Stated clerks void stay in Hollywood case despite Book of Order By John H. Adams The Layman Online Wednesday, July 27, 2005 Dr. Alan J. Meenan and Dr. David Manock of First Presbyterian Church in Hollywood made a brief return to attend worship services on June 26 – but they've been absent since as their exile nears three months. Meenan and Manock returned on that Sunday to attend all four worship services. They received standing ovations, and Meenan, the senior minister, spoke briefly at the services. But their banishment was resumed after the stated clerks of the Presbytery of the Pacific and the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii issued a joint statement declaring that they had not met Book of Order requirements for a stay of enforcement. Margy Wentz of the synod and Frank Marshall of the presbytery said they got their authority to reject the petition for a stay from the constitutional services staff of the Office of the General Assembly. They did not name to whom they talked. "After consultation with the Office of the General Assembly, Department of Constitutional Services, we have been advised that because there is a requirement that both presbytery and synod clerks must received (sic) the signatures, remedial complaints, and request for a stay, that it is those individuals who must determine whether or not a stay has been secured," they said. Supporters of the two evangelical ministers, who collected the signatures for Meenan and Manock, believe they met the requirements. They secured the signatures of 51 commissioners who attended the May 10 presbytery meeting, when the presbytery affirmed the administrative commission's order placing the two men on paid administrative leave beginning on May 4. The signatures represented one third of the commissioners at that meeting. D-6.0103a(1) of the Book of Order describes how a stay of enforcement of an action by a governing body is obtained: "A stay of enforcement signed by at least one third of the members recorded as present when the decision or action was made by the governing body …" Furthermore, that section of the Book of Order outlines the proper method for rejecting a stay. It does not provide for immediate nullification of a petition by stated clerks. Rather, it allows the presbytery to appeal to the synod to end the stay. D-6.0103d says, "The respondent may, within forty-five days of the filing of a stay of enforcement, file with the permanent judicial commission having jurisdiction over the case an objection to the stay of enforcement, whereupon no fewer than three members of such permanent judicial commission shall conduct a hearing on all of the issues relating to the stay of enforcement." But Wentz and Frank Marshall unilaterally, without following the Book of Order appeal procedure, declared that the petition did not pass muster. They argued that the stay of enforcement required that Meenan and Manock include with the 51 signatures their complaints that the presbytery had violated other constitutional requirements by placing them on administrative leave. In fact, though, Meenan and Manock had filed remedial action against the presbytery prior to the petition for a stay of enforcement. "We must conclude that there is currently no stay of enforcement," the stated clerks said, listing their reasons: "No remedial complaint accompanied the request for stay; "Neither of the previous complaints of the complainants match the statement signed by those who (sic) signatures were obtained. Those who signed the petition could not possible (sic) assume that they were asking for a stay of the creation of an Administrative Commission; "No one with authority to declare that there is a stay has done so." Wentz and Marshall conceded that the Book of Order doesn't spell out their authority to reject the stay of enforcement. "We readily acknowledge that tested procedures are not in place," they said. "Whereas D-6.0103a(3) clearly provides that it is the stated clerk of the higher governing body who advises the parties that a stay has been entered, and whereas D-6.0101a(1) only states that it is the clerks of the respective presbytery and synod who receive the complaint, the request for stay and the requisite signatures." They also did not cite any constitutional requirement that allowed them to summarily dismiss the stay of enforcement. Instead, they inverted the appeal procedure outlined in the Book of Order. Rather than saying that the presbytery had the right to appeal the stay, they said: "If either party [Meenan or Manock] wishes to appeal this determination of the presbytery and synod, they should go to the Synod Permanent Judicial Commission, where the complaints are now lodged." Mike Lowe, a member of Hollywood Presbyterian Church, analyzed the ruling by the stated clerks and said they were wrong. He disputed: Their contention that the stay did not begin when the 51 signatures were delivered to the presbytery. "Section D-6.0103a(1) clearly states that a stay may be entered by delivering to the stated clerks the appropriate documents. One of the canons of statutory interpretation is to give words their plain meaning." Their contention that the signatures were not accompanied by a remedial complaint. "D-6.0103(a)(1) does require that both the complaint and the request for a stay of enforcement be delivered to the stated clerks. However, it does not expressly require that the complaint and the request be delivered at the same time. Because the related June 1, 2005 complaint already had been delivered at the time that the stay request was delivered to the stated clerks, the requirements of Section D-6.0103a(1) appear to have been satisfied." Their argument that the wording on the petition for the stay didn't match the ministers' previous complaints. "I think this is a weak argument. My understanding is that part of the June 1st complaint requested the rescinding of the administrative leave and the restrictions on the pastors. This part of the complaint does match the relief requested in the request for the stay, and therefore there does seem to be a proper match between that complaint and the request for the stay. In fact, the stated clerks are not able to point to any authority that says that a stay cannot be requested with respect to a subset of the remedies requested in a complaint – and such a requirement would not make much sense anyway." Lowe concluded, "In sum, I think that even the stated clerks' strongest argument against the stay – the fact that a copy of the complaint was not delivered at the same time as the request for the stay – can be refuted by the fact that the complaint previously had been delivered, and it should have been obvious to them that the stay was connected to the June 1st complaint. And nowhere in the sections of the BOO governing stay requests are the stated clerks given the right to determine whether a stay request is adequate. Instead, the BOO simply says that a stay is effective upon delivery of the applicable documents. I would think that it would be up to the PJC to review the adequacy of a stay request if there was some doubt. As a result, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the pastors to act as though the stay request is in effect until they hear otherwise from the PJC."

Respond to this article

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