The 81st General Convention will consider at least 20 resolutions related to clergy disciplinary matters when it meets in late June in Louisville, Kentucky. A legislative committee heard testimony April 16 on 10 proposals affecting confidentiality and changes to the balance of authority in the process, among other things.
The resolutions are amendments to Title IV of the canons of the church — a dense, confusing set of rules that collectively are slightly longer than the Book of Deuteronomy. Title IV has been a source of increased controversy over the past year, sparking allegations of excessive deference to bishops and the “weaponization” of the process for ideological purposes.
Title IV proceedings are intended to be largely confidential, at least in the early stages, and two of the resolutions involved adjustments to the boundaries of confidentiality.
Resolution A026 would direct the Office of Transition Ministry (OTM) to establish a database of Title IV outcomes, for use in clergy searches. Title IV cases often end in “accords” between an accused clergy member and bishop diocesan, in which the clergy member agrees to certain punishments or to enter a conciliation process with a complainant. “Accords often contain sensitive information about not just respondents, but also about complainants and injured parties,” said the Rev. Chris Wendell, a deputy from Massachusetts. “This legislation may not quite be ready for prime time.”
Paul Ambos, a lay deputy from New Jersey, expressed concern that the result might be “a 10-fold expansion of documentation for Title IV” on the OTM website.
Confidentiality also is a factor in Resolution A024, calling for a study of the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDA) in the resolution of misconduct issues. NDAs can be useful in bringing a matter to a close, but historically they also have been “used to protect and hide evidence of patterns of predatory behavior, misconduct, and other serious offenses from being known by applicable church individuals and bodies,” the resolutions states.
“We do entirely too many studies, instead of fixing problems,” said Christopher Hayes, chair of the deputies’ Title IV committee and chancellor of the Diocese of California. He said he would prefer to strike the entire lengthy resolution “and replace it with a proposed canon that would simply prohibit any civil settlement agreement or accord from requiring confidentiality of alleged offences under Title IV, with an exception that would allow confidentiality of monetary settlements.”
Deputy Laura Russell of Newark chaired the interim body that drafted the resolution, supported eliminating NDAs but said “the last time a resolution like this was proposed, it was struck down,” which is why a study was proposed as an initial step.
Each diocese has an “intake officer,” to whom all Title IV complaints are referred. Intake officers make an initial assessment of complaints, produce a written report, and can recommend either dismissing the complaint or referring it on to a reference panel, the next stage in the process. Resolution A053 provides that all bishops, and certain employees and senior officials of the diocese where the complaint is filed, cannot serve as intake officers, because of their potential role later in Title IV proceedings.
The Rev. Terri Bays, deputy from Northern Indiana, said “we want a certain level of professionalism in these processes, but we’re ruling out the very people who have that professionalism,” because they are insiders. She proposed getting around the problem by sharing resources among dioceses within a province.
No action was taken on any of the resolutions. Between now and General Convention, the committee will deliberate and decide whether to recommend approval of the resolutions. Another hearing was tentatively scheduled for May 7.
