Hollywood session’s complaint wants commission action voided

Hollywood session’s complaint wants commission action voided

By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, May 12, 2005

The session of Hollywood Presbyterian Church has filed a remedial complaint with the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of Southern California against the Presbytery of the Pacific. The complaint asks the synod court to overturn the presbytery’s decision to appoint an administration commission to take over the governance of the evangelical congregation.

The complaint also seeks a stay of enforcement that would allow the session to resume its role of handling the church’s affairs and to reinstate Alan Meenan, the senior minister, and David Manock, the top-ranking associate minister, whom the administrative commission placed on indefinite leave.

The session, anticipating that the presbytery would support the church’s minority that opposes Meenan and Manock, authorized filing the complaint, if necessary, before the presbytery established the administrative commission.

The complaint was filed by Dennis R. Kasper and Bryan S. Hance of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP in Los Angeles. They are Presbyterians of other congregations who specialize in church cases.

In a summary of their argument, they said:

• “Complainant was not given proper notice and a fair opportunity to be heard prior to Respondent imposing an administrative commission (AC) with original jurisdiction over Complainant;

• “Respondent did not make a full and impartial investigation regarding Complainant’s ability and willingness to properly manage the affairs of its church;

• “No notice was given to Complainant stating the reasons why the session should be set aside;

• “Respondent did not properly consult with Complainant regarding its concerns prior to appointing an AC;

• “and Complainant was not given a meaningful opportunity to present its response before Respondent. For these reasons, Complainant was not afforded fundamental fairness under the Book of Order and hereby requests that Respondent’s appointment of an AC over Complainant be rescinded and that the AC be dissolved.”

The complaint cites constitutional requirements that a presbytery must follow before appointing an administrative commission with original jurisdiction, including a presbytery determination that “the session of a particular church is unable or unwilling to manage wisely the affairs of its church” (G-11.0103(s). The complaint says no such determination was made.

It also cites the decision in a 1979 remedial case, Jose A. Cao v. the Presbytery of New York City (1979) – describing that case as “identical” to the facts in the Hollywood case. In Cao, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission held that a presbytery’s action did not meet constitutional requirements of fundamental fairness.

The complaint listed several ways that fundamental fairness was lacking:

• “Respondent failed to meet and consult with Complainant regarding the Presbytery’s concerns before creating an administrative commission to assume original jurisdiction over Complainant.”

• “Respondent failed to provide Complainant with written notice of the specific act or lack thereof that indicates respondent is unable or unwilling to manage wisely the affairs of the church.”

• “Respondent failed to give notice sufficient in advance of the Presbytery meeting to give complainant, as a session, time to prepare.”

• “Respondent failed to give complainant, as a Session, full opportunity to present its response.”

In the request for a stay of enforcement, the session said “irreparable harm will result to Complainant and the church if the appointment of the AC is affirmed.”

Management by an administrative commission, the request says, “forecloses on any opportunity for reconciliation and healing;” “condemns the congregation to an unending revolving door of pulpit supply;” and provides “no meaningful pastoral care outside of worship.”

The request for a stay also expresses the concern and “belief” that eventually the minority in the church – identified as no more than 10 percent – will become the new session. “This [possibility] has created an atmosphere of fear which will inhibit the session and the church from moving forward if it is allowed to continue. Such action also will severely inhibit reconciliation and healing in the church.”