Old Martinez United Methodist Church
PO Box 2025, Martinez CA 94553
7/18/2009
Dear Friends:
With great regret, we must inform you that the nearly 50-year life of the congregation of the Martinez United Methodist Church has effectively ended. The officers and committee members have nearly unanimously resigned. Most members have chosen to discontinue their attendance. This occurred after our church was hijacked by the District Superintendent and the Bishop and turned over to a new congregation which had previously had no members in our congregation. The building remains, but the people of the congregation, the real church, are gone.
The Conference violated the Discipline of the United Methodist Church (paragraphs 431 and 432) by reassignment of our pastor and assignment of a new pastor without consultation or assessment of the impact on our pastor and his family and the congregation of Martinez UMC. We made repeated efforts to provide our consultation about pastoral assignment and its impact. We even tried to get an explanation from the District Superintendent and Bishop. We were told, however, that they were not required to listen to our consultation and we received evasive and disingenuous reasons for their actions. Clearly, the best interests of our decades old congregation were not a primary consideration. The impact of their unilateral acts has decimated our congregation to such a degree that we are no longer viable.
Briefly, our pastor was removed and replaced by a Tongan pastor whose career experience is in leading Tongan language worship. He was to serve as our pastor and to serve the Tongan Fellowship, which had used our facilities. Further, we were expected to fund 75-80% of a substantially increased salary and benefit cost, an impossible burden on a decimated congregation. Rather than explain at greater length here, we have established a web site with copies of the relevant correspondence between our PPRC, the congregation as a whole, and the Conference Bishop and Superintendent.
The plan for the hijacking of our church became clear when Sunday, July 5, 2009, 10:30 AM worship was led by the new pastor, Rev, Afuhia Akolo, assisted by Rev. Renae Extrum-Fernandez, the Superintendent of the Bay View District. For the first time, this service was attended by a large number of Tongans (estimate over 40). They were sworn in as members of Martinez United Methodist Church. A Charge Conference was announced for July 18, 2009 to “set pastoral compensation and elect officers”. We conclude that this take over action was the “Greater Plan,” which the District Superintendent would not share with us. Quite frankly, with no discussion, no honest information, this was a hostile takeover.
To access the web site containing the correspondence mentioned above, go to http://deadMtzUMC.blogspot.com. If you have questions, you may address emails to us at deadMtzUMC@aol.com. If you have no access to the internet, you can reach us at the PO Box above. A few of us from the old congregation will continue to be accessible at that address
Again, we regret to inform you of this situation. We had a good run since the church was established in 1959, but it has now come to an end. We hope that this information helps you understand what has happened here. If you continue to worship in a United Methodist Church, we hope our open communication of our experience will help you protect your own church from a similar experience.
Sincerely,
The Former Leaders of the Martinez United Methodist Church on behalf of the large majority of the congregation and all but one officer and one committee member.
s /Sue Beadle, Former Lay leader
s /Jim Trusler, Former Trustees Chair
s /Lucille Bennett, Former Admin Board Chair
s /Maria Sartin, Former Treasurer
s /Bob Sartin, Former Pastor-Parish Committee & Finance Committee Chairs
July 18, 2009
Letter to Bay View District Pastors
Old Martinez United Methodist Church
PO Box 2025, Martinez CA 94553
July 18, 2009
Dear Bay View District Pastor:
With great regret, we must inform you that the nearly 50-year life of the congregation of the Martinez United Methodist Church has effectively ended. The officers and committee members have nearly unanimously resigned. Most members have chosen to discontinue their attendance. This occurred after our church was hijacked by the District Superintendent and the Bishop and turned over to a new congregation which had previously had no members in our congregation. The building remains, but the people of the congregation, the real church, are gone.
We, the former officers of the Martinez United Methodist Church, are providing you with this information and referenced web site in the belief that your church situation after this 2009 round of pastoral appointments can be no worse than ours. We hope that our bad experience with the Bay View District Superintendent’s and the California-Nevada Conference Bishop’s unwillingness to communicate openly with our Pastor Parish Relations Committee during the 2009 appointment process will open your eyes, allow you to look carefully at your own church situation, and foresee the plan the Conference may have developed for your church without your input.
The Conference violated the Discipline of the United Methodist Church (paragraphs 431 and 432) by reassignment of our pastor and assignment of a new pastor without consultation or assessment of the impact on our pastor and his family and the congregation of Martinez UMC. We made repeated efforts to provide our consultation about pastoral assignment and its impact. We even tried to get an explanation from the District Superintendent and Bishop. We were told, however, that they were not required to listen to our consultation and we received evasive and disingenuous reasons for their actions. Clearly, the best interests of our decades old congregation were not a primary consideration. The impact of their unilateral acts has decimated our congregation to such a degree that we are no longer viable.
Briefly, our pastor was removed and replaced by a Tongan pastor whose career experience is in leading Tongan language worship. He was to serve both as our pastor and as pastor of the Tongan Fellowship that had used our facilities. Further, we were expected to fund 75-80% of a substantially increased salary and benefit cost, an impossible burden on a decimated congregation. Rather than explain at greater length here, we have established a web site with copies of the relevant correspondence between our PPRC, the congregation as a whole, and the Conference Bishop and Superintendent.
The plan for the hijacking of our church became clear when Sunday, July 5, 2009, 10:30 AM worship was led by the new pastor, Rev, Afuhia Akolo, assisted by Rev. Renae Extrum-Fernandez, the Superintendent of the Bay View District. For the first time, this service was attended by a large number of Tongans (estimate over 40). They were sworn in as members of Martinez United Methodist Church. A Charge Conference was announced for July 18, 2009 to “set pastoral compensation and elect officers”. We conclude that this take over action was the “Greater Plan,” which the District Superintendent would not share with us. Quite frankly, with no discussion, no honest information, this was a hostile takeover.
The bureaucratic organization of the United Methodist Church, like many large organizations, provides authority, status and power to selected individuals. When they fail to follow the Christian spirit of the written Discipline about appointments by failing to consider local church and pastoral needs, the result is harmful to the local churches and pastors affected. While the Bishop has the authority to make appointments, he also has the responsibility to consider local church and pastoral needs and the welfare of the pastors and their families.
The pastoral evaluation process includes development of a “de minimis” church profile by the PPRC and a pastoral profile including needs and concerns by the pastor to be provided to the district superintendent. To be meaningful, these profiles need to be read and seriously considered as part of “consultation”, and consultation must be two-way communication engaged in with the parties before appointments are proposed and finalized. If our experience is typical of the preparation and consultation with local churches and pastors about those needs, previously written descriptions of both were not read and no attempt was made to consult about those needs prior to making “irreversible” decisions to reassign pastors.
In discussion of our situation with other California United Methodist Churches, we found that churches and pastors have become afraid to voice their concerns and complaints about their treatment during the appointment process because they rightfully fear retribution by the authorities within the bureaucracy of the United Methodist Church for their challenge to that authority. It is apparent to us that while Jesus challenged the authority of his time, similar questions and challenges are not welcomed within the United Methodist Church. While it is often difficult to manage a large organization by considering and applying the “golden rule”, every effort should be made to do so in a Christian organization. Jesus has called us to follow his example in our deeds as well as our words. The United Methodist Church’s organizational leaders should, but don’t always, do so as well. After all, the reason for our existence as a religious organization is the worship of God when two or more are gathered in Jesus’ name, not the empowerment of a centralized group of officials.
We urge you to keep your eyes open; do not assume that every individual will follow Jesus’ path. Protect yourselves by initiating and documenting all your needs and your consultation efforts so that you avoid being blind-sided by actions of authorities that are not in your best interests.
To access the web site containing the correspondence mentioned above, go to http://deadMtzUMC.blogspot.com. If you have questions, you may address emails to us at deadMtzUMC@aol.com. If you have no access to the internet, you can reach us at the PO Box above. A few of us from the old congregation will continue to be accessible at that address.
Again, we regret to inform you of this situation. We had a good run since the church was established in 1959, but it has now come to an end. We can only hope that this information helps you to obtain open communications from the Bishop and District Superintendent so you can protect your own church.
Sincerely,
The Former Leaders of the Martinez United Methodist Church on behalf of the large majority of the congregation and all but one officer and one committee member.
s /Sue Beadle, Former Lay leader
s /Jim Trusler, Former Trustees Chair
s /Lucille Bennett, Former Admin Board Chair
s /Maria Sartin, Former Treasurer
s /Bob Sartin, Former Pastor-Parish Committee & Finance Committee Chairs
PO Box 2025, Martinez CA 94553
July 18, 2009
Dear Bay View District Pastor:
With great regret, we must inform you that the nearly 50-year life of the congregation of the Martinez United Methodist Church has effectively ended. The officers and committee members have nearly unanimously resigned. Most members have chosen to discontinue their attendance. This occurred after our church was hijacked by the District Superintendent and the Bishop and turned over to a new congregation which had previously had no members in our congregation. The building remains, but the people of the congregation, the real church, are gone.
We, the former officers of the Martinez United Methodist Church, are providing you with this information and referenced web site in the belief that your church situation after this 2009 round of pastoral appointments can be no worse than ours. We hope that our bad experience with the Bay View District Superintendent’s and the California-Nevada Conference Bishop’s unwillingness to communicate openly with our Pastor Parish Relations Committee during the 2009 appointment process will open your eyes, allow you to look carefully at your own church situation, and foresee the plan the Conference may have developed for your church without your input.
The Conference violated the Discipline of the United Methodist Church (paragraphs 431 and 432) by reassignment of our pastor and assignment of a new pastor without consultation or assessment of the impact on our pastor and his family and the congregation of Martinez UMC. We made repeated efforts to provide our consultation about pastoral assignment and its impact. We even tried to get an explanation from the District Superintendent and Bishop. We were told, however, that they were not required to listen to our consultation and we received evasive and disingenuous reasons for their actions. Clearly, the best interests of our decades old congregation were not a primary consideration. The impact of their unilateral acts has decimated our congregation to such a degree that we are no longer viable.
Briefly, our pastor was removed and replaced by a Tongan pastor whose career experience is in leading Tongan language worship. He was to serve both as our pastor and as pastor of the Tongan Fellowship that had used our facilities. Further, we were expected to fund 75-80% of a substantially increased salary and benefit cost, an impossible burden on a decimated congregation. Rather than explain at greater length here, we have established a web site with copies of the relevant correspondence between our PPRC, the congregation as a whole, and the Conference Bishop and Superintendent.
The plan for the hijacking of our church became clear when Sunday, July 5, 2009, 10:30 AM worship was led by the new pastor, Rev, Afuhia Akolo, assisted by Rev. Renae Extrum-Fernandez, the Superintendent of the Bay View District. For the first time, this service was attended by a large number of Tongans (estimate over 40). They were sworn in as members of Martinez United Methodist Church. A Charge Conference was announced for July 18, 2009 to “set pastoral compensation and elect officers”. We conclude that this take over action was the “Greater Plan,” which the District Superintendent would not share with us. Quite frankly, with no discussion, no honest information, this was a hostile takeover.
The bureaucratic organization of the United Methodist Church, like many large organizations, provides authority, status and power to selected individuals. When they fail to follow the Christian spirit of the written Discipline about appointments by failing to consider local church and pastoral needs, the result is harmful to the local churches and pastors affected. While the Bishop has the authority to make appointments, he also has the responsibility to consider local church and pastoral needs and the welfare of the pastors and their families.
The pastoral evaluation process includes development of a “de minimis” church profile by the PPRC and a pastoral profile including needs and concerns by the pastor to be provided to the district superintendent. To be meaningful, these profiles need to be read and seriously considered as part of “consultation”, and consultation must be two-way communication engaged in with the parties before appointments are proposed and finalized. If our experience is typical of the preparation and consultation with local churches and pastors about those needs, previously written descriptions of both were not read and no attempt was made to consult about those needs prior to making “irreversible” decisions to reassign pastors.
In discussion of our situation with other California United Methodist Churches, we found that churches and pastors have become afraid to voice their concerns and complaints about their treatment during the appointment process because they rightfully fear retribution by the authorities within the bureaucracy of the United Methodist Church for their challenge to that authority. It is apparent to us that while Jesus challenged the authority of his time, similar questions and challenges are not welcomed within the United Methodist Church. While it is often difficult to manage a large organization by considering and applying the “golden rule”, every effort should be made to do so in a Christian organization. Jesus has called us to follow his example in our deeds as well as our words. The United Methodist Church’s organizational leaders should, but don’t always, do so as well. After all, the reason for our existence as a religious organization is the worship of God when two or more are gathered in Jesus’ name, not the empowerment of a centralized group of officials.
We urge you to keep your eyes open; do not assume that every individual will follow Jesus’ path. Protect yourselves by initiating and documenting all your needs and your consultation efforts so that you avoid being blind-sided by actions of authorities that are not in your best interests.
To access the web site containing the correspondence mentioned above, go to http://deadMtzUMC.blogspot.com. If you have questions, you may address emails to us at deadMtzUMC@aol.com. If you have no access to the internet, you can reach us at the PO Box above. A few of us from the old congregation will continue to be accessible at that address.
Again, we regret to inform you of this situation. We had a good run since the church was established in 1959, but it has now come to an end. We can only hope that this information helps you to obtain open communications from the Bishop and District Superintendent so you can protect your own church.
Sincerely,
The Former Leaders of the Martinez United Methodist Church on behalf of the large majority of the congregation and all but one officer and one committee member.
s /Sue Beadle, Former Lay leader
s /Jim Trusler, Former Trustees Chair
s /Lucille Bennett, Former Admin Board Chair
s /Maria Sartin, Former Treasurer
s /Bob Sartin, Former Pastor-Parish Committee & Finance Committee Chairs
Letter to Bay View District Church Leaders
Old Martinez United Methodist Church
PO Box 2025, Martinez CA 94553
July 18, 2009
Dear Bay View District Church Officers:
With great regret, we must inform you that the nearly 50-year life of the congregation of the Martinez United Methodist Church has effectively ended. The officers and committee members have nearly unanimously resigned. Most members have chosen to discontinue their attendance. This occurred after our church was hijacked by the District Superintendent and the Bishop and turned over to a new congregation which had previously had no members in our congregation. The building remains, but the people of the congregation, the real church, are gone.
We, the former officers of the Martinez United Methodist Church, are providing you with this information and referenced web site in the belief that your church situation after this 2009 round of pastoral appointments can be no worse than ours. We hope that our bad experience with the Bay View District Superintendent’s and the California-Nevada Conference Bishop’s unwillingness to communicate openly with our Pastor Parish Relations Committee during the 2009 appointment process will open your eyes, allow you to look carefully at your own church situation, and foresee the plan the Conference may have developed for your church without your input.
The Conference violated the Discipline of the United Methodist Church (paragraphs 431 and 432) by reassignment of our pastor and assignment of a new pastor without consultation or assessment of the impact on our pastor and his family and the congregation of Martinez UMC. We made repeated efforts to provide our consultation about pastoral assignment and its impact. We even tried to get an explanation from the District Superintendent and Bishop. We were told, however, that they were not required to listen to our consultation and we received evasive and disingenuous reasons for their actions. Clearly, the best interests of our decades old congregation were not a primary consideration. The impact of their unilateral acts has decimated our congregation to such a degree that we are no longer viable.
Briefly, our pastor was removed and replaced by a Tongan pastor whose career experience is in leading Tongan language worship. He was to serve both as our pastor and as pastor of the Tongan Fellowship that had used our facilities. Further, we were expected to fund 75-80% of a substantially increased salary and benefit cost, an impossible burden on a decimated congregation. Rather than explain at greater length here, we have established a web site with copies of the relevant correspondence between our PPRC, the congregation as a whole, and the Conference Bishop and Superintendent.
The plan for the hijacking of our church became clear when Sunday, July 5, 2009, 10:30 AM worship was led by the new pastor, Rev, Afuhia Akolo, assisted by Rev. Renae Extrum-Fernandez, the Superintendent of the Bay View District. For the first time, this service was attended by a large number of Tongans (estimate over 40). They were sworn in as members of Martinez United Methodist Church. A Charge Conference was announced for July 18, 2009 to “set pastoral compensation and elect officers”. We conclude that this take over action was the “Greater Plan,” which the District Superintendent would not share with us. Quite frankly, with no discussion, no honest information, this was a hostile takeover.
The bureaucratic organization of the United Methodist Church, like many large organizations, provides authority, status and power to selected individuals. When they fail to follow the Christian spirit of the written Discipline about appointments by failing to consider local church and pastoral needs, the result is harmful to the local churches and pastors affected. While the Bishop has the authority to make appointments, he also has the responsibility to consider local church and pastoral needs and the welfare of the pastors and their families.
The pastoral evaluation process includes development of a “de minimis” church profile by the PPRC and a pastoral profile including needs and concerns by the pastor to be provided to the district superintendent. To be meaningful, these profiles need to be read and seriously considered as part of “consultation”, and consultation must be two-way communication engaged in with the parties before appointments are proposed and finalized. If our experience is typical of the preparation and consultation with local churches and pastors about those needs, previously written descriptions of both were not read and no attempt was made to consult about those needs prior to making “irreversible” decisions to reassign pastors.
In discussion of our situation with other California United Methodist Churches, we found that churches and pastors have become afraid to voice their concerns and complaints about their treatment during the appointment process because they rightfully fear retribution by the authorities within the bureaucracy of the United Methodist Church for their challenge to that authority. It is apparent to us that while Jesus challenged the authority of his time, similar questions and challenges are not welcomed within the United Methodist Church. While it is often difficult to manage a large organization by considering and applying the “golden rule”, every effort should be made to do so in a Christian organization. Jesus has called us to follow his example in our deeds as well as our words. The United Methodist Church’s organizational leaders should, but don’t always, do so as well. After all, the reason for our existence as a religious organization is the worship of God when two or more are gathered in Jesus’ name, not the empowerment of a centralized group of officials.
We urge you to keep your eyes open; do not assume that every individual will follow Jesus’ path. Protect yourselves by initiating and documenting all your needs and your consultation efforts so that you avoid being blind-sided by actions of authorities that are not in your best interests.
To access the web site containing the correspondence mentioned above, go to http://deadMtzUMC.blogspot.com. If you have questions, you may address emails to us at deadMtzUMC@aol.com. If you have no access to the internet, you can reach us at the PO Box above. A few of us from the old congregation will continue to be accessible at that address.
Again, we regret to inform you of this situation. We had a good run since the church was established in 1959, but it has now come to an end. We can only hope that this information helps you to obtain open communications from the Bishop and District Superintendent so you can protect your own church.
Sincerely,
The Former Leaders of the Martinez United Methodist Church on behalf of the large majority of the congregation and all but one officer and one committee member.
s /Sue Beadle, Former Lay leader s /Jim Trusler, Former Trustees Chair
s /Lucille Bennett, Former Admin Board Chair s /Maria Sartin, Former Treasurer
s /Bob Sartin, Former Pastor-Parish Committee & Finance Committee Chairs
PO Box 2025, Martinez CA 94553
July 18, 2009
Dear Bay View District Church Officers:
With great regret, we must inform you that the nearly 50-year life of the congregation of the Martinez United Methodist Church has effectively ended. The officers and committee members have nearly unanimously resigned. Most members have chosen to discontinue their attendance. This occurred after our church was hijacked by the District Superintendent and the Bishop and turned over to a new congregation which had previously had no members in our congregation. The building remains, but the people of the congregation, the real church, are gone.
We, the former officers of the Martinez United Methodist Church, are providing you with this information and referenced web site in the belief that your church situation after this 2009 round of pastoral appointments can be no worse than ours. We hope that our bad experience with the Bay View District Superintendent’s and the California-Nevada Conference Bishop’s unwillingness to communicate openly with our Pastor Parish Relations Committee during the 2009 appointment process will open your eyes, allow you to look carefully at your own church situation, and foresee the plan the Conference may have developed for your church without your input.
The Conference violated the Discipline of the United Methodist Church (paragraphs 431 and 432) by reassignment of our pastor and assignment of a new pastor without consultation or assessment of the impact on our pastor and his family and the congregation of Martinez UMC. We made repeated efforts to provide our consultation about pastoral assignment and its impact. We even tried to get an explanation from the District Superintendent and Bishop. We were told, however, that they were not required to listen to our consultation and we received evasive and disingenuous reasons for their actions. Clearly, the best interests of our decades old congregation were not a primary consideration. The impact of their unilateral acts has decimated our congregation to such a degree that we are no longer viable.
Briefly, our pastor was removed and replaced by a Tongan pastor whose career experience is in leading Tongan language worship. He was to serve both as our pastor and as pastor of the Tongan Fellowship that had used our facilities. Further, we were expected to fund 75-80% of a substantially increased salary and benefit cost, an impossible burden on a decimated congregation. Rather than explain at greater length here, we have established a web site with copies of the relevant correspondence between our PPRC, the congregation as a whole, and the Conference Bishop and Superintendent.
The plan for the hijacking of our church became clear when Sunday, July 5, 2009, 10:30 AM worship was led by the new pastor, Rev, Afuhia Akolo, assisted by Rev. Renae Extrum-Fernandez, the Superintendent of the Bay View District. For the first time, this service was attended by a large number of Tongans (estimate over 40). They were sworn in as members of Martinez United Methodist Church. A Charge Conference was announced for July 18, 2009 to “set pastoral compensation and elect officers”. We conclude that this take over action was the “Greater Plan,” which the District Superintendent would not share with us. Quite frankly, with no discussion, no honest information, this was a hostile takeover.
The bureaucratic organization of the United Methodist Church, like many large organizations, provides authority, status and power to selected individuals. When they fail to follow the Christian spirit of the written Discipline about appointments by failing to consider local church and pastoral needs, the result is harmful to the local churches and pastors affected. While the Bishop has the authority to make appointments, he also has the responsibility to consider local church and pastoral needs and the welfare of the pastors and their families.
The pastoral evaluation process includes development of a “de minimis” church profile by the PPRC and a pastoral profile including needs and concerns by the pastor to be provided to the district superintendent. To be meaningful, these profiles need to be read and seriously considered as part of “consultation”, and consultation must be two-way communication engaged in with the parties before appointments are proposed and finalized. If our experience is typical of the preparation and consultation with local churches and pastors about those needs, previously written descriptions of both were not read and no attempt was made to consult about those needs prior to making “irreversible” decisions to reassign pastors.
In discussion of our situation with other California United Methodist Churches, we found that churches and pastors have become afraid to voice their concerns and complaints about their treatment during the appointment process because they rightfully fear retribution by the authorities within the bureaucracy of the United Methodist Church for their challenge to that authority. It is apparent to us that while Jesus challenged the authority of his time, similar questions and challenges are not welcomed within the United Methodist Church. While it is often difficult to manage a large organization by considering and applying the “golden rule”, every effort should be made to do so in a Christian organization. Jesus has called us to follow his example in our deeds as well as our words. The United Methodist Church’s organizational leaders should, but don’t always, do so as well. After all, the reason for our existence as a religious organization is the worship of God when two or more are gathered in Jesus’ name, not the empowerment of a centralized group of officials.
We urge you to keep your eyes open; do not assume that every individual will follow Jesus’ path. Protect yourselves by initiating and documenting all your needs and your consultation efforts so that you avoid being blind-sided by actions of authorities that are not in your best interests.
To access the web site containing the correspondence mentioned above, go to http://deadMtzUMC.blogspot.com. If you have questions, you may address emails to us at deadMtzUMC@aol.com. If you have no access to the internet, you can reach us at the PO Box above. A few of us from the old congregation will continue to be accessible at that address.
Again, we regret to inform you of this situation. We had a good run since the church was established in 1959, but it has now come to an end. We can only hope that this information helps you to obtain open communications from the Bishop and District Superintendent so you can protect your own church.
Sincerely,
The Former Leaders of the Martinez United Methodist Church on behalf of the large majority of the congregation and all but one officer and one committee member.
s /Sue Beadle, Former Lay leader s /Jim Trusler, Former Trustees Chair
s /Lucille Bennett, Former Admin Board Chair s /Maria Sartin, Former Treasurer
s /Bob Sartin, Former Pastor-Parish Committee & Finance Committee Chairs
July 10, 2009
June 17, 2009 Letter to Bishop
Martinez United Methodist Church
100 Church Street Martinez, CA 94553
June 17, 2009
Warner H. Brown, Jr., Bishop
California -Nevada Conference
P. O. Box 980250
West Sacramento, CA 95798
Via email: bishop@calnevumc.org
Dear Bishop Brown,
We have received your letter of June 15th. We recognize the authority granted to the bishop, under the Discipline of the United Methodist Church, in making all pastoral appointments. We take no issue with that authority.
We find your letter unresponsive the content of our congregation’s letter of June 8, 2009. We gather that means you have not considered or that you reject our issues and concerns. We, therefore, regretfully hereby appeal the decision to replace our pastor, Winston Cruz, to the appropriate appeals body and trust you will forward this to that body.
If our above understanding of your position is incorrect or if you feel that you may not fully understand our position or been fully briefed on the situation, we are available to meet with you, if you feel such as meeting might be productive. Of course, such a meeting will need to happen quickly given the short time fore assignments are to become effective.
The basis for our appeal to the appeals committee or other appropriate body is failure to follow the UMC Discipline rules on consultation and appointment, our belief being that had the rules been followed in a meaningful manner, no movement of our pastor at this time would have been considered reasonable or desirable either for the pastor or the church.
In the interim, to provide you with greater detail, we include the following points, which are hereby submitted to the appeals committee.
The Discipline:
We do not find that your letter of June 15 responds to our congregation’s letter of June 1, 2009, wherein the process being applied to Martinez United Methodist Church appears to violate the letter and the intent of the Discipline of the United Methodist Church. Paragraph 431calls for consultation and paragraph 432 further delineates the specifics of that consultation.
431 Consultation and Appointment Making--Consultation is the process whereby the bishop and/or the district superintendent confer with the pastor and committee on pastor-parish relations, taking into account the criteria of paragraph 432, a performance evaluation, needs of the appointment under consideration, and mission of the Church. Consultation is not merely notification. Consultation is not committee selection or call of a pastor. (underlining ours-changed to italics for web site display).
“432 Criteria-- 1. Congregations--
The district superintendent shall develop with the pastor and the committees on pastor parish relations of all the churches profiles that reflect the needs, characteristics and opportunities for mission…”
Our Point: We are unaware of any profile developed by Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez for Martinez UMC with the pastor and/or the PPRC. The Superintendent has not called us to share any developments or to inquire as to our needs, our challenges, or our resources.
Several members of the pastor-parish committee have been in workshops with the Superintendent on at least five occasions over the past eighteen months. At no time did the Superintendent express any concern about Martinez UMC as a viable congregation. We have received no calls of concern.
Further, in each of our past two Charge Conferences, we have emphasized to the Superintendent the impact of the medical insurance on our budgetary process (our pastor has coverage by his wife). We discussed our membership issues. Ours are the same as that of many other congregations. Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez acknowledged the information but did not say that posed an immediate problem to our congregation. Yet when the Superintendent called the first week of June about Pastor Cruz’ reassignment and the current total pastoral compensation package, she stated, and insisted repeatedly, that we were paying $18,000 in health insurance. In a later email, she later recanted her $18,000 compensation package error. However, that was her inaccurate belief when she made her initial recommendations regarding pastoral reassignments. Therefore, we question the extent and accuracy of the MUMC profile as a whole.
“The committee’s role in this consultation is important, but is also advisory,” your letter of June 15 stated. We have not been consulted. Consultation, by definition, means meeting to confer, discuss, to seek the opinion or advice of another before making a decision or taking an action. All these parts of consultation require listening by both parties. Instead, we have been told by superintendent Extrum-Fernandez that we would be dealing with her, while at the same time telling us that the Bishop “made the decision”, implying that she was unable to make any changes to a decision you had already made. We have been told that a new pastor had been appointed. We have been told that we were to meet in conflict with a worship service. We have been told that we were to forward information on the pastoral compensation, parsonage and budget. The pastor-parish committee understands our advisory role; we have not been consulted a single time.
Unilaterally Reversing Decades Of Practice By Former Bishops, Bishop’s Counsels, And District Superintendents: In the experience of this congregation and its pastors and the congregants and pastors of other churches and conferences, district superintendents have met and conferred with pastor-parish committees to fully understand the needs of the church and its pastors well before the time that pastoral reassignments are made. Most recently, the late district superintendent Bruce McSpaden met with this committee in a most caring way to discuss our needs. He later came and introduced us to our new pastor at a time that was mutually convenient both to him and the committee members. Your answer is that the exchanges of written documents are consultation. While useful, we see those pastoral evaluation and profile documents to be aimed at other objectives and not fully explanative of church or pastoral needs.
Pastor Cruz’s Challenges: Pastor Cruz has significant health issues and family issues plus an impending retirement that contraindicate any move at this time. These issues were explained at some length in my earlier letter to you. When we met with the Superintendent to discuss that letter, she expressed no awareness of the details of Pastor Cruz’s challenges. When we asked about accommodations under the American Disabilities Act, she seemed unaware that there might be any concerns here. She did write ADA in bold letters in her notes.
Martinez UMC Challenges And Plans: Martinez UMC has a plan for meeting its challenges in membership and finances. Apparently that plan has been has been ignored; certainly, its details have not been explored. Perhaps, you have not been provided the information we provided the District Superintendent. This appears to be a lack of follow though by the Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez. In an audience with you, we will go beyond the general statements previously given and respond with any details you need.
No Notice Of And Poor Coordination Of Pastor Cruz Being Moved: Pastor Cruz was called early in the week of May 27. He met with the superintendent of Delta district and with representatives of Valley Springs UMC during that week. He advised the Martinez UMC pastor-parish committee on the following Sunday evening of the move planned. On Monday evening, we had a joint meeting with the pastor and PPRC-UMW. In the absence of any contact by the Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez, the PPRC approached you directly via email and hard copy, also sending copy to Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez and the Superintendent of Delta District. Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez then emailed saying that she was speaking for you, that she was “in Cabinet”, and that she would call soon. She called on Friday, June 5, during an emergency meeting of the Pastor-Parish Committee (of which pastor Cruz was aware, but absent). She stated that she expected Pastor Cruz to make the announcement about his transfer the following Sunday, June 7. Apparently she was unaware that he was out of the country on a planned vacation visit to this family in The Philippines. When the Pastor-Parish Chair asked when she had planned to meet with us, her response was, “The Saturday night before,” meaning late on June 6.
Not Communicative:
Your statement that we are not communicating We have responded to all calls, meetings, and emails by the District Superintendent - as delineated in this letter.
“Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez made several attempts to meet with you,” your letter stated. This is not accurate. Our first word from the superintendent came after our letter to you. I received an email on 06-05-09 (a copy is available) stating she would call. As previously noted, she called the following Friday afternoon, during an emergency meeting of the Pastor-Parish Committee. I responded to her in fully in the presence of members attending. I repeatedly stated that we would meet on the day she wanted, after the worship service, not in conflict with it. When she arrived at the beginning of the worship service, she met (inappropriately, in our view) with our Lay Delegate/Member to the Annual Conference in our parking lot. She told him that details on the transition plan would be emailed to the PPRC soon; twelve days have passed and we have received no email. We initiated a meeting with her (June 9th) and planned to give her an opportunity to answer the questions posed in the PPRC and congregational letters to you. She was not cooperative in providing us with any information other than to say that “The Bishop will respond to your letter”. Hers is a failure to communicate.
Summoning Members To A Transition Meeting In Conflict With A Worship Service:
Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez called on the cell phone of the Chair, Pastor Parish Committee, to set up a meeting to introduce the committee to the new pastor. The chair was holding an emergency meeting of the full committee at that time. Her expected meeting time was approximately 3½ hours later. We stated that we were holding our regularly scheduled Taize service at that time and that several members would be in the service. We offered to meet at 8:30 PM. She insisted only the chair, the lay leader, and the lay member need be present. Our chair repeated at least twice the conflict and told Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez that we would meet at 8:30 after the service.. This was witnessed by all present.
Interfering The Intent Of The Lay Member To The Conference To Attend Worship: The Superintendent came to Martinez UMC at 7:00 PM and “cornered” (his words) the Lay Member/Delegate who was about to attend worship. Due to her position and the manner in which she demanded that he sit and listen to her, that individual did not feel he could refuse, even though the other committee members were not there. We see that as interference.
The Lay Leader Was In Worship at 7:00 PM And The Chair Arrived At 8:30 PM As Promised: By 8:30, we were prepared to meet and hear Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez, but the superintendent had left for “other commitments.” How is that failure to cooperate?
Bypassing The Pastor Parish Committee By Briefing The Lay Member And Swearing Him To Confidentiality. By insisting on briefing the Lay Member/Delegate, the Chair of Pastor-Parish, the Lay Leader, and elected committee members were circumvented. Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez swore the Lay Member/Delegate to confidentially about the information she told him. It was to be disclosed only to the Chair, Pastor-Parish Committee and the Lay Leader.
“Unfortunately, it seems she (the Superintendent) has not received your cooperation,” your letter stated. This is not accurate. Cooperation is a two-way street, just as communication requires listening and responding by both parties to be effective. The Superintendent asked for information on the parsonage and if we would be able to support an additional $2,000 for a new pastor. The Chair PPRC responded to her via email on June OOOO (copy available). As stated above, the Superintendent did not provide answers to our questions, but deferred answering on the basis that “the Bishop will respond.”. As we left the June 9th meeting with the Superintendent, we gave a commitment to communicate via email. Face-to-face meetings and phone conversations have not resulted in the Superintendent responding to any of our issues.
The District Superintendent’s Management Style: Oral communication from the Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez has been in the form of a June 5th belated phone call, representing you, and summoning the MUMC PPRC to a attend meeting in conflict with worship. When we met with the Superintendent on Tuesday, June 9, seeking some reasonable level of explanation, her repeated response was “there is a higher plan” which she would not explain. While the Superintendent cited privacy as a reason for her unwillingness to discuss personnel matters, that is insufficient reason to fail to discuss those matters in relation to our current pastor for whom the PPRC is the responsible and confidential party with whom church personnel matters are to be discussed. Her citation of privacy in personnel matters certainly has merit in some situations and with some parties, but it cannot sweep aside explanations of all other dimensions.
When we met with the Superintendent on July 9th and attempted to review our conflict in meeting time on the previous Friday night, she stated that when she called a meeting she expected people to attend. We said, you mean, “you issue a summons for people to attend,” she said “yes.” In her view, other people plans and commitments were to be set aside and her summons met without discussion of possible alternatives.
Ordering The Pastor Parish Committee To Do Things We Are Unable To Do: Apparently, orders, summons, directives and demands are considered appropriate District Superintendent behavior by D.S. Extrum-Fernandez in dealing with church congregants and committees, including the PPR Committee. We don’t believe that this approach is consultation in the manner proscribed in the Discipline, where advice is to be sought from PPR Committees prior to decision-making on your part.
Merging With The MUMC Anglo/Philippine Congregation With The Tongan Fellowship Congregation: The Superintendent told the Lay Member/Delegate, in their parking lot conversation, that while it was not an immediate objective, the long term goal was to merge the two congregations. At the June 9th meeting, however, the District Superintendent refused to answer questions about the “bigger plan” and did not mention this long-term goal. Although we were not asked about efforts on the part of the MUMC to develop a cooperative relationship with the Tongan Fellowship, we have made efforts in this area. Those efforts have not been successful. We have invited them to joint services; there has been no reciprocal effort. They have had repeated invitations to attend and participate in our Administrative Council meetings. The pastor has attended a few. We have had a few social events, one with minimal participation and one with a greater amount. They have abused MUMC property repeatedly. We have tried, to no avail, to address these difficulties with their minister and representatives. Our only success has come in the area grounds maintenance where some of the Tongan men have assisted in cutting trees. We wrote the Superintendent about these difficulties and asked for guidance and assistance. We have had no response. At this point, our conclusion is that the Tongan group generally has little or no interest in becoming better acquainted with the MUMC congregants socially and has their own cultural manner of worship, mostly in their own language, which they prefer to the MUMC blend of traditional and modern worship in English. We cannot see the appropriateness of merging these two congregations any time in the foreseeable future.
Inasmuch as we feel our cause is just, we will continue to purse our rights, and the rights of other churches, under the Discipline. Again, however, if you believe a meeting would be productive, we are readily available for a timely meeting before the appeal is considered by the appeals committee.
This has been a time of intense prayer and searching by our church committee members and our general congregation. We have sought God’s guidance in pursuing this issue and hope that you will recognize our sincere desire to continue as a viable United Methodist congregation in Martinez.
S/Robert D. Sartin
Robert D. Sartin, Chair, Pastor-Parish Committee
Martinez United Methodist Church
cc: Renae Extrum-Fernandez, District Superintendent
Appeals Committee (Bishop’s Office staff please print and forward a copy to
the Appeals Committee or to the appropriate recipient by email)
Hard copy to follow
100 Church Street Martinez, CA 94553
June 17, 2009
Warner H. Brown, Jr., Bishop
California -Nevada Conference
P. O. Box 980250
West Sacramento, CA 95798
Via email: bishop@calnevumc.org
Dear Bishop Brown,
We have received your letter of June 15th. We recognize the authority granted to the bishop, under the Discipline of the United Methodist Church, in making all pastoral appointments. We take no issue with that authority.
We find your letter unresponsive the content of our congregation’s letter of June 8, 2009. We gather that means you have not considered or that you reject our issues and concerns. We, therefore, regretfully hereby appeal the decision to replace our pastor, Winston Cruz, to the appropriate appeals body and trust you will forward this to that body.
If our above understanding of your position is incorrect or if you feel that you may not fully understand our position or been fully briefed on the situation, we are available to meet with you, if you feel such as meeting might be productive. Of course, such a meeting will need to happen quickly given the short time fore assignments are to become effective.
The basis for our appeal to the appeals committee or other appropriate body is failure to follow the UMC Discipline rules on consultation and appointment, our belief being that had the rules been followed in a meaningful manner, no movement of our pastor at this time would have been considered reasonable or desirable either for the pastor or the church.
In the interim, to provide you with greater detail, we include the following points, which are hereby submitted to the appeals committee.
The Discipline:
We do not find that your letter of June 15 responds to our congregation’s letter of June 1, 2009, wherein the process being applied to Martinez United Methodist Church appears to violate the letter and the intent of the Discipline of the United Methodist Church. Paragraph 431calls for consultation and paragraph 432 further delineates the specifics of that consultation.
431 Consultation and Appointment Making--Consultation is the process whereby the bishop and/or the district superintendent confer with the pastor and committee on pastor-parish relations, taking into account the criteria of paragraph 432, a performance evaluation, needs of the appointment under consideration, and mission of the Church. Consultation is not merely notification. Consultation is not committee selection or call of a pastor. (underlining ours-changed to italics for web site display).
“432 Criteria-- 1. Congregations--
The district superintendent shall develop with the pastor and the committees on pastor parish relations of all the churches profiles that reflect the needs, characteristics and opportunities for mission…”
Our Point: We are unaware of any profile developed by Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez for Martinez UMC with the pastor and/or the PPRC. The Superintendent has not called us to share any developments or to inquire as to our needs, our challenges, or our resources.
Several members of the pastor-parish committee have been in workshops with the Superintendent on at least five occasions over the past eighteen months. At no time did the Superintendent express any concern about Martinez UMC as a viable congregation. We have received no calls of concern.
Further, in each of our past two Charge Conferences, we have emphasized to the Superintendent the impact of the medical insurance on our budgetary process (our pastor has coverage by his wife). We discussed our membership issues. Ours are the same as that of many other congregations. Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez acknowledged the information but did not say that posed an immediate problem to our congregation. Yet when the Superintendent called the first week of June about Pastor Cruz’ reassignment and the current total pastoral compensation package, she stated, and insisted repeatedly, that we were paying $18,000 in health insurance. In a later email, she later recanted her $18,000 compensation package error. However, that was her inaccurate belief when she made her initial recommendations regarding pastoral reassignments. Therefore, we question the extent and accuracy of the MUMC profile as a whole.
“The committee’s role in this consultation is important, but is also advisory,” your letter of June 15 stated. We have not been consulted. Consultation, by definition, means meeting to confer, discuss, to seek the opinion or advice of another before making a decision or taking an action. All these parts of consultation require listening by both parties. Instead, we have been told by superintendent Extrum-Fernandez that we would be dealing with her, while at the same time telling us that the Bishop “made the decision”, implying that she was unable to make any changes to a decision you had already made. We have been told that a new pastor had been appointed. We have been told that we were to meet in conflict with a worship service. We have been told that we were to forward information on the pastoral compensation, parsonage and budget. The pastor-parish committee understands our advisory role; we have not been consulted a single time.
Unilaterally Reversing Decades Of Practice By Former Bishops, Bishop’s Counsels, And District Superintendents: In the experience of this congregation and its pastors and the congregants and pastors of other churches and conferences, district superintendents have met and conferred with pastor-parish committees to fully understand the needs of the church and its pastors well before the time that pastoral reassignments are made. Most recently, the late district superintendent Bruce McSpaden met with this committee in a most caring way to discuss our needs. He later came and introduced us to our new pastor at a time that was mutually convenient both to him and the committee members. Your answer is that the exchanges of written documents are consultation. While useful, we see those pastoral evaluation and profile documents to be aimed at other objectives and not fully explanative of church or pastoral needs.
Pastor Cruz’s Challenges: Pastor Cruz has significant health issues and family issues plus an impending retirement that contraindicate any move at this time. These issues were explained at some length in my earlier letter to you. When we met with the Superintendent to discuss that letter, she expressed no awareness of the details of Pastor Cruz’s challenges. When we asked about accommodations under the American Disabilities Act, she seemed unaware that there might be any concerns here. She did write ADA in bold letters in her notes.
Martinez UMC Challenges And Plans: Martinez UMC has a plan for meeting its challenges in membership and finances. Apparently that plan has been has been ignored; certainly, its details have not been explored. Perhaps, you have not been provided the information we provided the District Superintendent. This appears to be a lack of follow though by the Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez. In an audience with you, we will go beyond the general statements previously given and respond with any details you need.
No Notice Of And Poor Coordination Of Pastor Cruz Being Moved: Pastor Cruz was called early in the week of May 27. He met with the superintendent of Delta district and with representatives of Valley Springs UMC during that week. He advised the Martinez UMC pastor-parish committee on the following Sunday evening of the move planned. On Monday evening, we had a joint meeting with the pastor and PPRC-UMW. In the absence of any contact by the Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez, the PPRC approached you directly via email and hard copy, also sending copy to Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez and the Superintendent of Delta District. Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez then emailed saying that she was speaking for you, that she was “in Cabinet”, and that she would call soon. She called on Friday, June 5, during an emergency meeting of the Pastor-Parish Committee (of which pastor Cruz was aware, but absent). She stated that she expected Pastor Cruz to make the announcement about his transfer the following Sunday, June 7. Apparently she was unaware that he was out of the country on a planned vacation visit to this family in The Philippines. When the Pastor-Parish Chair asked when she had planned to meet with us, her response was, “The Saturday night before,” meaning late on June 6.
Not Communicative:
Your statement that we are not communicating We have responded to all calls, meetings, and emails by the District Superintendent - as delineated in this letter.
“Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez made several attempts to meet with you,” your letter stated. This is not accurate. Our first word from the superintendent came after our letter to you. I received an email on 06-05-09 (a copy is available) stating she would call. As previously noted, she called the following Friday afternoon, during an emergency meeting of the Pastor-Parish Committee. I responded to her in fully in the presence of members attending. I repeatedly stated that we would meet on the day she wanted, after the worship service, not in conflict with it. When she arrived at the beginning of the worship service, she met (inappropriately, in our view) with our Lay Delegate/Member to the Annual Conference in our parking lot. She told him that details on the transition plan would be emailed to the PPRC soon; twelve days have passed and we have received no email. We initiated a meeting with her (June 9th) and planned to give her an opportunity to answer the questions posed in the PPRC and congregational letters to you. She was not cooperative in providing us with any information other than to say that “The Bishop will respond to your letter”. Hers is a failure to communicate.
Summoning Members To A Transition Meeting In Conflict With A Worship Service:
Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez called on the cell phone of the Chair, Pastor Parish Committee, to set up a meeting to introduce the committee to the new pastor. The chair was holding an emergency meeting of the full committee at that time. Her expected meeting time was approximately 3½ hours later. We stated that we were holding our regularly scheduled Taize service at that time and that several members would be in the service. We offered to meet at 8:30 PM. She insisted only the chair, the lay leader, and the lay member need be present. Our chair repeated at least twice the conflict and told Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez that we would meet at 8:30 after the service.. This was witnessed by all present.
Interfering The Intent Of The Lay Member To The Conference To Attend Worship: The Superintendent came to Martinez UMC at 7:00 PM and “cornered” (his words) the Lay Member/Delegate who was about to attend worship. Due to her position and the manner in which she demanded that he sit and listen to her, that individual did not feel he could refuse, even though the other committee members were not there. We see that as interference.
The Lay Leader Was In Worship at 7:00 PM And The Chair Arrived At 8:30 PM As Promised: By 8:30, we were prepared to meet and hear Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez, but the superintendent had left for “other commitments.” How is that failure to cooperate?
Bypassing The Pastor Parish Committee By Briefing The Lay Member And Swearing Him To Confidentiality. By insisting on briefing the Lay Member/Delegate, the Chair of Pastor-Parish, the Lay Leader, and elected committee members were circumvented. Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez swore the Lay Member/Delegate to confidentially about the information she told him. It was to be disclosed only to the Chair, Pastor-Parish Committee and the Lay Leader.
“Unfortunately, it seems she (the Superintendent) has not received your cooperation,” your letter stated. This is not accurate. Cooperation is a two-way street, just as communication requires listening and responding by both parties to be effective. The Superintendent asked for information on the parsonage and if we would be able to support an additional $2,000 for a new pastor. The Chair PPRC responded to her via email on June OOOO (copy available). As stated above, the Superintendent did not provide answers to our questions, but deferred answering on the basis that “the Bishop will respond.”. As we left the June 9th meeting with the Superintendent, we gave a commitment to communicate via email. Face-to-face meetings and phone conversations have not resulted in the Superintendent responding to any of our issues.
The District Superintendent’s Management Style: Oral communication from the Superintendent Extrum-Fernandez has been in the form of a June 5th belated phone call, representing you, and summoning the MUMC PPRC to a attend meeting in conflict with worship. When we met with the Superintendent on Tuesday, June 9, seeking some reasonable level of explanation, her repeated response was “there is a higher plan” which she would not explain. While the Superintendent cited privacy as a reason for her unwillingness to discuss personnel matters, that is insufficient reason to fail to discuss those matters in relation to our current pastor for whom the PPRC is the responsible and confidential party with whom church personnel matters are to be discussed. Her citation of privacy in personnel matters certainly has merit in some situations and with some parties, but it cannot sweep aside explanations of all other dimensions.
When we met with the Superintendent on July 9th and attempted to review our conflict in meeting time on the previous Friday night, she stated that when she called a meeting she expected people to attend. We said, you mean, “you issue a summons for people to attend,” she said “yes.” In her view, other people plans and commitments were to be set aside and her summons met without discussion of possible alternatives.
Ordering The Pastor Parish Committee To Do Things We Are Unable To Do: Apparently, orders, summons, directives and demands are considered appropriate District Superintendent behavior by D.S. Extrum-Fernandez in dealing with church congregants and committees, including the PPR Committee. We don’t believe that this approach is consultation in the manner proscribed in the Discipline, where advice is to be sought from PPR Committees prior to decision-making on your part.
Merging With The MUMC Anglo/Philippine Congregation With The Tongan Fellowship Congregation: The Superintendent told the Lay Member/Delegate, in their parking lot conversation, that while it was not an immediate objective, the long term goal was to merge the two congregations. At the June 9th meeting, however, the District Superintendent refused to answer questions about the “bigger plan” and did not mention this long-term goal. Although we were not asked about efforts on the part of the MUMC to develop a cooperative relationship with the Tongan Fellowship, we have made efforts in this area. Those efforts have not been successful. We have invited them to joint services; there has been no reciprocal effort. They have had repeated invitations to attend and participate in our Administrative Council meetings. The pastor has attended a few. We have had a few social events, one with minimal participation and one with a greater amount. They have abused MUMC property repeatedly. We have tried, to no avail, to address these difficulties with their minister and representatives. Our only success has come in the area grounds maintenance where some of the Tongan men have assisted in cutting trees. We wrote the Superintendent about these difficulties and asked for guidance and assistance. We have had no response. At this point, our conclusion is that the Tongan group generally has little or no interest in becoming better acquainted with the MUMC congregants socially and has their own cultural manner of worship, mostly in their own language, which they prefer to the MUMC blend of traditional and modern worship in English. We cannot see the appropriateness of merging these two congregations any time in the foreseeable future.
Inasmuch as we feel our cause is just, we will continue to purse our rights, and the rights of other churches, under the Discipline. Again, however, if you believe a meeting would be productive, we are readily available for a timely meeting before the appeal is considered by the appeals committee.
This has been a time of intense prayer and searching by our church committee members and our general congregation. We have sought God’s guidance in pursuing this issue and hope that you will recognize our sincere desire to continue as a viable United Methodist congregation in Martinez.
S/Robert D. Sartin
Robert D. Sartin, Chair, Pastor-Parish Committee
Martinez United Methodist Church
cc: Renae Extrum-Fernandez, District Superintendent
Appeals Committee (Bishop’s Office staff please print and forward a copy to
the Appeals Committee or to the appropriate recipient by email)
Hard copy to follow
June 15, 2009 Letter from Bishop
The United Methodist Church
San Francisco Area California-Nevada Conference
PO Box 980250, West Sacramento, CA 95798-0250 1276
Halyard Drive, West Sacramento, CA 95691
Telephone(916) 374-1510 Fax (916) 372-9062 bishop@calnevumc.org
Warner H. Brown, Jr
Resident Bishop
Rev. Deborah Grundman
Executive Assistant to the Bishop
Jennifer McGrath
Administrative Assistant
June 15, 2009
Mr. Robert D. Sartin
Chair, Pastor-Parish Relations Committee
Martinez UMC
via email OlBobbyDay@aol.com
Dear Mr. Sartin,
I am responding to your emails of June 2 and June 9.
As a longtime United Methodist congregant, I am certain you are aware that United Methodist clergy are appointed one year at a time. While I understand your
care for Rev. Cruz and appreciation for the leadership he has provided, this is the year for him to receive a new appointment.
With regard to the consultation process and this appointment, I will make these observations. Consultation is an ongoing process throughout an appointment and not just in appointment season. The needs of the local congregation, the pastors and the
annual conference are all considered when decisions are made. Prior notification to a church that is losing their pastor in an appointment change is not the norm in appointment-making. Instead, the District Superintendent should be kept informed on the church’s situation so that, should a change occur, he or she can best present the church’s needs to the Cabinet and Bishop.
When a change does occur, the District Superintendent will work with the Pastor-Parish Relations Committee to structure the appointment and match the pastor to the needs of the church. The committee’s role in this consultation is important, but
it is also advisory.
District Superintendent Renae Extrum-Fernandez has made several attempts to meet with you and the committee for structuring of the appointment for the 2009-2010 appointment year. She also sought to introduce the pastor we intend to appoint.
Unfortunately, it seems that she has not received your cooperation.
We are aware of many of the challenges facing the congregation and we want to work with you. As we proceed into the new appointment year, it will be important that you meet with your District Superintendent to review your plan for the continued
viability of the Martinez United Methodist Church.
The first step to getting our consultation with Martinez United Methodist Church back on track is to meet with your District Superintendent as soon as possible. The pastor I intend to appoint for the coming appointment year is a caring pastor who will work hard to serve both the Martinez United Methodist Church and the Tongan Fellowship of Martinez. He will, however, need your cooperation and support in order to succeed.
Sincerely,
Warner H. Brown, Jr.
Resident Bishop
Cc: Rev. Renae Extrum-Fernandez
WHB/dvg
San Francisco Area California-Nevada Conference
PO Box 980250, West Sacramento, CA 95798-0250 1276
Halyard Drive, West Sacramento, CA 95691
Telephone(916) 374-1510 Fax (916) 372-9062 bishop@calnevumc.org
Warner H. Brown, Jr
Resident Bishop
Rev. Deborah Grundman
Executive Assistant to the Bishop
Jennifer McGrath
Administrative Assistant
June 15, 2009
Mr. Robert D. Sartin
Chair, Pastor-Parish Relations Committee
Martinez UMC
via email OlBobbyDay@aol.com
Dear Mr. Sartin,
I am responding to your emails of June 2 and June 9.
As a longtime United Methodist congregant, I am certain you are aware that United Methodist clergy are appointed one year at a time. While I understand your
care for Rev. Cruz and appreciation for the leadership he has provided, this is the year for him to receive a new appointment.
With regard to the consultation process and this appointment, I will make these observations. Consultation is an ongoing process throughout an appointment and not just in appointment season. The needs of the local congregation, the pastors and the
annual conference are all considered when decisions are made. Prior notification to a church that is losing their pastor in an appointment change is not the norm in appointment-making. Instead, the District Superintendent should be kept informed on the church’s situation so that, should a change occur, he or she can best present the church’s needs to the Cabinet and Bishop.
When a change does occur, the District Superintendent will work with the Pastor-Parish Relations Committee to structure the appointment and match the pastor to the needs of the church. The committee’s role in this consultation is important, but
it is also advisory.
District Superintendent Renae Extrum-Fernandez has made several attempts to meet with you and the committee for structuring of the appointment for the 2009-2010 appointment year. She also sought to introduce the pastor we intend to appoint.
Unfortunately, it seems that she has not received your cooperation.
We are aware of many of the challenges facing the congregation and we want to work with you. As we proceed into the new appointment year, it will be important that you meet with your District Superintendent to review your plan for the continued
viability of the Martinez United Methodist Church.
The first step to getting our consultation with Martinez United Methodist Church back on track is to meet with your District Superintendent as soon as possible. The pastor I intend to appoint for the coming appointment year is a caring pastor who will work hard to serve both the Martinez United Methodist Church and the Tongan Fellowship of Martinez. He will, however, need your cooperation and support in order to succeed.
Sincerely,
Warner H. Brown, Jr.
Resident Bishop
Cc: Rev. Renae Extrum-Fernandez
WHB/dvg
June 9, 2009 Letter to Bishop
Martinez United Methodist Church
100 Church Street
Martinez CA 94553
June 9, 2009
Bishop Walter H. Brown, Jr., Bishop
California-Nevada Conference
P. O. Box 980250
Sacramento, CA 95798
Dear Bishop Brown:
At the request of the congregation, we met today with District Superintendent Renae Extrum-Fernandez to discuss the questions and concerns we raised in our two letters to you and to her. The response we received was uninformative to the point of disingenuousness. Our questions were turned aside through an excessive reliance on the umbrella of “personnel confidentiality” and “the greater picture”.
The superintendent did seem greatly uninformed by the extent of Rev. Cruz’s health issues and their impact on his ability either to move or to serve. We conclude that they were apparently not incorporated in your decision. The superintendent also acknowledged that appointments will continue to be made, even after the annual conference.
In view of these facts and given that our problems with the merits and process remain unexplained, that the assignment was made absent knowledge of Rev. Cruz’s medical and personal circumstances, and that the impact of the decision will be destructive to Rev. Cruz, his family, and this congregation, we consider these pastoral assignments to remain open and urge your serious reconsideration.
We are available to meet with you.
Sincerely,
S/Robert Sartin
Chair, Pastor Parish Committee
100 Church Street
Martinez CA 94553
June 9, 2009
Bishop Walter H. Brown, Jr., Bishop
California-Nevada Conference
P. O. Box 980250
Sacramento, CA 95798
Dear Bishop Brown:
At the request of the congregation, we met today with District Superintendent Renae Extrum-Fernandez to discuss the questions and concerns we raised in our two letters to you and to her. The response we received was uninformative to the point of disingenuousness. Our questions were turned aside through an excessive reliance on the umbrella of “personnel confidentiality” and “the greater picture”.
The superintendent did seem greatly uninformed by the extent of Rev. Cruz’s health issues and their impact on his ability either to move or to serve. We conclude that they were apparently not incorporated in your decision. The superintendent also acknowledged that appointments will continue to be made, even after the annual conference.
In view of these facts and given that our problems with the merits and process remain unexplained, that the assignment was made absent knowledge of Rev. Cruz’s medical and personal circumstances, and that the impact of the decision will be destructive to Rev. Cruz, his family, and this congregation, we consider these pastoral assignments to remain open and urge your serious reconsideration.
We are available to meet with you.
Sincerely,
S/Robert Sartin
Chair, Pastor Parish Committee
June 7, 2009 Letter to Bishop
Martinez United Methodist Church
100 Church Street Martinez, CA 94553
6/7/2009
Walter H. Brown, Jr., Bishop
California Nevada Conference
P. O. Box 980250
West Sacramento, CA 95798
Dear Bishop Brown,
We, the Congregation of the Martinez United Methodist Church, protest in the strongest possible words, the violation of Discipline paragraph 431that calls for consultation prior to the transition of a minister and for the mishandling of the removal of Rev. Winston Cruz from our church.
Paragraph 431 defines consultation as “the process whereby the bishop and/or the district superintendent confer with the pastor and the committee on pastor-parish relations, taking into consideration the criteria of paragraph 432, a performance evaluation, needs ??? And concerns of the pastor’s spouse and family.”
There was no consultation. The district superintendent called the Rev. Cruz and told him to expect a call from the superintendent of the Delta district. The Delta superintendent called Rev. Cruz to a meeting with (we believe) the pastor-parish committee of the Valley Springs United Methodist Church. Rev. Cruz was told that he was being transferred there. After his meeting with the Valley View group, Rev. Cruz wrote a confidential note to the members of the Martinez pastor-parish committee.
There was no notice to or consultation with the pastor-parish relations committee of Martinez UMC. Our committee convened an emergency meeting and wrote to you, the Bishop, with copies to the district superintendents of the Bay View and Delta districts. Only then, days later, did the Bay View district superintendent contact the chair of the Martinez UMC pastor-parish committee. The superintendent stated the protocol was for the pastor to announce his transfer at a subsequent Sunday service. When asked when our pastor-parish chair was to be informed, she responded, “the Saturday night before.” When asked why there had been no consultation, she replied that the written documents, submitted by the pastor and the pastor-parish committee, around pastor’s evaluations constituted the consultation.
A review of Rev. Cruz’s past two evaluations will document that on each report we specifically asked to be consulted if there was any plan to move Rev. Cruz. Our intent was to put forth, at the appropriate time, our carefully thought out plan for the continued viability of the Martinez United Methodist Church.
This “consultation” is in sharp contrast to the consultation we experienced with superintendent McSpaden. He asked for a meeting with the pastor parish committee - which we set up post haste. He sat with us, actively listened to our statement of needs, and sent us a minister that served us well.
Our second major point, with respect to the treatment of Rev. Cruz and his family, we offer the following. Rev. Cruz is deeply committed to the United Methodist Church and accepts the authority of the bishop to move him at will. So do we of the Martinez United Methodist Church. Our objection is in the procedurally flawed and interpersonally indifferent manner in which it was handled.
Rev. Cruz is self-effacing to a fault. When asked if there were challenges for him in making such a move, we understand that his simple reply was the he had some health difficulties. The reality is the Rev. Cruz has advancing arthritis that limits his mobility. There are days when he is challenged to mount the podium. There are days when he is compelled to use a cane. Further, he has an extended family, including a brother with a life-threatening condition, and established residency in Vallejo. Moving his residency at this time is, in our view, not realistic. Finally, Rev. Cruz is eight months away from the qualifying age of retirement. He and his wife have a substantial portfolio and have no pressing need for continued gainful employment.
These are the matters that should have been elicited from him when asked about the impact of a move. As his advocate, we, the congregation, now set them forth.
In closing, we share an historical view of our relationship with the United Methodist Church. In the late 1950’s, there was no UMC in Martinez. The conference, in partnership with Martinez Methodists, began the formation of a church later titled Martinez First. It grew; the members worked hard at membership building; monies were raised; land was set aside and a fine set of building were erected at 100 Church Street; and a spacious parsonage was constructed a short distance away.
The point is, the Conference of the mid-20th Century challenged us to take charge of our destiny. We responded in full. The Conference’s action at this time is in sharp contrast. Rather than listening sensitively to our plan to bring our congregation and facilities into the 21st century, the Conference is unilaterally, with no warning, taking over our operation in a most paternalistic fashion.
In our prior letter to you, we stated our plan in broad terms. We now request a meeting to discuss it in greater detail.
Sincerely,
S/Robert Sartin
Chair, Pastor Parish Committee
100 Church Street Martinez, CA 94553
6/7/2009
Walter H. Brown, Jr., Bishop
California Nevada Conference
P. O. Box 980250
West Sacramento, CA 95798
Dear Bishop Brown,
We, the Congregation of the Martinez United Methodist Church, protest in the strongest possible words, the violation of Discipline paragraph 431that calls for consultation prior to the transition of a minister and for the mishandling of the removal of Rev. Winston Cruz from our church.
Paragraph 431 defines consultation as “the process whereby the bishop and/or the district superintendent confer with the pastor and the committee on pastor-parish relations, taking into consideration the criteria of paragraph 432, a performance evaluation, needs ??? And concerns of the pastor’s spouse and family.”
There was no consultation. The district superintendent called the Rev. Cruz and told him to expect a call from the superintendent of the Delta district. The Delta superintendent called Rev. Cruz to a meeting with (we believe) the pastor-parish committee of the Valley Springs United Methodist Church. Rev. Cruz was told that he was being transferred there. After his meeting with the Valley View group, Rev. Cruz wrote a confidential note to the members of the Martinez pastor-parish committee.
There was no notice to or consultation with the pastor-parish relations committee of Martinez UMC. Our committee convened an emergency meeting and wrote to you, the Bishop, with copies to the district superintendents of the Bay View and Delta districts. Only then, days later, did the Bay View district superintendent contact the chair of the Martinez UMC pastor-parish committee. The superintendent stated the protocol was for the pastor to announce his transfer at a subsequent Sunday service. When asked when our pastor-parish chair was to be informed, she responded, “the Saturday night before.” When asked why there had been no consultation, she replied that the written documents, submitted by the pastor and the pastor-parish committee, around pastor’s evaluations constituted the consultation.
A review of Rev. Cruz’s past two evaluations will document that on each report we specifically asked to be consulted if there was any plan to move Rev. Cruz. Our intent was to put forth, at the appropriate time, our carefully thought out plan for the continued viability of the Martinez United Methodist Church.
This “consultation” is in sharp contrast to the consultation we experienced with superintendent McSpaden. He asked for a meeting with the pastor parish committee - which we set up post haste. He sat with us, actively listened to our statement of needs, and sent us a minister that served us well.
Our second major point, with respect to the treatment of Rev. Cruz and his family, we offer the following. Rev. Cruz is deeply committed to the United Methodist Church and accepts the authority of the bishop to move him at will. So do we of the Martinez United Methodist Church. Our objection is in the procedurally flawed and interpersonally indifferent manner in which it was handled.
Rev. Cruz is self-effacing to a fault. When asked if there were challenges for him in making such a move, we understand that his simple reply was the he had some health difficulties. The reality is the Rev. Cruz has advancing arthritis that limits his mobility. There are days when he is challenged to mount the podium. There are days when he is compelled to use a cane. Further, he has an extended family, including a brother with a life-threatening condition, and established residency in Vallejo. Moving his residency at this time is, in our view, not realistic. Finally, Rev. Cruz is eight months away from the qualifying age of retirement. He and his wife have a substantial portfolio and have no pressing need for continued gainful employment.
These are the matters that should have been elicited from him when asked about the impact of a move. As his advocate, we, the congregation, now set them forth.
In closing, we share an historical view of our relationship with the United Methodist Church. In the late 1950’s, there was no UMC in Martinez. The conference, in partnership with Martinez Methodists, began the formation of a church later titled Martinez First. It grew; the members worked hard at membership building; monies were raised; land was set aside and a fine set of building were erected at 100 Church Street; and a spacious parsonage was constructed a short distance away.
The point is, the Conference of the mid-20th Century challenged us to take charge of our destiny. We responded in full. The Conference’s action at this time is in sharp contrast. Rather than listening sensitively to our plan to bring our congregation and facilities into the 21st century, the Conference is unilaterally, with no warning, taking over our operation in a most paternalistic fashion.
In our prior letter to you, we stated our plan in broad terms. We now request a meeting to discuss it in greater detail.
Sincerely,
S/Robert Sartin
Chair, Pastor Parish Committee
June 1, 2009 Letter to Bishop Brown
Martinez United Methodist Church
100 Church Street Martinez, CA 94553
6/1/2009
Rev. Walter H. Brown, Bishop
California Nevada Conference
P. O. Box 980250
West Sacramento, CA 95798
Dear Bishop Brown,
Our Pastor, Rev. Winston Cruz, advised us last evening that he is being moved to
Valley Springs United Methodist Church effective July 1, 2009. As United Methodist, we acknowledge and accept the practice of the Bishop making reassignments on advice of Cabinet. In our 40 plus years as a local church we have gone through a number of such reassignments with Christian love and grace.
Like many mainline churches, Martinez United Methodist Church is faced with a
declining membership and its accompanying declining resources. To that end we have
developed teams to counter this challenge and believe we are positioning ourselves for greater outreach.
Yet, the loss of Pastor Cruz at this time borders on the catastrophic. Being aware
of this potential, our annual pastor’s evaluation has requested that we be advised in
advance of any consideration of moving Pastor Cruz. This is consistent with paragraph
431 of the Discipline “whereby the bishop and/or the district superintendent confer with the pastor and committee on pastor-parish relations.” We reinforced this concern with the District Superintendent at this immediately past Charge Conference. We stated that providing medical coverage would over extend our resources while noting that there were other even more stressing factors to consider. In the belief that the open meeting was not the appropriate venue to detail our needs, we did not go into specifics. We assumed that if a change was planned, we would be consulted. We trust that this letter will begin the conferring process.
The principle factor is this: our physical plant is over forty years old. While the
facilities are structurally solid, major maintenance can no longer be postponed. Eight years ago, a loan from the Church Extension Society enabled us to re-roof the parsonage. We next turned our attention to our general activity building. Having satisfied the first loan, we recently were awarded a second loan to complete the flat roofing of the activity building and to replace the (original) furnace. We anticipate these will be completed by fall.
The next major maintenance we face is replacing the wood shingle roof on our
sanctuary. The square footage combined with the steep slope will require a major
expenditure; our estimate is $40,000. With one significant loan obligation presently, a second one is not responsible - even if possible.
Our finance plan has been this. Over a year ago, in a confidential meeting, Pastor
Cruz stated he saw our need and was prepared to assist us in filling that need - his
advancing arthritic condition not with standing. He reaches the minimum retirement age of 65 in the forthcoming assignment year. He proposed that, at the appropriate time, he approach the Bishop and Cabinet with a proposal that he continue to serve Martinez UMC without salary. His salary-equivalent would be placed in a special account by our finance committee to build a reserve for re-roofing the sanctuary.
With regard to the late notification of the appointment of a new pastor, we will
always welcome a new pastor, the individual and family, with Christian love; that is our way. Yet, we face hardships in preparing for the new pastor. Should s/he and family (we have received no details) require residency in the parsonage, we will need to evict the present, long term occupants and to do extensive maintenance inside the house. Paying for other, temporary residency for the new pastor will be a significant expense and must be taken from our reserves for capital outlay.
In conclusion, we accept the authority of the Bishop to make all assignments. We
also understand that there is precedent for reversing an assignment. That is our request: leave Pastor Cruz with us for another three years - through our major maintenance period. At that time he anticipates being open to discussing continuance in a pastoral role.
Yours in Christian love,
S/Robert Sartin
Chair, Pastor Parish Committee
CC: Rev. Renae Extrum-Fernandez
Rev. Ted Virts
Lu Bennett, Chair, Administrative Council, Martinez UMC
Hard copy to follow via U. S mail
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
