Delegate asks for ruling on Bush institute Robin Russell, Aug 1, 2008
Jeannie Treviño-Teddlie
By Robin Russell Managing Editor
The South Central Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church has backed its Mission Council’s decision to lease property at Southern Methodist University to the George W. Bush Presidential Library complex while at the same time asking for some accountability regarding the library’s policy institute.
The resolution, adopted July 17 by a vote of 158 to 118, states the jurisdiction “understands that the Institute does not speak for” the church or SMU. It also instructs SMU to report back in 2012 on “the relationship with the Institute and its impact on Southern Methodist University” and to protect the integrity of the university and the jurisdiction.
Meanwhile, an SMU faculty member has initiated one last effort to block construction of the policy institute by asking for a ruling from the denomination’s highest court on whether leasing property to the Bush Foundation violates the university’s articles of incorporation and church law.
The Rev. Jeannie Treviño-Teddlie, director of the Mexican American Program at Perkins School of Theology at SMU, made the request July 18 for a ruling from presiding Bishop Robert Hayes of Oklahoma during the Jurisdictional Conference. Her request is allowed by Paragraph 2609.6 of the Book of Discipline and bypasses the need for a vote by the jurisdictional conference.
The United Methodist Judicial Council, which next meets Oct. 22-25, automatically reviews all decisions of law made by bishops. Bishop Hayes has 30 days to return his decision.
Given the confusion over the Bush library lease, delegates also approved a resolution directing the Mission Council “to evaluate and bring greater clarity to the language of the rules and structures of the jurisdiction.”
Ms. Treviño-Teddlie said in an interview that she presented her request because she was concerned that the lease agreement of $1,000 for 99 years—renewable for up to 250 years—“would, in effect, subsidize a policy institute that has a particular political ideology.”
“I think that is contrary to what our Book of Discipline allows,” she said. “I’m trying to say that the United Methodist Church shouldn’t be in the business of endorsing any political platform.”
Her question for a ruling of law asks whether the approval of the property lease at less than market value conflicts with the Discipline’s requirement that all denominationally owned property be used for the benefit of the church, and argues that the lease “would subsidize a specific political and ideological point of view.”
Lengthy debate
The jurisdiction’s vote followed hours of debate over another petition from the floor opposing the policy institute. Delegates rejected that petition, which asked delegates “to prevent leasing, selling or otherwise participating in or supporting a George W. Bush policy institute on the property of Southern Methodist University.”
SMU President Gerald Turner said he was “delighted” that the Jurisdictional Conference affirmed the procedure followed by the Mission Council and the university in entering into an agreement, and sought to assuage any concerns over the policy institute.
“All the safeguards are there,” he said at a news briefing. “[The delegates] are saying, ‘We want to see how well you implement them,’ so we’ll come back in four years. We’ll give a report. We would do it anyway. It fits very well with what we would normally do anyway.”
United Methodist Bishop Scott Jones of Kansas, who is an SMU trustee, said the denomination was open-minded enough to include diverse opinions. “This was a messy process, but we’re a big church, and eventually we get to a decision,” he said. “I respect the people who are disagreeing, but life as a United Methodist leader means we recognize that we are still brothers and sisters in Christ.”
But Tex Sample, a professor emeritus of church and society at Saint Paul School of Theology, called the decision a “big mistake.”
“What it has done is subsidize the political goals of George W. Bush,” he said. “I think personally that is a serious transgression. I think we’ll live to rue the day. I must confess I am deeply disappointed by this decision.”
Institute’s foes
Dr. Sample was among United Methodist panelists who spoke against the Bush institute at a July 16 news briefing near the Anatole Hotel, where the Jurisdictional Conference was meeting.
The briefing was part of a media campaign organized by a Maine public relations firm to help block the Bush library complex, according to SMU graduate and library opponent Andrew Weaver.
Stephen Swecker, editor of The Progressive Christian and general manager of the online newsletter UM NeXus, is also the CEO of P&S Associates of Maine LLC, which was hired in May to design ads, launch a Web site and coordinate the campaign. UM NeXus editor Cynthia Astle moderated one of the briefings.
Panelists said the jurisdiction’s Mission Council overstepped its bounds when it allowed SMU to lease campus property to the Bush Foundation.
SMU professor Valerie Karras said SMU’s bylaws restrict the use of its property to educational or religious purposes. She said the policy institute would be an “ideological think tank” promoting the values of the Bush administration, which conflict with denominational teachings.
“Why on earth would the university have on its campus an institution that refuses to submit to the practices and standards of the United Methodist Church?” she asked.
The Rev. William McElvaney, an emeritus professor at Perkins, said the policy institute raises moral and ethical issues because the Bush administration’s policies violate the United Methodist Social Principles, including launching a preemptive war and “complicity with torture.” “There is a deep disconnect between this administration and what Methodism stands for historically,” Dr. McElvaney said. “If this policy institute goes on campus, what does SMU stand for?”
During debate on the floor, the Rev. Carl Schenck of Missouri, a former chair of the Mission Council, said the council did not have authority to take final action.
“Those who say the library and institute are indivisible should not be seen in some way a threat to the conference, that we should bow to,” he said. “If the Bush Foundation chooses not to divide them, we should choose not to take them as a whole.”
The Rev. Chappell Temple of the Texas Conference said the debate is not really about legal technicalities, however, but whether United Methodists felt the Bush administration’s policies would “taint and somehow damage [SMU’s] reputation.”
“Nobody really cares whether the council has the authority. What they care about is whether the Bush institute is at SMU,” he told delegates.
“You don’t have to like anything Bush did to appreciate the value of having that institute there. And to those who are concerned that the institute will somehow foment Bush policies, may I suggest that not even the Bush White House has been able to do that.”
Opponents acknowledged they fought an uphill battle since SMU has already entered into a legal agreement with the Bush Foundation. Dr. Sample said he would like to see the Judicial Council review the Mission Council’s decision or have the policy institute “cut out of the deal.”
Council’s report
Mission Council members say the Bush library and institute was presented as a package deal, and that they did not have the option to vote against the institute on its own. Mission Council chair Jackie Blair reported that the council met in March 2007 at the request of SMU’s president, Dr. Turner, because the Bush Foundation was requiring the university to show land availability. The council approved 14-4-1 to approve leasing the land to the foundation.
Bishop Jones said the jurisdiction’s “ownership” of SMU is typically expressed through the election of SMU trustees and maintaining its bylaws. Methodists do serve on the board, he said, but the church maintains the same “arm's-length” relationship that it does with other related institutions, such as Methodist hospitals.
The institute may have an ideological bent, Bishop Jones said, adding, “Ideology is a way of conducting your education that is part of your mission.” Some United Methodist seminaries have a left-leaning bent, he said, while others are more conservative. Yet both are still United Methodist.
Jeannie Treviño-Teddlie
 12-09.gif)
