Legal Opinions

Two lawyers were invited to give opinions on whether or not the US National Conference could dissolve the annual conference structure without first passing a constitutional referendum. Both agreed that a referendum was needed.

Here is the opinion from Kenneth W. Savage III, lawyer for Michigan Conference. He is replying to Roger Burk, Michigan's fulltime superintendent. The other opinion is from Dennis McNeely, lawyer for the United Brethren Heaquarters.

March 22, 2005

Mr. Roger Burk
United Brethren Church in Christ
5941 Mount Hope Road
Carson City, NE 48811

RE: Constitutional Interpretation

Dear Roger:

This letter is a follow up to our recent telephone conversation regarding the question of whether a proposed change to the structure of the United Brethren Church required a referendum.

As I understand your question, it is being proposed that one of the three "layers" in the administration of the church be removed. For purposes of our discussion, we called the layers the National Conference, the Annual Conference and the Local Conference. You indicated that the proposed change is to remove the middle layer, that being the Annual Conference.

In my review of the Constitution, which you forwarded to me, I note that there are three sections that apply to this question. Those sections are the Preamble, Article II Duties and Article IV Amendments. The most concise portion of the constitution on this issue is Article IV, which states "There shall be no alteration of the foregoing Constitution unless by two thirds vote of the national conference...." This point is very clear in that if the Constitution is to be changed, it would take the necessary referendum. The question that is then raised is whether or not the existence of the annual conference is a part of the Constitution.

While there is no Article that specifically creates the Annual Conference, there are multiple references to the Annual Conference listed in the Constitution. Article 11 specifically states that the National Conference shall define the boundaries of the annual conferences (Article II, Section 1). It could be argued that this section allows the annual conference to be eliminated by the national conference, but it is my opinion that the language is clear that this only gives the national conference the authority to limit the powers of the annual conference, not eliminate that body.

Additionally, there is very specific language which does, by reference, create the annual conference. The Preamble specifically states that the constitution is being created "...to define the powers and the business of local, annual, and national conferences" (emphasis added by me). This, by very clear reference, creates the annual conference.

Lastly, and most clearly, Article II, Section 7 states that "There shall no rule be made that will deprive local ministers of their votes in the annual conference to which they severally belong." By eliminating the annual conference, you are creating a method of depriving local ministers of their vote in that conference. This very clear and explicit language would bar the elimination of the annual conference without a change to the constitution.

Based on the above statements, it is my opinion that in order to remove the annual conference, a change would have to be made to the Constitution, and this may only be done by a referendum. If you have any questions regarding this opinion, please feel free to contact me.

Yours in Christ,

Kenneth W. Savage III