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