JCD 1282

http://www.umc.org/decisions/59643/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6IlwvZGVjaXNpb25zXC9zZWFyY2gtcmVzdWx0cyIsInJhbmdlLWZyb206ZGVjaXNpb25fZGF0ZSI6IjEwXC8yNVwvMjAxNCJ9

FUND USAGE FROM SALE OF URBAN CHURCH PROPERTIES

Indiana Annual Conference is constricting like many other conferences, with churches merging and properties no longer needed.  The sale of urban propereties has a particular requirement under Paragraph 2549.7.  All of the proceeds of such sales are to be distributed among the other churches in the area to support their missional activities.  

The Conference Board of Trustees took out some of the proceeds to cover demolition costs.  That use was questioned at Annual Conference.

The Council ruled that was contrary to the Discipline.  The bishop’s main argument that the rest of the proceeds were being properly used did not sway the Council.

I’m not knowledgeable about property matters (watching the “Property Brothers” on HGTV does not qualify me).  However, the Trustees may have encountered the problem of selling the property with the old church building on it meaning a significant lowering of the sale price.  And negotiating a better sale price by including that the Conference would demolish the building left the Trustees with a better sale price but the obligation of the cost to demolish.  Unfornately Paragraph 2549.7 doesn’t allow the cost of demolition to come out of the sale price.  Trustees usually have contingency funds for such purposes but they need to find a way to increase them either from conference apportionments or from sales of other assets (mainly other closed churches).

This may be a job for General Conference.  The Trustees would need to send in a petition to resolve this dilemma.  

JCD 1283

http://www.umc.org/decisions/59644/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6IlwvZGVjaXNpb25zXC9zZWFyY2gtcmVzdWx0cyIsInJhbmdlLWZyb206ZGVjaXNpb25fZGF0ZSI6IjEwXC8yNVwvMjAxNCJ9

“CONSIDER REFRAINING FROM” ENFORCING SAME SEX ISSUES

The Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference passed resolutions that made use of the phrase “consider refraining from” three things: filing complaints related to same sex matters, conducting trials related to such complaints as a waste of resources, and investigating the sexual orientation of candidates for ministry.  The purpose of such consideration is to “support LGBT members who marry.”

The bishop read these phrases: “support” and “consider refraining from” as aspirational (see JCD 1044) and not prescriptive.

The Council agreed.  Paragraph 2702 contains law about the above issues.  The word “support” is not included with respect to them nor are the other words used in the resolution.  For more on this, see the commentary of JCD 1284 below.

JCD 1284

http://www.umc.org/decisions/59645/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6IlwvZGVjaXNpb25zXC9zZWFyY2gtcmVzdWx0cyIsInJhbmdlLWZyb206ZGVjaXNpb25fZGF0ZSI6IjEwXC8yNVwvMjAxNCJ9

ANSWERING A MOOT AND HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION

I’m sorry this decision was not held over to the spring 2015 session of the Council.  Technically, I agree with the decision that the questions of law were hypothetical.  I will address that in a moment.  

What I find in this decision is hasty and abrupt language not typical of this Judicial Council.  Usually, it bends over backward to clarify and teach.  In this case, it provides faint praise for the work of the bishop who responded to the questions respectfully but then makes it sound as though her work was incorrect and that there was something wrong with her for even bothering to answer the questions.  Had the Council had more time, it might have ruled something like this:

“The questions of law, while mentioning in passing a resolution on same sex issues, did not refer to anything in the text being discussed on the floor of the Northern Illinois Annual Conference.  Nor were they related to past or present events where the Discipline was allegedly violated.  Nor were specific Disciplinary passages listed by the questioner allegedly violated.  Hence. both questions are hypothetical.  Therefore the bishop’s rulings are technically not required and therefore have no weight of law.  

“However, despite JCD 33’s admonition to not answer moot and hypothetical questions, the bishop was in a position, based on the dynamics of her annual conference, to provide a response to clarify the effect of a resolution the conference had just passed.  The heart of the matter she faced was to be sure that everyone understood that the resolution was aspirational, non-binding, non-specific, and most importantly, did not prescribe specific behaviors that would violate the Discipline.  For example, in the eyes of some,’support’ may conceivably include violating the Discipline on the matter being supported, such as conducting a same sex marriage.  In the eyes of most, ‘support’ primarily includes so many more things that are pastoral and compassionate.  

“Further, bishops are sometimes instructed by the Judicial Council to answer the questions (see JCD 1244).  The first question in this case appears to be asking what “effect” the resolution would have.  Paragraph 2610 allows for requests for declaratory decisions to seek answers to questions about the effect of proposals or rules passed by a church body.  While that is something that the Judicial Council is directed to do, not the bishop, there is still confusion over what has to be answered and what does not within the rules, practices, and precedents related to church law.  Any thoughtful bishop is left in the position of feeling responsible to answer.  The pastoral and political thing required of her was to provide a reasonable response to the questioner so that no one would think she was just ignoring him or even “dissing” him.  She was there and appears to have sensed an intent to test for the implications of the resolution, even though, when read in the submissions, it is clear the question relates prospectively to something not actually addressed in the resolution.

“JCD 33 concludes by saying ‘It is stated here only that all members of Annual or District Conferences may be guided in making requests for rulings which are reviewable by the Judicial Council.’  In effect, the ruling is not directed to the bishop alone but as an admonition to the ones who wish to raise questions.

“As the Judicial Council felt in JCD 33, we cannot simply support the bishop’s rulings nor reverse them.  While her rulings are consistent with the Judicial Council’s previous decisions, we rule that her answers to the first question have no standing as church law if the question had not actually been hypothetical.  Her recognition of the second question as moot and hypothetical correctly notes the question of law’s nature as invalid because no specific Disciplinary violation has occurred citing the resolution as authority.

“In summary, both questions were hypothetical.  Her answers have meaning though no weight of law in the context of her own conference.”

I believe this is what the Council meant and might have ruled had they had more time to apply their usual tact and educational proclivities in deciding this case.  For those interested in seeing her actual responses, go to the Judicial Council Docket for October, 2014 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/Website_Properties/who-we-are/judicial-council/judicial-council-dockets/docket-oct2014-with-supporting-docs-rev.pdf).  Go to Docket 1014-15.

JCD 1285

http://www.umc.org/decisions/59646/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6IlwvZGVjaXNpb25zXC9zZWFyY2gtcmVzdWx0cyIsInJhbmdlLWZyb206ZGVjaXNpb25fZGF0ZSI6IjEwXC8yNVwvMjAxNCJ9

WERE PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES DISCRIMINATORY?

The Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference used a discussion technique of breaking into small groups to discuss a variety of social issues.  The body then, havng voted to lay aside normal rules of parliamentary processes, voted on and passed all of the resolutions.  A pastor, concerned about the lack of opportunity to amend any of them, raised questions of law to see if that process had been in compliance with the Discipline because of not having the right of amending first.  

Without any true grammatical connection, Paragraph 604.1, which relates to discrimination, was noted on the written text.

The Council often is asked to resolve a parliamentary dispute, which this clearly is.  That is not one of the things about which General Conference has given them authority, as they have just as often responded.  

Because the written question included the phrase “request for a ruling of law,” the bishop dealt with it accordingly.  The Council then chose to look at it and respond.  Instead of saying the request was just parliamemntary, as it could have, given the lax addition of an irrelevant passage of the Discipline, the Council showed its respect and patience.  After due analysis, it showed the paragraph had not been violated since no one was left out of the process leading up to the vote.

The questioner should have raised his concern about amending when the motion to suspend the rules came up.  If the bishop had made the parliamentary ruling that under the suspended rules, no amendments would be heard, the questioner could have amended the motion to suspend the rules by adding the possibility to amend.  He failed to do that.  That made his “after-the-fact” request moot.  

When the questioner could not find a relevant disciplinary passage, he pulled something  out the air in hopes it would validate his question.  The Council actually honored it, though, of course, showing it had no impact on the actual behavior of the conference.

I hope only one of the Council members was required to handle the preparation of this decision.  The docket was exhaustingly full and had some very important cxhallenges to resolve!

JCD 1286

http://www.umc.org/decisions/59647/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6IlwvZGVjaXNpb25zXC9zZWFyY2gtcmVzdWx0cyIsInJhbmdlLWZyb206ZGVjaXNpb25fZGF0ZSI6IjEwXC8yNVwvMjAxNCJ9

DISSENTERS ON THE BOARD OF ORDAINED MINISTRY?

At the Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference, members of the Board of Ordained Ministry included several pastors who were reported to be willing to do same sex marriages.  Someone raised a question of law based on his reading of JCD 980 that those pastors unwilling to obey the Discipline on that matter should not be allowed to be on the Board.

The bishop offered the opinion that JCD 980 related to judicial processes and not to nomination processes, though he suggested that those in disagreement with the Discipline on same sex issues should consider not accepting nomination to groups where their opinion might not lead to following the group’s disciplinary responsibilities.  He added that nominations cannot be arbitrarily limited.

Remember that the members of the Council giving JCD 980 strongly leaned against same sex issues.  The current Council has to be ready with legal arguments fully weighted to give rulings that legitimately change those precedents,

This docket item was not such a case. 

There were several problems with this case.  There were no elections or other actions of the conference to which to tie the request for a ruling.  That made the questions hypothetical.  

Further, the Council points out, the question was based on reports of previously held opinions of people on the Board.  This is as close to  the Council considering a matter being based on hearsay as any decision of which I am aware.  The Council rejected the questioner’s use of such a basis for his questions.  

Finally, the Council said none of the people in question was under complaint for any action and could not be put under complaint for something they had not yet done.  That made the request hypothetical as well.

The bishop also was chastised on two points: One, he should have recognized the questions as hypothetical and so ruled.  Second, his response to the questions bore the weight of law for his conference and if upheld by the Council, it would be the law  of the church, and not just an opinion.

Under stress of time and not being present at the annual conference session led the Council to again be short with a bishop caught in the dynamics of the annual conference (see JCD 1284 above).  The tone of the questioner was “bold” (I’d say he was angry and even defiant) so the bishop, following the universal rule of lowering the “temperature” when there was a confrontation, chose to soften his response to be pastoral and parliamentary.  And seeking to avoid the appearance of disrespecting the questioner, the bishop sought to provide a reasonable answer.

Previous Councils dismissed many questions as moot and hypothetical without explanation and refused jurisdiction.  This Council noted the procedure for submitting a question of law had been followed, and when the bishop ruled, the conference was asked to vote the question and rulings to be reviewed by the Council.  

My fussing about some concern or other with Council actions should be considered as relatively minor compared to the Council’s usual patience and clarifications in decisions like this one.

JCD 1287

http://www.umc.org/decisions/59648/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6IlwvZGVjaXNpb25zXC9zZWFyY2gtcmVzdWx0cyIsInJhbmdlLWZyb206ZGVjaXNpb25fZGF0ZSI6IjEwXC8yNVwvMjAxNCJ9

ACCOUNTABILITY PROCESSES IN PARAGRAPH 413

In JCD 1275, the Council called on General Conference to revise Paragraph 413 so it would be more complete.  However, here in JCD 1287, it appears to find no flaws in it when, as I suggest in the commentary on JCD 1275, Paragraph 413 is read “in toto” with Paragraph 363 ff and 2701 ff.

It appears to me that the Western Jurisdiction’s College of Bishops was in a real bind about how to proceed with a complaint against one of their number who conducted a same sex marriage in another jurisdiction.

At issue seems to be the meaning of “forthwith” in Paragraph 2704.1.  That directs sharing the complaint immediately with the other bishops in the college, and with the church counsel as well the bishop under complaint.

Paragraph 413 calls for a confidential supervisory response to occur before distributing the complaint beyond the respondent bishop, especially before a church counsel even had to be selected.

The Council resolved this by comparing Paragraphs 413 and 363 and ruling that the pattern in Paragraph 363 supercedes Paragraph 2704.1’s hastier timeline.

While I agree with the decision, I wonder if the real concern among the bishops was what a church counsel would do with the complaint as far as investigating and writing up a judicial complaint before the supervisory response resolved the case.  I do not think anyone doubted the College of Bishops would obtain a “just resolution” so that the bishop would not be tried in a trial that would be in the public eye for a long time.  The just resolution was to occur within the confidential context of the supervisory response.  While there would be no transparency that way, there would be a much smaller public profile of the event than a trial, even if the result was questionable.  

This case is simple in that it did not require comparing all of Paragraph 413 with other sections on fair process.  I see no bias in this decision.  Law can be so arcane, so dull, at times.

But the right of an accused person to seek just resolution before the complaint becomes public in any sense is an important right for all of us, including bishops.  Now if we can only keep complaints from getting out to the whole Cabinet before the supervisory response is concluded, we might be better off.

JCM 1288

http://www.umc.org/decisions/59649/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6IlwvZGVjaXNpb25zXC9zZWFyY2gtcmVzdWx0cyIsInJhbmdlLWZyb206ZGVjaXNpb25fZGF0ZSI6IjEwXC8yNVwvMjAxNCJ9

This matter is deferred to the April, 2015 docket of the Council.