Jonathan LeMaster-Smith

As we turn to the upcoming Judicial Council Docket for October, the first one asks questions of parliamentary authority. This request comes from the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference related to a parliamentary matter.
.
You can read the full document (linked here, scroll down to the list), but essentially, a panel panel presentation related to a potential strategic plans for the Annual Conference that, upon conclusion of the presentation, would be brought to the conference for a vote. A person moved to call the question. The bishop denied, but instructed that once the presentation was brought for a consideration before the body (which was shortly after) the bishop would call on this person. Then someone came forward to refer the piece of legislation to the adjourned session (regardless of what they referred it to, it was a move to refer it from the current body). The bishop also denied this, because the legislation was not properly before the body yet.

Once the piece of legislation was brought before the body for a vote, the person moved to suspend the rules to call the question, as their rules required speeches for and against prior to voting. This motion would allow for a vote without discussion. This motion passed. Then the body voted to approve the legislation. Then someone asked the question of whether or not they could still motion to refer, and the bishop said no, as the body had already approved the legislation, so there was not need to refer it. A clergy person from this conference appealed this Bishop’s statement to the Judicial Council.

The Bishop (Bishop Schol) believes that based on previous decisions of the Judicial Council, that this is a parliamentary decision, not a rule of law. Therefore, in his opinion, the Judicial Council, based on Decision 898, should not take this matter up.

I will not give my opinion on whether or not the Judicial Council should take this up or how they should rule, but I will bring from of my thoughts based on the concerns raised.

1) We do not teach parliamentary procedure or decision making well in our conferences. One reality is that these are complicated decision making procedures. If you do not use them regularly, you do not fully understand them.

2) The question of referral could have, based on the method used, be brought back to the table with a motion to reconsider. The person making the motion must have voted in favor of the legislation (or said they did, if there is not evidence), and then, if this motion is approved, move for referral.

3) If this calling of the question was a parliamentary move by the person making calling the question, the person presenting the legislation, or the presiding officer, and it was planned prior to, this does not violate any rules, as the body voted in favor of suspending the rules.

4) If the question is whether or not a bishop has to entertain all potential motions, even if the body has already moved on, this is also not the case, as the bishop is the presiding officer and followed the rules of order for that conference.

However, for the local church, this is a different matter. As most churches do not use full Robert’s Rules, there is room for discussion, changing of minds, and moving toward consensus. I know that in rural churches, decisions of the leadership body of the church are not the final say in the church family. The reality is, though, this body of annual conference works differently that the annual conference, unless we also amend the rules to change how the process works.

Regardless, a question of Holy Conferencing emerges. How do we make faithful decisions? How do we support one another in our disagreements? How are settling disputes without sending each other trial?