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. Should you feel I have made an error of fact, please let me know so it can be corrected.
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.
Each decision’s commentary is posted separately so this review doesn't seem so long! And by using the list of contents in the left margin, you can go to whichever decision is of interest to you.
As a matter of full disclosure, I was counsel of record for a respondent in a case which was docketed twice and which I will not address.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
JCD 1142
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1262&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1181
In JCM 1127, the Council described a complete set of materials sent in by the West Michigan Conference bishop and secretary. The bishop’s report included reference to a question of law but the minutes did not. The Council remanded the case, something it has done but only when no minutes are sent along.
In this decision’s description, the minutes “reflect” the question of law…. I take this acceptance of jurisdiction to mean that the Council really wanted to assure the law was properly fulfilled . . . on a property matter. Not having seen what had been sent in either previously or for this review by the Council, I cannot make an accurate judgment about how precisely the documents fulfilled the requirements for jurisdiction. It appears that in its own discretion, the Council felt it would handle the case no matter what. Ah, the privilege of discretion….
The Council decided that because the annual conference has an identifiable interest in the protection and security of church properties exercised through being involved in the sale or mortgaging of church properties by requiring the District to be in the decision-making process, the conference has the right to require all churches to have the same insurance carrier. The three decisions cited as precedent were relevant.
With the movement around the country of certain congregations leaving the denomination over social issues like abortion and homosexuality and wanting to take their church property with them, this insurance issue allowed the Council to emphasize who really owns the local church property, the annual conference.
In JCM 1127, the Council described a complete set of materials sent in by the West Michigan Conference bishop and secretary. The bishop’s report included reference to a question of law but the minutes did not. The Council remanded the case, something it has done but only when no minutes are sent along.
In this decision’s description, the minutes “reflect” the question of law…. I take this acceptance of jurisdiction to mean that the Council really wanted to assure the law was properly fulfilled . . . on a property matter. Not having seen what had been sent in either previously or for this review by the Council, I cannot make an accurate judgment about how precisely the documents fulfilled the requirements for jurisdiction. It appears that in its own discretion, the Council felt it would handle the case no matter what. Ah, the privilege of discretion….
The Council decided that because the annual conference has an identifiable interest in the protection and security of church properties exercised through being involved in the sale or mortgaging of church properties by requiring the District to be in the decision-making process, the conference has the right to require all churches to have the same insurance carrier. The three decisions cited as precedent were relevant.
With the movement around the country of certain congregations leaving the denomination over social issues like abortion and homosexuality and wanting to take their church property with them, this insurance issue allowed the Council to emphasize who really owns the local church property, the annual conference.
JCM 1143
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1263&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1181
The Council chose not to reconsider JCM 1125 where it has refused jurisdiction. A resolution at the Detroit Conference had not been voted onto the plenary agenda so it was not part of the business of the conference.
The Council chose not to reconsider JCM 1125 where it has refused jurisdiction. A resolution at the Detroit Conference had not been voted onto the plenary agenda so it was not part of the business of the conference.
JCM 1144
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.
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.
JCM 1145
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1265&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1181
A request for a declaratory decision from the California-Pacific Conference came to the Council in two alternative wordings, neither of which was recorded in the conference minutes. The Council chose not to make a ruling. Even taken together, the materials did not satisfy the requirements for the Council to take jurisdiction. It is too bad because the clarification sought relate to personnel processes.
A request for a declaratory decision from the California-Pacific Conference came to the Council in two alternative wordings, neither of which was recorded in the conference minutes. The Council chose not to make a ruling. Even taken together, the materials did not satisfy the requirements for the Council to take jurisdiction. It is too bad because the clarification sought relate to personnel processes.
JCD 1146
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1266&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1181
The Council reversed the bishop’s ruling of law on a question related to apportionments for the Indiana Conference. Annual Conferences have a lot of discretion about handling of apportionments to be paid to the denomination. However, they may not make plans that will decrease it.
The Council reversed the bishop’s ruling of law on a question related to apportionments for the Indiana Conference. Annual Conferences have a lot of discretion about handling of apportionments to be paid to the denomination. However, they may not make plans that will decrease it.
JCD 1147
http://archives.umc.org/interior_judicial.asp?mid=263&JDID=1267&JDMOD=VWD&SN=1100&EN=1181
Those interested in restructuring their conferences will find this decision loaded with argument for and against its various aspects. Whoever wrote this for the Council is very capable of excellent analysis in a complicated circumstance.
Restructuring annual conferences has been very popular for a number of years now. Where I live, for example, there are no district superintendency committees. There is what amounts to a single administrative council that does nearly everything at the district level. I’m told it works for them. It doesn’t for the very reasons stated in the decision. The alternate structures must provide for a clear connection with the required agencies established by the Discipline. Let me add another point. Maintaining the separate agencies required by the Discipline maintains separation of powers so that conflict of interest and influence of command are minimized.
When I taught UMC polity in church membership classes, I showed connectionalism to be parallel structures at every level of the church which interacted to develop ideas, share information, and solve problems. In recent years, unfortunately, “Connectionalism” is defined as “obeying the bishop no matter what she/he orders.”
But this decision based on questions that come from the Dakotas puts the correct emphasis on what is truly connectional in our system of church administration.
Those interested in restructuring their conferences will find this decision loaded with argument for and against its various aspects. Whoever wrote this for the Council is very capable of excellent analysis in a complicated circumstance.
Restructuring annual conferences has been very popular for a number of years now. Where I live, for example, there are no district superintendency committees. There is what amounts to a single administrative council that does nearly everything at the district level. I’m told it works for them. It doesn’t for the very reasons stated in the decision. The alternate structures must provide for a clear connection with the required agencies established by the Discipline. Let me add another point. Maintaining the separate agencies required by the Discipline maintains separation of powers so that conflict of interest and influence of command are minimized.
When I taught UMC polity in church membership classes, I showed connectionalism to be parallel structures at every level of the church which interacted to develop ideas, share information, and solve problems. In recent years, unfortunately, “Connectionalism” is defined as “obeying the bishop no matter what she/he orders.”
But this decision based on questions that come from the Dakotas puts the correct emphasis on what is truly connectional in our system of church administration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)