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.