Judicial Council issues two decisions
April 29, 2004
By Neill Caldwell*
PITTSBURGH (UMNS) – The United Methodist Judicial Council issued
rulings in the two cases on its docket as the church’s highest court
held its spring meeting at the site of the 2004 General Conference.
The council will continue to meet during General Conference and
respond to requests from the legislative assembly as they arise.
General Conference adjourns May 7.
In one April 29 decision, the council ruled that local pastors in
the United Methodist Church do not lose the right to the supervisory
process and a possible trial if their appointment is terminated,
provided that they had received a written and signed complaint from
their bishop or district superintendent. The request for a
declaratory decision came from the California-Pacific Annual
(regional) Conference.
In the second case, the council ruled that the Louisiana Annual
Conference’s structure and rules are still not in compliance with
the denomination’s Book of Discipline and previous Judicial Council
decisions. This is the fourth time the council has ruled the
Louisiana Conference’s revised structure null and void.
In the California-Pacific case, a local pastor received a letter of
termination from his district superintendent, citing chargeable
offenses under Paragraph 2702.1 of the Book of Discipline. A clergy
advocate of the terminated pastor regarded the letter of termination
as a formal complaint, and asked the annual conference to request a
decision from the Judicial Council as to whether the termination of
an appointment ends a local pastor’s right to due process.
The council ruled that once a complaint is filed, the right to fair
process is not affected by any change in a pastor’s appointment
status. However, the local pastor must be informed of the process
for filing the complaint and its purpose.
Four of the council’s nine members signed a dissenting opinion,
stating that the ruling dilutes the power of a bishop to discontinue
a local pastor’s appointment. The dissenters argued that termination
of an appointment ends a local pastor’s right to due process.
“The discontinuance of the appointment of a local pastor severs the
conference ministerial relationship and the attendant fair process
rights because that individual is no longer a local pastor,” they
wrote. “The Discipline, in Paragraph 346.1, does not impose upon the
bishop any criteria, constraint or guideline for the discontinuance
of a local pastor’s appointment. If a bishop’s authority of
appointment or discontinuance of a local pastor is to be diminished
or curtailed, it must be accomplished by the General Conference and
not by the Judicial Council.”
The dissenting opinion was signed by Sally Curtis AsKew, Sally Brown
Geis, the Rev. Larry D. Pickens and Mary A. Daffin. Those in the
majority were the Rev. John G. Corry, the Rev. C. Rex Bevins,
Rodolfo Beltran, the Rev. Keith Boyette and James Holsinger.
In the other case, the Louisiana Conference had approved revisions
and amendments to its conference structure and rules in 2002, after
the Judicial Council had found that deficiencies continued to exist.
The court had instructed the conference to advise and resubmit its
structure and rules.
However, in reviewing the 2002 revisions, the council found that
many of the same deficiencies still exist. The ruling listed a
number of examples where Louisiana’s rules “fall short” of the
Discipline and also stated that the list of examples was “not
exhaustive.” The conference was directed to review its entire plan
for compliance.
The decision reads, in part: “When an annual conference seeks to
establish its own structure, the structure must be in accordance
with the requirements of the Discipline and the decisions of the
Judicial Council in order to be constitutional.”
The council remanded the structure and rules back to the Louisiana
Conference and directed that any revision or amendments be submitted
to the Judicial Council by July 15 in the year which they are
approved.
The council will continue to be available during General Conference
to make additional decisions. In a motion that was approved on the
floor of General Conference on April 27, the Judicial Council was
requested to rule whether or not Paragraph 304.3 of the Book of
Discipline constitutes a declaration by the United Methodist Church
that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian
teachings,” and if so, does Paragraph 2702.1(b) “incorporate that
declaration into church law by reference?” The council has not yet
ruled on that question.
*Caldwell is a correspondent for United Methodist News Service.
News media
contact: (412) 325-6080 during General Conference, April 27-May 7.
After May 10: (615) 742-5470.