{"id":12448,"date":"2016-05-10T09:42:04","date_gmt":"2016-05-10T16:42:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.pnwumc.org\/news\/?p=12448"},"modified":"2016-05-10T09:42:04","modified_gmt":"2016-05-10T16:42:04","slug":"plan-umc-revised-still-partly-unconstitutional","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.pnwumc.org\/news\/plan-umc-revised-still-partly-unconstitutional\/","title":{"rendered":"Plan UMC Revised still partly unconstitutional"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Linda Bloom<\/strong>
\nMay 10, 2016 | PORTLAND, Ore. (UMNS)<\/p>\n

One of the proposed plans to re-align the structure of The United Methodist Church will need yet another revision if the denomination\u2019s top legislative body decides to adopt it.<\/p>\n

In a May 9 ruling, the United Methodist Judicial Council declared, \u201cPlan UMC Revised contains components that fail the test of constitutionality and components that are, as stated, entirely constitutional.\u201d<\/p>\n

Whether church delegates want to take action on the \u201cconstitutionally adequate\u201d parts of the plan \u201cis a legislative matter left to the processes of General Conference,\u201d the denomination\u2019s top court said. General Conference meets May 10-20 at the Oregon Convention Center.<\/p>\n

Decision 1310<\/a>\u00a0was one of eight decisions issued after the Judicial Council\u2019s May 6-9 spring meeting at the convention center.<\/p>\n

Another General Conference-related decision addressed questions posed by the Northeastern Jurisdiction College of Bishops regarding episcopal areas within a jurisdiction.\u00a0Decision 1312\u00a0<\/a>found that several different provisions of the constitution \u201caddress separate, not conflicting, aspects of the connectional pattern in which The United Methodist Church establishes and forms its episcopacy.\u201d<\/p>\n

Who has the authority?<\/h4>\n

The United Methodist Council of Bishops initially made a request for a declaratory decision on Plan UMC Revised last fall, but\u00a0Judicial Council declined to rule<\/a>\u00a0at that time, fearing any action \u201ccould potentially place a constitutional seal of approval on one proposed legislative item,\u201d as noted in\u00a0Decision 1303<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Some of the constitutionality concerns are over issues of authority.\u00a0\u201cPlan UMC Revised\u201d<\/a>\u00a0gives new authority and power to the Connectional Table, a church coordinating body; re-aligns the general agencies and eliminates three commissions.<\/p>\n

In the May 9 ruling, the council found \u201cproblematic\u201d a proposed addition to Paragraph 705 in the Book of Discipline, the denomination\u2019s law book, which would add a responsibility to \u201cdetermine mission and purpose\u201d to the duties of the church\u2019s boards and general agencies.<\/p>\n

But that could infringe upon General Conference\u2019s authority \u201cto initiate and direct all connectional enterprises,\u201d as stated in Paragraph 16.8, and expand beyond the stated tasks of boards or agencies of \u201cpromotion and administration.\u201d The plan\u2019s amendment to 705(a) \u201clacks the limits intended in Para. 16.8 of the constitution and thus is unconstitutional,\u201d the court said in its decision.<\/p>\n

Another potential problem is how Plan UMC Revised assigns \u201cmonitoring and reviewing\u201d responsibility to the Connectional Table, since the constitution gives \u201cgeneral oversight\u201d to the Council of Bishops.<\/p>\n

If monitoring and reviewing is limited to the program agencies the Connectional Table oversees, the provision is constitutional, but if the assigned responsibility reaches beyond that, it is not. \u201cAny clarification of this tension would need to be resolved legislatively by the General Conference,\u201d the council pointed out in its ruling.<\/p>\n

Because Paragraph 16.3 gives General Conference the authority to establish commissions \u201cfor the general work of the church,\u201d it also could discontinue the current commissions on the Status and Role of Women, Religion and Race and Archives and History, the decision said. That action would occur if that current recommendation in Plan UMC Revised is retained and the plan approved by delegates.<\/p>\n

But the plan\u2019s proposed Paragraphs 901.3 and 901.4 allowing the Connectional Table to consolidate overall administrative and programmatic leadership, along with administrative services \u201c\u2026for all general church activities,\u201d are unconstitutional, the court declared, as well as the Connectional Table\u2019s proposed power to elect and dismiss general secretaries of program boards.<\/p>\n

\u201cAlthough coordination of program functions is highly desirable and is constitutional, any loss of a board\u2019s decision-making authority is a usurpation of the General Conference\u2019s prerogative in establishing such boards,\u201d the council noted in its decision.<\/p>\n

\u201cPlan UMC Revised has dimensions that are constitutionally sound and dimensions that are constitutionally uncertain or defective,\u201d the decision\u2019s analysis and rationale section concluded. \u201cThe Judicial Council does not take a position on the wisdom and soundness of the proposals of Plan UMC Revised; that is a legislative determination to be made by the General Conference.\u201d<\/p>\n

Two oral hearings<\/h4>\n

The request by the Northeastern Jurisdiction College of Bishops to rule on two paragraphs in the Book of Discipline related to episcopal areas was the subject of one of the two oral hearings held by Judicial Council on May 6.<\/p>\n

The college believes the two paragraphs are in conflict, but the denomination\u2019s top court disagreed.<\/p>\n

Bishop Thomas Bickerton explained that the college\u2019s request was made to seek clarity \u201cfor what appears to be an inconsistency in our Book of Discipline\u201d about the formation of episcopal areas after a modification to Paragraph 40 in 2012. \u201cRather than creating a clear line of authority,\u201d he noted, the new version of Paragraph 40 seems to raise points of conflict.<\/p>\n

The Northeastern Jurisdiction College of Bishops already had been informed by the denomination\u2019s General Council on Finance and Administration that the number of bishops in the jurisdiction would be reduced from 9 to 8 in the next quadrennium, due to the loss of membership. The jurisdiction\u2019s committee on episcopacy has appealed \u201cfor a missional exception to allow the NEJ to retain nine episcopal areas.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Judicial Council\u2019s decision in this case noted the complexity of connectional balances, particularly as new legislation is enacted. \u201cWhen the constitution changes by the method of amendment, the balances among and between authorities in the church will experience changes,\u201d the decision said.<\/p>\n

Judicial Council found that Paragraph 404.2, \u201cwhich legislates the \u2018uniform plan\u2019 for electing bishops in the jurisdiction,\u2019 is constitutional.\u201d<\/p>\n

During the second oral hearing, the Rev. Thomas Griffith of the California-Pacific Conference presented its request for a ruling on wording in the Book of Discipline that, the conference says, allows General Conference to usurp a constitutional right of a conference\u2019s committee on investigation and trial court.<\/p>\n

In\u00a0Memorandum 1316<\/a>, Judicial Council said it was unable to obtain the required number of votes needed for establishing the unconstitutionality of the two paragraphs in question \u2014 2702.1 (a) and 2702.1 (b) \u2014 so the paragraphs \u201cremain constitutional.\u201d<\/p>\n

Other decisions<\/h4>\n

In other business, Judicial Council:<\/p>\n