Re-ordering of wording in paragraphs: One of the most visible changes is that thewording in some paragraphs has been significantly re-ordered. The purpose of thesechanges is to make the fair process provisions overall more sequential in nature and easier to follow. For example,¶ 2627 (¶¶ 2707-2714 in 2000 Discipline) has been re-ordered so that it follows the flow of a trial from beginning to end.

Purpose of Judicial Process: ¶ 2623 (¶ 2701 in 2000 Discipline) has a new introductorysentence that theologically focuses the purpose of the judicial process, as “a justresolution . . . in the hope that God’s work of justice, reconciliation and healing may berealized in the body of Jesus Christ.”

 Attention to Complainants: There is a new emphasis on being attentive to complainants. For example, ¶ 2623 (¶ 2701 in 2000 Discipline) now will give complainants a right to be present at all judicial proceedings, along with the respondent.

Immunity of Participants: A new provision in ¶ 2623 (¶ 2701 in 2000 Discipline)grants immunity to persons who participate in the judicial process, such as complainants, committees on investigation, counsels, trial court, trial officers, resident bishop, cabinet and the like. These persons are to be granted immunity from prosecution of complaints brought against them related to their role in a particular judicial process, unless they have committed a chargeable offense in conscious and knowing bad faith. The purpose is to preserve the integrity of the judicial process and ensure full participation. In the past, many persons have been frightened to participate in the Church’s judicial process, for fear of retaliation. The secular laws provide similar immunity for judges, prosecutors, grand juries and the like. This new Disciplinary provision also seeks to have this immunity be honored by the secular courts as well, to the fullest extent permissible. (Note: a similar immunity provision is added to the complaint paragraph as well - ¶ 359 in the 2000 Discipline)

Chargeable Offenses: No new chargeable offenses were added for clergy. Sexual misconduct, sexual harassment and sexual abuse were separated into three separate offenses (they were combined together in the 1996 Discipline, giving the appearance that they may have constituted one chargeable offense). Sexual misconduct and child abuse were added as chargeable offenses for lay persons.

Statute of Limitations: New Disciplinary language and two new footnotes were added to clarify the prospective nature of the statute of limitations in ¶ 2624 (¶ 2702 in 2000 Discipline).

Composition of Committee on Investigation for Lay Persons: Under the 1996 Discipline, the committee was made up of seven members of the same congregation. Under the 2000 Discipline, the committee must be made up of seven members of a different congregation. Also, if the complaint is brought by the pastor, then the district superintendent, in consultation with the district lay leader, appoints the committee.

Processing Complaint: Under the 1996 Discipline, counsel for the Church provided the chair of the committee on investigation with a copy of the judicial complaint, and the committee chair then forwarded it to the respondent. Under the 2000 Discipline, counsel for the Church will be responsible for providing a copy of the judicial complaint to the committee chair, respondent, complainant and resident bishop.

Counsel for the Church for Diaconal Ministers and Lay Persons: The 1996 Discipline was silent regarding counsel for the Church in judicial matters involving diaconal ministers or lay persons. The 2000 Discipline provides for the appointment of counsel for the Church in these matters (similar to the role that already existed for judicial complaints against clergy).

Preparation of Judicial Complaint: The new wording clarifies that counsel for the Church is responsible for preparing the judicial complaint, and that the committee on investigation is to be provided with copies of all relevant documentation and other exhibits supporting the complaint.

Duty of Committee on Investigation: The new wording clarifies that the committee on investigation’s only duty is to determine whether reasonable grounds exist to support the charges, not to determine guilt or innocence (which is the role of the trial court).

The Committee Process: The new wording clarifies some of the procedural aspects of the committee on investigation process (procedural decisions must be put in writing; counsels may suggest lists of witnesses and sources of written material or questions; the committee should consider only evidence which is relevant and reliable; the verbatim record need not be transcribed if the committee dismisses the complaint or returns it to the bishop; etc.). The committee now has the explicit right to interview witnesses separate from the hearing.

Bill of Charges: The new wording clarifies what is a “charge” and what are “specifications” for purposes of the bill of charges. There also is a new requirement that the bill of charges be sent by the committee chair to the respondent, complainant, annual conference secretary, counsel for the Church and resident bishop within five days.

Committee Findings Other Than Reasonable Grounds: The new wording clarifies options of the committee on investigation other than bringing charges (dismissal, when there are no reasonable grounds, and referral of certain matters to the proper Church official for administrative or other action, such as reconciliation or resolution).

Assistant Counsel at Trial: The new wording defines “without voice” (regarding assistant counsel) as meaning “without the ability to speak to or within the hearing of the trial court”.

Witnesses: The new wording adds an exception to the existing rule that requires witnesses to appear and testify when summoned, when refusal to answer is based on, 1) a good faith claim that answering might incriminate the witness under criminal law, or 2) a claim of confidential communication to a clergyperson under ¶ 332.5.

Out of Court Testimony: There is a new provision that requires the cost of out of court testimony to be borne by the party who makes the request for such testimony. This party also has the burden of showing good cause for such testimony.

Amendments to Bill of Charges: The new wording clarifies the role of the presiding officer at trial in making amendments to the bill of charges, and also clarifies that any charges or specifications that were considered and dropped by the committee on investigation may not be introduced in the trial as evidence.

Combined Trials of Multiple Persons: A new provision expressly permits a combined trial for multiple persons who allegedly engaged in the same offense at the same time and place.

Votes for Conviction and Penalty: The new wording clarifies that nine votes are required for conviction but seven votes are required for the penalty (assuming conviction).

Appeal: The committee on appeals may have legal counsel present who is not the conference chancellor in the conference from which the appeal was taken. A new provision permits an appeal by the Church in cases where there is an investigation but no trial and egregious errors of Church law or administration occur at the investigation stage. The new provision also states that a committee on investigation’s decision not to certify a bill of charges does not alone constitute an appealable egregious error. Another new provision provides that any vacancy on the jurisdictional/central conference committee on appeals shall be filled by the College of Bishops. These provisions also clarify who pays for the expenses of the appeal.

Jurisdiction of Annual Conference: ¶ 2628 (¶ 2719 in 2000 Discipline), which governs the jurisdiction of an annual conference in judicial matters, is amended to include clergy members in a retired relationship.

Complaints

Introductory Paragraph: The introductory paragraph to complaints (¶ 359) includes a new statement that the purpose of the supervisory review is “a just resolution of any violation of [the] sacred trust, in the hope that God’s work of justice, reconciliation and healing may be realized in the body of Jesus Christ.”

Editorial Clean-up: There is quite a bit of editorial clean-up to the wording of the complaint provisions that is not intended to change the process substantively.

Sharing of Information: In the changes from the 1996 General Conference, the “sharing of information” provision that was added in several places (to make it clear that the bishop and cabinet may share information with the local congregation and others) was inadvertently left out of the complaint/supervisory response provisions. This wording has been added now.

Complaints Against Bishops: The supervisory process for complaints against bishops has been amended to make it more consistent with the process used for complaints against clergy persons.

Administrative Paragraphs

Administrative Review Committee: A new provision requires this review committee to conduct a review whenever a probationary member is discontinued. This is an important new procedural protection for clergy.

Honorable Location: A new provision provides that a clergy person on honorable location may lose his/her credentials by vote of the clergy session for failure to submit a report to the annual conference for two consecutive years.

Administrative Complaints: When an administrative complaint is referred to the board of ordained ministry, it now must be handled by a committee of the board other than the executive committee.

Leave of Absence: The wording has been amended to make it more clear that when a clergy member’s request for return from voluntary leave of absence is denied by the board of ordained ministry, the board must begin a process to place the clergy person on involuntary leave, location, or retirement, or take other appropriate action (in other words, the person cannot be continued indefinitely on “voluntary” leave after s/he has requested permission to return and the request has been denied).