Should moderator reject a petition for a ‘pink kilt’ General Assembly?
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, March 19, 2003
KANSAS CITY – Struggling to maintain a straight face, Chris Yim, vice moderator of the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly, asked the “pink kilt” question.
Trial notes
“Suppose,” Yim intoned, “fifty very, very funny commissioners requested that the moderator call a special meeting to require the wearing of pink kilts. Would the moderator be required to call the meeting?”
Paul Rolf Jensen, representing the very, very serious complainants in the case of the Westminster Presbyterian Church Session v. the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA), likewise tried to maintain a straight face.
So, in response to Yim’s question, Jensen intoned, “I will have to tell you the Book of Order says what it says, like it or not, regardless of the intent.”
In other words, Jensen argued, the moderator, once he received a petition signed by the 50 commissioners – a constitutional requirement – was required to call the meeting regardless of whether he viewed the issue irrelevant or outlandish.
The “pink kilt” question was one of the lighter moments in the March 17 trial of Westminster, in which Moderator Fahed Abu-Akel is accused of shirking his constitutional duties once he received a petition signed by 57 commissioners who wanted him to recovene the 214th General Assembly to consider widespread defiance of the denomination’s constitution.
INNOCENT BY WAY OF WAR?
Judy Woods, the Indianapolis lawyer who represented Abu-Akel, suggested an interesting reason that the moderator should not be second-guessed about his decision against reconvening the 214th General Assembly.
“It’s very ironic,” said Woods, who was one of the advocates of partial-birth abortion at the meeting of the 214th General Assembly, “that we’re here today when our country is on the brink of war.”
Her point seemed to be that the pending war with Iraq had trivialized the constitutional issues in the PCUSA and, therefore, the moderator should not be challenged for scuttling the recall petition.
The war issue did result in a 2-hour break in the trial, which lasted 10.5 hours. Members of the Permanent Judicial Commission ordered a recess from 6 to 8 p.m. to allow time for dinner and watching President George W. Bush’s speech with his 48-hour deadline for Saddam Hussein and his sons to get out of Iraq.
INFLATED COSTS?
Another suggested reason not to call for the special meeting came from cost figures prepared by Gradye Parsons, an assistant stated clerk in the Office of the General Assembly. He estimated the cost would be $468,000 for a two-day meeting.
But Parsons’ estimate ignored the suggestion of 214th Commissioner Alexander F. Metherell of Laguna Beach, Calif., who initiated the petition campaign and proposed ways to save a lot of money.
Parson’s “Called Meeting Estimated Costs” included sending 564 commissioners and 50 staff members to the meeting and leasing a rental hall, video equipment, electronic voting – the whole works.
But why not, suggested Metherell, hold the meeting in a Presbyterian church – such as his own St. Andrews in Newport Beach, Calif., First in Orlando, Peachtree in Atlanta or Highland Park in Dallas? All of those churches have sanctuaries large enough to hold the meeting and elaborate video systems.
For a single issue, electronic voting is not mandatory, Metherell said.
Metherell also didn’t believe the denomination needed to send 50 staff members to the meeting. If, say, 25 attended, Parsons’ estimate could be pared another $20,000.
Parsons included $40 daily for meal money – a rather high-calorie allowance. Metherell would trim that fat, too.
The bottom line: Metherell’s proposal would cost about 10-cent per member in the Presbyterian Church (USA).
WHEN IS THE DIE CAST?
One of the principal issues in the trial is when the die was cast – or when was the petition final, not subject to second votes or withdrawal of signatures?
Woods sought to convince the court that the petition was not final until every commissioner had the opportunity to change his or her mind.
One of her analogies was that whole presbyteries can vote more than once on the same constitutional amendments. Indeed, the constitution does allow presbyteries to have a second vote – or additional votes.
However, the last vote recorded before the General Assembly begins tallying the presbytery votes is the final vote and not subject to change.
The complainant agreed. Once the tally of the petition began – on the Jan. 14 date that Metherell presented it to the moderator in Louisville – the die was cast, said attorney Paul Rolf Jensen, who represented Westminster Presbyterian Church.
In the matter of presbytery votes, the tallying process by the General Assembly begins immediately upon receipt of the report from the presbyteries. Woods did not mention that the tallying process does not allow the General Assembly to ask the presbyteries to reconsider.
‘SANDBAGGED’ DECLARED UNACCEPTABLE
Before the trial, there had been an agreement between the parties and the court that neither side would present documentary evidence that had not been reviewed by the other side.
But Woods tried to do so several times, and Jensen objected – once, rather strongly, saying the complainants had been “sandbagged.”
Court Moderator Mary Lou Koenig immediately interjected that Jensen needed to cool down his rhetoric. Jensen apologized for using the term “sandbagged.”
There was no reprimand for Woods’ strongly worded questions and comments, especially about Metherell. She accused the physician of being a publicity hound – presenting the petition with a photographer on hand “for his own media.” And she all but said Metherell was trying to hide his knowledge that one commissioner had contacted him and told him that he had changed his mind. In fact, Metherell immediately notified the stated clerk’s office of that commissioner’s call.
In his e-mail to the stated clerk, Metherell did note that the commissioner had told him that he had tried to get him that information earlier. But Metherell said he never received a letter, e-mail or phone call from the commissioner.
Despite what Metherell said, Presbyterian officials quickly asserted publicly that Metherell had told them that he knew for weeks that the commissioner did not want his name on the petition. That was not true.