Memorandum Number 1388


November 01, 2019

In Re: Review of a Bishop's Ruling on a Question of Law in the Iowa Annual Conference Regarding the Legality of a Resolution Pertaining to the Traditional Plan in Light of ¶ 613.19 and Other Disciplinary Provisions.


In light of the content of the documents that we have received, it appears that the question of law was not received until after the close of the annual conference session.  We decline jurisdiction because the response of the presiding bishop does not fall within the definition of a bishop's ruling on a question of law asked during the annual conference pursuant to ¶¶ 51 and 2609.6 of the 2016 Discipline.

Statement of Facts

The Judicial Council received a report of a ruling of law by a bishop. The question of law upon which the ruling was made was submitted a week after the adjournment of the 2019 Session of the conference. During the 2019 Session of the Iowa Annual Conference on June 11, 2019, a clergy member asked a bishop's ruling on a question of law during the debate of 2019 Action Item 506, entitled a Resolution for the Disapproval of the Traditional Plan (Action 506). The bishop reminded the clergy member that this request would not be in order until final action was taken on Action Item 506; the clergy member renewed his request Action Item 506, with as amended, was passed by the Conference. The Bishop granted leave for the clergy member to submit his question of law in writing after close of the Conference session, which the Bishop received in her offices within the time that she granted the clergy member.


Lidia Romao Gulele was absent. 

Warren Plowden, first lay alternate, participated in this decision.


Øyvind Helliesen was absent and did not participate in this decision. 

Angela Brown, second clergy alternate, participated in this decision.


November 1, 2019

United Methodist Communications is an agency of The United Methodist Church

©2023 United Methodist Communications. All Rights Reserved