If I Were on Suspended Bishop's Defense Team ...

by

Special to United Methodist Insight

If I were on Bishop Minerva Carcaño's defense team, I would be pushing at least one major task for the team: providing the presiding bishop for the trial with all of the objections to fair process and all related acts that have occurred to bring the case to trial.

Those objections should have been preserved each step of the way by raising them with the presiding officer of the Committee on Investigation specifically. The objections going to the trial court presider should also include any violations of church law that happened with the committee on investigation. That is the only way to preserve pre-trial objections for use with the Judicial Council, should appeal be necessary.

The second thing I would have been ready to consider would be a change of venue. The team has only ten days to make that request.

A third thing I might push is resuming mediated dialogue with the complainants.

Let me explain each a little more.

First, there is someone in charge of the trial now who has the authority to rule on questionable actions taken by the Western Jurisdiction. While those challenges were probably raised during the supervisory response and just resolution discussions during the suspensions, they should have been written down and raised with the Committee on investigation prior to its hearing. That presider should have made rulings on each objection and any further challenges by the defense counsel should have all been placed on the record of the committee hearing. If any of the objections were not properly answered by the presider to the satisfaction of the defense counsel, they should be now offered for fresh rulings by the trial presider. Objections related to bias would be most appropriate at this point.  

"There is someone in charge of the trial now who has the authority to rule on questionable actions taken by the Western Jurisdiction."

Months ago, I wrote about arcane legal rules most people didn't even know existed. Turns out you can read obout objections for yourself in Paragraph 2710.6 of the 2016 Book of Discipline. If the defense team has failed to follow this part of the rules, they will lose those objections by the time any appeal reaches the Judicial Council. Objections can be made to the court of public opinion, but there would be no legal backing to support such an attempt.

Second, if there is a chance that bias was involved in the actions of the Western Jurisdiction, the defense team has under ten days to request of the trial's presiding bishop to change the location and thus the ones on the trial court (jury) for the trial. That would mean a higher cost of transporting the people running the trial, witnesses, and lawyers for all sides, their housing and meals, and time away from their work and families. Unless the new site were along the southern border or east coast, the trial court pool would be largely white European Americans. While a typical church trial costs the denomination no less than $100,000, the total costs to Bishop Carcaño personally could be also in the range of $100,000.

Third, facing these burdens, Bishop Carcaño might decide to press for a settlement out of court (just resolution). Hopefully, the Church would have found a mediator acceptable to both the bishop and the complainants. The presiding bishop has the authority to begin the trial on time even if negotiations are going on. In other words, being in mediation cannot be used to justify postponing the trial.

We are now moving into the more structured aspects of this case where the realities of a time and place for the trial and pre-trial actions have to be taken. Up to now, speculation on so much of the case has been all that was available outside of the tightly restricted circle of accused, accusers, counsels, and jurisdiction official involved.

"We are closing in on such a painful time when possible mistakes and names could become public and we may all wish that had not happened."

I've offered my opinion on the charges that they had to be bad enough against Bishop Carcaño that she could be taken to civil court by them. Our way of holding bishops accountable is so feeble that it takes a civil law threat to get us to change anything. As Rev. Thomas Frank was quoted in the July 6, 2023, UM News article, “Transparency seems like a good thing. But within a connectional community like the UMC where a lot of people know each other and have worked together sometimes for years, making charges public could be tantamount to ending a career regardless of the outcome.”  

We are closing in on such a painful time when possible mistakes and names could become public and we may all wish that had not happened.

My hope is that the UMC's monitoring agencies, theGeneral Commission on Status and Role of Women and the General Commission on Religion and Race, do get the full picture and can provide an objective assessment of possible bias in this case. Whether they become whistle-blowers or re-assurers remains to be seen.  But we need findings about bias far more than we may need to know the specifics of the case. 

The Rev. Jerry Eckert, retired from the Wisconsin Annual Conference, wrote this response based on years of work with Associates in Advocacy (AIA). While he is an emeritus member of AIA, he does not represent them or speak for them. AIA was formed to support those who are called to be advocates for pastors and laity facing the complaint processes of the United Methodist Church. To reproduce this content elsewhere, please email Insight for permission.