Associates in Advocacy
www.aiateam.org
Dear Bishop,
Postponing the St. Martin of Tours Award was reinforced after my letter honoring past Bishops Dodge and Tuell and episcopal candidate Harvey Potthoff who gave up his last chance to run again because of age. Bishop Tuell corrected a bit of the information. Joining Dr. Potthoff was Richard Cain who also dropped out in deference to Wilbur Choy. I had counted five European American (EA) men elected since, but Bishops Tuell and Wheatley had been elected in the quadrennium before. There have been only three since, Bishops Dew, McConnell, and Paup. Not only is there no glass ceiling in the Western Jurisdiction, there are no EA men among the active bishops now.
One reason, of course, is that Bishop Paup resigned as a bishop in order to fulfill a program ministry to which he felt called. He chose to become an executive secretary unencumbered by any potential conflict of interest.
Some bishops I have met should have stayed involved in program agencies because that is really where their hearts lie. The self-defining nature of Ed Paup’s choice is hereby recognized as co-holder of this year’s St. Martin of Tours Award.
The other co-holder of the award is Bishop William Hutchinson.
The choice is based on not only on his incredible leadership following the twin catastrophes known as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit Louisiana, but also on his passing over retirement after four exhausting years in order to fulfill the ministry of working on key issues he felt called to address.
His path was not smooth. After working with the district structure Louisiana had when he arrived, he felt it important to make a controversial decision to reconnect the churches in New Orleans with north shore churches. Following the shattering of the New Orleans churches and parsonages, the district realignment proved to be a Godsend in re-establishing the denomination in the city during the earliest reconstruction phase.
Bishop Hutchinson’s personal involvement in restoration of our ministries in the traumatized areas was an example of the highest order. No one would have blamed him if he had retired in 2008. But his concern for the other ministries to which he was committed when he was first appointed to Louisiana led to his staying on for four more years.
Then came Hurricanes Gustav and Ike! Whether he intended to be or not, Bishop Hutchinson was the right one for that time.
In the covenant of the clergy,
Jerry
Friday, December 5, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Observations on the Fall session of the Judicial Council
The following observations are intended to encourage you to read the decisions of the Judicial Council for yourself. The observations are in no way church law in any form but will hopefully help you understand some aspects of the decisions I think are important.
I've included the URL for each of the rulings. That should allow you to paste it so you can go directly to the decision.
In several cases I did not specify the nature and intent of the challenge. They are usually matters deferred till the April 2009 session.
Each is posted separately so it doesn't seem so tediously long!
I've included the URL for each of the rulings. That should allow you to paste it so you can go directly to the decision.
In several cases I did not specify the nature and intent of the challenge. They are usually matters deferred till the April 2009 session.
Each is posted separately so it doesn't seem so tediously long!
Re: JCD 1099
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1181&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1001&EN=1099
In 1951, the bishop was asked if the annual conference could nominate trustees for their Hospital Association. The by-laws of the corporation set up to handle the hospital said the nominations had to come from the Trustees. Those by-laws had been established by vote of the annual conference.
In JCD 75, the Judicial Council reported that "Bishop Werner ruled that 'Nominations by other than the Board are in order, and that inherently in the institution of elections is the possibility of choice.'"
However, the Council reversed that ruling, saying, “The Ohio Annual Conference of The Methodist Church, now being the White Cross Hospital Association of Ohio, is the source of ultimate control of the White Cross Hospital and has the right and power at its discretion to change or amend the method of electing the Trustees of the corporation; but, until the Annual Conference changes the method set forth in Art. VI of the present Constitution of said White Cross Hospital Association, it is bound thereby.”
The vote was 5 – 3. – J. T. Alton recused himself because he had recently been on that trustee body.
The dissenting members argued, “To give the provisions of Article VI of the White Cross Constitution and By-Laws the narrow interpretation insisted upon by the hospital Trustees, which in effect would give the hospital Trustees the right to perpetuate themselves, would do violence to a fundamental legal principle as to the control of any subsidiary organization of a religious or charitable body. This is recognized by the majority opinion in this case. If the Annual Conference is to elect, it must in the very nature of things have the right to ‘select by vote,’ or ‘to choose in preference to another or others.’ The right and duty of the members of the Corporation is not merely to approve the election of a slate submitted to them, but to exercise independent judgment thereon and elect or select from any names that may come before them.”
The decision in JCD 1099 is very similar in that the argument of the majority is that General Conference needs to change the Discipline in order to open up to the floor the possibility for nominations to the Board of Ordained Ministry (BOM).
Such changes have been offered to the General Conference as petitions since 1984 for exactly the reasons given by Bishop Werner and the dissenting Council in the 1951 ruling. No General Conference has chosen to pass any of those petitions. Most clergy delegates have been the beneficiary of the current nominating process.
The result has been that BOMs have become nearly as self-perpetuating as Cabinets with no check and balance other than term limits, twelve years for BOM members (Paragraph 634.1a).
Too bad Bishop Werner and the dissenting Council members did not win the day and set the precedent of the primary body having the authority of nominating from the floor.
The new Council has perpetuated a blocking of a crucial institutional “check and balance.”
Note: JCD 130 was resolved around this principle of law: “The right to elect constitutes the right to make a choice.” JCD 185 reverts back to the “shall/may” Disciplinary wording as precedent. JCD 694 says, “The open nomination and election process provide the best opportunity for everyone to the exclusion of no one.” JCD 1079 stands on a Disciplinary paragraph (603.7) that says, “The annual conference shall . . . elect a secretary . . . .” There is no reference whatever to how the secretary is nominated. Does that imply the legal principle in JCDs 130 and 694 are operative in JCD 1079?
In 1951, the bishop was asked if the annual conference could nominate trustees for their Hospital Association. The by-laws of the corporation set up to handle the hospital said the nominations had to come from the Trustees. Those by-laws had been established by vote of the annual conference.
In JCD 75, the Judicial Council reported that "Bishop Werner ruled that 'Nominations by other than the Board are in order, and that inherently in the institution of elections is the possibility of choice.'"
However, the Council reversed that ruling, saying, “The Ohio Annual Conference of The Methodist Church, now being the White Cross Hospital Association of Ohio, is the source of ultimate control of the White Cross Hospital and has the right and power at its discretion to change or amend the method of electing the Trustees of the corporation; but, until the Annual Conference changes the method set forth in Art. VI of the present Constitution of said White Cross Hospital Association, it is bound thereby.”
The vote was 5 – 3. – J. T. Alton recused himself because he had recently been on that trustee body.
The dissenting members argued, “To give the provisions of Article VI of the White Cross Constitution and By-Laws the narrow interpretation insisted upon by the hospital Trustees, which in effect would give the hospital Trustees the right to perpetuate themselves, would do violence to a fundamental legal principle as to the control of any subsidiary organization of a religious or charitable body. This is recognized by the majority opinion in this case. If the Annual Conference is to elect, it must in the very nature of things have the right to ‘select by vote,’ or ‘to choose in preference to another or others.’ The right and duty of the members of the Corporation is not merely to approve the election of a slate submitted to them, but to exercise independent judgment thereon and elect or select from any names that may come before them.”
The decision in JCD 1099 is very similar in that the argument of the majority is that General Conference needs to change the Discipline in order to open up to the floor the possibility for nominations to the Board of Ordained Ministry (BOM).
Such changes have been offered to the General Conference as petitions since 1984 for exactly the reasons given by Bishop Werner and the dissenting Council in the 1951 ruling. No General Conference has chosen to pass any of those petitions. Most clergy delegates have been the beneficiary of the current nominating process.
The result has been that BOMs have become nearly as self-perpetuating as Cabinets with no check and balance other than term limits, twelve years for BOM members (Paragraph 634.1a).
Too bad Bishop Werner and the dissenting Council members did not win the day and set the precedent of the primary body having the authority of nominating from the floor.
The new Council has perpetuated a blocking of a crucial institutional “check and balance.”
Note: JCD 130 was resolved around this principle of law: “The right to elect constitutes the right to make a choice.” JCD 185 reverts back to the “shall/may” Disciplinary wording as precedent. JCD 694 says, “The open nomination and election process provide the best opportunity for everyone to the exclusion of no one.” JCD 1079 stands on a Disciplinary paragraph (603.7) that says, “The annual conference shall . . . elect a secretary . . . .” There is no reference whatever to how the secretary is nominated. Does that imply the legal principle in JCDs 130 and 694 are operative in JCD 1079?
Re: JCD 1100
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1182&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1110
The council reminded the General Conference that it must pass enabling legislation for the regional conference concept to go forward with respect to the United States annual conferences and other church structures.
Because the request for the decision was limited to its implications re: the United States, this decision does not address what happens overseas. Hopefully, legislation will be drawn up to facilitate any necessary changes to allow the Central Conferences to become established as Regional Conferences.
The council reminded the General Conference that it must pass enabling legislation for the regional conference concept to go forward with respect to the United States annual conferences and other church structures.
Because the request for the decision was limited to its implications re: the United States, this decision does not address what happens overseas. Hopefully, legislation will be drawn up to facilitate any necessary changes to allow the Central Conferences to become established as Regional Conferences.
Re: JCD 1101
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)