Committee 18: Title IV disciplinary canons
In today’s installment of Resolutionpalooza fun, we turn to the resolutions concerning clergy discipline. These are the rules for dealing with clergy who are accused of wrongdoing of various kinds. It’s super important, because these canons need to care for victims of clergy misconduct, keep our church safe, remove or discipline clergy who violate their vows, ensure due process, and protect the rights of clergy who may be falsely accused. That’s a lot!
Our disciplinary canons (usually abbreviated in conversation as “Title IV” because that’s the section of our canons where you can find this stuff) are a hot mess. The process of clergy discipline is so complex that few understand it. At times, proceedings drag on forever, which is lousy for clergy and for those who have filed charges of misconduct. In other cases, disciplinary cases fail to follow our established processes, which is also not good either for complainants or respondents. Confidentiality restrictions are applied unevenly. Bishops rarely face the same severity of consequences for their misconduct. In sum, we have a world in which our process of handling clergy discipline is unpredictable and perhaps unfair. That’s the last thing we want.
At some point, we probably need to start from a blank sheet and devise a new set of processes. But for now, we’re trying to make the current setup a bit better, and that’s what these resolutions seek to do. Here we go!
A024 Limit on Confidential Settlement Agreements. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if someone can explain the thinking here.
This substitute resolution was prepared by the legislative committee. If passed, we’d add a canon that would limit confidentiality agreements that are signed as part of a disciplinary proceeding. It would prevent these agreements from prohibiting disclosure of the facts of a case. And it would allow confidentiality restrictions on disclosing financial settlements or the identity of victims. I understand and agree with restrictions on disclosing the identity of victims. But I can’t quite wrap my mind around situations in which the church would want to conceal the amount of financial settlements. It seems to me that it would be helpful for a vestry or a Standing Committee or others to know what sums are being paid out, if any. But it’s a complex area, and I may well be failing to consider this from all angles.
A025 Amending Canon IV.13.4. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
Clergy discipline matters can be settled with an accord, which is when the respondent (who is accused of wrongdoing) reaches an agreement for some consequence with the bishop. For example, if I were accused of stealing $100, maybe my accord is to repay the money, say I’m sorry, and get therapy. This can head off a full “trial” and hasten proceedings to a speedy end. The danger comes when accords are used to sweep things under the rug. This resolution would add a provision that says if the matter has moved along to the heading stage, the whole Hearing Panel has to sign off on an accord; it can’t just be the church attorney and bishop doing the deed. This transparency is good. No rug sweeping!
A026 Establishing a Database for Title IV Outcomes on the Office of Transitional Ministry Profiles of Clergy. Full text. Likely vote: NO, unless amended.
This resolution would establish a churchwide database of Title IV results (I’m simplifying here) on the Office of Transition Ministry website. Such a database would allow diocesan transition staff to look up the info on applicants for positions. At present, a dishonest clergyperson could fail to disclose prior Title IV matters, and a quick background check might not uncover the issue. Such a database would allow necessary people to see if a clergyperson has been involved in a Title IV proceeding.
I’m all for such a database existing, but there are three problems with this resolution. First, it fails to specify who would have access to the data. Second, it fails to specify exactly what data will be in the database. Third, it specifies that the database would live on the OTM website, which is laughably terrible right now. I don’t blame the current staff; as a church, we have not invested the resources to make it better. But security is atrociously inadequate, and we don’t want the general public to have easy access to clergy discipline information that might be contained in this database (e.g. victim names, or enough detail to figure them out).
So if we add some specificity about the database, and if we say it’s getting a new, secure home, I’m all for this.
A052 Amend Canon IV.2, Canon IV.4.1.d, and Canon IV.10.3 to add Restorative Covenant as a possible outcome of Conciliation. Full text. Likely vote: NO.
If passed, this adds “Restorative Covenant” as an option for concluding a Title IV proceeding. This is “an agreement between one or more Complainants and a Respondent that results from a Conciliation.” I’m just not sure how that’s different from what we already have in an Accord, which can require acts of reconciliation on the part of the respondent. We don’t need to make this process any more complex.
A053 Amend Canons IV.2, IV.8.1, and IV.8.5 Regarding the Role of Intake officers. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
If passed, this would limit who could serve as an Intake Officer for Title IV proceedings. The job is what it sounds like, and the resolution would say that you can’t do it if you’re on a Standing Committee or on diocesan staff in a role that could produce a conflict. Makes good sense. There are some other technical fixes here, too.
A054 Amend Canons IV.2, IV.11, IV.12, and IV.13 regarding the Church Attorney. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
I won’t try to summarize this one, which clarifies the role of the Church Attorney. Read the explanation. It sounds right to me.
A055 Amend Canons IV.2, IV.11.1, and IV.17.2.e regarding Investigators. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
This resolution cleans up language around the role of Investigators, as the explanation…explains. Sounds good to me.
A056 Amend Canon IV.5.4 on the Election of Members of the Court of Review. Full text. Likely vote: Yes.
Here we are fixing an ambiguity by renumbering some sections in the canons. Yes, please. More clarity is good.
A057 Amend Canon IV.17.6 Regarding Suspension of a Bishop. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
This clarifies that bishops under administrative leave can’t exercise their office, and the Standing Committee becomes the ecclesiastical authority. And if a bishop is on leave for more than six months, they are removed from their position unless 2/3 of the Standing Committee votes to keep them. This makes good sense. There have been several cases in the last few years when bishops wouldn’t let go, and this fixes that.
A058 Amend Canons IV.6.8, IV.6.10, and IV.11.3 on Pastoral Response Without Disciplinary Action. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
I quote the explanation, in which we are told that the proposers “believed that the current term ‘take no action’ in the canons did not accurately describe a pastoral response. This proposed resolution adds language to clarify this distinction.” I’m glad we’re fixing this stuff, though one wonders how we ended up with this mess in the first place.
A104 Amend Canon IV.6.9. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
This canon sets an overall time limit on Title IV proceedings of 15 months (which still seems too long to me, but maybe this stuff really takes that long) and tries to keep things moving. A speedy resolution to a Title IV proceeding is in everyone’s best interest.
A105 Amend Canon IV.5.4.g. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
Here we are fixing a cut-and-paste error in the canons about the Court of Review that didn’t quite do the trick. Some extraneous language is removed. I’m all in favor of cleaning up canons, and maybe we should be more careful cutting and pasting in the future, OK?
A106 Amend Canon IV.15.5.a. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
This resolution clarifies some language that applies if a respondent (accused person) refuses to participate in a proceeding but later wishes to appeal.
A107 Amend Canon IV.19.12. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
Accused persons are entitled to legal counsel, and if that counsel withdraws during the proceeding, it can create a hardship for the person accused. In secular law, an attorney abandoning a client faces professional consequences or worse. This change would prohibit future church representation by an attorney who abandoned a client, the stiffest penalty available to the church.
A139 Amend Canon IV.6.4 -Intake Timeline. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
I quote the explanation in its entirety: “It takes a lot of bravery for an Injured Person or Complainant to make a report against a member of the clergy. The silence that follows that report can be deafening. Currently, there is no time limit on the initial intake, which means that silence can last indefinitely and cause undue hardship on the brave soul that made the complaint. This amendment requires that initial intake be completed within 45 days.” Yes.
A140 Amend Canon IV.6.8 – Reference Panel. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
The canons currently say that a reference panel shall meet “as soon as possible” after receiving an intake report. As the explanation notes, “as soon as possible” means different things to different people. This change sets a 30-day limit.
A141 Amend Canon IV.6.9 – Monthly Reports. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
An excellent explanation here, which I quote: “A hallmark of the Title IV process is an appropriate pastoral response for all involved, and the key to good pastoral care is clear communication. When communication breaks down, it is often the case that both the Complainant and the Respondent feel isolated and become fearful to follow up. This amendment makes clear the remedy both parties have should communication breakdown.”
A142 Amend Canon IV.6.7 – copy of notice. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
Another helpful explanation. “It takes a lot of bravery for an Injured person or Complainant to make a report against a member of the clergy. The silence that follows that report can be deafening. This amendment requires that the Complainant or others who have provided information to the Intake Officer be informed of the Intake Officer’s decision to send a matter to the Reference Panel at the same time that the Subject Member of the Clergy is informed.”
A143 Amend IV.17.3.b and IV.17.5 – Disciplinary Board for Bishops. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
This resolution adjusts the membership ratios of bishops/laity/other clergy in the disciplinary board for bishops and the conference panel.
A146 Study of Lay Discipline for Elected and Appointed Offices. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
This resolution asks the Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, Constitution and Canons to study what canonical changes might be made to enable the removal of lay people from church bodies in the event of misconduct. Clergy members of these bodies are already subject to Title IV, but lay people are not. This would allow, for example, a process to remove a layperson from Executive Council if that person harrassed another member of the council.
A147 Referring Lay Disciplinary Canon Issue to Standing Commission on Structure, Governance, Constitution and Canons. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
This is similar to the previous resolution (not sure why there are two?) in referring the matter of lay discipline to the SCSGC so they can report back to the next General Convention with possible canon changes to enable the removal of lay people from church committees if the lay people commit clear offenses.
D015 Examine the disparity in treatment in the adjudication of Clergy under Title IV Disciplinary Process by Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation. Full text. Likely vote: YES, if amended.
This resolution asks the Office of Pastoral Development to track “statistics of the Racial, Ethnic, Gender and Sexual Orientation of men and women” of those who have been the subject of a Title IV proceeding. Then it also asks various entities to retroactively gather this data from 1996-2024. The intent is to determine if there are biases in the system that lead to different outcomes based on demographics. This sounds like good data to have. I’m not sure if the OPD is the right entity to track stats now, and I’m not sure we actually have the data this resolution wants all the way back to 1996. The resolution asks for an annual statistical report to be published, but it does not say what will be done with the legacy data. So if we can make sure we have the data, and if a clear purpose for the data can be found, this is good. And, of course, some entity should review the data to see if we need to take action to correct any biases that are discovered.
D025 Amend Canon IV.6 regarding Intake Officers. Full text. Likely vote: NO.
This resolution proposes the creation of a churchwide Intake Officer position as an optional alternative to a person making a complaint locally. The reasons cited in the explanation as that a resource-poor diocese may need this assistance, and there may be situations in which a local Intake Officer has a potential conflict of interest with a proceeding. This is perhaps a good idea, and I have wondered if we should move all of Title IV to a churchwide structure. But in this case, I would have two concerns. First, is this too much of a burden to be placed on a volunteer? I don’t know what the volume of work would be. Second, I think a person serving in this role for the whole Episcopal Church would need, at a minimum, to speak English, Spanish, Chinese, and other languages. Unless someone has sorted through all these details, I don’t think this idea is ready to launch quite yet.
D040 Amend Canon IV.13.13 to Provide for Notice of Dismissal. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
When a Title IV investigation is begun, if the matter is referred to a Hearing Panel, it becomes public — perhaps shared on a diocesan website and with church media and so on. This resolution asks that if a matter is dismissed after that, the same level of sharing takes place. This makes sense. I know of one priest who was accused of a serious lapse, and the matter was quite public. When he was later exonerated, there was no public notice. So let’s even things out.
D052 Amend Canon IV.10.3. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
This resolution creates an option to move things along in the opening stages of a Title IV proceeding. It would be too tedious to run through here, but you can read the explanation. I couldn’t think of a downside to a speedier path when it can help reach a resolution quickly, which is better for everyone involved.
D053 Amend Title IV to require timely appointments to church-wide disciplinary boards. Full text. Likely vote: YES.
When there are vacancies on the Disciplinary Board for Bishops or the Court of Review, this resolution would change our canons to require the Presiding Bishop (who appoints bishops) or the President of the House of Deputies (who appoints other clergy and lay people) to fill the vacancy within 60 days. Seems like a reasonable timeframe.
Image from flickr user lbai.
I think A052 is intended to create an Accord with no disciplinary content.
A105 fixes a hangover from elimination of Provincial Courts of Review that was overlooked because that section didn’t contain the word Province. Better late than never.
Other similar errors on other resolutions should have been caught by Legislative Committees but weren’t. Maybe in 2027.
Thank you for you thoughtful commentary. Will you (or someone) do a scorecard indicating how each of these resolutions made it through the process? Which ones made it out of committee and on to the floor, and then how each house voted? Again, thanks!
I don’t know if there’s a scorecard, but you can look at vbinder.net to check status before, during, and after convention.
Having received input and drafting assistance from my Province IV colleagues, at General Convention in Austin I introduced D064 which was adopted. It amended Canon IV.14.12(a) and (b) so that disciplinary matters would be included and disclosed in a clergy person’s OTM. At the time of my retirement from active ministry in early 2023, The Office of Transistion MInistry had yet to implement this Resolution in the OTM system. It would appear that A026 is somewhat duplicative of D064; however, if A026 is adopted, I hope that it will cause the OTM system to be promptly updated so disciplinary matters would be disclosed.
But the problem with updating the OTM system is its absolutely atrocious security. If we put confidential information there, we are essentially publishing it for all to see. We need to take the time to design a more secure system — and to rebuild the OTM site from scratch. As I keep saying, I don’t blame current staff. We have not been willing to spend the money to fix this. And we seem to lack technology expertise at the churchwide level. Probably ought to fix that, too.
Dear Scott,
I speak from experience with not one, but with two priests who are/have been mentors to me and my husband. From a lay leader perspective, Title IV has been nothing but destructive in both situations emotionally and mentally. Without a doubt it was destructive for the individuals involved. What is entirely overlooked is how it destroyed a church and disenfranchised our lay ministry in the church. My only offering is that Title IV needs to be abolished and recreated with a congregational foundation and input as a the primary function. The beginning of the process should start with the people or complainant at the church level with clergy guidance. In the first situation which started over 18 months ago, we still don’t know of any conclusion to the case. The second one, the priest resigned their orders. As a point of concern, although our names were mentioned in the first complaint, at no time did anyone from the Diocese contact us for our response or verification of the facts. Six months ago, we finally offered our side of the situation and to this day there has been no response from anyone at the Diocese. So to quote your second paragraph, Title IV is indeed a “hot mess.”
My purpose for responding is to get it out of my system. We resigned from our lay positions, left the church and we are seriously considering leaving the Episcopal Church as we find no viable solutions to continuing in community.