wfn.org | [PCUSANEWS] PJC schedules special-Assembly trial

[PCUSA NEWS <PCUSA.NEWS@ecunet.org>]

Note #7616 from PCUSA NEWS to PRESBYNEWS:

PJC schedules special-Assembly trial
03124

PJC schedules special-Assembly trial

Will decide whether Abu-Akel should have reconvened 214th GA

by John Filiatreau

LOUISVILLE - The Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) of the General Assembly
has scheduled a trial for March 17 on whether or not Moderator Fahed Abu-Akel
should have ordered a special meeting of last year's Assembly after receiving
a petition bearing the requisite number of commissioners' signatures.

The session of Westminster Presbyterian Church, of Canton, OH, had alleged
that Abu-Akel and Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick, in effect, ordered a
"re-vote" in the matter and "acted unconstitutionally to compel the
commissioners to change their minds."

In January, Alexander Metherell, an elder from Laguna Beach, CA, gave
Abu-Akel a petition bearing the names of 57 Assembly commissioners who wanted
him to reconvene the 214th General Assembly to do something about alleged
widespread defiance of the so-called "fidelity/chastity" provision of the
PC(USA) constitution.

The Canton church alleged that Abu-Akel pressured the signatories to remove
their names from Metherell's petition and asked the PJC to rule that he was
"delinquent" when he refused to call the session. Abu-Akel said he declined
to call the special session upon learning that a number of commissioners had
changed their minds.

The Westminster session appealed an earlier decision of the PJC's executive
committee recommending dismissal of the complaint. 

Oral arguments in the case were heard on Feb. 28 in Kansas City, Mo.

In an order released on March 4, the PJC ordered a trial on several issues:

* Whether Abu-Akel, in his official capacity, was required to call the
meeting;

* Whether the Office of the Moderator may ask commissioners to reconsider
their request for or concurrence with a call for a special meeting; 

* Whether it was appropriate for Abu-Akel and Kirkpatrick to verify the
commissioners' signatures, and if so, how it should have been done;

* Whether commissioners' names may be added or removed from such a petition,
and if so, when it may be done; and,

* Whether the matters identified in Metherell's petition would have required
an interpretation of the PC(USA) constitution and therefore had to be
communicated in writing to the stated clerk at least 120 days prior to the
convening of the meeting, as Abu-Akel contended.

The commission agreed with the complainant that it does have jurisdiction
over the Office of the Moderator as an entity of the General Assembly.
However, it dismissed charges of conspiracy and interference against Abu-Akel
and Kirkpatrick as individuals because the relief requested "would be
disciplinary, not remedial," and a remedial case "may not be used to
prosecute a disciplianry case."

The PJC also decided that the complaint "states a claim upon which relief can
be granted against only one of these respondents" - the Office of the
Moderator.

In explanation of its dismissal of the case against Kirkpatrick, the PJC said
in its ruling: "The complaint contains no allegation that the Moderator was
unable to act. Rather, the allegation was that the Moderator refused to act.
The Stated Clerk of the General Assembly may only call a special session ...
'should the Moderator be unable to act.'"

Commission member James J. McClure Jr. filed a dissent, arguing that neither
the moderator nor the stated clerk is an "entity" of the General Assembly. He
said he would have affirmed the executive committee's decision to dismiss the
case.

It is not clear whether a special session of the 214th Assembly could be held
fi the decision goes against the moderator. 

The moderator's office released a statement on March 4: "The Moderator and
his counsel are considering the decision and will cooperate fully."

In last week's oral arguments, the Canton church alleged that Abu-Akel
pressured the signatories to remove their names from Metherell's petition,
and that he and Kirkpatrick, in effect, ordered a "re-vote" of the
commissioners.

"There is no discretion," argued Paul Rolf Jensen, the Virginia lawyer who
represented the Westminster session. "The Book of Order says he 'shall' call
an Assembly. ... It is not up to the moderator to decide this is not a good
idea. ... He should have asked, 'Is this your signature?' and that is all."

Judy L. Woods, the Indianapolis lawyer who represented Abu-Akel and
Kirkpatrick, said the clerk sent "a very neutrally worded letter, very
plainly worded," asking the commissioners to attest to their signatures, and
made "no attempt to influence anyone."

The complainant argued that, when Abu-Akel refused to call the special
session, the stated clerk should have stepped in and done so.

Abu-Akel wrote two letters in which he urged the commissioners to remove
their names from the petition. 

On Nov. 11, he wrote: "One of the letters you received may give you the
impression that I support a called Assembly. I am not in favor of such a
meeting. ... The Committee on the Office of the General Assembly has offered
to you wise counsel in stating reasons why a special meeting would not be
helpful to the life of the church."

In a second letter, dated Jan. 14, Abu-Akel wrote: "I am making one last
appeal. ... I implore you in the name of Christ and for the good of the
Presbyterian Church (USA) to reconsider your decision."

In his letter to the commissioners, Kirkpatrick wrote, "Please return the
enclosed form to the Office of the General Assembly as quickly as possible so
that arrangements for such a special meeting can be made, if that is your
desire."

Woods argued that, when several commissioners subsequently changed their
minds and said they no longer favored a called Assembly, the moderator "had
no choice but to not call an Assembly." 

She pointed out that this year's 215th GA will provide ample opportunity for
Abu-Akel's critics "to challenge the moderator's action... and also to raise
the questions raised in Mr. Metherell's petition."

Jensen argued that once the petitions were presented to Abu-Akel, they were
"locked in ... the die had been cast."

Woods, arguing for dismissal, contended that the PJC has no jurisdiction over
the moderator and stated clerk.

Jensen, who requested a trial in the case, countered: "A dismissal at this
stage will send a clear message to the church ... that the constitutional
remedies provided in the Book of Order for the minority to seek justice are
mere words, with no real meaning."

Woods contended that "all actions by the moderator and stated clerk were done
constitutionally, prudently, with good speed and with established
procedures."

She noted that when Abu-Akel received Metherell's petition, he immediately
asked the Office of the General Assembly to begin planning for a special
meeting, but soon began hearing from commissioners who said they no longer
wanted a called Assembly.

Woods said "there never was a second vote." Jensen responded by displaying a
copy of Kirkpatrick's certification letter, which asked commissioners to
check one of two boxes, one marked "yes," the other marked "no," noting that
it looked a lot like a ballot.

Woods said the moderator and stated clerk were concerned about the high cost
of convening a special meeting of the Assembly, and in opposing the idea,
were exercising good stewardship. Jensen pointed out that Metherell had
suggested that the PC(USA) could reduce expenses by holding the session in a
church.

Metherell attended the hearing as a spectator, as did the Rev. William
Pawson, the pastor of the Canton church.

	

*** For instructions on using this system (including how to UNJOIN this
meeting), send e-mail to mailrequests@ecunet.org
------------------------------------------
Send your response to this article to pcusa.news@pcusa.org

------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send an 'unsubscribe' request to

pcusanews-request@halak.pcusa.org