Decision Number 30

Apportionment for World Service Holston Annual Conference

Digest

The action of the General Conference of 1944 in asking for contributions to World Service determined by a percentage in excess contributions during a particular fiscal year is within the constitutional powers of the General Conference as prescribed by Article IV, Section 9, even though in a particular case it may seem to res in an unfair apportionment.

Statement of Facts

At the session of the Holston Annual Conference of The Methodist Church, held October 11 to 16, 1944, a request was made in write to the presiding Bishop, Paul B. Kern, for a ruling as follows:

Question: "In order that the Commission on World Service an Finance may knowhow to proceed, we ask the Bishop for a ruling. Is the action of the General Conference asking for $91,578.00 annually for World Service a legal and binding action?"

RULING OF THE BISHOP

The Bishop ruled thus: "I rule that the action of the General Conference asking for $91,578.00 annually for World Service is leg and binding. Paul B. Kern, President."

An appeal was taken from the ruling of the Bishop.

Decision

The General Conference of The Methodist Church, meeting in Kansas City, Mo., in 1944, adopted the report of the General Commission on World Service and Finance, shown on page 51 of The Daily Advocate, 1944, in which it is stated:"We also recommend that during the ensuing quadrennium the annual apportionment to each Annual Conference shall be a sum ten per cent in excess of its contributions to the World Service Fund during the fiscal year June 1, 1943, to May 31, 1944."

The Constitution of the Church, Paragraph 5, Article IV, Section 9, creating the powers of the General Conference, is as follows: "9. To determine and provide for raising the funds necessary to carry on the connectional work of the Church."

Therefore the General Conference did have the power to take the action indicated. The Judicial Council can only pass upon the legality of such action. It was clearly legal and the ruling of the Bishop was correct. The fact that in some cases, hardship and inequity might result because of the dates fixed, was a question for the General Conference, and for that body only.

The ruling of the Presiding Bishop in the foregoing case is therefore affirmed.