Decision Number 1405

SUBJECT TO FINAL EDITING

April 16, 2021

In Re: Review of a Bishop’s Ruling on a Question of Law in the Mississippi Annual Conference Concerning the Meaning, Application, and Effect of the Last Sentence in ¶36 of the Discipline. Specifically, Whether the Phrase “and are members thereof within the annual conference electing them at the time of holding the General and Jurisdictional or Central Conference” Means that the Lay Person’s Membership Must Be with a Local Church that Is within the Annual Conference that Elected Him/Her (versus local church membership in a different annual conference) and that Said Membership Must Be in Effect when the Layperson Is Serving as a Delegate to General Conference

Digest

A lay delegate to General, Jurisdictional or Central Conferences is not required to be a lay member of the annual conference at the time of holding the General, Jurisdictional or Central Conferences. The membership requirement of laity is that of one’s local church within the annual conference. The Decision of Law of Bishop James E. Swanson is reversed.

Statement of Facts

The regular session of the Mississippi Conference Annual Conference was convened on Thursday, June 6, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. at the Jackson Convention Center in Jackson, Mississippi, with Bishop James Swanson presiding.

Before the election of the lay delegates to General and Jurisdictional Conferences, Rev. Fitzgerald Lovett asked why Mr. Tim Crisler's name was missing from the list of lay delegates. Rev. Harper answered the question, saying that he had been informed that Mr. Crisler was not a lay member of the Annual Conference. Mr. Crisler rose to a point of order, saying that his disqualification was out of order. Bishop Swanson did not take the point of order and clarified that the requirements of The Book of Discipline 2016 [hereinafter The Discipline] were not met.

Mr. Tim Crisler rose to a point of information, asking what in particular disqualified him from being on the ballot. Bishop Swanson recognized Rev. Lindsey Robinson, Superintendent of the Brookhaven District to answer the question. Rev. Robinson explained that upon investigation with the pastor and members of the congregation, it was determined that Mr. Crisler's election at White Oak UMC (Mr. Crisler's home church) was not valid, and there had been some conflicting communication. Tim Crisler was not the elected lay member of the Annual Conference from White Oak UMC.

On June 7, Opal Ann LaSalle, a lay member of the conference posed the following question of law to the bishop:

On Thursday, June 6th, during the Plenary session of the Mississippi Annual Conference you were asked to rule whether a lay member of a conference church was eligible to be a candidate for General and Jurisdictional Conferences. This member, Timothy Chrisler, was not the lay Delegate to Annual Conference for his church this year. He believed that he qualified because he has been active in his church for more than four years and has been a member for 2 years. A member of the 2016 Delegation, Mrs. Anne Harrington, was elected in absentia with her alternate delegate being the voting member of Annual Conference in her place.

1) In light of the exclusion of a lay member of a United Methodist congregation in our conference, Timothy Chrisler, as a candidate, does Paragraph 36 of the Discipline require that the lay delegates to General Conference be members of the Annual Conference at the time of their election, regardless of whether or not they met other eligibility requirements?

2) If not, is an election of lay delegates invalid when any candidate(s) who meet other constitutional requirements have been excluded because they are not members of the Annual Conference that year?

On June 28, 2019, Bishop Swanson issued the following decision of law:

On Thursday, June 6, 2019, prior to the beginning of the delegate election process, Mr. Tim Crisler did speak to his ineligibility for election as a member for the 2020 Delegation. While he did not ask for a specific ruling from the chair with regards to bis eligibility; I did allow Mr. Crisler to share his frustration over not being certified by the Conference Secretary to run for election.

Mr. Crisler's understanding of the requirements for eligibility to be elected as a General and/or Jurisdictional delegate are incomplete. As you have referenced, 36 of the 2016 Book of Discipline asserts that there are three qualifications for election, and he only met two.

First, one must be a professing member for “at least two year next preceding their election,” which he is. Second, one must “have been active participants in The United Methodist Church for at least four years next preceding their election;” which he also meets. The final requirement is that candidates “are members thereof within the annual conference electing them at the time of holding the General and jurisdictional” conference, which he was and is not.

As you mentioned, Mr. Crisler is neither an elected member of the annual conference representing his local church nor has he been chosen as an equalizing member of the annual conference by virtue of office, service, or district appointment. He does not meet the full qualifications necessary for election.

With regards to your reference of the 2015 election of Mrs. Anne Harrington as a member of the 2016 Delegation, although she was not "in attendance" during the election; she still was, nevertheless, a duly elected member of the annual conference representing her local church. Although a medical circumstance kept her from attending to vote, she was still the elected member.

Finally, in response to your question about the validity of the 2020 Lay delegates representing the Mississippi Annual Conference, this is a hypothetical circumstance. I cannot find any allowance in the Book of Discipline to disallow those who were properly eligible and duly elected from serving, regardless of someone else's ability or inability to run. Each of those delegates were elected were in their own right.

Jurisdiction

The Judicial Council has jurisdiction under ¶ 2609.6 of the 2016 Book of Discipline.

Analysis and Rationale

The first question before the bishop is: Does Paragraph 36 of the Discipline require that the lay delegates to General Conference be members of the Annual Conference at the time of their election, regardless of whether or not they met other eligibility requirements?

Bishop Swanson’s answer is that ¶ 36 requires first that candidates must be professing members for “at least two years next preceding their election,” and second, must “have been active participants in The United Methodist Church for at least four years next preceding their election.” The final requirement is that candidates “are members thereof within the annual conference electing them at the time of holding the General and jurisdictional” conference. Since Mr. Chrisler is neither an elected member of the annual conference representing his local church and nor an equalizing member of the annual conference by virtue of office, service, or district appointment. He did not meet the full qualifications necessary for election.

¶ 36 of the 2016 Discipline provides as follows:

¶ 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 delegates shall have been professing 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. [footnotes omitted]

The presiding bishop erred in his interpretation of ¶ 36. The membership requirement of laity is that of one’s local church within the annual conference. Laity are not required to be elected members of annual conference, as illustrated in Judicial Council Decision 346:

We do not overlook the final clause which also requires church membership to continue “within the Annual Conference electing them at the time of holding the General and Jurisdictional or Central Conferences.” This final clause merely gives assurance of Annual Conference representation by lay delegates who are members of the conference's own local charges. It operates to terminate the delegate status of any person who though duly qualified and elected subsequently transfers out of his conference.

As to the second question which concerns the validity or invalidity of the lay delegate election, the presiding bishop erred in his response that the question is hypothetical. The question is not hypothetical because the circumstance specifically existed as alleged; a lay person who was fully qualified and eligible for election as a lay delegate to the 2020 General Conference, was unconstitutionally removed from the lay ballot. However, the issue is now moot and does not need resolution.

A separate but related question presents itself here—namely whether the bishop’s determination that a question is hypothetical can be accompanied by the following statement:

There is no “allowance in the Book of Discipline to disallow those who were properly eligible and duly elected from serving, regardless of someone else's ability or inability to run. Each of those delegates were elected were in their own right.”

In that declaration, the bishop essentially ruled on a question he determined to be hypothetical and, thus, improper. The Judicial Council has consistently held that, when a bishop determines a question presented to be improper, “the bishop shall state the rationale in the ruling without further substantive commentary.” JCD 799, 867, 927, 1294, 1329, 1372. Although we determined that the second question was not hypothetical under the actual circumstances, we want to affirm and emphasize our long-standing policy disallowing such substantive statements made by bishops in their rulings.

Share