This is as clear as it gets.
I'll be tracking the ongoing 'push' for this - this is where the community is up against 'the machinery'.
On the Policy Institute to be associated with the Bush Presidential Library
Submitted by the Methodist Federation for Social Action
Whereas the proposal to build a presidential library, museum and related policy institute, honoring President George W. Bush, on the campus of Southern Methodist University (SMU) has caused great controversy, and,
Whereas as of mid-March, more than 11,500 people, including 29 active and retired United Methodist bishops, 16 professors, hundreds of clergy and numerous NYAC members, many of whom were among the initial signatories, have signed a petition opposing this library and policy institute, and,
Whereas, the Bush Administration’s policies in relation to science, education, and secrecy of presidential records (Executive Order 13233 in particular113 ) and decision-making, amongst others, have led many to be concerned about inconsistencies between these policies and SMU’s role as an institution of free and nonsectarian academic inquiry–concerns that were echoed in a resolution considered by the 2007 Kansas East Annual Conference,2 and,
Whereas, many United Methodists are even more concerned about contradictions between the Bush Administration’s policies and The United Methodist Church’s Social Principles, including retired Bishop William Boyd Grove who said, “The placement of the George W. Bush library and the establishment of an institute to promote the policies of this president at SMU would be a tragedy. The policies of the Bush administration are in direct conflict with the Social Principles of The United Methodist Church on issues of war and peace, civil liberties and human rights, care for the environment, and health care,”3 and,
Whereas, there are also those who believe that a presidential library would bring with it great prestige and opportunities for historical research at SMU, and economic benefit to the surrounding community, and,
Whereas, beyond the controversy over the library itself, the presence of the policy institute and its role as a partisan think tank created to further advance the Bush Administration’s legacy and policies could damage the credibility of the SMU academic experience and will raise questions about the university’s commitment to free and nonsectarian academic inquiry, and,
Whereas, the Rev. William McElvaney, a professor emeritus at SMU’s Perkins School of Theology has expressed just such reservations in saying that the planned policy institute “constitutes a major change of direction of SMU’s previously nonpartisan educational history and practice,” and, “There was a lack of transparency characterizing the university’s process from the inception of seeking the Bush legacy to be on our campus,”4 and,
Whereas, Schubert M. Ogden, another SMU professor emeritus echoed those concerns in saying a “partisan think tank will unquestionably damage the integrity and the reputation of SMU,”5 and,
Whereas, only three of twelve current presidential libraries reside on university campuses and none have associated public policy institutes, also known as think tanks,6 and,
Whereas, there are four presidential libraries that also have university-related public policy schools, which are not the same as a think tank, and those schools are under the complete oversight of their affiliated universities and are committed to the same goals as their hosts,7 and,
Whereas, in an unprecedented move, this partisan institute would be the first such institute to be located on a university campus,8 and,
Whereas, SMU would not have any oversight over the institute, which Karl Rove is expected by many to be given a key role in running, and that lack of supervision would extend to hiring, even though many of the fellows hired by the institute are also anticipated to serve as professors at SMU,9 and,
Whereas, according to Marvin P. Bush, the president’s brother, the mission of the institute is in part “to further the domestic and international goals of the Bush administration,” including “compassionate conservatism” and “defeating terrorism,”10 and,
Whereas, despite assertions by some supporters of the library and institute that this would not be an issue if Bush were a popular president or were a Democrat, no amount of popularity and no differences from Bush in ideology or political party affiliation would excuse the presence of a partisan think tank on an academic
campus, much less a United Methodist-affiliated one, and much less an institute over which the university has no oversight; a Clinton or Reagan or Carter or Kennedy or Roosevelt or Lincoln or Washington think tank would be no different, and,
Whereas, The United Methodist Church affirms, “Freedom of inquiry poses a risk for established ideas, beliefs, programs and institutions. We accept that risk in the faith that all truth is of God. Colleges and universities can best perform their vital tasks of adding to knowledge and to the perception of truth in an atmosphere of genuine academic freedom. We affirm the principle that freedom to inquire, to discuss, and to teach should be regulated by the self-discipline of scholarship and the critical examination of ideas in the context of free public dialogue…”;11 such a partisan policy institute, with the mission of promoting a particular ideology, at a church-affiliated and nonsectarian university, would be antithetical to the very educational principles that The UMC has espoused, and,
Whereas, SMU is located in Dallas, TX, which is part of the South Central Jurisdiction (SCJ) of The United Methodist Church, and,
Whereas, SMU was founded in 1911 by what is now The United Methodist Church and is owned by the SCJ and subject to the jurisdiction of the South Central Jurisdictional Conference, and,
Whereas, in March of 2007, the Mission Council, which serves as the executive committee in between sessions of the South Central Jurisdictional Conference, voted to allow SMU to lease 36 acres on the southeast side of its campus to the Bush Presidential Library Foundation,12 and,
Whereas, this vote took place in a closed-door session86 13 that violated the spirit of the 2004 Book of Discipline’s mandate for open-door meetings by United Methodist bodies (see ¶721), thereby shutting out input from numerous stakeholders in this issue, and,
Whereas, as an executive body operating in-between sessions and in accordance with the rules recorded in the 2004 South Central Jurisdictional Conference journal (p. 101), the decisions of the Mission Council are subject to review and possibly approval by the South Central Jurisdictional Conference,14 and,
Whereas, in a highly controversial ruling, the SCJ’s College of Bishops issued a legal interpretation that the Mission Council’s vote provided SMU with sufficient authority to move forward with this process,15 and,
Whereas, this ruling contravenes the 2004 Book of Discipline, which vests the authority “to hear and determine the legality of any action taken therein by any…jurisdictional or central conference board or body…” with the Judicial Council (see ¶56.4, which is part of Division IV, Article II of The United Methodist Church’s Constitution), and,
Whereas, the spokesperson for the SCJ’s College of Bishops on this issue, Bishop Scott Jones of the Kansas Episcopal Area who has been an outspoken advocate for locating the library and policy institute on SMU’s campus, additionally serves as an SMU trustee, as does Nebraska Bishop Ann Sherer, 16104 creating a clear conflict of interest, and thus should have recused themselves from voting on this issue as part of the College and from speaking on its behalf in support of its decision to authorize the Mission Council’s action,17 and,
Whereas, furthermore, it was Bishop Jones who drafted the subsequent letter to SMU’s trustees and the Bush Foundation explaining the SCJ’s College of Bishops’ position that the Mission Council had sufficient authority; 18 meanwhile, on another occasion, he explicitly expressed his opinion, as reported by The Dallas Morning News two months before that meeting, that he and the other trustees—not The United Methodist Church—have the final say on decisions that SMU makes about the library,19 112 and furthermore, he revealed in an interview with an Institute on Religion and Democracy staff-person, Mark Tooley, that he, Bishop Jones, had supported the idea of the Bush Library coming to SMU since the first time the topic had arisen at a trustees meeting, before such a proposal had even been made,20 115 thereby deepening these questions about his conflicts of interests, and,
Whereas, on the same conference call on which the SCJ College of Bishops ruling was made, other retired bishops, who have voice but not vote, raised the concern that the Jurisdictional Conference should be the deciding voice on this matter, but were overruled,21 and,
Whereas, retired Bishop Kenneth W. Hicks said in an interview with UMNS, “I think the bishops should have sought legal counsel before writing the letter,” and it “is important that the delegates of the jurisdictional conference be given the opportunity to approve the actions of the Mission Council,” and the article further reports his sense that a $500 million library would dominate the SMU campus and would give it a new identity,22 and,
Whereas, on February 22, 2008, the Bush Presidential Library Foundation and SMU’s Board of Trustees approved the agreement to locate the Bush presidential library, museum, and policy institute on the SMU campus,23 and,
Whereas, it has been reported that 25 of the 41 SMU trustees (61%) have personal, financial and/or political relationships with Bush, which also includes James Holsinger of the Judicial Council and Bush’s surgeon general nominee, raising concerns about wide-spread conflicts of interest in their service to the university in regards to this matter,24 and,
Whereas, the process by which this agreement has been approved raises profound ethical questions, circumvents the authority of and disenfranchises the delegates to the South Central Jurisdictional Conference, scheduled to meet in July 2008, and may be subject to challenge in civil court, and,
Whereas, this process, specifically the request for a decision that no further approval is needed beyond the Mission Council,25 additionally raises questions about whether or not it has been intentionally initiated by members of the Bush Foundation precisely in order to avoid the controversy and circumvent the uncertain vote of the South Central Jurisdictional Conference, and,
Whereas delegates to the South Central Jurisdictional Conference have already vowed to raise the issue of the Bush library and policy institute at the Jurisdictional Conference in July and to pursue a vote on appealing to the Judicial Council regarding the legality of the SCJ’s College of Bishop’s ruling.26
Therefore, be it resolved that the New York Annual Conference fully supports the delegates of the South Central Jurisdictional Conference in regards to this issue and their fight to stand up for their rights and authority related to it and encourages them to pursue all avenues in support of maintaining the integrity of those rights and authority, including voting to appeal to the Judicial Council regarding the legal interpretation of the SCJ College of Bishops, and,
Be it further resolved that as this process continues to unfold, the New York Annual Conference urges the delegates to the South Central Jurisdictional Conference to oppose and reject any proposal relating to the Bush Presidential Library that includes a partisan public policy institute at SMU, and,
Be it further resolved that the conference secretary is instructed to send a letter to the South Central Jurisdictional Conference delegates conveying our feelings, with this petition attached, as soon as possible after the close of conference and in due time to be received by delegates prior to the July Jurisdictional Conference.
1
2
3 J. Richard Peck, UMNS, Feb 1, 2008
4 Marta W. Aldrich, UMNS, Feb 22, 2008
5 Peck
6 Rev. Dr. Andrew J. Weaver, SMU Daily Campus, January 17, 2008
7 ibid
8 ibid
9 Rev. Dr. Andrew J. Weaver, Media Transparency, June 4, 2007
10 Peck
11 “Church-Government Relations,” 2004 Book of Resolutions, pp. 604-605.
12 Peck
13 ibid
14 ibid
15 Linda Green, UMNS, Feb 7, 2007, and
16 Green
17 ibid
18 Peck
19 Holly K. Hacker, Todd J. Gillman, and Sam Hodges, The Dallas Morning News, Jan 19, 2007
20 Mark Tooley, Front Page Magazine, Feb 7, 2007
21 ibid
22 ibid
23 Aldrich
24 Weaver, Media Transparency
25 Peck
26 SCJ delegates, letter to Don Evans of the GWB Foundation, January 31, 2008
1 comments:
Holy Conferencing and Unholy Disenfranchisement
Posted on Mar 19 2008
By William K. McElvaney
A meeting of South Central Jurisdictional representatives, known as the Mission Council, took place on March 14, 2007 in Dallas. Fifteen members of the Council were present to hear SMU’s request for permission to lease campus property to the Bush Foundation in order to continue the plan for hosting the President George W. Bush library, museum, and policy institute. Since the jurisdiction owns SMU it was necessary for the university to receive permission. Both SMU’s position and opposing opinions were presented.
Following the open meeting attended by the press, a closed-door session voted 10 to 4 with one abstention to grant the SMU request. Nothing was said openly during or following the meeting, at least in my hearing, claiming the Mission Council vote would be final, that is, not requiring ratification or rejection by the Jurisdictional Conference convening in July. In hindsight, considering what has become known since March 14, it has become apparent there those present and some not present believed the Mission Council decision would and should be final. Indeed, prior to the Mission Council meeting on March 14, the College of Bishops at its February meeting decided on its own initiative that the Mission Council had the authority of final decision.
In January 2008, representatives of the Bush Foundation, joined by SMU’s leadership, requested the College of Bishops of the South Central Jurisdiction to state in writing that the Mission Council’s decision was final. The vote of the College in reply, accomplished by telephone conference, was unanimous with the exception of one abstention. The next month on Feb. 22, SMU announced officially that the Bush complex would come to SMU. For those of us present on this occasion, it was clear that the bishops’ compliance, heralded as a great example of episcopal cooperation, was the key factor in SMU moving ahead without delay. There would be no waiting for a vote by duly elected jurisdictional delegates in July.
The decision of the College to avoid jurisdictional conference consideration of the Mission Council’s vote has raised many questions concerning correct procedure and use of appropriate authority. These issues involve interpretation of United Methodist documents, including our Constitution, the Structure and Rules of the South Central Jurisdiction, and SMU’s Articles of Incorporation. Here are several examples.
Do Bishops have the authority to render a decision on jurisdictional procedure? The United Methodist Constitution seems to suggest otherwise in Par. 56, Article II.4, which cites the Judicial Council’s authority to hear and determine the legality of any action taken by any Jurisdictional Conference board or body. In the same section there is a provision for appeal of a jurisdictional conference body’s action by a vote of one-third of the full jurisdictional conference members. In other words, has the College usurped the authority that rightfully belongs to the Judicial Council?
Does the Mission Council have the final say on issues it receives and considers? Article III of the South Central Jurisdiction’s Structure and Rules offers these guidelines: The Mission Council is to “receive and consider all matters of policy and proposals coming from any source calling for action by the Conference.” Article III continues, “All actions taken by the council shall be valid until (italics mine) the next regular session of the Conference. Policy decisions and elections to Board of Directors or Trustees shall not extend beyond the next regular session of the Conference unless approved by action of the Conference. Does this sound as though the Mission Council has the final word?
The College of Bishops, with apparent approval of legal counsel, has claimed that the leasing decision by the Mission Council is not a policy decision. How could a decision of such long-term significance and magnitude be regarded as other than a policy matter and decision? If this is not a policy decision, what would qualify as such?
Further, even declaring it not to be a policy decision fails to address the Article III wording and clear intention in saying “all actions” and “valid and in full effect until.” What kind of interpretation obscures these clear statements, or seeks simply to avoid them? It can be noted that legal opinions contrary to those mentioned above are not difficult to obtain.
Article XIII of SMU’s Articles of Incorporation raises additional questions. Leased or sold properties must be “under the immediate discipline and control of the University authorities.” The partisan policy institute, which the Bush Foundation has said is a non-negotiable part of the complex, would seem to be a contradiction to this requirement, since the institute is independent from SMU in the sense that, by its own insistence, it reports only to the Bush Foundation. Also, campus property can be sold or leased only “for religious or educational purposes.” While the library can be said to meet the educational requirements (despite President Bush’s restrictive Executive Order 13233 which threatens the library with censorship by restricting access to presidential papers), the partisan institute fails to meet the criterion for disinterested inquiry so basic to most definitions of higher education. I believe SMU is skating on thin ice academically. An academy at its best is based on critical reflection seeking truth unencumbered by partisan requirement or origin regardless of which direction the partisanship is pointed, whether to the right or to the left.
Whatever the case may be in terms of legalities and procedures, the most troublesome matter for The United Methodist Church is the willingness of the active College of Bishops to accommodate themselves to the Bush/SMU full-court press at the expense of jurisdictional delegates from their annual conferences. It bodes not well for church or society when jurisdictional delegates are disregarded by their bishops’ preferential option for the powerful, when clerical leaders in their rush to judgment don’t defend democratic process, or when Bishops who are elected to be “servants of the servants of God” have become careless about voting rights instead of protecting those rights.
When the active bishops considered the request of the Bush Foundation, why was there no Elijah among them to stand up even if alone? No Jeremiah with a prophetic word? No Mary to announce that God scatters the proud in the imagination of their hearts and exalts those of low degree? No Paul willing to stand down powers and principalities? No memory of Martin Luther King, Jr., who rose up against those who supported an unnecessary and unjust war while using the power of nonviolent love? Why were these exemplars of our faith not visited or heard?
While the bishops encourage “holy conferencing” at General Conference and elsewhere throughout the connection — where people are respected, have voice, and are heard–the active College practices unholy disenfranchisement, at least on this one very significant issue. If current decisions remain in place, it means ten persons on the Mission Council have been allowed to make one of the most controversial and far reaching decisions in SMU’s history. What’s wrong with this picture?
For the most part, I have little doubt that the bishops of the South Central Jurisdiction carry out their duties with faithfulness and in what John Wesley called catholic spirit. At the same time United Methodists, especially those in the South Central Jurisdiction, can hope the acquiescence of active bishops to forces who have shown precious little transparency is not a sign of things to come.
Dr. McElvaney is professor emeritus, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University.
Post a Comment