In all of the conversation about other important issues, I haven’t heard much about guaranteed appointments. It was a hot topic before General Conference, and I figure we’ll eventually hear about it again.
In any case, apparently this is what came out of the legislative committee for Ministry and Higher Education and was adopted by General Conference on one of the consent calendars (these tended to fly under the radar a bit more than some of the more high-profile marathon-debate type stuff):
There are professional responsibilities (¶340) that elders are expected to fulfill and that represent a fundamental part of their accountability and a primary basis of their continued eligibility for annual appointment. These shall include:
a) Continuing availability for appointment;
b) Growth in vocational competence and effectiveness through continuing formation is expected of conference members. The board of ordained ministry (¶ 634.2n) shall set minimal standards and specific guidelines for continuing formation for members of their conference and ensure their availability. Further specificity of priorities for current appointments shall be arranged in consultations with appropriate bodies in that setting.
c b) Annual participation in a process of evaluation with committees on pastor-parish relations or a comparable body comparable authority as well as annual participation in a process of evaluation with the district superintendent or comparable authority;
c) Evidence of continuing effectiveness reflected in annual evaluations by the Pastor-Parish Relations Committee and by the District Superintendent or comparable authorities;
d) Annual participation in evaluation with his or her district superintendent Growth in professional competence and effectiveness through continuing education and formation. The Board of Ordained Ministry shall may set the minimum standards and specific guidelines for continuing education and formation for conference members;
e) Willingness to assume supervisory and mentoring responsibilities within the connection.
3. If an elder fails to meet these professional responsibilities, the provisions of ¶ 362.4c may be invoked the bishop may request suspension, recommend an involuntary leave of absence, suggest the voluntary surrender of credentials, seek the administrative location of the elder, or file a complaint. Any elder who does not demonstrate growth in vocational competence and effectiveness as defined by the annual conference and any elder who will not accept the appointment determined by the bishop forfeits the right to an appointment.
3. When an elder’s effectiveness is in question, the bishop shall complete the following procedure:
a. Identify the concerns. These can include an elder’s failed professional responsibilities, vocational ineffectiveness, or refusal of Episcopal appointment.
b. Hold supervisory conversations with the elder that identifies the concerns, and designs collaboratively with the elder, a corrective plan of action.
c. Upon evaluation, determine that the plan of action has not been carried out or produced fruit that gives a realistic expectation of future effectiveness.
4. If an elder fails to meet professional responsibilities (¶340), does not demonstrate vocational competence or effectiveness as defined by the annual conference through the board of ordained ministry and cabinet, and/or does not accept the appointment determined by the bishop, then an appointment may be forfeited and the provisions of ¶362 may be invoked.
Anyway, just thought you might want to know about this.
3 thoughts on “Guaranteed Appointments Anyone?”
Wow. So no guaranteed appointment but an obligation to go where sent.
I suppose that is the way it is.
Matt, I believe this measure actually failed on the consent calendar. Check out the UMNS article here. Are we talking about the same topic?
Here is the one I was looking at. I could be wrong, but it looks like it was recommended for adoption and passed the plenary vote. I’m not sure what the UMNS article is talking about. Maybe someone could clear this up.