PCUSA office seeks to shield moderator from denominational court oversight
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, October 13, 2003
PHILADELPHIA – The Committee on the Office of the General Assembly is trying to construct a wall of protection to keep the moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA) out of harm’s way if General Assembly commissioners ever again attempt to force a called meeting of the national governing body.
During its October meeting in Philadelphia, the committee sanctioned a change in the Standing Rules of the General Assembly and proposed the text for an authoritative interpretation by the 216th General Assembly.
Together, those actions would all but prevent another episode like the one that concluded with the denomination’s highest court reprimanding Fahed Abu-Akel, moderator of the 214th General Assembly.
Abu-Akel was scolded because he personally lobbied against a petition by 52 commissioners – two more than required – to call the 214th General Assembly back into session to deal with disciplinary issues arising out of widespread defiance of the PCUSA Constitution.
The change in the standing rule (G.2.g) will be the most dramatic. The 215th General Assembly – with the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly concurring – declared null and void that rule, which states in part:
“… If the General Assembly deems such compliance [with an order of the General Assembly’s Permanent Judicial Commission] inadequate, the assembly may make such further order or orders as it deems necessary to ensure compliance, and may consult with the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission before issuing further orders.”
In other words, the negation of the standing rule prevents the General Assembly from honoring a constitutitionally permitted procedure that allowed a minority of the commissioners of any General Assembly to call that session back into business for disciplinary considerations.
Furthermore, the Committee on the General Assembly will ask the 216th General Assembly to change Standing Rule F.2 – which would make the moderator accountable only to the General Assembly and not to the General Assembly’s Permanent Judicial Commission.
The proposal adds a sentence to F.2.b (under the heading of “Functions of the Moderator”) that says the moderator’s reports would be reviewed by the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly and the General Assembly Council – and not by the court.
The proposal also includes a recommended authoritative interpretation that would deny that the moderator is an “entity” of the General Assembly.
In its ruling on the petition for the called meeting, the Permanent Judicial Commission said the moderator was an “entity” of the General Assembly and that, therefore, his actions were subject to review by the court.
The issue of whether a General Assembly can be the court of last resort in cases involving the moderator and the stated clerk erupted late last year with a petition campaign, led by Dr. Alexander F. Metherell, to require Abu-Akel to call the General Assembly back into session.
Metherell cited Standing Rule G.2.g as the grounds for the petition. Abu-Akel, on the advise of Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick’s office, declared the petition invalid even though it contained the required number of signatures. In its process of considering the petition, Kirkpatrick’s office asked commissioners who signed the petition to reconsider their position, which some did.
After Abu-Akel invalidated the petition, the session of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Canton, Ohio, filed a remedial complaint, accusing Abu-Akel and Kirkpatrick of violating the constitutional provision for the called meeting. The complaint identified Abu-Akel and Kirkpatrick as “entities” of the General Assembly.
In a preliminary ruling, the court said the Permanent Judicial Commission “finds that it has jurisdiction over the Moderator as an entity of the General Assembly. …” It removed Kirkpatrick from the case because the complaint “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
In March of 2003, the Permanent Judicial Commission dismissed the Westminster complaint but reprimanded Abu-Akel because he “acted improperly in his letter of January 14, 2003, when he ‘implored [the Requesters] in the name of Christ and for the good of the Presbyterian Church (USA) to reconsider [their] decision’ to call for a special Assembly.”
But the court also ruled that Kirkpatrick’s office was permitted to ask commissioners who signed the petition whether they continued to want the General Assembly to reconvene.