The Rev. Dr. Tommie Lee Watkins Hearing Panel Decision

BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF ALABAMA

IN RE: The Rev. Dr. Tommie Lee Watkins, Jr., Respondent

Case No. 2021-1

ORDER OF THE HEARING PANEL

Nature of the Case

This case concerns the conduct of a member of the clergy of the Episcopal Diocese of Alabama, a priest of the Episcopal Church (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”). It also concerns five (5) individuals whom Respondent knew. Further, it concerns the authority of the Bishop Diocesan to restrict Respondent’s behavior while on Administrative Leave. On a broader level, it involves the Christian witness of the Church and the relationship of trust which exists between its members and its ordained clergy. Ordained clergy are the forefront of the Church’s witness, and their conduct supports the role of the church in its mission of proclamation. While the witness of the church is fundamentally one of restoration with the purposes of God and one another, it is built on the lives of those who offer themselves in service to Christ and others.

This Order should be viewed through the lens of the vows that clergy make at ordination to accept additional responsibilities and accountabilities for doctrine, discipline, worship, and obedience, which sets ordinands apart and above a standard established by any other institution. See Canon IV.1. The Church, especially clergy, is called to “support their members in their life in Christ and seek to resolve conflicts by promoting healing, repentance, forgiveness, restitution, justice, amendment of life and reconciliation among all involved or affected.” Canon IV.1. Ordination and service to Christ are not about one’s sexual orientation or a particular ethnicity. Ordination is about one’s service to Christ and the agenda of salvation that Christ has delivered to humanity.

This Hearing Panel believes in the witness of the Church and its members, ordained and lay. This case is related to an ordained person’s violation of their ordination vows and engaging in sexual misconduct to the extent the Christian witness of the church has been undermined. The conduct exhibited in this case is unbecoming to the witness of the Church. The evidence presented describes a pattern of verbal and physical conduct that involved trust, age, promises, financial compensation, and misuse of the pastoral relationship entrusted to a particular charismatic ordained individual. The case also involves a direct violation of an order issued by a bishop of the church, bringing into question Respondent’s obedience as required in the ordination vows.

From the inception of the case the Hearing Panel has understood its role as one of representing God’s Church in a process that promotes the lofty goals sought through Title IV actions. Finally, the matters before the Hearing Panel are material and substantial, and of clear and weighty importance to the ministries of not only the Respondent, Complainants and Community, but to the Ministry of the Whole Church.

History of the Case

05/03/21Hearing Panel (hereinafter referred to as “HP”) appointed

05/05/21HP received Referral with Statement of Offenses

05/10/21HP held first meeting & elected President

05/12/21Duty to Respond Notice & Statement of Offenses sent to Respondent (Church Ex 1)

06/01/21 HP received Respondent’s Response

06/22/21HP received Second Referral with Statement of Offense

06/24/21 Second Duty to Respond Notice & Statement of Offense sent to Respondent (Church Ex 1)

07/19/21HP received Respondent’s Second Response

07/26/21HP received Joint Motion to Establish Schedule for Filing Mandatory Disclosures

08/04/21Mandatory Disclosures ORDER sent

09/14/21HP received Respondent’s Notice of Motion to Disqualify Members of Hearing Panel & to Relocate to Another Diocese

09/17/21HP received Church’s Response of Church to Motion to Disqualify & Relocate from Church

09/18/21Motion to Disqualify & Relocate ORDER setting hearing sent

09/19/21HP received Respondent’s Request to Continue September 23 hearing to September 29

09/20/21HP received Church’s Notice of Mandatory Disclosures

09/21/21HP received Respondent’s Response to Church’s Response to Motion to Disqualify & Relocate

09/22/21HP received Church’s Notice of Appearance

09/22/21HP continued Hearing to week of September 24

11/19/21 HP received Church’s Motion to Schedule Hearing on Motion to Disqualify & Relocate from Church

2022

01/10/22Motion to Disqualify & Relocate Second ORDER setting hearing sent

01/17/22 Notice of Obtaining Legal Counsel for HP sent

01/18/22 HP received Respondent’s Request to Continue January 18 hearing

01/18/22 Motion to Disqualify & Relocate Third ORDER setting hearing sent

01/25/22 Hearing by zoom re Motion to Disqualify & Relocate held

01/28/22 Motion to Disqualify & Relocate Fourth ORDER denying Motion sent

02/15/22 Scheduling Conference ORDER setting hearing sent

02/17/22 HP received Joint Proposed Scheduling Order setting Hearing August 22, 2022

02/18/22 Scheduling ORDER setting August 22 hearing date sent

02/18/22 HP cancelled Scheduling Conference meeting by agreement

06/29/22 HP received Joint Agreement to Stay Discovery

07/08/22 Joint Agreement to Stay Discovery ORDER resetting Hearing September 12, 2022

07/13/22 HP received Church’s Offer to Host Hearing

07/15/22 HP received Respondent’s Objection to Offer to Host Hearing

07/15/22 HP received Church’s Rebuttal to Objection to Offer to Host Hearing

08/12/22 HP received Church’s Pre-Hearing Motion to Exclude 08/22/22 HP received Respondent’s Request for Additional 30 Days to Respond to Pre-Hearing Motion to Exclude 08/25/22 HP received Church’s Proposed Schedule

09/02/22HP received Respondent’s Objection to Proposed Schedule

09/06/22 HP received Respondent’s Proposed Schedule

09/08/22 HP received Church’s Second Proposed Schedule

09/14/22 PROPOSED ORDER Resetting Schedule & Location for resetting Hearing November 7 sent for comment

09/15/22 HP received Respondent’s request for extension to respond to Proposed Order 09/15/22 HP received Church’s response

09/20/22 HP received Respondent’s request for hearing date be moved to December 3 or later

09/22/22 HP received Church’s response to Respondent’s response

09/23/22 ORDER Resetting Schedule & Location sent, resetting Hearing to November 28

09/29/22HP received Respondent’s request for extension of deadline to file response

09/29/22 ORDER extending deadline from September 28 to October 2 sent

10/02/22 HP received Respondent’s Response Opposing Church’s Motion to Exclude

10/08/22 ORDER Denying Motion to Exclude sent

10/20/22 ORDER Setting Site for Hearing sent

10/24/22 HP received Church’s Pre-Hearing Disclosures

10/25/22HP received Respondent’s Request for Continuance

10/25/22HP received Church’s Response to Respondent’s Request

10/29/22HP received Respondent’s Response to Church’s Response

11/04/22HP received Church’s Response to Respondent’s Response to Church’s Response

11/08/22HP received Respondent’s Request to Continue to January

11/09/22 ORDER resetting Hearing to January 9, 2023 sent

12/01/22HP received Respondent’s Pre-Hearing Disclosures

12/10/22HP received Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss

12/12/22 Hearing by zoom re Pre-Hearing Conference held

12/14/22HP received Church’s Expedited Motion to Compel

Identification & Strike Motion to Dismiss

12/16/22Pre-Hearing ORDER sent

12/20/22 ORDER Denying Church’s Expedited Motion to Compel & Strike sent

12/23/22 ORDER on Follow-Up to Prior Orders sent

12/23/22HP received Respondent’s Response to Order on FollowUp to Prior Orders

12/27/22HP received Church’s Response in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss

12/27/22 ORDER setting Motion to Dismiss hearing December 30 sent

12/29/22 HP received Church’s Response to Respondent’s PreHearing Disclosures & Email of December 23

12/30/22HP received Respondent’s Response to Church’s Response to Respondent’s Pre-Hearing Disclosures & Email of December 23

12/30/22 Hearing by zoom re Motion to Dismiss held

2023

01/01/23

Notice of denial of Respondent’s Motion to dismiss sent

01/03/23HP received Church’s Response to Respondent’s Response to Church’s Response to Respondent’s PreHearing Disclosures & Email of December 23

01/04/23HP received Letter of Withdrawal from Respondent’s Attorney

01/04/23HP received Church’s Response to Withdrawal

01/04/23HP received Respondent’s Pro Se Motion for Sixty (60) Day Continuance

01/05/23HP received Church’s Response to Respondent’s Pro Se Motion for Sixty (60) Day Continuance

01/05/23HP received Respondent’s Pro Se Response to Church’s Response to Respondent’s Pro Se Motion for Sixty (60) Day Continuance

01/05/23 Notice of denial of Respondent’s Pro Se Motion to Continue Hearing sent

01/05/23HP received notice of appointment of new Advisor for Respondent

01/05/23 ORDER denying Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss sent

01/05/23 ORDER denying Respondent’s Pro Se Motion to Continue Hearing sent

01/06/23 ORDER re Respondent’s Witnesses sent

01/06/23

Notice of zooming of Hearing sent

01/09/23 HEARING held

02/01/23Draft ORDER circulated

02/08/23 HP received Respondent’s Pro Se Motion to Vacate the Order of the Hearing Panel & Request Rehearing

02/16/23 HP received Church’s Response in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Vacate Order and Respondent’s Request for Rehearing

02/21/23HP received Respondent’s Pro Se Response to Church Attorneys’ Response in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Vacate the Order of the Hearing Panel & Request Rehearing

The timeline clearly shows Respondent has been on administrative leave since November 12, 2020 - for over twenty-seven (27) months. The Hearing Panel was appointed in this matter by the president of the Diocesan Disciplinary Board more than twenty-one (21) months ago. It is composed of three (3) members of the Diocesan Disciplinary Board: two (2) clergy and one (1) lay member. None served on the Conference Panel in this case, and none was the president of the Diocesan Disciplinary Board. Two (2) are male and one (1) female. Two (2) are married and one (1) is not. Two (2) were born in Alabama and one (1) was not. All are white. The Hearing Panel President served as Clerk. See Ala. Canon 6 Sec. 10 (b) Sec. 1.13.

Over the twenty-one (21) months the matter has been before the Hearing Panel, there were numerous procedural and discovery matters and motions that the President and/or the Hearing Panel conducted and disposed of pursuant to Canon IV.13. Documents were posted to the Diocesan website pursuant to Canon IV.13.3. Written transcripts of the three (3) hearings on these matters were prepared and are part of the record.

There were numerous requests for delays made by Respondent due to the health of Respondent’s Attorney. These delays frequently were related to procedural issues, inaccurate and/or incomplete readings of Title IV, and/or unrelated to the actual charges. Respondent made four (4) requests to continue the Hearing; three (3) were granted. The Hearing Panel has been prayerfully responsive to each of the concerns presented by Respondent, even those unrelated to the actual charges. This has ultimately allowed Respondent to 7

remain unconfronted by his actions and the trust he violated. Respondent’s lack of concern for the process and those involved (a parish, particular individuals, programs of the diocese and the Diocese of Alabama) was last demonstrated by the intentional absence of Respondent from the Hearing.

On November 9, 2022, the Hearing Panel reset the Hearing date for January 9, 2023, which gave Respondent nearly nine (9) weeks notice. Concerned about the delays, the Hearing Panel on September 23, 2022, in its "Order Resetting Schedule & Location,” sent to both Respondent’s Counsel and the Respondent, warned the parties:

If any counsel is unable or unwilling to meet this schedule, the Hearing Panel needs to know now as there will be no further continuances, even if new counsel is brought in the case. (par. 2.) (emphasis added)

Later in the same September 23, 2022 Order in paragraph 8.B. the Panel reiterated, “There will be no further continuances, even if new counsel is brought into the case, barring extraordinary circumstances.”

When it happened again, the Hearing Panel on November 9, 2022, in paragraph 1.F. of its “Order to Continue,” also sent to both Respondent’s Counsel and Respondent, alerted the parties more specifically:

If any counsel is unable or unwilling to meet this schedule, the Hearing Panel needs to know now as there will be no further continuances, even if new counsel is brought in the case. The Hearing Panel expects all counsel to honor their professional obligation to timely withdraw from representation if their physical condition materially impairs their ability to represent their client and to do so in ample time for new counsel to be engaged who can represent their client on the schedule herein set. (emphasis not added)

Respondent’s Attorney of Respondent’s own choosing, who had been in the case from the beginning, withdrew by letter on January 4, 2023

[five (5) days before the Hearing], “under [his] present circumstances” and stating Respondent “concurs.” Respondent’s Attorney did not elaborate on what his “present circumstances” were.

There is no question that Respondent knew there would be no continuance and should have been prepared to find other counsel or proceed pro se.

The Canons speak to the right to have counsel. We agree with Respondent who argued in Respondent’s Pro Se Motion for Sixty (60) Day Continuance that CanonIV.19.12 reads in part:

In all proceedings under this Title whenever a Respondent ... is required or permitted to appear or to participate or to be heard or to be present, they each shall have the right to be accompanied by and to be represented by counsel of their choice.

However, Respondent failed to cite the last two (2) sentences of that same section:

Nothing in this Title shall be construed as requiring any Respondent to be represented by counsel. Anything in this Title required or permitted to be done by the Respondent’s counsel may be done by the Respondent personally.

There is no requirement in the Canons for Respondent to have counsel. There is also no provision for the Diocese to appoint counsel for Respondent or for the Diocese to pay for such expense, unlike the provisions for Respondent’s Advisor. The Canons do not prevent the Hearing from occurring when Respondent has no counsel.

On January 6, 2023 in the Order Denying Pro Se Motion to Continue Hearing, the Hearing Panel explicitly stated:

We remind Respondent he can still hire counsel of his choice but the Hearing will start January 9.

Further the Respondent is advised that, pursuant to Canon IV.19.6, if he fails to appear at the hearing, the Hearing

Panel “may, in its discretion, proceed in the absence of the Respondent.”

(par. 2) (emphasis added)

The Hearing Panel conducted the Hearing in Birmingham, Alabama on January 9, 2023, as scheduled. Present at the Hearing were all three (3) members of the Hearing Panel, Legal Counsel for the Hearing Panel, both Church Attorneys, and Respondent’s Advisor. Respondent and Respondent’s Counsel were absent for the entirety of the Hearing. Respondent’s Advisor (appointed immediately after Respondent’s first Advisor apparently withdrew on Wednesday prior to the Hearing set on Monday, but never accepted by Respondent as he chose to have no contact with his Advisor prior to or during the Hearing) was present for the entirety of the Hearing. Nine (9) witnesses testified orally, in person, under oath or solemn affirmation, and subject to cross-examination, as required by Canon IV.13.8. At the hearing, the Hearing Panel received approximately twenty-five (25) exhibits in evidence. A written transcript of the hearing was created and is part of the record.

All proceedings before the Hearing Panel, except for its private deliberations, have been open to the Church Attorney, Respondent, Respondent’s Attorney, each Complainant, any injured person, and persons from the public, as required by Canon IV.13.8. The Hearing Panel has closed no part of any proceedings to any persons or group of persons. All the hearings were zoomed.

Prior to the issuance of this Order, the Hearing Panel has afforded the Bishop Diocesan, Respondent, Respondent’s Advisor, and the Complainants each with an opportunity to be heard on the proposed terms of the Order, as required by Canon IV.14.7.

No one requested an opportunity to be heard on the proposed terms of the Order. However, Respondent filed a Pro Se Motion to Vacate the Order of the Hearing Panel & Request Rehearing. The Church

Attorney filed a Response in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Vacate Order and Respondent’s Request for Rehearing. Respondent then filed Respondent’s Pro Se Response to Church Attorneys’ Response in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Vacate the Order of the Hearing Panel & Request Rehearing.

Respondent’s Pro Se Motion to Vacate the Order of the Hearing Panel & Request Rehearing

The Respondent’s Pro Se Motion to Vacate the Order of the Hearing Panel & Request Rehearing is hereby DENIED on the following grounds:

1. There is no authority to grant such relief in the Canons. The Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply here. As Canon IV.19.1 states, “Proceedings under this Title are neither civil nor criminal but ecclesiastical in nature.”

2. The Respondent was provided numerous opportunities to be heard including his conversations with the Bishops; his Response to Statement of Offenses dated June 1, 2021; his Response to Statement of Offense dated July 16, 2021; his Motion to Dismiss dated December 9, 2022; interrogatories; deposition; and the Hearing. At each opportunity Respondent chose whether to participate or not, and to what extent.

3. Respondent’s claim that he did not have “sex” with any of the Complainants is irrelevant and not a valid defense. The charge of “Sexual Misconduct” does not require a completed sex act. See Canon II definitions.

4. Respondent’s claim of a pattern of canonical violations was thoroughly addressed in the pleadings and in the zoom hearing on December 30, 2022, regarding Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. The Hearing Panel found no pattern of canonical violations and denied the motion. See Notice dated January 1, 2023 and Order Denying

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss issued January 5, 2023. Respondent has offered no evidence, only baseless allegations, to support this Motion to Vacate & Rehear.

5. Respondent concurred with the withdrawal of his Counsel and surely knew why and what effect that would have, having been warned repeatedly the Hearing would not be continued again.

6. The evidence Respondent claims he would have presented is composed of mere allegations made by Respondent without any proof provided. Further there is no newly discovered evidence. The Hearing Panel finds these allegations meritless with no basis to support them.

7. In asserting as a defense that he had no pastoral relationship with the Complainants, Respondent either does not understand its meaning or intentionally tried to mislead the Hearing Panel. See Canon II definitions.

8. Respondent seeks to use as a defense against the “Violation of Administrative Leave Terms” charge that he “is a prior ordained Baptist minister and as such can be referred to as ‘Reverend’ as he is still ordained in this Christian denomination.” By his own admission he is a prior Baptist minister. Further, as a priest of the Episcopal Church, he still must abide by the Canons and the terms of his leave, which he never challenged.

9. There is absolutely no proof of any bias against Respondent. The Hearing Panel finds this claim meritless and baseless.

10. The Hearing Panel adopts the arguments made by the Church Attorney in his Response In Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Vacate Order & Request for Rehearing filed February 16, 2023. and incorporates them as if fully set out herein.

The Facts

A. Franklin was Diocesan Youth Coordinator. Complainant TW was a youth active in the Diocese through Sawyerville, a Diocesan ministry for children and youth in Hale County, Alabama, a highly impoverished area, through free summer programs, mentoring, and scholarships. TW also was active in Christ Episcopal Church Tuscaloosa EYC. Franklin knew TW through both but became especially close when she became Youth Director at Christ Church. TW graduated from high school in May 2020 and was living in the Tuscaloosa area and having financial difficulties as he had no family support. TW initially knew Respondent through Sawyerville where Respondent was on staff as the Chaplain (pastor for the staff and campers). TW knew Respondent was an Episcopal priest and called him “Father Tommie.”

On September 13, 2020, Franklin received a telephone call and a text message with a video from TW. The video was a recording TW made of a conversation he had with Respondent of a sexual nature. Franklin then called TW who told her he was receiving financial help from the Respondent. When TW asked for help paying a bill, Respondent asked him to come to Respondent’s home. When he arrived, Respondent invited him inside. TW said Respondent gave him a massage at his home and then made sexual comments to him. He felt uncomfortable so he made the video on his phone. Franklin reported this to the Bishop Diocesan and the Bishop Coadjutor. Franklin kept the video and screenshots of text messages between Respondent and TW.

B. Later Franklin received a phone call from another youth she knew in the Diocese, DK, from Greensboro, Alabama. DK told her that Respondent had given him a massage while at Sawyerville. DK stated he felt uncomfortable around Respondent. DK was a black male about nineteen (19) years old at the time.

1. Kathleen Franklin

Franklin prepared a written report of what happened. (See Church Ex 5 - Report of Sexual Harassment by Franklin).

2. TW (Complainant)

In 2019 TW, a black male, was a counselor at Sawyerville, a Diocesan ministry for children and youth in Hale County, Alabama, a highly impoverished area, through free summer programs, mentoring, and scholarships. There he met Respondent whom he knew to be a priest and called him “Father Tommie.” He sought guidance from him and felt he could go to him for help. TW was having financial problems and Respondent helped him. Respondent asked him to come from TW’s home in Northport to Respondent’s home in Birmingham to assist him with a bill. TW was nineteen (19) years of age at the time. Respondent was about forty-four (44) years old. TW testified that, while in the home, Respondent showed him his bedroom, massaged him, and said things that felt uncomfortable, wrong, and inappropriate. That is when he made the video with his phone. (See Church Ex 6A - Video by TW). TW testified that Respondent said he had been watching him, and Respondent offered TW money for sex.

3. DK (Complainant)

In 2018 DK, a black male, was a camper at Camp McDowell, the Diocesan overnight camp. The next year DK served as a counselor at Sawyerville, a Diocesan ministry for children and youth in Hale County, Alabama, a highly impoverished area, through free summer programs, mentoring, and scholarships. Through these two (2) experiences DK met Respondent who at the time was forty-four (44) years old. DK knew Respondent as a priest and called Respondent “Father Tommie.” Respondent was the Sawyerville chaplain when DK was there. While at Sawyerville Respondent offered DK a massage. DK testified that Respondent offered on multiple occasions to take DK to Six Flags, an amusement park near Atlanta. Respondent claimed he could make it not look suspicious. DK said this made him feel very

uncomfortable. When Respondent invited him to his home, DK said he did not go. DK knew Respondent was gay (it was no secret) and felt like they had been friends. DK was about nineteen (19) years old at the time.

4. The Rev. Rob Morpeth

A Diocesan staff member for twenty-six (26) years and an Episcopal priest for forty-three (43) years, Morpeth is the Intake Officer for the Diocese. He received the reports from Kathleen Franklin and the Bishop Diocesan. He also spoke with TW and viewed TW’s video. It was his opinion that if true, the allegations rose to the level of a Title IV violation. To his knowledge all prior disciplinary complaints in the Diocese of Alabama had been resolved (including some where clergy were deposed) and none had gone to a Hearing. In his expert opinion there existed a pastoral relationship between Respondent and TW and that it was violated when Respondent asked TW to come to his home for financial assistance, creating an imbalance of power. (See Church Ex 4 - Report of Intake Officer October 27, 2020).

Respondent had received the Diocesan Policy on Sexual Conduct and signed that he understood it and agreed to abide by it. The document defines “sexual misconduct” and “pastoral relationship” and states that engaging in sexual misconduct can result in punishment including deposition. Further, by signing Respondent agreed “to fully participate” in the disciplinary process. (See Church Ex 12 - Covenant for Sexual Responsibility).

Morpeth identified the Administrative Leave documents. (See Church Exs 2 - Administrative Leave November 12, 2020; 2A - Addendum to Administrative Leave November 18, 2020; and 3 - Amended Terms of Administrative Leave January 14, 2021).

5. Crystal Jones

A. From 2016 to 2022 Jones was the Director of Sawyerville, a Diocesan ministry for children and youth in Hale County, Alabama, a highly impoverished area, through free summer programs, mentoring, and scholarships. As such she was responsible for staffing. Among the staff positions was a Chaplain. This was almost always a priest, and that staffer led two (2) Eucharist services, held chapel time for the staff, helped with disciplinary issues with campers and staff, and was there for anyone who needed someone to talk with. Respondent was Session I, Upper Camp Chaplain in 2019. (See Church Exs 9 - Emails between Respondent & Crystal Jones and 10 - Sawyerville Coordinator Form). The Sawyerville Chaplain Job Description states: “Most importantly, the chaplain is there for pastoral care of both the campers and staff.” (See Church Ex 11, par. 5. - Sawyerville Chaplain Job Description).

B. Jones knew CT, another Complainant, through Happening, a Diocesan spiritual retreat for high school students held at Camp McDowell, the Diocesan overnight camp, and through Sawyerville where CT was a small group leader and intern, for five (5) years. Respondent was the spiritual director at Happening. His position included attending to pastoral needs and listening to confessions. CT stated to Jones that Respondent asked him about staying at CT’s home, but it made CT feel uncomfortable so it did not happen. Jones told the Rev. Rob Morpeth about her conversation with CT.

6. The Rev. Corey Jones

Jones is Associate Rector at St. Luke's in Birmingham. In 2018 he was the Session Director at Camp McDowell, the Diocesan overnight camp, and Respondent was the Session Chaplain. See Church Ex 16 - Program Staff for Senior Camp 2018). Among the one hundred, sixty (160) campers at that session were TW, DK, and CT. (See Church Ex 17 - Redacted List of Campers).

7. The Rt. Rev. Glenda Curry

While Bishop Coadjutor in 2020, Bishop Curry was contacted by Kathleen Franklin about complainants from Sawyerville, a Diocesan ministry for children and youth in Hale County, Alabama, a highly impoverished area, through free summer programs, mentoring, and scholarships. Bishop Curry attended a meeting with the Bishop Diocesan, Respondent, and others to discuss with Respondent the Sawyerville complaints and his arrest for sexual misconduct of WS on November 7, 2020. Respondent admitted “that he had a romantic interaction with a person with whom he had an established pastoral relationship….” Respondent was placed on Administrative Leave with pay for three (3) months, “required to undergo evaluation, counseling and treatment in a facility selected by the Bishops,” and was “inhibited from exercising his privileges as an Episcopal priest for the duration of this Administrative Leave, and from identifying himself as such either by manner of action or mode of dress.” (See Church Ex 2 - Terms of Administrative Leave November 12, 2020).

On January 14, 2021, Bishop Curry amended the Administrative Leave Terms as Respondent had not resigned as Rector of St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church, as requested in the meeting on December 14, 2020. (See Church Ex 3 - Amended Terms of Administrative Leave January 14, 2021).

Bishop Curry further testified that Respondent had posted a video on youtube.com after the Amended Terms of Administrative Leave was issued January 14, 2021. In that video Respondent stated “I’m the Rev. Dr. Tommie Lee Watkins, Jr, and I thank you for taking the time to listen to my story.” (emphasis added) (See Church Exs 14Respondent’s youtube.com video and 15 - Transcript of video).

In 2019 Bishop Curry and Respondent both served as Chaplains at Sawyerville. Curry worked with the middle group while Respondent was Chaplain of the Upper Level (older) campers. Bishop Curry described the Chaplain’s duties as being totally about pastoral care.

(See Church Exs 21A - Photo of Respondent on staff; 21B, C, DPhotos of Respondent anointing; 21E - Photo of Sawyerville campers and staff). In her opinion Respondent’s behavior with TW, DK, CT, and WS as well as his video comments violated the Canons.

8. CT (Complainant)

In 2017 while at Happening, a Diocesan spiritual retreat for high school students held at Camp McDowell, the Diocesan overnight camp, CT, a white male, met Respondent who was the Chaplain. Respondent took his confession there. CT was also a camper at Camp McDowell and a staff member at Sawyerville, a Diocesan ministry for children and youth in Hale County, Alabama, a highly impoverished area, through free summer programs, mentoring, and scholarships. CT further spent time with him at the Christmas Youth Retreat at Camp McDowell where Respondent became a mentor, encouraging him to consider social work as his career. Thereafter they saw each other some and texted a few times a month.

CT became a student at Auburn University in August 2020. CT was about nineteen (19) years old and Respondent was about forty-five (45) years old. Respondent texted and called CT at Auburn about how he was doing. Respondent decided they should see each other. CT was not able to go to Birmingham but suggested Respondent come to Auburn. Respondent asked where he would sleep and told CT he was his special project. Respondent also texted CT: “So when I see you I will have to hug and kiss ya.” (See Church Ex 8 - Texts between Respondent and CT). CT contacted Crystal Jones to tell her he felt uncomfortable about the texts as he thought they were just going to lunch, not having an overnight visit. CT knew Respondent was gay early on and thought he was a good man who made bad choices.

9. The Rev. Marc Burnette

Burnette is the priest at Canterbury Chapel Tuscaloosa and has been there over thirteen (13) years. He knew Respondent first as a

parishioner at St. Andrew’s in Birmingham and then as a Curate at Canterbury. While Respondent was serving at Canterbury, Burnette received a letter from KC accusing Respondent of misconduct with her husband and threatening to sue. Burnette addressed the situation by meeting with Respondent and telling him this was unacceptable behavior and to inform the Bishop immediately. Respondent did not deny the accusation and agreed to inform the Bishop. Burnette attempted to meet with KC but she failed to show both times a meeting was scheduled. (See Church Ex 20 - Emails between KC and Burnette). Burnette notified the Rev. Rob Morpeth of the matter. (See Church Ex 19 - Email from Burnette to Morpeth).

10. WS (Complainant)

WS did not testify in person but by affidavit. (See Church Ex 13Affidavit of WS). In addition the court records were submitted. (See Church Ex 7 - Court Records re WS complaint). WS, a white male who was twenty-four (24) years of age at the time, attended a food drive at St. Andrews Episcopal Church Birmingham and received a sack lunch. WS met Respondent, who was forty-five (45) years of age at the time, at the food drive and told him about his financial problems. Respondent invited WS to his home to do yard work for $100 on or about November 7, 2020. WS followed Respondent home from church. On the way Respondent paid to fill up WS’ gas tank. When they arrived, Respondent asked WS how he was, claiming he looked tense. Respondent rubbed WS’ shoulder and then took WS to the back bedroom where WS removed his shirt for the back rub. After five (5) minutes Respondent asked him to remove his pants and underwear to rub his buttocks. WS further swore that “when his finger penetrated a bit and he asked for a taste so I got up a[nd] left.” WS viewed Respondent as a pastor and his acts were unwelcome. WS went to the police and filed a report stating the facts in his own writing. A warrant for the crime of Sexual Misconduct was issued by a judge against Respondent on November 9, 2020. WS decided he did not want to put himself through a process in which he would have to confront Respondent. On February 18, 2021 the case was dismissed

on request of the victim on payment of court costs. (See Church Ex 7Court Records re WS complaint).

Credibility, Reliability and Weight of the Testimony and Other Evidence

The Hearing Panel is mindful of its canonical duty to “determine the credibility, reliability and weight to be given to all testimony and other evidence.” Canon IV.13.10. In doing so, the Hearing Panel has taken into account the demeanor of the witnesses on the witness stand; their apparent candor and fairness; their bias, if any; their intelligence; their interest, or lack of it, in the outcome of the case; their opportunity, or lack of it, for knowing the truth and for having observed the facts to which they testified; and any prior inconsistent statements by the witnesses contrary to the evidence at the hearing. Based on these considerations the Hearing Panel makes the following observations.

Three (3) of the complainants (TW, DK, and CT) testified in open court identifying themselves by name and address. Their full names were used at the Hearing, unlike in this Order where the Hearing Panel sees no need to use more than initials to identify them. They each stated in some detail their relationship with the Respondent as pastoral; how Respondent groomed them; and finally how Respondent tried to take advantage of them. Each reacted negatively and came forward to the Church with their complaints. Their testimony, while different in some aspects, revealed a clear pattern of behavior by the Respondent, as he tried to take advantage of the situation by virtue of his pastoral relationship, his financial inducements, and the age difference. [See Church Ex 7 - Court Records re WS ComplaintRespondent’s date of birth is January 18, 1975 making him forty-two (42) years old in 2017]. Each of these complainants appeared to take the matter seriously, was thoughtful in their responses, and did not deviate from what they had told others. It would have been easier for each to have refused to testify after such a long wait and having to again face the perpetrator, Respondent. No one knew Respondent would not be present at the Hearing before 9:05 am the day of their

testimony. It took considerable courage for these complainants to come forward publicly and testify about highly personal and sensitive matters.

The evidence presented as to Complainant WS was in the form of an affidavit (See Church Ex 13 - Affidavit of WS) and court records (See Church Ex 7 -Court records re WS). The President of the Hearing Panel recognized the affidavit could be considered as hearsay but admitted it as evidence under Canon IV. 13.10(b)(5) as it was sworn and supported by the court records. The court records (Church Ex 7) were admissible under Canon IV. 13.10(b)(4) - records of another proceeding. While the criminal case was dismissed on request of WS on February 18, 2021 (See Church Ex 7 - Court Records re WS), WS stated in his affidavit he did so “because [he] decided [he] did not want to put [himself] through a process in which [he] would have to confront [Respondent] again.” We note that by the time of the dismissal Respondent was already under Administrative Leave (See Church Ex 2 - Terms of Administrative Leave November 12, 2020, 2AAddendum November 18, 2020, and 3 - Amended Terms of Administrative Leave January 14, 2021). In addition, the facts of WS’ complaint shared a number of similarities with those of the first three (3) complainants, including the pastoral relationship, financial inducements, and age difference.

As to the testimony of Kathleen Franklin, the Rev. Rob Morpeth, Crystal Jones, the Rev. Corey Jones, the Rt. Rev. Glenda Curry, and the Rev, Marc Burnette - we find their testimony to be credible and reliable and to be given great weight as well.

The Hearing Panel was keenly aware that neither Respondent nor Respondent’s Attorney was present at any time during the Hearing. As a result, members of the Hearing Panel asked questions of the witnesses and the Church Attorneys. We also considered all the prior pleadings and arguments made by Respondent as if Respondent were present to reiterate them.

DECISIONS ON THE CHARGES

Throughout this proceeding and pursuant to Canons IV.19.16Presumption of Innocence and IV.19.17 - Burden of Proof, the Hearing Panel has presumed that Respondent did not commit any of the offenses with which he is charged, and required the Church Attorney to carry his burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, as defined in Canon IV.2 and required by Canon IV.19.16. The Hearing Panel concludes that in five (5) of the charges, the Church Attorney has proven the facts by clear and convincing evidence and carried his burden of proof as required and defined in Canons IV.2, IV.19.16, and IV.19.17. The Hearing Panel now makes the following decisions.

The First Charge - Sexual Misconduct re TW

The first charge, made pursuant to Canon IV.4.1(h)(1), is that Respondent, a member of the clergy, failed to refrain from any act of sexual misconduct involving TW.

“Sexual Misconduct” is defined under Canon IV.2. to mean

(a) Sexual Abuse,

(b) Sexual Behavior engaged in by the Member of the Clergy with a person for whom the Sexual Behavior is unwelcome or who does not consent to the Sexual Behavior, or by force, intimidation, coercion or manipulation, or

(c) Sexual behavior at the request of, acquiesced to or by a Member of the Clergy with an employee, volunteer, student or counselee of that Member of the Clergy or in the same congregation as the Member of the Clergy, or a person with whom the Member of the Clergy has a Pastoral Relationship.

“Sexual Behavior” is defined under Canon IV.2 to mean any physical contact, bodily movement, speech, communication or other activity sexual in nature or that is intended to arouse or gratify erotic interest or sexual desires.

“Pastoral Relationship” is defined under Canon IV.2 to mean any relationship between a Member of the Clergy and any person to whom the Member of the Clergy provides or has provided counseling, pastoral care, spiritual direction or spiritual guidance, or from whom such Member of the Clergy has received information within the Rite of Reconciliation of a Penitent.

Respondent was a member of the clergy in the Episcopal Diocese of Alabama when he met and knew TW. Respondent was the Chaplain at Sawyerville and TW was on staff there at the same time. There was a pastoral relationship between Respondent and TW. Respondent provided financial assistance to TW. In 2020 Respondent invited TW to his home in the Diocese of Alabama to deal with a financial issue. While TW was in the Respondent’s home, Respondent offered to massage TW and indicated an interest in engaging in a sexual act with TW. Respondent engaged in sexual behavior with TW, a person for whom the sexual behavior was unwelcome. Respondent engaged in sexual behavior with TW, a person with whom Respondent had a pastoral relationship. Respondent admitted “that he had a romantic interaction with a person with whom he had an established pastoral relationship, and on two conversations with other male staff members in the Sawyerville program.” [Sic] (See Church Ex 2 - Terms of Administrative Leave November 12, 2020). Further, the testimony of TW, Kathleen Franklin, the Rev. Rob Morpeth, Crystal Jones, the Rev. Corey Jones, and the Rt. Rev. Glenda Curry directly support these facts. Church Exs 2,4, 5, 6A, 9,10, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 21A through 21E were also considered as proof of this charge.

The Hearing Panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated the Canons by failing to refrain from any act of sexual misconduct involving TW.

The Second Charge - Sexual Misconduct re DK

The second charge, made pursuant to Canon IV.4.1(h)(1), is that Respondent, a member of the clergy, failed to refrain from any act of sexual misconduct involving DK.

The definitions of “Sexual Misconduct,” “Sexual Behavior,” and “Pastoral Relationship” can be found under the First Charge and in Canon IV.2.

Respondent was a member of the clergy in the Episcopal Diocese of Alabama when he met and knew DK. Respondent was the Chaplain at Sawyerville and DK was on staff there at the same time. There was a pastoral relationship between Respondent and DK. Respondent provided financial assistance to DK. In 2020 Respondent invited DK to his home in the Diocese of Alabama to deal with a financial issue. While DK was in the Respondent’s home, Respondent offered to massage DK and indicated an interest in engaging in a sexual act with DK. Respondent engaged in sexual behavior with DK, a person for whom the sexual behavior was unwelcome. Respondent engaged in sexual behavior with DK, a person with whom Respondent had a Pastoral Relationship.

Respondent admitted “that he had a romantic interaction with a person with whom he had an established pastoral relationship, and on two conversations with other male staff members in the Sawyerville program.” [Sic] (See Church Ex 2 - Terms of Administrative Leave November 12, 2020). Further, the testimony of DK, Kathleen Franklin, the Rev. Rob Morpeth, Crystal Jones, the Rev. Corey Jones, and the Rt. Rev. Glenda Curry directly support these facts. Church Exs 2,4, 5, 9,10, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 21A through 21E were also considered as proof of this charge.

The Hearing Panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated the Canons by failing to refrain from any act of sexual misconduct involving DK.

The Third Charge - Sexual Misconduct re WS

The third charge, made pursuant to Canon IV.4.1(h)(1), is that Respondent, a member of the clergy, failed to refrain from any act of sexual misconduct involving WS. The definitions of “Sexual Misconduct,” “Sexual Behavior,” and “Pastoral Relationship” can be found under the First Charge and in Canon IV.2.

Respondent was a member of the clergy in the Episcopal Diocese of Alabama when he met WS. WS attended a food drive at St. Andrews Episcopal Church in Birmingham where Respondent was the Rector. WS received a sack lunch. WS met Respondent and told him about his financial problems. Respondent invited WS to his home to do yard work for $100 on or about November 7, 2020. WS followed Respondent home from church. Respondent paid to fill up WS’ gas tank on the way. When they arrived at Respondent’s home, Respondent asked WS how he was and said he looked tense. Respondent rubbed his shoulder and then took WS to the back bedroom where WS removed his shirt for the back rub. After five (5) minutes respondent asked him to remove his pants and underwear to rub his buttocks. WS further swore that “when his finger penetrated a bit and he asked for a taste so I got up a left.” WS viewed Respondent as a pastor and his acts were unwelcome. WS went to the police and filed a report stating the facts in his own writing. A warrant for the crime of Sexual Misconduct was issued by a judge against Respondent on November 9, 2020. WS decided he did not want to put himself through a process in which he would have to confront him again. On February 18, 2021 the case was dismissed on request of the victim on payment of court costs.

Church Exs 7, 12, and 13 were considered as proof of this charge.

Despite the lack of a live witness and the fact the criminal case was dismissed at WS’ request, the evidence is undisputed and consistent with those of the first three (3) complainants, including the pastoral relationship, financial inducements, and age difference.

The Hearing Panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated the Canons by failing to refrain from any act of sexual misconduct involving WS.

The Fourth Charge - Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy re KC’s Husband

The fourth charge, made pursuant to Canon IV.2, is that Respondent, a member of the clergy, failed to refrain from any disorder or neglect that prejudices the reputation, good order and discipline of the Church, or any conduct of a nature to bring material discredit upon the Church or the Holy Orders conferred by the Church, specifically his relationship with KC’s husband.

“Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy” is defined under Canon IV.2 to mean any disorder or neglect that prejudices the reputation, good order and discipline of the Church, or any conduct of a nature to bring material discredit upon the Church or the Holy Orders conferred by the Church.

In June 2017 the Rev. Marc Burnette, Rector of Canterbury Chapel Episcopal Church and Student Center, received communication from KC that Respondent, then serving as Curate at Canterbury Chapel Episcopal Church and Student Center, had been involved in an “inappropriate communication” with KC’s husband. KC indicated that she was contemplating taking legal action based on Respondent's conduct. Neither KC nor her husband was a member of Canterbury Chapel (See Church Ex 19 - Email from Burnette to Morpeth).

Burnette testified that Respondent had first encountered the individual with whom the inappropriate communication had occurred through Canterbury Chapel’s food pantry called Deacon’s Deli. Email communications primarily between Burnette and KC prove that Burnette attempted repeatedly to set up a meeting with the

complainant without success. (See Church Ex 20 - Emails between Burnette and KC).

Burnette had a conversation with Respondent explaining the nature of the complaint and advising him that such conduct was inappropriate and placed Canterbury Chapel in a dangerous position with regard to the possibility of legal action. Burnette then instructed Respondent to contact the Bishop Diocesan, regarding the inappropriate communication and the ensuing complaint. In Church Ex 3 - the Amended Terms of Administrative Leave January 14, 2021, the Bishop Diocesan noted that Respondent “was counseled” by Burnette “and agreed to contact the Bishop and share the information as to what had occurred. No information was subsequently provided to the Bishop by the Rev. Watkins.” (Emphasis added).

The Hearing Panel recognizes the disturbing nature of a clergy member’s blatant disregard of the “solemn and public covenant” (Book of Common Prayer, p. 422) between a married couple, and the detrimental effect such disregard is bound to have on the mission and ministry of the Episcopal Church, locally and nationally. It is the privilege and duty of ordained bishops and presbyters of the Episcopal Church to witness and pronounce God’s blessing on the marital union. For a member of the clergy to violate that privilege and duty, to act in opposition to the blessing of God on such a matrimonial union, would certainly be considered Conduct Unbecoming of a Member of the Clergy, at the very least.

The evidence is primarily hearsay without any sworn testimony in person or by affidavit. See Church Exhibits 3,19 and 20.

The Hearing Panel finds that there is not clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent failed to refrain from any disorder or neglect that prejudices the reputation, good order and discipline of the Church, or any conduct of a nature to bring material discredit upon the Church or the Holy Orders conferred by the Church, specifically his relationship with KC’s husband.

The

Fifth Charge - Violation of Administrative Leave Terms

The fifth charge, made pursuant to Canon IV.7, is that Respondent, a member of the clergy, violated the terms of the Administrative Leavespecifically he identified himself as an Episcopal priest during the Administrative Leave by manner of action on a publicly posted video.

On November 12, 2020 the Respondent was placed on Administrative Leave by the Bishop Diocesan and the terms were reduced to writing and signed by both the Bishop Diocesan and Respondent and witnessed by others. (See Church Ex 2 - Terms of Administrative Leave November 12, 2020). The paid Administrative Leave began immediately and was for three (3) months unless extended. The terms specifically included the following:

The Rev. Watkins is inhibited from exercising his privileges as an Episcopal priest for the duration of this Administrative Leave, and from identifying himself as such either by manner of action or mode of dress. (Church Ex 2, para. 5). (Emphasis added)

The Administrative Leave was amended on November 18 to add notice to Respondent that he had the right to be heard by the Disciplinary Board. (See Church Ex 2A - Addendum to Terms of Administrative Leave November 18, 2020). No other terms were added, subtracted, or amended.

On December 14, 2020 the Bishop Diocesan and Bishop Coadjutor met with Respondent to ask that Respondent undergo treatment for sex addiction and that he resign as Rector of St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church, both of which he had failed and/or refused to do after the original Administrative Leave.

The Bishop Diocesan retired from his office and was succeeded by the duly elected and ordained and consecrated Bishop Coadjutor. Prior to the expiration of the original Administrative Leave, the new

Bishop Diocesan met on January 14, 2021 with Respondent to discuss the Amended Terms of Administrative Leave. When Respondent was presented with the Amended Terms of Administrative Leave, he “walked out” of the meeting, refusing to sign the Amended Terms. The document was duly signed by the Bishop Diocesan. (See Church Ex 3 - Amended Terms of Administrative Leave January 14, 2021).

The Amended Terms read in pertinent part:

The terms of the Administrative Leave dated November 12, 2020, as amended by the Addendum dated November 18, 2020, are hereby further amended and extended as follows:

The Rev. Dr. Tommie Lee Watkins, Jr. is to remain on Administrative Leave until further notice. This extends, until further notice, the previous three-month term of administrative leave.

During this Administrative Leave, and for the duration thereof, the Rev. Watkins is inhibited from exercising his privileges as an Episcopal Priest and from identifying himself as such either by manner of action or mode of dress. (Emphasis added)

Respondent’s failure to sign the Amended Terms of Administrative Leave in no way means Respondent was not subject to obeying the terms. It simply means he once again refused to recognize authority and to act in an appropriate manner. All the requirements of Canon IV.7.4 were met.

Canon IV.7.3 provides for Administrative Leave and restrictions even without prior notice of a hearing.

If at any time the Bishop Diocesan determines that a Member of the Clergy may have committed any Offense, or that the good order, welfare or safety of the Church or any person or Community may be threatened by that member of the Clergy, the Bishop Diocesan may, without prior notice or hearing, (a) place restrictions upon the exercise of the ministry of such Member of the Clergy or (b) place such Member of the Clergy on Administrative Leave.

Under Canon IV.19.20,

Notices or other papers to be served according to procedures of this Title shall be deemed to have been duly served if a copy is delivered to the person to be served….

Respondent was duly served when presented with the Amended Terms in his meeting with Bishop Diocesan on January 14, 2021.

During the Hearing the Church Attorney presented a video, dated April 29, 2021, posted to www.gofundme.com of Respondent’s seeking financial assistance with legal fees associated with this Title IV proceeding. (See Church Exs 14 - Video and 15 - Transcript). In the video Respondent can be seen and heard, stating as follows:

Greetings. I’m the Rev. Dr. Tommie Lee Watkins, Jr., and I thank you for listening to my story. (p.1, par. 1) …

I was ordained as an Episcopal priest on November 11, 2016, and as a Deacon six months’ prior, on May 13, 2016, at St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church in Birmingham, Alabama. (p. 2, par. 2) …

My legal fees are increasing daily, and I ask you to do whatever you can, and to make whatever financial contributions to my GoFundMe account that you can afford,

and I also ask you to forward it to your social network to reach the maximum audience. (p. 3, par. 4)

The video alone rises to the level of a violation, but Respondent did not stop there. The Bishop Diocesan stated that she had been contacted by at least two (2) bishops of the church in reference to Respondent. Both the Bishop of the Diocese of New Jersey and the Bishop of the Virgin Islands reported to her that Respondent had contacted them seeking employment in their diocese. She further stated that Respondent had not divulged to those bishops that he was “a priest in trouble or in the disciplinary process.” Seeking refuge in another diocese in order to avoid the consequences of a Title IV matter, and presenting himself as a canonically resident Member of the Clergy in good standing with the freedom and ability to receive Letters Dimissory, is a flagrant violation of the terms of the Administrative Leave.

In failing to adhere to the Administrative Leave imposed upon him by the Bishop Diocesan of the Diocese of Alabama in which he is canonically resident, Respondent also disregarded his ordination vows. Every presbyter of the Episcopal Church makes vows before the clergy and laity of the diocese, and before God, at the time of their ordination. In the Examination of the Ordinand, which takes place just prior to The Consecration of the Priest in the ordination rite, the ordinand answers eight (8) questions, the most pertinent of which in this Title IV proceeding is question three (3): Will you respect and be guided by the pastoral direction and leadership of your bishop? To which the one to be ordained replies: I will. If the ordained cannot, or will not, obey the leadership of the bishop pertaining to administrative issues, including Administrative Leave, then what is to stop the ordained from disregarding all directives of the bishop in the care and ministry for the flock to which they have been called as shepherd? Obedience to the lawful directives of one’s Bishop Diocesan is the cornerstone of our system of governance and leadership.

Respondent’s failure to appear at his Hearing; his failure to even notify the Panel of his decision not to appear; and his failure to communicate with his new Advisor is contemptuous of the Hearing Panel, Title IV and the Canons of the Church. In fact these behaviors are all canonical offenses themselves: Canon IV.3.1(b) says:

A Member of the Clergy shall be subject to proceedings under this Title for: (b) failing without good cause to cooperate with any investigation or proceeding conducted under authority of this Title.

Moreover, his failure to appear worked a forfeiture of his right to cross examine the Church Attorney’s witnesses, object to evidence, put on his own evidence, argue his case, or tell his story. His behavior was disruptive and dilatory. His failure impinges on the integrity of these proceedings. It prejudices the good order and discipline of the Church. It brings material discredit upon the Church and the Holy Orders conferred by the Church. The withdrawal of his attorney and Respondent’s concurrence was an excuse to hide the facts from the Hearing Panel and an attempt to put the Hearing Panel in a box. This is a problem of Respondent’s own making. It is unfortunately a continuing pattern of failure to recognize and obey church authority.

The testimony of the Rt. Rev. Glenda Curry directly supports these facts. Church Exs 2,2A, 3, 14, and 15 were also considered as proof of this charge.

The Hearing Panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated the Amended Terms of Administrative Leave of January 14, 2021, identifying himself as an Episcopal priest by manner of action.

The Sixth Charge - Sexual Misconduct re CT

The sixth charge, made pursuant to Canon IV.4.1(h)(1), is that Respondent, a member of the clergy, failed to refrain from any act of sexual misconduct involving CT.

The definitions of “Sexual Misconduct,” “Sexual Behavior,” and “Pastoral Relationship” can be found under the First Charge and in Canon IV.2.

Respondent was a member of the clergy in the Episcopal Diocese of Alabama when he met CT in 2017 at Happening. CT was sixteen (16) years old then. (DOB 08/07/01). Also that year CT attended the Diocesan Christmas Conference at Camp McDowell. While at camp CT made his first confession. The priest who heard that confession, Respondent, was a priest he trusted. CT was interested in social work and told Respondent who shared that interest and agreed to be his guide, offering counseling.

In 2018 at the Diocesan Rites of Spring event at Camp McDowell, Respondent connected again with CT. They began texting and that continued even though CT was no longer involved in any program with Respondent. While a student at Auburn University, CT received texts from Respondent, suggesting Respondent come visit CT, asking about sleeping arrangements, stating he did not mind sharing a space. Respondent called CT his “special friend” and “special project.” Respondent told CT he would “hug and kiss” him when he saw CT. CT became uncomfortable and ceased contact with Respondent.

The evidence proves that Respondent engaged in sexual behavior with CT a person with whom Respondent had a Pastoral Relationship. This fits the pattern of sexual misconduct behavior in Charges 1, 2, and 3. Further, the testimony of CT, Crystal Jones, and the Rev. Corey Jones directly support these facts. Church Exs 8,16, and 17 were also considered as proof of this charge.

The Hearing Panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated the Canons by failing to refrain from any act of sexual misconduct involving CT.

Decision as to All Charges

The Hearing Panel concludes that Respondent violated Title IV, Canon 4, Section 1(h)(1) and (9) of the Canons of the Episcopal Church, concerning four (4) different people and that Respondent violated the terms of the Administrative Leave issued by the Bishop Diocesan under Title IV, Canon 7.

By its very nature, the process by which the Hearing Panel reaches those conclusions has entailed careful, detailed, and prayerful consideration of facts, positions, contentions, testimony and documents; it is not a simple parsing of canons.

The Hearing Panel finds that all five (5) of the offenses committed by Respondent are “material and substantial or of clear and weighty importance to the Ministry of the Church.” Canon IV.3.3.

The Hearing Panel further finds that Respondent has not proven any procedural violations. Moreover, Respondent’s allegations, even if they had been proven, are procedural, and would not and did not cause material or substantial injustice to be done or seriously prejudice Respondent’s rights. Canon IV.19.28. The Hearing Panel accordingly overrules these “objections.”

REMEDIES

Under the Canons the Hearing Panel’s task is not simply to determine whether Respondent has violated the Canons. The Panel is also charged with fashioning an appropriate remedy. The Hearing Panel has broad authority. Canon IV.14.6 specifically states:

An Order issued by a Conference Panel or Hearing Panel may

(a) provide any terms which promote healing, repentance, forgiveness, restitution, justice, amendment of life and reconciliation among the Complainant, Respondent, affected Community and other persons;

(b) place restrictions on the Respondent's exercise of ministry;

(c)recommend to the Bishop Diocesan that the Respondent be admonished, suspended or deposed from ministry;

(d) limit the involvement, attendance or participation of the Respondent in the Community; or

(e) any combination of the foregoing.

The Hearing Panel has prayerfully considered all available remedies. Given the serious nature of each offense, the numerous known violations, and the pattern and practice of the offenses, it is the unanimous decision of the Hearing Panel that

1. In The First Charge - Sexual Misconduct re TW - recommend to the Bishop Diocesan that the Respondent be deposed from ministry;

2. In The Second Charge - Sexual Misconduct re DK - recommend to the Bishop Diocesan that the Respondent be deposed from ministry;

3. In The Third Charge - Sexual Misconduct re WS - recommend to the Bishop Diocesan that the Respondent be deposed from ministry;

4. In The Fifth Charge - Violation of Administrative Leave Termsrecommend to the Bishop Diocesan that the Respondent be deposed from ministry;

5. In The Sixth Charge - Sexual Misconduct re CT - recommend to the Bishop Diocesan that the Respondent be deposed from ministry; and

6. The Amended Terms of Administrative Leave continue until deposition from ministry.

These measures are necessary and proper to the Hearing Panel’s exercise of its jurisdiction and to accomplish the purposes and goals of Title IV. Otherwise, justice, healing, restitution and reconciliation, the hallmarks of Canon IV.1, will not be possible in the long run in the Diocese of Alabama.

Issued this 28th day of February, 2023.

Eleanor I. Brooks

Eleanor I. Brooks, President

Hearing Panel

H. Huey Gadne +

The Rev. H. Huey Gardner, Member Hearing Panel

Carl M.Saxton, II+

The Rev. Carl M. Saxton, II, Member Hearing Panel