I know from experience in many cases that direct complaints against bishops for failure to follow the Discipline, a chargeable offense under Paragraph 2702.1e), are usually dropped . . . by a small committee of two bishops from their jurisdiction. It is not strange that they do not want to challenge their episcopal brothers and sisters about how they handle their own conferences. Our “live and let live” culture occurs on that level too.
So what’s left?
Bishops are so busy they don’t usually have time for people who want to complain that the bishop isn’t operating under the Discipline. The bishop has the final word in the conference on what the Discipline says (Paragraph 2718). The only way to challenge that is to go to annual conference to present a question that can then be reviewed by the Judicial Council. JCD 799 makes that virtually impossible.
The next option is to make a fuss at conference as the questioner in this case did and hope that the Judicial Council will report it out some way.
Beyond this, there is the possibility of going to the local press who usually aren’t interested.
That leaves the challengers to tell their family and friends about the gross behavior of the conference.
Those folks are interested and often vote with their money (resolutions not to pay apportionments or just plain stopping contributing to the local church). If withholding money has no impact, that leaves the option of walking away.
Does this Council feel obligated to back the bishops’ bad behavior?
That remains to be seen.
But the fact that they tell as much of the back story behind the cases, something not all previous Councils have done, could be a warning to bishops that maladministration may not be tolerated in the future.
This decision is also a disappointment. It gives us a clue as to how hard it is to raise questions about behavior of church leaders, particularly bishops.
Looking at the background material given in this memorandum and its predecessor, JCM 1106, it is clear that some people see that bishops are ready to disobey the Discipline whenever it suits them.
I know from experience in many cases that direct complaints against bishops for failure to follow the Discipline, a chargeable offense under Paragraph 2702.1e), are usually dropped . . . by a small committee of two bishops from their jurisdiction. It is not strange that they do not want to challenge their episcopal brothers and sisters about how they handle their own conferences. Our “live and let live” culture occurs on that level too.
So what’s left?
Bishops are so busy they don’t usually have time for people who want to complain that the bishop isn’t operating under the Discipline. The bishop has the final word in the conference on what the Discipline says (Paragraph 2718). The only way to challenge that is to go to annual conference to present a question that can then be reviewed by the Judicial Council. JCD 799 makes that virtually impossible.
The next option is to make a fuss at conference as the questioner in this case did and hope that the Judicial Council will report it out some way.
Beyond this, there is the possibility of going to the local press who usually aren’t interested.
That leaves the challengers to tell their family and friends about the gross behavior of the conference.
Those folks are interested and often vote with their money (resolutions not to pay apportionments or just plain stopping contributing to the local church). If withholding money has no impact, that leaves the option of walking away.
Does this Council feel obligated to back the bishops’ bad behavior?
That remains to be seen.
But the fact that they tell as much of the back story behind the cases, something not all previous Councils have done, could be a warning to bishops that maladministration may not be tolerated in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)