Decision Number 42

Decision

Dissenting Decision by H. R. Van Deusen

The majority opinion very scholarly and able document-makes a careful analysis of Paragraph 646, pointing out the different procedures that may be followed by Annual Conference in the performance of the powers reserved to it by the Constitution (Paragraph 22, Discipline 1944) "on all matters relating to the character and Conference relations of its ministerial members, and on ordination of ministers."

It is pointed out that one of the alternate procedures which Paragraph 646 seems to provide is found in the last clause which reads "provided that the Conference may order an Executive Session of the ministerial members to consider questions relating to matters of ordination, character and Conference relations," and this is interpreted to mean that such an Executive Session may be called only by a vote of the entire Annual Conference including both lay and ministerial members. Thus, it is argued, the lay members are not deprived of any rights they may have as members of the Annual Conference, if the Conference by a majority of the body including both lay and ministerial members votes to adopt this method.

The basic fallacy of this argument seems to be that this procedure assumes that the Annual Conference can delegate the exercise of one of its most important rights and duties to an Executive Committee, or an Executive Session, or some other segment of its membership. This right is one of the most important rights reserved to the Annual Conference, and when action is taken, after the report of Committees or otherwise, irrespective of the voting rights, the action must be by the Annual Conference as a body, and not by a segment thereof.

Therefore, the lay members being an integral part of the Annual Conference, as such Constitutional members they may not be prevented from being present and participating in every session of the Conference, including participating in a discussion of matters affecting the ordination, character and Conference relations of ministers. It, therefore, should be held that the General Conference had no power to enact the provision contained in the last paragraph of Paragraph 646, and that the same is unconstitutional.

Dr. G. W. Henry joins in the foregoing dissent, April 24, 1947.