PRESS RELEASE: MARCHA RESPONDS TO WESTERN JURISDICTION STATEMENT

MARCHA condemns the intrusion into fair process and the breach of confidentiality by unidentified parties who, in the name of “The Western Jurisdiction” have delivered misleading communication to jurisdictional conference delegates, annual conference members, and public audiences.  The statement was sent to all jurisdictional conference delegates, it appeared on the website of the California-Nevada Annual Conference California-Nevada Conference of The UMC | Information regarding the complaint process (cnumc.org), and The Daily Digest, published online by the United Methodist News Service for the denomination, provided the text of the statement on October 31.

As a justice-seeking caucus, MARCHA is always concerned with the underlying systemic oppressions that can justify actions taken, which prompts us to raise the following questions regarding the mentioned statement:

• Who are the authors of the unsigned statement who discuss “the complaints brought against Bishop Minerva G. Carcaño” and claim to provide information about the complaint process as well as the status of Bishop Carcaño’s suspension?
• What was the purpose of releasing the statement on the eve of the delegates’ arrivals in Salt Lake City for the 2022 Western Jurisdictional Conference?
• Why does the statement omit important elements of a complaint process under the Book of Discipline?  The statement from the anonymous “Western Jurisdiction” parties ignores the procedures for managing complaints that include the authority of the President or Secretary of the College of Bishops to dismiss the complaint (¶ 413.3d).
• Why does the statement mislead and misinform delegates and others about the content of Judicial Council Memorandum 1450? What the Judicial Council ruled, by a vote of 5-4, was that a Bishop can appeal to the Judicial Council regarding errors, flaws, and failures in a complaint process only at the conclusion of the process.
• Why does the statement, when it refers to the Judicial Council ruling, not acknowledge the important dissents in Judicial Council Memorandum 1450, and does not give information that will allow delegates and others easy access to the full text of the ruling? What the dissenting opinions in the ruling make clear, however, is the view of four Judicial Council members that “fair process has been violated” and “the Bishop is entitled to immediate reinstatement.”

The statement misleadingly implies that suspension of a Bishop is a routine procedure in dealing with complaints, when in fact it has never occurred previously.  In addition, the jurisdictional committee on episcopacy has discretion to impose suspension only under certain conditions (¶ 2704.1c).

MARCHA continues to be outraged at the injustices in the complaint process related to Bishop Minerva Carcaño.  We are now concerned that by mentioning the name of Bishop Carcaño in its opening line, the statement not only personalizes the information it claims to offer but also contributes to the cloud of suspicion that surrounds any opportunity for fair process, which she is guaranteed to receive in The United Methodist Church.

Therefore, MARCHA repeats and renews our call for the Western Jurisdiction Committee on Episcopacy to remove the suspension that has been imposed on Bishop Carcaño and to allow the complaint process to continue without the cloud of suspicion, innuendo, and misinformation.

Furthermore, we also renew our urgent call to the Council of Bishops to remove the complaint from the Western Jurisdiction’s College to the Council of Bishops, as per paragraph 413.d.iv in the Book of Discipline, to ensure that a fair and equitable process is followed.

MARCHA will continue to closely monitor the process and invites the denomination to continue praying for all parties involved and for a path towards healing and reconciliation to emerge. MARCHA stands ready to be a part of the healing and reconciliation process.