HEARING PANEL OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN CONNECTICUT
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN CONNECTICUT
v. ECCT Title IV Matter 2021-1
THE REVEREND AMJAD SAMUEL Respondent.
OPINION OF HEARING PANEL ON THE MOTION OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN CONNECTICUT TO REDACT VARIOUS NAMES AND IDENTIFYING INFORMATION CONTAINED IN RESPONDENT’S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR OTHER RELIEF
A. Background
On or about January 30, 2023, The Episcopal Church in Connecticut (“ECCT”) filed a Motion to redact certain names and identifying information contained in Respondent’s Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, et. al. from materials to be publicly posted and disseminated. ECCT argues that that the disclosure servers no probative purpose; that they are Injured Person(s) within the meaning of the Canons and that the names and identifying information will necessarily subject such persons to unwanted and unwarranted intrusion into their personal life and that Respondent will not be prejudiced by the granting of the motion.
On February 28, 2023, the Rev. Amjad Samuel (“Respondent”) filed an Opposition to the Motion and asserts that the motion should be denied where Respondent claims that the documents from which ECCT seeks to have the names of individuals redacted are the precise documents provided to Respondent as partoftheECCT’s mandatorydisclosure; that thenamesall represent individuals “who are functioning in a position on or behalf of the ECCT” and that ECCT seeks to redact the information “because a person behaved in a way that he or she does not want exposed.”
Respondent’s Opposition Brief at 2. Respondent further argues that each individual whose name ECCT seeks to redact “voluntarily commented or voluntarily chose to remain silent” in the face of alleged misconduct by ECCT. Id Respondent argues that the Canon that allows redaction for good cause shown, Canon IV.13.3(b), is a “limited exception … providing for the mandatory widespread publication and dissemination of documents submitted to the Hearing Panel.” Id. at 7. Next,Respondentargues thathehasbeeninjuredbythedocuments Id.Finally,Respondentargues that the motion to redact violates the Diocese’s suggested practice and policies that provides that
“[a]ll communication sent digitally (email, social network sites, notes or posts, etc.) Is NOT CONFIDENTIAL and may be shared or reposted to others” and that [i]nteractions in the virtual world need to betransparent, as awindowinthe doorprovides transparencyin thephysical world.” Id. at 8 cited to Exhibit A.
On March 9, 2023, the ECCT filed its reply. It argues that Respondent’s motion in attaching 475 pages of emails in its supplemental motion to which “almost four hundred of those pages are not even cited or referred” to by Respondent in the body of his Memorandum evinces that the bulk of exhibits are not relevant and thus, “one can only conclude that there are being attached to “subject the authors and recipients . . to public harassment and ridicule.” Reply Br. at 2. ECCT further submits that the identities of various individuals include those who were merely copied on documents andwhoneitheracknowledged receipt ofthosecommunicationsnor respondedto those communications in any substantive way. ECCT argues that these individuals, who are passive recipients, should be protected from public disclosure. Id.
ECCT further argues that the emails cited by Respondent and discussed in the Respondent’s Supplemental Memorandum do not tend to prove or disprove any of the allegations against him and, therefore, are not relevant to any matter in the case. According to ECCT, the non-probative areas referenced by the Respondent in his Supplemental papers include:
1. Emails around the Intake Report: The Intake Officer received initial complaints against the Respondent in February 2021. This Intake Report was used by the Bishop’s office to prepare for his meeting with the Respondent. ECCT claims that ECCT did not receive complaints from unnamed or anonymous Complainants. Thus, ECCT argues the emails constitute nothing more than an attempt to accurately reduce the Intake Officer’s verbal communications with the Complainant to writing in the form of an Intake Report. Id. at 3
2. Summary of allegations used by the Bishop in his initial meeting with Respondent: ECCT claims this summary does not show evidence of “bias” or “manipulation” of the facts as Respondent claims and does not tend to prove or disprove facts about the allegations made against the respondent. Id at 3.
3. Emails around efforts by ECCT at the request of the Church Attorney to delay the eviction of the Christian Counseling Center to give the Church Attorney time to investigate a complaint that the eviction was proceeding due the alleged bad faith of the Respondent and his manipulation of the Vestry. The ECCT claims these communications are not relevant to the underlying claims against the Respondent and his defenses to those claims. Id. at 3.
4. Communications around concerns expressed by some Complainants and witnesses that speaking with the Church Attorney may subject them to civil claims to the Respondent. ECCT claims that communications reassuring complainants that they would not be sued civilly because the canons precluded retaliatory behavior cannot be reasonably viewed as improper.
5. Communications Relative to the Reference Panel’s referral of the matter to the Bishop for a possible Accord. ECCT argues that these communications do not evidence bias where
the decision to forego the Conference Panel was based upon the Respondent’s categorical denial of the allegations
6. CommunicationsregardingthetreatmentoflettersofsupportforRespondentfromseveral parishioners at a parish where Respondent had served at nine years earlier. ECCT argues that these communications do not show bias. Id. at 4
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023, the Hearing Panel heard oral argument from both the Church Attorney and Respondent’s counsel.
B. Analysis
TEC Canon IV.13.3 plainly provides the intent of The Episcopal Church to ensure transparency in a Title IV proceeding:
As soon as possible, the Hearing Panel shall make documents available to members of the Church and the Church media as set forth in this Section. Thedocumentsshallbedisseminatedinsuchawayastomakethembroadly known to the members of the Church and the Church media. For a matter in which a Priest or Deacon is the Respondent, dissemination shall include, at a minimum, posting to the diocesan website.
The TEC Canons further describe the documents that are subject to disclosure as “all documents filed with or issued by the Hearing Panel or any party or person including but not limited to motions, briefs, affidavits, opinions, objections, decisions, notices, challenges, and Orders.” TEC Canon IV. 13.3(a).
However, the TEC Canons do provide a mechanism for relief from the disclosure where:
. . . the Hearing Panel, at its discretion and for good cause to protect any Injured Person or allegedly Injured Person, may require the redaction of documents provided for in Sec.5(a) after consultation with the Church Attorney; the Respondent’s counsel, the Respondent’s Advisor, the Complainant’s Advisor or Complainant’s counsel, if any, and where the appropriate, the Bishop Diocesan Canon IV.13.3(b).
Furthermore,Canon2providesforaverybroaddefinitionof“Injured Person”asa“person, group or Community who has been, is or may be affected by an Offense.” Plainly, this definition could include the Bishop Diocesan and those employed by or who serve as volunteers in any aspect of the Title IV process.
The heart of the ECCT’s motion is an argument that the Respondent is utilizing the internal procedure of how a Diocese investigates, communicates and weighs its decision-making before charges are officially initiated against a clergy as an improper mechanism to harass and ridicule those involved in the process where their relevance and the communications are unrelated to the claims asserted against the Respondent. On the other hand, Respondent argues that there existed a process that unfairly targeted/treated him that provides a basis for the claims against him to be dismissed.
The Panel agrees that attaching 475 pages of exhibits when one is relying on far less, creates and unnecessary burden for all parties and this Panel. We further agree that the overly vitriolic nature of Respondent’s papers can be viewed as creating an unnecessarily inflammatory environment that could be perceived as threatening and retaliatory. Nonetheless, the canons do require this Panel to allow both parties a “reasonable opportunity to present evidence, argue and respond to argument, conduct crossexamination and submit rebuttal evidence.” TEC Canon IV.10.6
It was ECCT that turned over documents that revealed the internal workings of their Title IV process absent any claim of privilege or other possible objections. Moreover, each of the individuals who ECCT seeks to redact are individuals who work for or volunteer in the Title IV process of the Diocese. Having voluntarily turned over these documents, ECCT cannot now claim an expectation of confidentiality or protection from utilizing the names of their own representatives.
C. Conclusion
To conclude, the motion of ECCT to redact the names of individuals who are affiliated with the Diocese from the Supplemental Memorandum and Exhibits of Respondent is hereby denied.
Joseph ShepleyThe Rev. Joseph Shepley
President of Hearing PanelLouise Kalemkerian
The Rev. Louise Kalemkerian, Member of Hearing Panel
Tom Smith
Tom Smith Member of Hearing Panel