Please explain Bledsoe vote

With the news that the South Central Jurisdiction has voted to retire Bishop Bledsoe against his will, I hope we will get some accounting of how he failed.

Accountability systems that have mysterious standards of success do not work. Please tell us why he was not deemed good enough to merit a new term. Be explicit.

About these ads

10 thoughts on “Please explain Bledsoe vote

  1. John – since it is a personnel issue, it maybe that direct factors or reasoning behind their action are not public information, unless released by Bishop Bledsoe himself.

  2. I am totally out of the loop on this but we had a case recently with a staff member leaving. The pastor gave a short announcement and said that because of confidentiality issues he could say no more. It seems that the law is inserting itself into the church. Another issue with two sides.

    Grace and peace.

  3. Sometimes cases involve confidentiality agreements. There may be third parties involved and public release of information could be harmful.

  4. I can understand why personnel matters are not public record. A person may be a God-centered, excellent preacher, but lack administrative skills, or develop personality disorder under pressure of being in a situation. That should not become public and besmurch a person who is trying to be in God’s will , but was put by Methodist structure into a position he could not adequately fill.

  5. I understand that the common practice in “personnel” situations is to keep quiet. I gather that the conference might be sued over the situation in Dallas. But if this decision is going to be framed in terms of the culture of accountability in the UMC, then there needs to be some public communication about the reasons the bishop was deemed “ineffective.”

    In the absence of open communication you create room and even invite speculation and rumors. This is not a culture in which people can understand what is expected of them and how to meet those expectations. It is a culture of uncertainty, which leads to butt-covering and politics.

    • If the possibility of civil litigation exists then no one will say anything about anything. All parties involved will lawyer up. In the absence of facts people may speculate and gossip. Throw in a few “leaks” and we will have the makings of a circus.

  6. Based on the tweets coming out of SCJ right now as the Episcopacy Committee gives its report, the two main factors appear to be administrative management of the Annual Conference and a decline in trust among the clergy and laity. I can’t tell if the Committee’s report will be printed somewhere for an actual read.

Comments are closed.