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