A PUBLIC CALL TO LIFT THE PROLONGED SUSPENSION
OF BISHOP MINERVA G. CARCAÑO
March 16, 2023
We, leaders and members of ethnic caucuses of California-Nevada Annual Conference as well
as national ethnic caucuses of The United Methodist Church, are putting out this public call
because our letter of request (Exhibit 1) to the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops and
Western Jurisdiction Committee on Episcopacy to lift the unprecedented, prolonged suspension
of our Bishop Minerva G. Carcaño was met with silence. We are now left with one option, and
that is to go public.
It is in order to present to you a chronology of the events which leads to this public call.
1. On March 9, 2022, the Western Jurisdiction Committee on the Episcopacy and the Western
Jurisdiction College of Bishops announced that Bishop Minerva Carcaño of the San
Francisco Episcopal Area has been placed on leave from episcopal responsibilities after
they received two complaints against her (Exhibit 2). But the announcement did not
describe the nature of the complaints; instead, the name of the bishop was made known to
the public, while the names of the complainants were kept confidential. The announcement
stated that under the church law a bishop may be suspended for a period not to exceed 60
days. But the announcement did not cite which section of the church law. Apparently, the
church law mentioned in the announcement must be Paragraph 413.3a in the 2016 Book of
Discipline (Exhibit 3). The announcement said that the bishop “shall receive full pay and
benefits during that time while the allegations are under review” and “the aim of which is to
work toward a just resolution.”
However, we noted that the action for change of status of Bishop Minerva Carcaño was taken
prior to the establishment of the Administrative Review Committee which was required to review
the disciplinary procedures. Paragraph 539 in the 2016 Book of Discipline (Exhibit 4) clearly
states that the only purpose of the Administrative Review Committee “shall be to ensure that the
disciplinary procedures for any involuntary action recommended by the jurisdictional committee
on episcopacy are properly followed. The entire administrative process leading to the action for
change of status of the bishop shall be reviewed by the administrative review committee, and it
shall report its findings to the jurisdictional committee on episcopacy and the jurisdictional
conference prior to any action by those bodies.” Therefore, changing the status of the bishop,
from active to suspension, before the establishment of the Administrative Review Committee is
clearly a violation of the fair process.
2. On March 17, 2022, the Methodist Associated Representing the Cause of Hispanic/Latino
Americans (hereafter “MARCHA”) wrote and posted an open letter (Exhibit 5) to the
Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops, “MARCHA is puzzled by the decision of the
Western Jurisdiction’s College of Bishop to suspend Bishop Carcaño while a special
committee investigates the complaints related to the suspension. This action raises concern
as a prolonged process can only produce a negative impact, independently of the result of
the investigation.”
3. On March 25, 2022, the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops wrote a letter to MARCHA
(Exhibit 6), saying that the process was being followed as outlined in Paragraph 413.3a in
the 2016 Book of Discipline (BOD). The letter also stated, “It was for protection from harm
for all parties that suspension was put in place. The BOD allows for up to 60 days, but
should a just resolution be achieved prior to May 7, the suspension would be lifted.”
4. On April 6, 2022, MARCHA requested the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops to lift the
suspension of Bishop Minerva Carcaño. It says, “MARCHA respectfully requested the
Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops to lift the suspension of Bishop Carcaño
immediately, while the complaint process continued to find a resolution.” (Exhibit 7)
5. May 7, 2022 was the 60th day of the suspension of Bishop Carcaño. The suspension was
not lifted.
6. In May 2022, an appeal was sent to the Judicial Council of The United Methodist Church,
the Church’s highest court. Paragraph 523 in the 2016 Book of Discipline clearly states,
“Any bishop shall have the right of appeal to the Judicial Council.” (Exhibit 8). This appeal
was brought to the Judicial Council after the suspension extended beyond the Book of
Discipline’s maximum period of 60 days.
7. On September 5, 2022, the Chinese Caucus of California-Nevada Annual Conference
realized that their bishop was placed on leave for a long time. They were also told that they
cannot talk, visit, or contact her. Thus, they issued a press release to their Bishop Minerva
Carcaño (Exhibit 9), hoping that their Bishop would receive it somehow. The press release
was emailed to many bishops of our denomination as well as many clergy and lay members
of the Annual Conference. Their open letter expressed their admiration of Bishop Carcaño’s
episcopal leadership and guidance as well as her care for ethnic clergy, churches and
ministries. Their open letter concluded with these words, “Bishop, we miss you, we love
you, we pray for you.”
8. On October 25, 2022, Memorandum Number 1450 (Exhibit 10) with reference to the appeal
of Bishop Carcaño was published by the Judicial Council, which comprises 9 Members. The
majority, 5 of 9 Members, ruled, “Therefore, the Judicial Council declines jurisdiction in this
case.”
a. However, the minority, 4 of 9 Members, disagreed with the majority. In their dissenting
opinion, citing various Paragraphs of the 2016 Book of Discipline, including Paragraph
539, the minority stated, “The Bishop’s rights have been violated” and “fair process has
been violated.” The minority concluded, “Therefore, we disagree with the majority
opinion and believe that the Bishop is entitled to immediate reinstatement to her
episcopal assignment.”
b. The minority also noted, “The Bishop that brought this appeal has been subjected to a
suspension that was extended beyond the Discipline’s maximum period of sixty days.”
c. Footnote 1 of the majority’s decision stated, “As of the date of the oral hearing in this
matter, the Western Jurisdiction has not established the Administrative Review
Committee (ARC) despite the fact that ¶ 539 of the Discipline requires it do so. While the
pending matter has not and may not reach the ARC, we observe that fair process will
require that the ARC be established with members appointed to the same as required by
the Discipline.”
9. On October 31, 2022, the 238th day of the suspension of Bishop Carcaño, the Western
Jurisdiction College of Bishops published “Information regarding the complaint process”
(Exhibit 11). There is new information, and we have some questions.
a. For the first time we were informed that the complaints brought against Bishop Minerva
Carcaño were about “violating the sacred trust of ordained ministry.” The phrase,
“ordained ministry,” gives an impression that clergy might be involved in filing the
complaints. Why were the names of the complainant kept secret up to now? A new
benefit, “housing,” which was not listed in the announcement of the suspension of
Bishop Carcaño published on March 9, 2022, was added here.
b. The Information says, “However, a new suspension was put in place at the request of
the Counsel of the Church (¶2704.1c).” No rationale was given to this new suspension.
Paragraph 2704.1c (Exhibit 12) states, “If five or more members of the committee on
investigation so recommend, the jurisdictional committee on the episcopacy may
suspend the respondent pending the conclusion of the trial process.”
c. Paragraph 2704.1c does not clearly specify a time limit of suspension, while Paragraph
413.3a & 413.3b did limit it to a total of 300 days. Under this Paragraph, the respondent
could be suspended as long as the investigation and trial process take.
d. The word “may” in legal terms is an expression of possibility. It normally implies some
degree of discretion. Given the Judicial Council’s ruling of 5-4 vote, did the Western
Jurisdiction College of Bishops take the minority opinion and the footnote of the
majority’s decision, the violation of Paragraph 539, into serious consideration? What
degree of discretion was used in their deliberation to place a new suspension on Bishop
Carcaño, since she has been suspended for 238 days already?
e. This double suspension, the first and the second, will produce a negative impact on
Bishop Minerva Carcaño herself. MARCHA has already voiced out this concern in their
open letter dated March 17, 2022, “a prolonged process can only produce a negative
impact, independently of the result of the investigation.”
f. The discretionary language in Paragraph 2704.1c allows the Western Jurisdiction
College of Bishops and the Committee on Episcopacy to suspend the Bishop as long as
the investigation and trial process take. It means that they could suspend Bishop
Carcaño indefinitely!
10. On December 22, 2022, the California-Nevada Conference Committee on Episcopacy
issued a summary of the process involving Bishop Carcaño’s case (Exhibit 13). It basically
reiterated the information provided by the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops on
October 31, 2022. However, there was one new piece of information.
a. It says, “An individual under suspension should not address work related issues, attend
meetings, or be in contact with persons affiliated with the organization at any level.”
b. The new information above, now prohibits Bishop Carcaño from being “in contact with
persons affiliated with the organization at any level.” This confirmed what the Chinese
Caucus of California-Nevada Annual Conference had heard, that is, they cannot talk,
visit, or contact their bishop.
c. The Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops and Committee on Episcopacy have said
repeatedly that suspension is neither punitive nor a judgment of guilt. How is the action
taken against the bishop as enumerated above, not constitute punitive? We wonder if
the application of punitive in this matter could be viewed or seen by other persons in the
same way?
d. Furthermore, Bishop Carcaño is prohibited to “attend meetings.” Bishop Carcaño is not
only a key leader of the denomination, serving on many general boards and agencies,
but also a strong advocate for refugees, immigrant rights and human rights (Exhibit 14).
She “has testified before the U.S. House of Representative Judiciary Subcommittee on
immigration and Border Security.” Additionally, “A water station in the Sonoran Desert
bearing Bishop Carcaño’s name was placed there by the Humane Borders organization
in recognition of her efforts to save the lives of immigrants crossing this treacherous land
seeking life and hope.”
The reputation of Bishop Minerva Carcaño in the community at large is well attested! Given the
legacy of Bishop Minerva Carcaño, the prohibition against her as mentioned earlier, is most
devastating and hurtful.
11. On December 28, 2022, nine clergy and lay members of the Filipino American United
Methodist in the California-Nevada Annual Conference wrote an open letter to support
Bishop Minerva Carcaño as well as to urge the Western Jurisdiction Committee on
Episcopacy to find a just resolution and end the suspension (Exhibit 15).
12. On January 19, 2023, Rev. Jorge Domingues, Executive Director of Connectional Ministries
of California-Nevada Annual Conference, invited Rev. Peter Lau, Rev. Tikiko Lesuma, Rev.
Tevita Koroi and Dr. Mary Cheng to a zoom conversation about ethnic ministries (Exhibit
16). The letter which the leaders of ethnic caucuses drafted and wanted to mail to the
President of the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops and the Chair of the Western
Jurisdiction Committee on Episcopacy was brought up in the conversation. There was an
argument over the content of the letter. Rev. Domingues and Rev. Lesuma wanted Rev.
Lau to remove or change the statements that the prolonged suspension of Bishop Carcaño
had a negative impact on ethnic ministries and missions in the California-Nevada Annual
Conference. Dr. Cheng supported them. But, Rev. Lau refused to do so. The argument
escalated, when Rev. Lau felt that he was being accused and framed, he left the zoom
meeting instantly.
13. On January 26, 2023, fourteen clergy and one lay member of various ethnic caucuses in
California-Nevada Annual Conference and national ethnic caucuses mailed a letter of
request (dated January 20, 2023) to the President of the Western Jurisdiction College of
Bishops and the Chair of the Western Jurisdiction Committee on Episcopacy (see Exhibit 1).
The letter concluded with these words, “Therefore, we humbly beseech you to immediately
terminate the prolonged suspension of Bishop Minerva G. Carcaño and immediately restore
her to her episcopal office and responsibilities.” As mentioned above, our letter was met
with silence.
14. On February 15, 2023, the Chair of Tongan Mission of California-Nevada Conference sent a
letter of endorsement to the President of the Western Jurisdiction College of Bishops and
the Chair of the Western Jurisdiction Committee on Episcopacy to request to immediately
terminate the prolonged suspension of Bishop Minerva G. Carcaño (Exhibit 17). His letter
was also met with silence.
15. March 15, 2023 was the 373rd day of the suspension of Bishop Minerva Carcaño.
From the above chronology of the events, these are our candid observations:
1. The Western Jurisdiction Committee on Episcopacy and College of Bishops have not
addressed the issue of violation of fair process prescribed in Paragraph 539 in the 2016 Book of
Discipline: changing status of Bishop Minerva Carcaño [that is, suspension] without first
establishing the Administrative Review Committee to review the disciplinary procedures.
2. By prohibiting Bishop Minerva Carcaño from attending meetings and being in contact with
persons affiliated with the organization at any level, is in our view, punitive and judgmental. This
action has hurt and continues to hurt our ethnic ministries and missions in the California-Nevada
Conference as well as nationwide.
3, Placing suspension one after another on Bishop Minerva Carcaño, the Western Jurisdiction
Committee on Episcopacy and College of Bishops show no intention to restore her to her
episcopal office. This, in our view, is considered an indefinite suspension.
4. Providing Bishop Minerva Carcaño, full pay salary, benefits, and housing during the time of
suspension is not the issue. The issue is that the prolonged suspension has damaged the
reputation of Bishop Minerva Carcaño and has discredited her faithful years of services and
contributions to the California-Nevada Annual Conference.
5. The Judicial Council, the United Methodist Church’s highest court, declined jurisdiction in
Bishop Minerva Carcaño’s case. Therefore, the door of appeal to challenge her suspension is
closed. We are now left with one option, call on the members of our conference and the United
Methodist Church to join us to appeal for the lifting of Bishop Minerva Carcaño’s suspension.
We are fully aware that there might be some reactions because of our position in bringing
Bishop Minerva Carcano’s case to the public square. But our Church advocates social justice
and fair process.
Respectfully,
