Commission considers whether to try accusations against moderator, clerk By John H. Adams The Layman Online Friday, February 28, 2003 KANSAS CITY, Mo. – While a lawyer representing the General Assembly moderator and stated clerk told the denomination's highest court that its members did not have jurisdiction over her clients, the complainant's counsel argued that the case required a trial on the facts. "A dismissal at this stage will send a clear message to the church that not only are the moderator and stated clerk above the law, but that the constitutional remedies provided in the Book of Order for the minority to seek justice are mere words with no real meaning," the complainant's counsel, Paul Rolf Jensen, told the General Assembly's Permanent Judicial Commission. "If that message is sent, the current constitutional crisis will take on entirely new and drastic dimensions," he added. "We respectfully urge you, in the interests of fairness and justice, to allow this case to proceed to trial." Jensen, representing the session of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Canton, Ohio, wants the commission to conduct a trial of Westminster's complaint that accuses Moderator Fahed Abu-Akel and Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick of acting unconstitutionally by refusing to call the 214th General Assembly back into session to deal with constitutional defiance issues. Jensen and Judy Woods, a lawyer and Presbyterian minister's wife from Indianapolis who is representing Abu-Akel and Kirkpatrick, made oral arguments before the court today. Court officials told them that they will make a ruling tonight and that, if the commission votes to order a trial, a pre-trial hearing will be held Saturday morning. Woods argued repeatedly that the General Assembly's Permanent Judicial Commission did not have jurisdiction, contending that Abu-Akel and Kirkpatrick, who are the highest elected officials in the Presbyterian Church (USA), are accountable only to the General Assembly. But if Woods' view prevailed, Jensen said, the petition to call the 214th General Assembly (2002) back into session could be ignored without anyone being held accountable. After elder commissioner Alexander F. Metherell of Laguna Beach, Calif., presented a petition to Abu-Akel on Jan. 14 with the signatures of 57 commissioners – seven more than required by the constitution – that required him to call the assembly back into session, the moderator and clerk took a number of steps to invalidate that commission. The moderator wrote a letter to commissioners urging them to change their minds, and the stated clerk's office sent out a "verification" letter asking them to vote "yes" or "no" on whether it was their current intent to have the assembly reconvene. In addition, a number of presbytery and synod executives contacted commissioners in an attempt to dissuade them from keeping their names on the petition. If the case goes to trial, one of the major issues would be whether the moderator and stated clerk acted appropriately when they scuttled the special meeting. Woods said they did; Jensen said they didn't. But Jensen added that this question should be a matter of trial and not the basis of a ruling on the request by the moderator and the stated clerk that the case be dismissed. "All actions by the moderator and the stated clerk were done constitutionally, prudently, with good speed and with established procedures," Woods said. She contended that Abu-Akel, immediately after receiving the petition, asked the Office of the General Assembly to begin planning for the special meeting. But she contended that, as early as Jan. 15, the Office of the General Assembly began receiving unsolicited E-mail and faxes from commissioners who signed the petition but no longer concurred. Because of that response, she said the Office of the General Assembly initiated a validation process that asked commissioners to verify whether they still concurred with the petition. "There never was a second vote," she contended. Later, waving a copy of the stated clerk's verification letter, which asked commissioners to check one of two boxes – either "yes" or "no" – Jensen said that the letter clearly constituted a second vote and that neither the moderator nor the clerk had the authority to try to change commissioners' minds. While Woods' major argument was that the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission did not have the authority to hear the case, she also noted that the moderator and the stated clerk were concerned about the high costs of holding a special meeting, which would be the first in the denomination's 214-year history. But Jensen said Metherell had suggested a way to keep costs down – by holding the special session in a church, for instance, instead of a rented civic center. Furthermore, he said, the denomination spends more than $500,000 when it sends 500 staff members to meetings of the General Assembly. The moderator and the clerk were not at the hearing, but they would be questioned – either by deposition or at the trial itself – if a trial is ordered. Metherell attended as a spectator. The Rev. William Pawson, pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Canton, also attended.

Respond to this article

Home · Archives · The Layman · PLC Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Feedback · Links