Decision Number 1403

SUBJECT TO FINAL EDITING

April 16, 2021

DECISION NO. 1403 — IN RE: Request from the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference for a Declaratory Decision on the Meaning, Application or Effect of ¶¶ 13.1-2 and 34 Concerning the Authority of an Annual Conference to Adopt attendance Policies for Delegates to General and Jurisdictional Conferences.

Digest

Annual Conferences do not have the authority to adopt rules governing duly elected delegates to General Jurisdictional/Central Conferences that mandate attendance at Delegation meetings nor require such other behavior that is not already provided in the Discipline.

Statement of Facts

On May 31, 2019, during its plenary session, the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference passed a motion to request a declaratory decision from the Judicial Council on the following question:

In light of BOD ¶ 13.1-2 and ¶ 34, as well as Judicial Council Decision 592, can an annual conference adopt attendance policies for delegates to General and Jurisdictional Conferences, and can those policies include consequences such as removal or reporting of attendance records to the Annual Conference?

The “Resolution 9 Pertaining to Attendance at Meetings for General and Jurisdictional Conference Delegates” stated in relevant part:

…that members of the delegation are expected to be present at all meetings prior to General and Jurisdictional Conference. Excused absences are limited to those conflicts with the calendar that are shared in writing with the Chairs and secretary of the delegation by September when the meetings commence, illness for the delegate or members of their immediate family for whom they are providing care, bereavement for the loss of a family member, and inclement weather. Absences not communicated in a timely fashion or for reasons outside of these will be considered unexcused. Additionally, delegates must attend at least half of the meeting to be counted present. A delegate is allowed two unexcused absences, after which they shall be removed from the delegation. Beginning with the 2020 delegation, the attendance record of the previous delegation will be published prior to elections.

Jurisdiction

The Judicial Council has jurisdiction pursuant to ¶ 2610.2 of The 2016 Book of Disciple.

Analysis and Rationale

The issue is whether the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference has the authority to adopt rules governing duly elected delegates to General/jurisdictional conferences that mandate attendance at delegation meetings. The Constitution of The United Methodist Church provides for the election of General and Jurisdictional/Central Conference delegates as follows:

¶ 35. Article IV—The clergy delegates to the General Conference and to the jurisdictional or central conference shall be elected from the clergy in full connection and shall be elected by the clergy members of the annual conference….

¶ 36. Article V.—The lay delegates to the General and jurisdictional or central conferences shall be elected by the lay members of the annual conference or provisional annual conference without regard to age, provided such delegates⁷⁵shall have been professing⁷⁶ members of The United Methodist Church for at least two years next preceding their election, and shall have been active participants in The United Methodist Church for at least four years next preceding their election, and are members thereof within the annual conference electing them at the time of holding the General and jurisdictional or central conferences. [See JCD 403 and 887.]

In Decision 592, the Judicial Council reiterates:

All requirements for qualifications, elections and service that are contained in the Discipline are powers reserved to the General Conference. ... Delegates to General Conference, just as members of an Annual Conference, are bound to do as their conscience dictates what is good for the Church of Jesus Christ, The United Methodist Church in particular, and that only.

Resolution 9 of the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference is similar to the voting record requirement of the North Carolina Annual Conference in JCD 592 in that it seeks to compel certain behavior, thereby, directly affecting the way the delegates discharge their official duties. Specifically, the rules mandate attendance at the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference delegation meetings and penalize absences by the removal of credentials from a duly elected lay or clergy delegate as well as reporting the attendance records to the annual conference. All requirements and qualifications for General and Jurisdictional/Central Conference delegates are set forth in the Constitution and Discipline. Neither the annual conference nor the delegation has the authority to disturb the constitutionally protected elections made by the laity and made by the clergy.

Decision

Concurring Opinion

While we support the conclusion reached by the majority, we want to respectfully highlight two aspects of Church law that pertain to this case: Separation of powers and pre-emption.

The United Methodist Church operates under a polity that divides powers and responsibilities between the General Conference and annual conferences in matters of delegates to General and jurisdictional conferences. While annual conferences have the reserved right to vote on the election of delegates, Const. ¶¶ 33, 34, the General Conference “shall fix the ratio of representation in the General, jurisdictional, and central conferences from the annual conferences…” and “shall have full legislative power over all matters distinctively connectional.” Const. ¶¶ 15, 16. Further, “[a]ll requirements for qualifications, elections and service [of delegates] that are contained in the Discipline are powers reserved to the General Conference.” JCD 592. The General Conference and annual conferences may not encroach on the other’s constitutionally demarcated sphere of responsibility. “The separation of authority and decision making is integral to the United Methodist Constitution and law,” requiring that each branch respect the defined roles of all other branches of the Church. JCD 689. An annual conference may not exceed the authority given to it by the Constitution. Duly elected delegates cannot be removed by the delegation or the annual conference.

In its jurisprudence, the Judicial Council has ruled that, when the General Conference exercises its constitutional powers by enacting legislation, a particular field is considered to be “pre-empted by act of the General Conference.” JCD 313, aff’d, JCD 318, 466. The Judicial Council held, for example, that “the right and responsibility to provide support to a bishop has been delegated to the General Conference and the method of furnishing such support has been pre-empted by legislation of the General Conference,” JCD 365, or that, in exerting its constitutional power to establish ministerial standards, the General Conference “has thereby pre-empted such authority, so that an Annual Conference may not add to, nor subtract from, from the requirements established by the General Conference.” JCD 513. Pre-emption can also occur through repeal of legislation. The elimination of the ministerial pledge to abstain from the use of alcohol or tobacco by the 1968 General Conference “lend[s] support to a conclusion that the General Conference had considered and pre-empted the subject.” JCD 536. Consequently, “the Annual Conference as the basic body of the Church…has reserved to it such powers as are not pre-empted by the General Conference.” JCD 491. “All requirements for qualifications, elections, and service”—including parameters around what it means to be in attendance and the manner in which delegates are to account for their conduct—are distinctively connectional matters and “powers reserved to the General Conference” under ¶ 16 of the Constitution. JCD 592. The field occupied by Resolution 9 has been pre-empted by General Conference legislation and, therefore, placed beyond the reach of the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference.

Luan-Vu Tran
Deanell Reece Tacha
Øyvind Helliesen
N. Oswald Tweh

Concurring Opinion

I concur with the majority’s holding and analysis in this matter. As a Judicial Council, we are charged with the obligation to apply the Discipline and Judicial Council precedents in those matters which come before us. We have many precedents covering virtually every scenario which we encounter. The instant case is no exception.

There have been many issues related to the qualifications of laity seeking election to General Conference. One former lay qualifications was an issue in the early 1970s, prior to the 1972 General Conference approval and the denomination’s ratification of a constitutional amendment that deleted the minimum age requirement of 21 years. JCD 346, 354. In April of 1972 the Judicial Council was quite explicit regarding the role and authority of General Conference as it related to the seating of its own membership:

The General Conference is a body of delegated constitutional authority. It does not have the authority to seat as voting delegates individuals who were not 21 years of age when elected, this being a limitation placed upon the General Conference by Paragraph 40 of the Constitution.

The authority of the General Conference to determine its own membership. Finally, we are asked by the General Conference to rule on its right to seat the appellants and other similarly situated persons as duly elected delegates. The only premise for such action would be an asserted right in the General Conference to act as judge of its own membership regardless of constitutional limitations.

We respectfully advise the General Conference that it does not have this right. The powers of the General Conference are delegated to it by the Annual Conferences, the "fundamental bodies of the Church" (Paragraph 10 of the Constitution). The limitations based upon those powers have a similar source. The constitutional authority with respect to the seating of delegates includes the limitations in Paragraph 40. Those limitations can only be changed by a constitutional amendment proposed by the General Conference and approved by the Annual Conferences. JCD 354.

There have also been a variety of situations when particular bodies within the denomination have sought to effect the dynamics and outcome of an Annual Conference, Jurisdictional/Central Conference or General Conference by exerting influence over their elected delegates.

Decision 109 provides one such example. During a regular session of an annual conference assembled in June of 1954, a member of the conference explained a specific set of circumstances and directives that a lay member had been compelled to receive prior to attending annual conference that year. The conference member then asked the following question of the presiding bishop:

Does an Official Board of a Methodist Church, or a Quarterly Conference, have the authority to order and instruct its lay member or reserve lay members of the Annual Conference to vote in any specified manner on matters coming before the Annual Conference?

Bishop William C. Martin, presiding, gave his written Decision as follows:

In conformity with the generally accepted principle that delegated members of a Church Council shall be free to make decisions in the light of facts and discussions concerning issues that are considered by such body, the Discipline of The Methodist Church does not authorize an Official Board or a Quarterly Conference 'to order and instruct its Lay Member or Reserve Lay Members of the Annual Conference to vote in any specified manner on matters coming before the Annual Conference.

The Judicial Council affirmed the Bishop and adopted his statement as the Decision of the Council. Decision 109.

In Decision 469 the Judicial Council cautioned that an annual conference may not require delegates to Jurisdictional, Central and General Conference, to fulfill a tithing covenant as a condition of their election.

The Judicial Council, in Decision 1083, once again explained that devices such as surveys to compel General Conference candidates to disclose their views on issues were impermissible and unconstitutional.

Decision 592 involved an annual conference which sought to require its delegates to submit individual written reports of their votes at General Conference. However, among these earlier Decisions, it is 592 that articulates the core principle that has generated many of the precedents that are controlling in circumstances such as that presented by the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference. For some, recalling and focusing on the controlling principle can sometimes enable one to avoid the need to have a matter adjudicated. This is the principle set forth in Decision 592:

In The United Methodist Church delegates to General and Jurisdictional Conferences are historically and traditionally elected without instruction. ...

We find no language in the Constitution or Discipline, nor has any been called to our attention giving authority to the Annual Conference to require that delegates report their votes; and they need not do so.

Delegates to General Conference, just as members of an Annual Conference, are bound to do as their conscience dictates what is good for the Church of Jesus Christ, The United Methodist Church in particular, and that only. [Emphasis added] Decision 592.

Beth Capen