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.