An explanation, and arguments to consider, regarding
Amendments to the Book of Order
Approved by the 216th General Assembly (2004)
For vote by the presbyteries

Introduction
This year, there are Amendments 04-A through 04-E. Amendments 04-B and 04-E have subsections. It will be up to the presbytery to determine whether votes should be taken on each separate subsection. For each amendment, we have provided a summary of the subject, a brief explanation of the issue, and – where appropriate and helpful – arguments in favor (pro); arguments against (con). This is not intended to be an exhaustive analysis of the issues; rather, it is to be an introduction. Click here for the full text of the proposed amendments.

Amendment 04-A

Summary: Adds “former COM Elder” to list of those eligible to moderate Congregational Meetings. (G-7.0306)

Explanation: In congregations where there is a vacant pulpit, this amendment would allow the acting moderator of the session to request that an elder who “has been” a member of that presbytery’s Committee on Ministry to moderate a congregational meeting. Elders currently installed as members of the Committee on Ministry are already eligible.

Pro: Increases the pool available to help.

Con: Micromanaging by Constitution.

Amendment 04-B
(two subsections)

Summary: Amendments regarding recognition, voting rights of immigrant congregation leaders

Amendment 04-B.1. Recognizing Immigrant Leaders as Elders (add G-9.0503a(2)(a))

Explanation: Allows presbyteries to determine that leaders of immigrant congregations are elders if: 1) the presbytery’s strategy with the congregation requires it; and, 2) the leadership is the equivalent of elders and session.

Pro: Allows presbyteries to empower natural and traditional lay leaders in new immigrant fellowships without typical sessions.

Con: The Advisory Committee on the Constitution recommended disapproval noting: 1) elders are chosen through the voice of the congregation, not the presbytery; and 2) existing provisions in the Book of Order guide a presbytery in developing new congregations.

Amendment 04-B.2. Granting Leaders of Immigrant Fellowship Voice and Vote at Presbytery (add G-9.0503a(2)(b))

Explanation: Allows presbyteries to grant voice and vote to the determined leadership of immigrant fellowships on an annual basis prior to the congregation being chartered as a PC(USA) church.

Pro: Increases the potential for immigrant congregation leadership to participate at presbytery.

Con: The Advisory Committee on the Constitution recommended disapproval noting: “individuals have voice and vote in governance, not organizations.” Elders and Ministers of Word and Sacrament are eligible; granting vote to others is inconsistent with that standard.

Amendment 04-C

Summary: Clarifying the process for ending Parish Associate Relationship.

Explanation: Specifies that a parish associate relationship terminates when the call to the installed pastor is dissolved. The previous language was ambiguous enough to allow a reading that the parish associate relationship was tied to an agreement with the session.

Pro: Makes clear that a parish associate relationship terminates upon the retirement or move of the installed pastor.

Con: Prevents sessions and congregations from having the option of maintaining a parish associate relationship in the absence of an installed pastor.

Amendment 04-D

Summary: Clarifying time limits for challenging preliminary jurisdictional issues.

Explanation: Puts a time limit (within 30 days of the receipt) for the initiation of a challenge regarding preliminary jurisdictional issues for trial (D-6.0306a); for appeal in a remedial case (D-8.0302); and, appeal in a disciplinary case.

Pro: Clarifies early process.

Con: Invites extra procedural steps and delay as appeals of preliminary issues must be taken at an early, time-certain stage.

Amendment 04-E

Summary: Amendments resulting from concern with abuse.

Note: Amendments are a yes/no proposition; thus, the language proposed is not subject
to modification in the process of voting on this amendment. A “no” vote is not a vote in favor of abuse.

Amendment 04-E.1. Reporting requirements

Explanation: Officers shall report “to ecclesiastical and civil legal authorities” knowledge of abusive situations.

Pro: Establishes a clear duty to report when abuse is at issue; following “a long-standing principle of confidentiality that [it] is waived when a person is in danger of doing harm to oneself, or of doing harm to another person.”

Con: Requires wide reporting to unspecified authorities, such as “ecclesiastical authorities.” Establishing this duty also exposes the church to tremendous liability in the event of a failure to timely report to all reporting agencies.

Amendment 04-E.1.a. Reporting requirements for Ministers

Amendment 04-E.1.b. Reporting requirements for Elders

Amendment 04-E.1.c. Reporting requirements for Deacons

Amendment 04-E.2. Empowering PJC’s to conduct inquiries after the accused either has renounced jurisdiction or died.

Explanation: This amendment creates an administrative proceeding that grows out of a non-determinatively concluded judicial process – that is, a case in which the accused either renounces jurisdiction or dies prior to a finding. This amendment would create the possibility for an administrative commission to be created to make inquiry, be empowered to receive witnesses, consider evidence, and “reach a determination of truth related to the accusation and make a full report” including recommendations for appropriate action.

Pro: Arises out of the situation where an individual accused of numerous serious abuse offenses died during the pendancy of the disciplinary process. An administrative commission empowered to conduct this inquiry could recommend a pastoral response including findings of fact, expressions of the church’s sorrow and repentance, and other “appropriate action” which could include financial compensation.

Con: The Advisory Committee on the Constitution recommended disapproval because “Although the proposed amendment claims that the proposed inquiry will not be a part of the church’s judicial system, the result envisioned is quasi-judicial.”

Amendment 04-E.3.

Explanation: Adds language to the Preamble to the Rules of Discipline recognizing that the purpose of church discipline involves seeking justice and restoration for all parties involved.

Pro: The amendment adds language specifically recognizing the need for justice and restoration for victims and accusers.

Con: Blurs the line distinguishing between the role of church discipline and secular civil and criminal processes. Confusing the two creates risks for the victim as well as to the church.

Amendment 04-E.4. Imposing Administrative Leave
(adding D-10.0106)

Explanation: This amendment creates a preliminary process and constitutional authority to determine whether to place a minister of Word and Sacrament on administrative leave in cases where sexual abuse is alleged. The moderator of the Permanent Judicial Commission names two members or former members of the PJC to make a determination. The language of the standard for the determination needs to be quoted directly: The PJC members “after giving the accused the opportunity to be heard, shall determine whether the risk to the congregation and to potential victims of abuse, when considered in light of the nature and probable truth of the allegations, requires administrative leave or other restrictions upon the minister’s service.”

Pro: Creates a clear process for determining whether a minister should be placed on leave of absence in specific, limited circumstances. The preliminary determination may be for administrative leave; and a determination to impose an administrative leave may be appealed.

Con: False accusations of sexual misconduct, particularly if given the appearance of being validated by a governing body placing the accused on leave of absence, can irreparably damage the reputation of the accused.

Amendment 04-E.5. Informing Accusers of Rights
(amending D-10.0202 and D-10.0203)

Explanation: This amendment does not add any rights, it simply puts in place requirements to inform the accuser of two rights: 1) to have a written explanation of an investigating committee’s process; and 2) to be accompanied by an advocate to provide support and consultation.

Pro: Provides clarity of process and the availability support for accusers.

Con: Requires investigating committees to create a written process upon initial convening, which may take time and would be substantial fodder for appeal.

Amendment 04-E.6. Disclosure in Alternative Forms of Resolution
(amending D-10.0202g)

Explanation: Adds a section requiring governing body approval and reporting of an alternative dispute agreement.

Pro: Provides useful clarification of the process for approving the settlement of disciplinary charges. It aids in preventing secrecy from dominating sexual abuse and sexual abuse and misconduct cases.

Con: Would be a strong disincentive to participate in alternative dispute resolution if the matter and proposed resolution are going to be publicly debated.

Amendment 04-E.7. Providing for Victim Impact Statement
(amending D-11.0403e)

Explanation: After guilty plea or finding of guilt, the governing body should (up from may) hear evidence about the consequences of the offense. The amendment also adds a sentence allowing for the person harmed to submit a “victim impact” statement, which would not be subject to cross examination.

Pro: It allows the voice of the victim to be part of the censure process.

Con: The Advisory Committee on the Constitution recommended against this provision to the extent that no cross-examination would be allowed because “the tone and style of the judicial process becomes punitive to the accused and removes from her/him important judicial protections.”

Amendment 04-E.8. Including “voluntary” acts of repentance in rehabilitation program
(amending D-12.0103 and D-12.0104)

Explanation: Adds a new paragraph allowing permanent judicial commissions to include specific advice for elements to be included in rehabilitation of the offender; listing “public acknowledgement of guilt, community service, symbolic restoration of what was lost by the person who was harmed, and/or contributions toward documented medical/psychological expenses incurred by the person who was harmed.”

Pro: Zacchaeus’ response to his encounter with Jesus is expressed by his freely acknowledging his sin and by assuming corrective action. This Scripture makes clear that repentance can include voluntary restitution as an outward expression of inner change.

Con: Tailoring “voluntary” acts of repentance to include an enumerated list of “suggested” actions is easily and likely misconstrued as an order to do so. Restitution to victims is almost available through the secular judicial process and is beyond the authority of church PJCs.

Amendment 04-E.9. Allowing A Prosecuting Committee to Appeal a Not Guilty Finding
(amending D-13.0102 and D-13.0106)

Explanation: Under the current form of the Rules of Discipline there is no recourse at the first level of a disciplinary case for the prosecuting committee if a session or permanent judicial commission commits reversible error in the process leading to a finding the accused not guilty. This amendment ensures that all parties have the same opportunity, in the service of justice to appeal for the correction of errors.

Pro: Provides specific grounds for a prosecuting committee to seek remedy of process errors.

Con: Provides broader appeal rights than secular judicial courts and perpetuates disciplinary cases in a manner that may discourage victims from seeking civil remedies.

This material was prepared by The Rev. Bob Davis, member of the Coalition Board of Directors and former executive director of the Presbyterian Forum.