A biased judicial process awaits PlanUMC as it is presented to the Judicial Council this week.
Trust: Necessary…and Lacking in the UMC
Back before the 2012 General Conference, one of the results of the expensive APEX report was that there is a lack of trust in the United Methodist Church:
Trust was often mentioned as a leadership issue–particularly in the context of power and authority…often mentioned as the observation that leaders themselves frequently do not demonstrate trust behaviors.
General distrust is a significant cultural issue for the Church. Distrust is both a symptom and a causal factor in frustrating the Church’s ability to function more effectively.
Today, we find out that our trust in the approval process of PlanUMC has yet again been misplaced. Here’s background on what PlanUMC is.
A Biased Judicial Process…
When a decision of law or a question is presented to the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church, there’s usually two opposing sides: the Petitioner and the Respondent. They both have 20 minutes to present, the Council asks questions, the Petitioner has a 5-minute rebuttal, and the Council then issues a decision after an appropriate amount of time. A typical courtroom-style procedure, right?
However, as always when it comes to PlanUMC, the deck is stacked in its favor.
- The Council of Bishops were the ones who officially sent this legislation to Judicial Council; therefore, they are the Petitioner.
- And the Respondent? Instead of being an opposing side to the Petition, it is the PlanUMC presenters. The Respondents have indicated via email they will not share their Response time with any opposition voices.
This would make sense if the Council of Bishops was presenting an oppositional voice. However, the Council did not take a position on this PlanUMC:
“The action of the council is in no way intended as support or opposition to the proposed Plan UMC but an effort to facilitate the work of the 2016 General Conference,” [San Francisco Area Bishop Warner] Brown said.
And wouldn’t you know it: in 2012, they endorsed the predecessor to PlanUMC:
Back then, the bishops took the lead in pushing to restructure the 10 church agencies that receive general church funds. The previous legislation came out of the multiyear Call to Action process launched by the Council of Bishops and Connectional Table…The Council of Bishops endorsed the original Call to Action restructuring plan in November 2011.
In short, when the Judicial Council meets later this week, there’s two voices of support (or at least benevolent ambivalence from the Bishops) for PlanUMC–and no voices of opposition, as one would expect of a trustworthy process.
Legislative shenanigans in its past…
Looking back, the long road to PlanUMC had a questionable legislative process. There are two ways to present legislation to the General Conference floor without going through the legislative committee, and PlanUMC attempted both of them.
- Minority Report: When legislation is sent to the General Conference floor by a committee, people who voted against the legislation can present a minority report to the floor. This has been used successfully in the past to replace LGBT-affirming legislation with a new minority report that was not actually discussed in the legislative committee. In this case, the three competing plans in 2012 (the original Connectional Table, PlanB, and the MFSA plans) all failed to pass the committee because people voted against them so they could write a minority report–but with no majority report sent, there was no way to write the minority report. Whoops! 🙂
- Special Dispensation: After the Minority Report attempt failed, two men pleaded with General Conference to allow them to form a plan. The resulting “PlanUMC” was formed in a secret closed meeting by CT and PlanB folks (no representatives from MFSA were invited), then the Conference was allowed 24 hours to read the 80 page document before the vote. General Conference approved it, but it was ultimately thrown out as unconstitutional.
As we can see, PlanUMC was written in secret, outside of the legislative process in an echo-chamber without dissenting voices. Little wonder it was so error-filled it was found unconstitutional.
Executive overreach in its future…
Looking forward, as we’ve outlined here at HX, executive overreach is the overriding concern about PlanUMC if it is implemented as-written. Here’s two concerns:
- The PlanUMC team (see here) indicates that they altered the fiscal coercive power that crushed PlanUMC in 2012. Of course, they denied that power existed in their Judicial Council arguments for it in 2012, so it will be up to the Judicial Council to review whether it’s actually present. Basically, the executive board would share the (limited) coercive fiscal power that was previously reserved just for the financial board (GCFA).
- While the fiscal oversight might have been changed, the administrative coercive power still exists. The legislation (UMNS) shows that the executive board would approve nominated executives from the boards, and the CT would have the ability to remove those executives. Both of these powers historically have resided with the particular boards who are most aware of their missional needs and goals. This was a big push in 2012 because some Reformers wanted to force out the two longtime General Secretaries of Church and Society and the Board of Discipleship. It’s not such a big deal now in 2016 as both those GS’s have retired–so why is it being pushed?
There’s a reason why PlanUMC was unsalvageable in 2012: this form of coercive fiscal and staffing power that is severely limited and contextual across the rest of United Methodism is pervasive in PlanUMC–and sadly it continues to be present in the 2016 version. No amount of tweaking will change that the basic understanding of power in PlanUMC is antithetical to the UMC in today’s world.
Worst-Case Scenario: A Spirit-proofed Plan
In summary, it makes perfect sense for PlanUMC to complete the hat trick with its abuse of the legislative, executive, and now the judicial processes of the United Methodist Church.
We have no idea if the Judicial Council will say the plan is constitutionally-sound or not. However, if they do rule on its constitutionality pro-or-con, it’s the worst-case scenario. Because then in the legislative committee and on the floor of General Conference, the overriding narrative will be that we cannot make changes to the Proposal because those changes may render it unconstitutional. And that denies the Spirit’s ability to tweak and transform hearts and minds, as we believe the Spirit does in these holy conferences.
I hope for:
- The Judicial Council to give voice to the informed, dissenting perspective (who will be present at the meeting).
- The Judicial Council to refuse to rule on PlanUMC to allow the Spirit to guide the General Conference delegates..and take one small step to restore the trust in the United Methodist Church that we sorely need to weather all that is before us.
- Anyone in the Saint Louis area to attend in the gallery area at the time of the oral arguments: Wednesday, October 21st, at 11:00 a.m. at the St. Louis Airport Hilton.
Thoughts?
I can’t tell by reading the decision. Did the Judicial Council have a hearing with pro- and con- sides when it considered Plan UMC in 2012?
I understand your spin on this, but if one of the big failings of the old effort was that it was unconstitutional, isn’t it reasonable to ask the JC to vet whether the new plan passes the test set by the JC last time? If that is not against the rules, it seems like simple prudence when you only get to try this once every four years.
Yes, but the specific questions of law have different interpretations. In particular, the Opposition voices have specific areas where they claim it is not constitutional. While the JC may be all-knowing, it is part of our process to allow differing voices–and that’s not being done in this case.
Idk what they did in 2012.
During General Conference, the Judicial Council is considered to be in constant session. Members meet in private when asked by vote of the General Conference delegates to consider legislation. There are no open hearings of Judicial Council during General Conference; therefore, each piece of legislation or delegates’ action is decided upon purely upon its apparent merits according to the church’s constitution.
Thanks Cynthia. I didn’t know the specifics on that.
That’s not how it went down in 2012. I presented a brief and so did the proponents. No hearing was held though.
There was no hearing in 2012 John but I prepared and submitted a brief for the opposition and the proponents did as well.
What does this matter to a typical UMC member? I really don’t care how our agencies are organized. Why should I?
Kevin, things like this matter because this is where United Methodist apportionments are spent. That “fair share for ministry beyond the local church” money comes out of the dollars that go into the offering plate every Sunday. The portion allotted to each local congregation by its annual conference is sent on to fund the operations of the global church. Therefore, anything that affects who gets to say how that money is budgeted and spent should be of high importance to the average United Methodist, because it’s his or her money being spent.
I will bet the average Methodist has only a vague idea how our apportionment dollars are spent and can’t name more that two agencies. They know it covers pastor pensions and a few other things but beyond that I doubt it. My comment referred to organization. Why does it matter if the director of one of these agencies reports to a board of directors or a more centralized committee? It doesn’t. Not one little bit. This is little more than inside ball for Methodists.
Good grief, Jeremy, you are making this way too complicated. Let the Judicial Council make a preliminary judgment so that the legislation can proceed with some understanding as to whether the objections (from the judicial point of view) of four years ago have been addressed. One of the most discouraging experiences of my life was sitting through the legislative group in 2012 that tried to sort through the several plans and then present a report to the plenary session. The words that come to mind to describe the process are “chaotic” and “dysfunctional.” At this point there does not need to be an argument presented against the plan. If some plan is passed the opposition can make its argument.
There will be no opportunity to challenge the Constitutional validity of this Plan other than this hearing. And the opponents who are challenging its Constitutional validity have been excluded from oral argument.