Following is an analysis of the June 28, 2005 letter from Margy Wentz (synod stated clerk) and Frank Marshall (presbytery stated clerk) addressing the Petition Stay to put on hold the administrative leave imposed on Hollywood Presbyterian pastors Dr. Alan Meenan and Dr. David Manock by an administrative commission.   The letter from the stated clerks opined that the Petition Stay was not effective.   Mike Lowe is a member of Hollywood Presbyterian Church.

July 1, 2005

I read the stated clerks’ letter and I also reviewed the relevant sections from the BOO.  The stated clerks make several assertions, and here are my thoughts.
 
The stated clerks first claim that "delivery of the petitions and related materials does not in and of itself secure the stay."  I completely disagree with this statement.  Section D-6.0103a(1) clearly states that a stay may be entered by delivering to the stated clerks the appropriate documents.  One of the canons of statutory interpretation is to give words their plain meaning.  Here, Section D-6.0103a(1) provides that the stay "may be entered . . . by delivering" to the stated clerks the appropriate documents.  In their letter, the stated clerks point to the fact that another section of the BOO, Section D-6.0103a(3), provides detailed procedures that delineate when a stay is effective, and the stated clerks assert that that supports their position.  But actually the fact that Section D-6.0103a(3) is specific as to the time of a stay's effectiveness and Section D-6.0103a(1) is not specific does not support their position -- if the drafters of the BOO had wanted to say that a stay under Section D-6.0103a(1) becomes effective at the time the signatures are verified or at some other time that is different from the time of delivery, it is reasonable to conclude that the drafters would have specified that, since they did so in Section D-6.0103a(3).  The fact that they did not do so in Section D-6.0103a(1) supports the position that the stay was effective when the appropriate documents were delivered.
 
The stated clerks also assert that the stay is ineffective because a complaint was not delivered along with the request for a stay.  D-6.0103(a)(1) does require that both the complaint and the request for a stay of enforcement be delivered to the stated clerks.  However, it does not expressly require that the complaint and the request be delivered at the same time.  Because the related June 1, 2005 complaint already had been delivered at the time that the stay request was delivered to the stated clerks, the requirements of Section D-6.0103a(1) appear to have been satisfied.
 
The stated clerks’ final argument is that neither of the previous complaints matched the statement in the request for the stay.  I think this is a weak argument.  My understanding is that part of the June 1st complaint requested the rescinding of the administrative leave and the restrictions on the pastors.  This part of the complaint does match the relief requested in the request for the stay, and therefore there does seem to be a proper match between that complaint and the request for the stay.  In fact, the stated clerks are not able to point to any authority that says that a stay cannot be requested with respect to a subset of the remedies requested in a complaint -- and such a requirement would not make much sense anyway.

In sum, I think that even the stated clerks’ strongest argument against the stay -- the fact that a copy of the complaint was not delivered at the same time as the request for the stay -- can be refuted by the fact that the complaint previously had been delivered, and it should have been obvious to them that the stay was connected to the June 1st complaint.  And nowhere in the sections of the BOO governing stay requests are the stated clerks given the right to determine whether a stay request is adequate.  Instead, the BOO simply says that a stay is effective upon delivery of the applicable documents.  I would think that it would be up to the PJC to review the adequacy of a stay request if there was some doubt.  As a result, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the pastors to act as though the stay request is in effect until they hear otherwise from the PJC.

Mike Lowe