One overture proposes amendments to the Rules of Assembly Operation (RAO) 17-1, seeking to clarify the meaning of the review authority of the Committee on Constitutional Business (CCB) of cases decided by the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC). The second overture proposes amendments to the Book of Church Order (BCO) 15-3, which would allow the General Assembly to vote on reports of the SJC.

At its January 23-24, 2014 stated meeting, the PCA Southwest Presbytery approved two overtures to send to the 42^nd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America. The meeting was held at Covenant PCA in Sun City West, AZ.

An overture is a request from a Presbytery directed to the General Assembly seeking some type of action. Overtures are assigned to the Overtures Committee to be considered, with its recommendations sent to the floor of General Assembly.

One overture proposes amendments to the Rules of Assembly Operation (RAO) 17-1, seeking to clarify the meaning of the review authority of the Committee on Constitutional Business (CCB) of cases decided by the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC).

The second overture proposes amendments to the Book of Church Order (BCO) 15-3, which would allow the General Assembly to vote on reports of the SJC. This overture is similar to the overture approved by Grace Presbytery, with some edits. For example, this overture from Southwest Presbytery is suggesting a two-thirds vote to disapprove of a judicial case (“If the General Assembly disapprovesby a two thirds majority, it may assume original jurisdiction at the point of the original complaint or indictment….”); the overture from Grace Presbytery suggests only a majority vote to disapprove a case.

The 42^nd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America is meeting in Houston, Texas June 17-20, 2014.

The first overture approved by the Southwest Presbytery.

“Overture to clarify the review authority of the CCB by amending RAO 17-1”

Whereas the last paragraph of RAO 17-1 presents a constitutional quandary:

1. In the first sentence of the paragraph the Committee on Constitutional Business is charged with the review of the Standing Judicial Commission’s minutes, but they are not to review the “judicial cases, decisions, or reports” of the SJC.
2. In the last sentence, RAO 17-1 provides that “If exceptions are taken with respect to a case, the Assembly may find this a ground to direct the Standing Judicial Commission to retry the case.”

This is, at best, unclear and more really in complete conflict with itself as a provision. This paragraph begs the question: If an exception may be taken to a case that is so significant that the case should need to be retried, but the only body charged with examining for exceptions is not permitted to examine any cases for exceptions, how may any exception ever be taken? The last sentence is very clear that the exception is to “a case,” but CCB is not allowed to examine cases. Who then is supposed to take an exception? Is it the General Assembly? Clearly there is no constitutional mechanism for that to happen.

Be it therefore resolved that the General Assembly amend the language in RAO 17-1 as follows:

The minutes, but not the judicial cases records of cases, decisions, or reports, of the Standing Judicial Commission shall be reviewed annually by the Committee on Constitutional Business. The records to be examined are: the minutes of the Standing Judicial Commission, the minutes of the Officers of the Standing Judicial Commission and any judicial cases only insofar as they are noted in the minutes. The minutes shall be examined for conformity to the “Operating Manual for Standing Judicial Commission,” and RAO 17, violations of which shall be reported as “exceptions” as defined in RAO 14-11.d.(2). With respect to this examination, the Committee on Constitutional Business shall report directly to the General Assembly. If exceptions are taken with respect to a case, the Assembly may find this a ground to direct the Standing Judicial Commission to retry the case.

Note: CCB has not expressed any desire to become a “super SJC” in their review of SJC’s minutes. SJC case records are often voluminous amounts of technical reading. However, if CCB is to review SJC’s minutes and have any real authority for accountability (which was the original intent of this provision) CCB should be allowed to review everything put before it to make sure it meets the standard in the PCA’s rules, including the constitutional provisions in RAO 17-5 and BCO 14-6 a.

The second overture approved by Southwest Presbytery.

“Revise BCO 15-5. a & b”

Whereas the Book of Church Order (BCO) recognizes a distinction between commissions (BCO15-1), which “conclude the business assigned to it” and judicial commissions  (BCO15-3), which must submit its decision, without debate, for approval or disapproval of presbytery; and

Whereas the BCO establishes the principle that judicial commissions act on behalf of a presbytery, but do not have their decisions finalized until the entire court hears and approves the judgment rendered (BCO15-3); and

Whereas the Standing Judicial Commission of the General Assembly (SJC) has been established (BCO15-4 and Rules of Assembly Operations (RAO) 17) in a way that isolates its decisions from review of the General Assembly, making its judgments final, without approval of the General Assembly as a whole (BCO15-5. a and b); and

Whereas this represents a contradiction in the way the various courts of the church operate—with the judicial commissions of presbyteries operating in one fashion and the General Assembly/SJC operating in another; and

Whereas this contradiction may violate the essential principle of BCO 11-3 that “all Church courts are one in nature”; and

Whereas insulation of SJC Decisions from the oversight of the entire General Assembly may violate the principle of the General Assembly having the power to “bear testimony against error in doctrine” (BCO14-6. a); and

Whereas the means for ensuring that the SJC remain the General Assembly’s judicial commission is already present in the model found in presbytery judicial commissions BCO15-3; and

Whereas, the General Assembly may wish to decide a judicial case, notwithstanding the limiting Vows taken by SJC members (RAO17-1), just as a presbytery does; and

Whereas, the General Assembly may wish to decide a judicial case by not ordinarily deferring to the factual findings of the presbytery or its discretion and judgment  (BCO 39-3.2);

Be it therefore resolved that BCO 15-5 a and b be amended as follows (additions

underlined):

15-5.

a. In the cases committed to it, the Standing Judicial Commission shall have the judicial powers and be governed by the judicial procedures of the General Assembly. The decision of the Standing Judicial Commission shall be the final decision of the General Assembly except as set forth below, to which there may be no complaint or appeal. Members of the Standing Judicial Commission may file concurring or dissenting opinions, or a minority report as set forth in (c) below. The General Assembly may direct the Standing Judicial Commission to retry a case if upon the review of its minutes exceptions are taken with respect to that case.

b. In each case the Standing Judicial Commission shall issue a summary of the facts, a statement of the issues, its judgment and its reasoning, together with any concurring or dissenting opinions. all of which shall be entered on the minutes of the General Assembly and shall be reported by the Stated Clerk to the next General Assembly. The judgment shall be effective from the time of its announcement to the parties. The General Assembly without debate shall approve or disapprove of the judgment, or may refer, (a debatable motion), any strictly constitutional issue(s) to the Committee on Constitutional Business. In the case of referral, the Standing Judicial Commission may either dismiss some or all of the specific charges raised in the case or decide the case only after the report of the Committee on Constitutional Business has been heard and discussed. If the General Assembly approves, the judgment of the Standing Judicial Commission shall be final and shall be entered on the minutes of the General Assembly as the action. If the General Assembly disapproves by a two thirds majority, it may assume original jurisdiction at the point of the original complaint or indictment, and/or assign the case back to the Standing Judicial Commission, with or without the assumption of original jurisdiction, and/or appoint, through the moderator, a special commission to hear the case again, with or without the assumption of original jurisdiction.

If approved, these two sections would read as follows:

15-5.

a. In the cases committed to it, the Standing Judicial Commission shall have the judicial powers and be governed by the judicial procedures of the General Assembly. Members of the Standing Judicial Commission may file concurring or dissenting opinions, or a minority report as set forth in (c) below. The General Assembly may direct the Standing Judicial Commission to retry a case if upon the review of its minutes exceptions are taken with respect to that case.

b. In each case the Standing Judicial Commission shall issue a summary of the facts, a statement of the issues, its judgment and its reasoning, together with any concurring or dissenting opinions. The General Assembly without debate shall approve or disapprove of the judgment, or may refer, (a debatable motion), any strictly constitutional issue(s) to the Committee on Constitutional Business. In the case of referral, the Standing Judicial Commission may either dismiss some or all of the specific charges raised in the case or decide the case only after the report of the Committee on Constitutional Business has been heard and discussed. If the Assembly approves, the judgment of the Commission shall be final and shall be entered on the minutes of the Assembly as the action. If the General Assembly disapprovesby a two thirds majority, it may assume original jurisdiction at the point of the original complaint or indictment, and/or assign the case back to the Standing Judicial Commission, with or without the assumption of original jurisdiction, and/or appoint, through the moderator, a special commission to hear the case again, with or without the assumption of original jurisdiction.