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.
| 
Korean News
