Hearing Panel Cases Involving Bishops

A matter reaches a hearing panel, at which point the canons require the public disclosure of all documents filed with, or issued by, the hearing panel or by any party or person.  (Canon IV.13.3.)  Such documents are posted below.

Bishop John Howard (Allegations of discrimination)

IN RE TITLE IV DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

June 7, 2024

TO: The Hearing Panel for Bishops

FR: The Reference Panel for Bishops

The Rt. Rev. J. Scott Mayer, Presiding Bishop-Designate
The Rt. Rev. W. Nicholas Knisely, President of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops
The Rev. Barbara Kempf, Intake Officer for Bishops

Re: Title IV matter involving allegations of allegations of discrimination against the Rt. Rev. S. Johnson Howard

On July 24, 2023, the Intake Officer received information suggesting that Bishop Howard may have committed Offenses under Title IV of the Canons of The Episcopal Church. The Intake Officer prepared an Intake Report and delivered it to the Reference Panel on October 19, 2023, pursuant to Canon IV.6.4. On November 9, 2023, the Reference Panel referred the matter for Investigation pursuant to Canon IV.6.8(c). Having reviewed the report of the Investigator, the Reference Panel has decided to refer the matter directly to the Hearing Panel for Bishops pursuant to Canon IV.11.3(e). Pursuant to Canon IV.13.2,the Church Attorney will provide to the Hearing Panel a written statement describing the alleged Offenses.

The Rt. Rev. W. Nicholas Knisely
President, Disciplinary Board for Bishops
[electronic signature by permission]

cc: J.B. Bmtch, Esq., Counsel for Disciplinary Board for Bishops
Craig Merritt, Esq., Church Attorney
[Redacted] Complainant
[Redacted], Advisor to Complainant
The Rt. Rev. S. Johnson Howard, Respondent
The Rt. Rev. Douglas E. Sparks, Advisor to Respondent
Steven Busey, Esq., Counsel for Respondent

THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the Disciplinary Board for Bishops

Hearing Panel

In the Matter of Rt. Rev. Samuel Johnson Howard
(Discrimination Matter)

Statement of Alleged Offenses

The Church Attorney, pursuant to Title IV, Canon 13, Sec. 2 of the Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (referred to respectively in this Statement as the “Canons” and the “Church”), submits this Statement of Alleged Offenses.

Procedural History and Jurisdictional Matters

1. On October 19, 2023, the Intake Officer for the Disciplinary Board for Bishops (the “Board”) referred the matters addressed in this Statement to a Reference Panel composed of the Rt. Rev. J. Scott Mayer, Presiding Bishop-Designate; the Rt. Rev. Chilton Knudsen, President of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops; and the Rev. Barbara Kempf, Intake Officer for Bishops. The Rt. Rev. Nicholas Knisely succeeded Bishop Knudsen as President of the Board in Spring 2024, and as a consequence succeeded her as a member of the Reference Panel.

2. The Complainant is [redacted]. She was ordained a Priest [redacted]. She also serves part-time as a non-stipendiary Assisting Priest [redacted].

3. Upon consideration of the matters presented by the Intake Officer, the Reference Panel referred the allegations for investigation pursuant to Canon IV.11 on November 9, 2023. See Canon IV.6.8(c) (option to refer to investigation). The Board thereafter engaged [redacted] the “Investigator”) to conduct the investigation.

4. On June 4, 2024, the Investigator reported the final results of her work to the Reference Panel.

5. After consideration of the information provided by the Investigator, and after due deliberation, the Reference Panel referred the matter to this Hearing Panel on June 7, 2024. See Canon IV.11.3 (e) (referral to Hearing Panel).

6. This Hearing Panel was appointed by the President of the Board to hear and adjudicate the matters set forth below, which fall within its jurisdiction pursuant to Canon IV.13.

7. This is an ecclesiastical matter under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Church. See Canon lV.19. I. By taking ordination vows and receiving Holy Orders, Respondent consented to subject himself to the jurisdiction of the Church with regard to the adjudication of alleged violations of the Canons. Id. Pursuant to the Canons, disciplinary cases involving bishops areinvestigated, adjudicated, or otherwise resolved by the Board. See Canon IV.17.3.a. The Hearing Panel in this matter is appointed to hear evidence and impose any remedy authorized by the Canons. See Canon IV.17.5.

Summary of Material Facts

8. The Rt. Rev. Samuel Johnson Howard (the “Respondent”) was elected Bishop Coadjutor of the Diocese of Florida (the “Diocese”) in May 2003 and was thereafter consecrated as the eighth Bishop Diocesan on January 29, 2004. He retired in Fall 2023.

9. From the early days of his episcopate, Respondent clearly stated his views concerning same-sex marriage. He did not condone offering the sacrament of marriage to couples of the same gender.

10. Respondent’s views on homosexuality informed his treatment of gay clergy. Complainant, a partnered lesbian, was limited in her options as a Priest in the Diocese as a direct consequence of discrimination against her based on her sexual orientation.

11. The Church’s views on homosexuality generally, and on the ordination and functioning of LGBTQ+ clergy, have evolved. Much like the changing landscape in the larger culture, the Church’s consensus of what is acceptable and within Christian norms moved over decades from shaming and closeting, to tolerance, to an embrace of a broad range of human sexual expression.

12. Individuals, in the genuine exercise of their faith, have the full right, recognized by the Church, to maintain their deeply held theological or scriptural views about same-sex marriage. Within the Church, despite the shifting of the consensus on homosexual identity and conduct, there remain individuals who in good faith cannot square homosexual behavior generally, or same-sex marriage specifically, with their religious principles. Respondent, who expresses his genuine care for all persons, is one of those individuals. He cannot and should not be compelled to square his religious principles with the consensus that has emerged in the larger Church. He must, however, maintain the discipline and good order of the Church and exercise the episcopate in accordance with the Canons.

13. The tension between bishops, including Respondent, who continued to oppose gay marriage and those who would allow it was debated and addressed in the Church’s General Convention held in Austin, Texas in July 2018. Because marriage is a sacrament of the Church, the question had arisen whether the liturgy of the Church should be expanded to accommodate the marriage of same-sex persons.

14. The proposed change to the liturgy was presented in Resolution B012, ultimately adopted by the General Convention after debate and amendment. Resolution B012 authorized a trial liturgy for same-sex marriage. However, it explicitly recognized that certain bishops did not approve of same-sex marriage as a sacrament. Consequently, it created a mechanism for clergyseeking to perform the marriage rite for same-sex couples to operate under the guidance of another bishop in order to avoid conflict with their own bishop diocesan.

15. In relevant part, Resolution B012 states: “That in dioceses where the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority (or, where applicable, ecclesiastical supervision) holds a theological position that does not embrace marriage for same-sex couples, and there is a desire to use such rites by same sex couples in a congregation or worshipping community, the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority ( or ecclesiastical supervision) shall invite, as necessary, another bishop of this Church to provide pastoral support to the couple, the Member of the Clergy involved and the congregation or worshipping community in order to fulfill the intention of this resolution that all couples have convenient and reasonable local congregational access to these rites.”

16. Resolution B012 created a vehicle for Respondent to maintain the integrity of his own theological position while allowing the clergy of the Diocese, without the risk of disobeying their Diocesan Ecclesiastical Authority, to obtain episcopal support for the exercise their own judgment to offer same-sex marriage rites and maintain the integrity of their own theological positions.

17. After passage of Resolution BO 12, and prior to Advent 2018, Respondent called and led a meeting with Diocesan clergy. During the meeting he announced the manner in which the Diocese would implement Resolution B012.

18. Respondent told the attendees that a Priest seeking to perform a same-sex marriage must meet with him in person. The Priest would be required to bring his or her wardens to the meeting with Respondent. At the meeting, the Priest would be required to state directly to the Respondent that he or she understood that the performance of the marriage rite was in violation of his pastoral directive.

19. This articulation of the Diocesan policy was contrary to the purpose, spirit, and intent of Resolution B012, emphasizing disobedience to the Diocesan Ecclesiastical Authority rather than facilitating clerical access to a sacramental rite approved provisionally by the Church.

20. Respondent’s reframing of Resolution B012 to emphasize disobedience was consistent with his ongoing unwillingness to grant full participation in the Church to LGBTQ+ clergy. The Diocese, under Respondent’s leadership, showed a longstanding bias against full participation by gay and lesbian priests.

21. The issue of discrimination based on sexual orientation emerged in connection with a second Diocesan effort to elect a Bishop Coadjutor in the year 2022. A first Diocesan election held on May 14, 2022, had been identified by a ChurchCourt of Review as having procedural deficiencies, and the prevailing candidate thereafter withdrew his acceptance of theresults.

22. A second election held on November 19, 2022, resulted in the election of the same candidate for Bishop Coadjutor. On November 28, 2022, certain delegates to the Convention submitted to the Secretary of the Diocese a Letter of Objection to the second election.

23. The objectors raised, among other issues, the allegation that Respondent denied canonical residence to at least eleven clergy with cure, actively working in the Diocese, solely on the basis that they did not share Respondent’s views on issues such as same-sex marriage. Because canonical residence was a precondition to the right to vote, the denials allegedly skewed the clergy vote and materially affected the election outcome.

24. As provided by Canon, a Court of Review investigated and offered its findings concerning the objections to the second election. The report of the Court of Review was issued January 31, 2023. See Report of the Court of Review of the Episcopal Church Concerning the Objections Filed in the Second Election of Bishop Coadjutor in the Diocese of Florida (“Court of Review Report”) (found online at https://www.diocesefl.org/wpcontent/uploads/2023/02/English-Findings-of-the-Court-with-Exhibits. pdf.).

25. Regarding the claim that the election process may have been influenced by discrimination based on sexual orientation, the Court of Review found that the Diocese had, under Respondents’ leadership, improperly excluded at least three clergy from canonical residence based on either sexual orientation or on their views concerning same-sex relationships.

26. The Court of Review, based on its interviews of other clergy, stated: “our interviews suggest a pattern and practice of LGBTQ clergy and those who opposed the Bishop’s stated views not being treated equally with similarly situated clergy inthe securing and exercising of their rights to ordination, licensing and the granting of canonical residency.” It concluded that the second election, which was by a one-vote margin, may have been influenced by the exclusion of gay and lesbian priests and clergy who advocated for their rights. See Court of Review Report at 14-15.

27. The findings and analysis by the Court of Review of the facts concerning Diocesan discrimination based on sexual orientation are located at Pages 5 through 15 of the Court of Review Report. Those findings are incorporated by reference into this Paragraph and submitted as if set forth fully herein.

28. Complainant moved her residence to the Diocese in 2017. [redacted]

29. Consistent with Church practice and Canonical requirements, Complainant sought to contact the Diocese to report her presence and to discuss how she might best be deployed as a Priest. Through a third person, Complainant was put in contact with the Canon to the Ordinary, the Rev. Allison Defoor (the “Canon”). Complainant had a brief telephone conversation with the Canon in about September 2017, during which the Canon. who had already been made aware of her sexual orientation, sent a clear message that the Respondent would not likely welcome her as a Priest in the Diocese.

30. The Complainant was at that time and presently is Canonically resident in the [redacted]. She had worked in the military and in several diocesan settings where she had made herself known to the Ecclesiastical Authority and had been granted licenses readily after appropriate background checks. The Canon’s statement of Respondent’s position was unlikeanything she had encountered in the Church.

31. Complainant endured a period of setback that lasted until 2019, during which she pondered the meaning of the overt hostility to her desire to pursue her vocation, prepared herself to pursue and then obtained secular employment, left all participation in the Church, and then returned to the Church by attending a welcoming parish. She was encouraged by supporters in her parish to resume her efforts to work as a Priest in the Diocese. In 2019, with the assistance of the Bishop of [redacted] and the help of the Rector of an Episcopal parish in Tallahassee, Florida, she was able to get agreement from the Canon to have a meeting with her.

32. Complainant met the Canon in person in March 2020. Complainant’s sexual orientation as a limiting factor on Complainant’s opportunities was again the centerpiece of the conversation. The Canon reiterated the negative message he had delivered in the 2017 phone call but offered the comfort that “he won’t be Bishop forever.”

33. Complainant offered nonetheless to assist the Diocese through the emerging COVID-19 crisis and continued herefforts to meet with the Respondent. Eventually, with the help of the President of the Diocesan Standing Committee, she arranged a face-to-face meeting with Respondent in March 2021. The meeting took place in the Respondent’s office.

34. During the meeting, after initial inquiries about her background. Respondent narrowed the conversation to her partner and their marital status. He asked Complainant if she and her partner were married. Complainant answered in the negative. Respondent indicated that not being married would work in her favor.

35. Complainant did not request acceptance of her Letters Dimissory, certain that such a request would not be granted. However, she stated that she sought a licensed status that would allow her to assist or perform supply work throughout the Diocese, as she had become aware of a need for priests available to do that work.

36. Respondent stated that he would grant her a limited license, performing nonstipendiary work at [redacted]. The license was renewable annually and terminable at the discretion of the Respondent. When she suggested that a broader license might be more useful, she was rebuffed.

37. The limitations imposed by Respondent on Complainant’s ministry were the direct result of his intent to discriminate against her based on her sexual orientation, and consistent with the Diocesan pattern and practice of discrimination based on sexual orientation reported by the Court of Review.

38. Complainant sought and was granted renewal of the original limited license for the years 2022 and 2023. In 2024, in the aftermath of the Court of Review Report and her own initiation of the Title IV process, she received, without any explanation or discussion, a license that allowed her to work throughout the Diocese.

39. When confronted with evidence of a discriminatory pattern targeting clergy based on sexual orientation or targeting clergy who support the rights of LGBTQ+ clergy, Respondent has denied the existence of any discriminatory intentions or conduct. That denial misrepresents the state of affairs that prevailed during his tenure in the Diocese.

Relevant Canonical Provisions

40. It is the stated policy of the Church since 1996 to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. The policy has evolved and strengthened with the passage of time. It is currently reflected in Canon I.17.5, which relates to the laity, stating: “No one shall be denied the rights, status or access to an equal place in the life, worship, governance, or employment of this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital or family statue (including pregnancy or child care plans), sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, disabilities or age, except as otherwise specified by Canons.”

41. The Church prohibits discrimination in employment or employment opportunities based on sexual orientation, as stated in Canon IIl.1.2: “No person shall be denied access to the discernment process or to any process for the employment, licensing, calling or deployment for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, immigration status, national origin, sex, marital or family status (including pregnancy and child care plans), sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided by these Canons. No right to employment, licensing, ordination, call, deployment or election is hereby established.”

42. The Church prohibits denial of licensing opportunities based on sexual orientation, as stated in the relevant part of Canon III.9.7.a: “No Priest shall be denied such a license on account of the Priest’s race, color, ethnic origin, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities, or age, except as otherwise provided in these Canons.”

43. Canon IV.3.1.a. states that a Member of the Clergy shall be subject to proceedings under Title IV for “knowingly violating or attempting to violate, directly or through the acts of another person, the Constitution of Canons of the Church or of any Diocese.”

44. Canon IV.4.1.h.6. prohibits, “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”

45. Canon IV.4.1.h.9. prohibits, “any Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy.”

46. Canon IV.2. defines Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy 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.”

Offenses Charged

47. Respondent’s denial to Complainant of more than a limited license, permitting only non-stipendiary work in a single parish, being based on Complainant’s sexual orientation, was in direct conflict with the unambiguous Canonical provisions prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, including Canons IIl.1.2 and IIl.9.7.a, in violation of Canon IV.3.1.a.

48. Respondent’s denial to Complainant of more than a limited license, permitting only non-stipendiary work in a single parish, being based on Complainant’s sexual orientation, was in direct conflict with the unambiguous Canonical provisions prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, constituting Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy, in that it directly undermined the good order and discipline of the Church, in violation of Canon IV.4.1.h.9.

49. Respondent’s insistence that his application of the Canons governing nondiscrimination to Complainant and to other gay or lesbian clergy was in conformity with the requirements of the Church was a misrepresentation of the actual practice within the Diocese, undermining the good order and discipline the Church, in violation of Canon IV.4.1.h. 9.

50. Respondent’s insistence that his application of the Canons governing nondiscrimination to Complainant and to other gay or lesbian clergy was in conformity with the requirements of the Church was a misrepresentation of the actual practice within the Diocese, in violation of Canon IV.4.1.h.6.

Wherefore, the Church Attorney respectfully requests that the Hearing Panel, after the taking of evidence, enter an Order imposing such Sentence upon the Respondent as it may determine is proper.

Dated: June 27, 2024

Respectfully submitted,

Craig Thomas Merritt
MerrittHill, PLLC
919 East Main Street
Suite 1000
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 916-1600

Church Attorney

THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH

Before the Disciplinary Board for Bishops
Hearing Panel

August 14, 2024

In the Matter of the Rt. Rev. Samuel Johnson Howard
(Discrimination Matter)

NOTICE

To: Rt. Rev. Samuel Johnson Howard, Respondent
Rt. Rev. Douglas E. Sparks, Advisor to Respondent
Steven Busey, Esq., Counsel for Respondent
Craig T. Merritt, Esq., Church Attorney

Please take notice that, this matter having been referred tothis Hearing Panel for the conduct of a hearing andrelated proceedings pursuant to Title IV of the Canons of the General Convention, and the Hearing Panel having received the attached Statement of Alleged Offenses from the Church Attorney:

  1. Respondent must file a written Response to theChurch Attorney’s Statement of Alleged Offenses with the Hearing Panel and the Church Attorney within thirty (30) days of the mailing date of this Notice, unless additional time is approved by the Hearing Panel for good cause.The written Response needs to be signed by theRespondent. Canons IV.13.2.a and IV.13.2.c.
  2. Pursuant to Canon N.19.6, if the Respondent fails to appear before the Hearing Panel or fails to file with the Hearing Panel in a timely manner the written Response required by Canon IV.13.2.c, the Hearing Panel may, in its discretion, proceed in the absence of the Respondent and may consider the materials described in Canon IV.12.1 and any other types of evidence whose use is permitted in proceedings conducted before such Panels. The failure of a Respondent to appear or to fail to file a written Response shall not, in itself, provide the basis for a finding that anOffense has been committed, other than anyOffence specifically arising from such a failure toappear or failure to file.

/s/ Rt. Rev. Wendell N. Gibbs, President

Judith Andrews, Member                        Rt. Rev. Susan B. Haynes, Member
Rt. Rev. Kevin D. Nichols, Member         Rev. Mally Ewing Lloyd, Member

cc: [redacted] Complainant
[redacted] Advisor to Complainant

lN THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH
IN THE UNITED STATES OFAMERICA

In the Title IV Disciplinary Matter
Involving the Rt. Rev. S. Johnson Howard
(Discrimination Matter)

Response of Bishop Howard

The Statement of Alleged Offenses prepared by the Church Attorney, Craig Thomas Merritt, dated June 27, 2024, acknowledges that the Episcopal Church’s views on homosexuality, generally, including the ordination and functioning of gay clergy, have “evolved … over decades.” (Statement, para. 11).

The Statement also recognizes that there remain individuals within the Church who in good faith cannot, and should not berequired to, square homosexual behavior with their deeply held theological views:

12. Individuals, in the genuine exercise of their faith, have the full right, recognized by the Church to maintain their deeply held theological or scriptural views about same-sex marriage. Within the Church, despite the shifting of the consensus on homosexual identity and conduct, there remain individuals who in good faith cannot square homosexual behavior generally, or same-sex marriage specifically, with their religious principles. Respondent, who expresses his genuine care for all persons, is one of those individuals. He cannot and should not be compelled to square his religious principles with the consensus that has emerged in the larger Church ….

As observed by the Church Attorney, Bishop Howard is among the many clergy in the Church whose views onhomosexuality and same-sex marriage have not shifted over time.

The issue before the Panel, however, is not to pass judgment on Bishop Howard’s personal theological perspective on these matters. The narrow issue before the Panel, as stated in the Statement’s charges (Statement, paras. 47-50), is whether Bishop Howard violated Canon law by discriminating against the Complainant, [redacted], because of her sexual orientation. Bishop Howard did not do so.

Resolution B012,

Although the offenses charged in the Statement relate only to the Bishop’s alleged discriminatory actions toward the Complainant, the Statement gratuitously offers a predicate observation regarding Bishop Howard’s implementation of the Church’s 2018 Resolution 8012 (providing for alternative oversight for priests wishing to perform same-sex marriages). The Statementaccurately reports that Bishop Howard, upon the Church’s adoption of Resolution BO12, met with the Clergy of the Diocese toexplain the manner in which the Diocese would implement the Resolution. The Bishop informed the Clergy that he would request any Priest wishing to perform same-sex marriages to meet together with him and the Priest’s wardens to discuss the implementation of alternative Episcopal oversight. The Bishop’s request for such meetings was for the purpose of clear communication between the Bishop and his Clergy regarding the Bishop’s own theological views as the Diocesan Ecclesiastical Authority and the Clergy’s nee<l for alternative Episcopal oversight pursuant to Resolution 8012.

Bishop Howard’s approach to and implementation of Resolution B012 received the full public commendation and support of Presiding Bishop Michael Curry. On February 4, 2019, during a town hall gathering at St John’s Cathedral in Jacksonville, Bishop Curry was specifically asked about Bishop Howard’s request that Priests and Wardens meet together with him when seeking to implement Resolution B0l2. In his response to this question, Bishop Curry told the Clergy and other members of theDiocese that they should be grateful thatthe Diocese had a Bishop who had strong convictions and who wanted to talk openly withhis Clergy and Wardens regarding these issues.

Contrary to the Statement’s allegations that Bishop Howard “emphasized disobedience” to his authority (Statement, para.19), Bishop Howard told his Clergy that he would comp1y with Resolution B012. Bishop Howard did so repeatedly throughout the Diocese, including with his own Cathedral’s Clergy.

Bishop Howard successfully implemented Resolution B012, achieving the Church’s intent and purpose in its adoption, and facilitating clerical access to the sacramental rite provisionally approved by the Church.

The Court of Review Report.

Again, although the Statement alleges offenses only relating to the Complainant, the Statement gratuitously offers apredicate reference to the Church’s January 31, 2023 Court of Review Report sustaining objections to the Diocese’s November 18, 2022 election of a Bishop Coadjutor (the “Report”).

The Report contained findings that there was a “pattern and practice” in the Diocese of Florida of disparate treatment of clergy based on their sexual orientation. The Report did not identify the timing of the alleged disparate treatment, including whether it was before or after the Church’s 2018 General Convention. Moreover, the Report premised its sustaining of the objections to the election on the grounds that there were three clergy persons (including the Complainant) who were not allowed to vote “due to disparate treatment in granting canonical residence.” (Report, p. 14).

The Report acknowledges, however, that none of these three clergy had presented to Bishop Howard their Letters Dimissory requesting canonical residence because they “felt” it would be futile (Report, p. 14; that is, the Report based its finding on the “feelings” of the three clergy rather than any action or inaction of Bishop Howard). The Report contained no finding that Bishop Howard had denied canonical residence because of sexual orientation to a clergy member who had presented Letters Dimissory to Bishop Howard.

The Complainant

It is undisputed that the Complainant never presented to or requested acceptance hy Bishop Howard of her Letters Dimissory (Statement, para. 35). Rather, the Statement alleges that the Bishop’s denial of “more than a limited license” to the Complainant in March of 2020 was discriminatory based on her sexual orientation.

To the contrary, the Bishop’s grant of a limited license for the Complainant in 2020 was made with full knowledge that she was in a current lesbian relationship with a partner to whom she was not married. Canon 21, Section 4, of the Canons of the Diocese of Florida expressly requires Diocesan Clergy to abstain “from sexual relations outside of Holy Matrimony.” Other than this instance, Bishop Howard had never permitted any exception to this canon.

Mindful of the Diocesan Canon, but nevertheless willing to accommodate the Complainant’s wish to assist [redacated], Bishop Howard granted the Complainant the limited license as reported in the Statement. The Bishop’s grant of the license was within his pastoral discretion as the Ecclesiastical Authority in the Diocese, was in response to the Complainant’s request and was an act of grace, compliant with applicable Canon law.

Accordingly, the Hearing Panel should dismiss these proceedings pursuant to Canon lV.13.13

Respectfully submitted this          day of September 2024.

/s/ The Rt. Rev. S. Johnson Howard
/s/ Stephen D. Busey
Counsel for Bishop Howard

THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the Disciplinary Board for Bishops

Hearing Panel

In the Matter of Rt. Rev. Samuel Johns Howard
(Discrimination Matter)

Church Initial Disclosure Pursuant to Canon Iv.13.5.a

The Episcopal Church, by its Church Attorney, makes this disclosure as required by Title IV, Section 13.5.a of theCanons of the General Convention (“Canonsn). This disclosure is subject to supplementation, as the ongoing investigation and discovery will likely generate additional relevant evidence, including additional witnesses and documents.

The inclusion of a person on the list below does not indicate that the person will necessarily be called as a witness at the hearing.

Persons Who May Have Knowledge of Material Facts

NameTopic
Rt. Rev. Samuel Johnson Howard
c/o Stephen D. Busey, Esquire
All factual matters set forth in the Statement of Alleged Offenses (“SAO”) and Response thereto.
[redacted][redacted] who has knowledge of the facts regarding her expenses in the Diocese of Florida, including factual matters averred in the SAO.
[redacted]Canon to the Ordinary at times relevant to matters addressed in SAO, with information concerning interactions with Complainant.
[redacted]Rector of parish where Complainant currently works, with knowledge of Complainant’s capabilities and skills.
[redacted]Priest who worked in the Diocese of Florida with knowledge concerning Respondent’s communications to clergy on the issue of same-sex marriage.
[redacted]Priest in Diocese of Florida with knowledge concerning retaliation for support of LGBTQ+ support group.
[redacted]Priest in Diocese of Florida with knowledge concerning retaliation for support of work with LGBTQ+ college students.
[redacted]Individual with knowledge concerning denial of access to discernment in the Diocese.
[redacted]Priest with knowledge concerning denial of access to licensing and employment in Diocese of Florida.
[redacted]Priest in Georgia with knowledge concerning denial of access to discernment, licensing and employment in Diocese of Florida.
[redacted][redacted] with knowledge of Respondent’s views and practices over time concerning LGBTQ+ clergy.
[redacted]Priest in Diocese of Florida who had contact with Complainant during herefforts to obtain work in the Diocese, with knowledge of Respondent’s policies concerning LGBTQ+ clergy in the Diocese.

Documents in the Possession of the Church

The Church is in possession of documents gathered during the investigation by the Intake Officer and the Investigator assigned to the matter. All are in electronic format, and the Church Attorney will coordinate with counsel for the Respondent the most effective means of producing the materials. The Church Attorney will discuss with counsel forthe Respondent whether it is appropriate to request the entry of a protective order governing the use of these materials in advance of the hearing. The Church anticipates that its continuing investigation may generate additional relevant documents, and it will supplement its production of documents to the Respondent’s counsel as the matter proceeds.

Dated: November 26, 2024

/s/ Craig T. Merritt, Church Attorney

Certificate of Service

The undersigned certifies that a true copy of the above initial disclosures was served on Stephen D. Busey, counsel for the Respondent, by electronic mail at busey@smithhulsey.com on November 26, 2024.

/s/ Craig T. Merritt

THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the Disciplinary Board for Bishops

Hearing Panel

In the Matter of Rt. Rev. Samuel Johns Howard
(Discrimination Matter)

Bishop Howard’s Initial Disclosure Pursuant to Canon IV.13.5.a

Bishop Howard makes this disclosure as required by Title IV, Section 13.5.a of the Canons of the General Convention (“Canons”). This disclosure is subject to supplementation, as the ongoing investigation and discovery will likely generateadditional relevant evidence, including additional witnesses and documents.

Bishop Howard adopts and discloses as his own the disclosures of the Church made on November 26, 2024 of both witnesses and documents.

Dated: November 27, 2024                                                      

/s/ Stephen D. Busey

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the above initial disclosures was served on Craig T. Merritt, counsel for the Church, by electronic mail at cmerritt@merrittfirm.com on November 27, 2024.

/s/ Stephen D. Busey

THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH

BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD FOR BISHOPS

HEARING PANEL

In the Matter of the Rt. Rev. Samuel Johnson Howard
(Discrimination Matter)

SCHEDULING ORDER

Upon consideration of the submissions of the parties, and the comments of their respective counsel at the Scheduling Conference held on December 10, 2024, the Hearing Panel enters this Scheduling Order pursuant to Title IV, Section 13.5.c of the Canons of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church (the “Canons”).

It is hereby ORDERED that:

  1. The hearing in this matter will commence on April 30, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. and continue through May 2, 2024.  If the hearing has not been concluded by that date, additional hearing dates will be scheduled.  The hearing will proceed in accordance with the requirements of the Canons, including but not limited to the procedures set forth in Canon IV.13.10. The hearing will be conducted in person at a location in the Jacksonville, Florida area to be established by a further order of this Hearing Panel.
  2. The parties shall exchange copies of any documents identified in their respective Mandatory Disclosures on or before January 15, 2025.
  3. Each party my serve upon the other party up to twenty (20) written interrogatories.  Such interrogatories shall be served on or before January 15, 2025.  Written responses shall be served on or before February 14, 2025.
  4. All disputes concerning the scope of written discovery, the sufficiency of the responses thereto, or the production of documents shall be resolved by agreement of the parties after they meet and confer and make a good faith effort at resolution.  The parties shall submit any unresolved issues to the Hearing Panel by way of motion filed on or before February 28, 2025.  A written response by the non-moving party shall be filed within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of the motion.  Upon the receipt of any such motion, the Hearing Panel will promptly set the matter for hearing.
  5. Any other motion allowed by the Canons shall be filed on or before March 7, 2025.  A written response by the non-moving party shall be filed within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of the motion.  Upon the receipt of any such motion, the Hearing Panel will promptly set the matter for hearing.
  6. Respondent may supplement his Mandatory Disclosure to identify additional witnesses intended to rebut the Church’s claim that the Respondent was engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination similar to that alleged in this matter.  Any such supplementation shall be made on or before February 7, 2025.
  7. Either party may supplement its Mandatory Disclosure to identify witnesses intended to testify as experts and offer opinions at the hearing, including a succinct written summary of the expected testimony of each expert witness and a curriculum vitae of each such witness.  Any such supplementation shall be made on or before February 7, 2025.  
  8. Good cause having been shown, the parties may take the deposition of any witness identified in a party’s Mandatory Disclosure or any supplement thereto.  The parties are strongly encouraged to meet and confer in order to limit the number of depositions to only those that are necessary.
  9. All depositions shall be completed on or before April 10, 2025, unless by further order of the Hearing Panel for good cause.
  10. Pursuant to Canon IV.13.9, on or before April 15, 2025 the parties shall each provide to the other and to the Hearing Panel final pre-hearing disclosures including (1) the name, address, and telephone number of each witness expected to be called to testify at the hearing; (2) identification of each document or other tangible object expected to be used as an exhibit in the hearing; and (3) requests, if any, to have all or portions of the hearing closed to the public.  If a party intends to offer a witness in its case in chief through the witnesses’ deposition transcript or through recorded audio-visual deposition testimony, the witness must be identified on or before this date, the reasons why the witness is unavailable must be stated, and the relevant portions of the deposition to be offered must be identified.

/s/ Rt. Rev. Wendell N. Gibbs, President

December 21, 2024

THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH

BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD FOR BISHOPS
HEARING PANEL

In the Matter of the Rt. Rev. Samuel Johnson Howard
(Discrimination Matter)

ORDER GRANTING STAY AND AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that upon the request of the Respondent, with no objection from the Church Attorney, proceedings in this matter are stayed through January 31, 2025.

It is further ORDERED that paragraph 2 of the Scheduling Order is amended to provide that the parties shall exchange copies of any documents identified in their respective Mandatory Disclosures on or before February 14, 2025.

It is further ORDERED that paragraph 3 of the Scheduling Order is amended to provide that each party my serve upon the other party up to twenty (20) written interrogatories.  Such interrogatories shall be served on or before February 7, 2025.  Written responses shall be served on or before February 21, 2025.

In all other respects, the Scheduling Order will remain in effect until further Order of the Hearing Panel.

/s/ Rt. Rev. Wendell N. Gibbs, President

January 3, 2025

Bishop John Howard (Allegations of a financial nature)

THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH
IN THE UNITED STATES OFAMERICA

Before the Disciplinary Board for Bishops

Hearing Panel

In the Matter of Rt. Rev. Samuel Johnson Howard
(Financial Matter)

Statement of Alleged Offenses

The Church Attorney, pursuant to Title IV, Canon 13, Sec. 2 of the Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (referred to respectively in this Statement as the “Canons” and the”Church”), submits this Statement of Alleged Offenses.

Procedural History and Jurisdictional Matters

1. On October 19, 2023, the Intake Officer for the Disciplinary Board for Bishops (the “Board”) referred the matters addressed in this Statement to a Reference Panel composed of the Rt. Rev. J. Scott Mayer, Presiding Bishop-Designate; the Rt. Rev. Chilton Knudsen, President of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops; and the Rev. Barbara Kempf, Intake Officer for Bishops. The Rt. Rev. Nicholas Knisely succeeded Bishop Knudsen as President of the Board in Spring 2024, and as a consequence succeeded her as a member of the Reference Panel.

2. The Complainant is [redacted].

3. Upon consideration of the matters presented by the Intake Officer, the Reference Panel determined onNovember 9, 2023, to refer the allegations for investigation pursuant to Canon IV.11. See Canon IV.6.8(c) (option to refer to investigation). The Board thereafter engaged [redacated] (the “Investigator”) to conduct the investigation.

4. After consideration of the information provided by the Investigator, and after due deliberation, theReference Panel referred the matter to this Hearing Panel on June 7, 2024. See Canon IV.11.3(e) (referral to Hearing Panel).

5. This Hearing Panel was appointed by the President of the Board to hear and adjudicate the matters setforth below, which fall within its jurisdiction pursuant to Canon IV.13.

6. This is an ecclesiastical matter under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Church. See Canon IV.19.1. By taking ordination vows and receiving Holy Orders, Respondent consented to subject himself to the jurisdiction of the Church with regard to the adjudication of alleged violations of the Canons. Id. Pursuant to the Canons, disciplinary cases involving bishops are investigated, adjudicated, or otherwise resolved by the Board. SeeCanon IV.17.3.a. The Hearing Panel in this matter is appointed to hear evidence and impose any remedy authorized by the Canons. See Canon IV.17.5.

Summary of Material Facts

7. The Rt. Rev. Samuel Johnson Howard (the “Respondent”) was elected Bishop Coadjutor of theDiocese of Florida (the “Diocese”) in May 2003 and was thereafter consecrated as the eighth Bishop Diocesan on January 29, 2004. He retired in Fall 2023.

8. During his tenure as Bishop Diocesan, Respondent exercised control over material financial matters involving both his personal interests and those of the Diocese, which on occasion were adverse. This was true in the case of certain arrangements between the Respondent and the Diocese whereby the Respondent received a financial benefit from the Diocese. In each of those situations, Respondent was under a duty to ensure thattransactions with the Diocese remained at arms’ length, and that the financial interests of the Diocese were protected.

9. During his tenure as Bishop Diocesan, Respondent was under a duty, particularly on occasions when his financial interests were adverse to those of the Diocese, to operate with transparency, obtain required approvals from Diocesan lay authorities, and properly document the transactions and approvals.

Misuse of Discretionary Account

10. During his tenure as Bishop Diocesan, Respondent had access to and control over a discretionaryfund. He was to apply monies in the discretionary fund to such human needs as he deemed pressing and worthy of the Church’s assistance, in pursuance of the Church’s mission.

11. In May and June 2019, Respondent arranged for three contractors to perform HVAC work and related improvements at his personal residence, located at [redacted]. Invoices bearing dates in May or June 2019 were submitted by (a)Alan Duarte Handyman, LLC, directed to The Episcopal Diocese of Florida, ATTN: The Rt. Rev’d. S. Johnson Howard; (b) Chills on Wheels Heating & Air Contractors, Inc., directed to MarieHoward at the residential address; (c) Crews Electrical Contracting Inc., directed to The Episcopal Diocese of Florida.

12. According to the financial records of the Diocese, specifically the ledger detailing activity in the Bishop’s Discretionary Fund, a total of at least $17,913 was paid from the Bishop’s Discretionary Fund in 2019 to the three contractors identified in the paragraph above for work performed on theRespondent’s personal residence.

13. Respondent was aware of the fact that his personal use of discretionary funds was improper. Afterreceiving notice from the Intake Officer in October 2023 that the Reference Panel would be investigating the use of thediscretionary fund, Respondent issued a check to the Diocese that apparently purports to reimburse the Diocese for themisused funds. This was done without any notice to the Reference Panel. The Investigator simply found in a group of documents provided by the Diocese a Deposit Confirmation dated February 6, 2024. That document showed a depositinto the Diocesan Checking Account of $18,533 by check No 4837, payor Samuel Johnson Howard, bearing the note”Reimbursement.” The “Deposit Name” field on the Wells Fargo Deposit Confirmation reads “Other -Bishop Howard discr. reimb.”

Use of Foundation to Recharacterize Gift as Assessable Compensation

14. The Episcopal Foundation, Inc. (“Diocesan Foundation”) is a Florida 50l(c)(3) corporation that exists toserve the purposes stated in its organizational documents. In general, those purposes are to use its income and corpus to support the charitable and religious purposes of the Diocese, including: (1) the education, care, and maintenance of seminarians, (2) the acquisition of real estate for church purposes, and (3) the maintenance, expansion, and improvement of the Diocesan Conference Center. The Foundation may not distribute assets, income, or profits to the benefit of any member, director, officer, or private individual, except for the payment of reasonable compensation for services rendered.

15. The Foundation had no members. The management of its affairs was vested in its Board of Directors. According to the Diocesan Foundation’s Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation dated March 1, 2012, Respondent was at that time a Member of the Board of Directors of the Diocesan Foundation.

16. On an unknown date prior to December 2013, an understanding was reached that a wealthy donor, who insisted on anonymity, would make a major gift to the Diocesan Foundation. The donor also agreed to make an annual gift of $120,000 to Respondent, which was to be received in addition to Respondent’s Diocesan compensation.

17. This financial arrangement is reflected indirectly in the minutes of a meeting of the Diocesan Foundation Board that occurred on December 12, 2013. The minutes of that meeting state that the Diocesan Foundation Board voted unanimously to approve an “expense of $21,600 annually, to be contributed to Bishop Howard’s pension account.” This number is the mathematical resultof multiplying $120,000 by the 18% contribution to the Pension Fund that may be made on the basis of assessable compensation under Church Pension Group (“CPG”) guidelines.

18. Diocesan records indicate that the Diocesan Foundation was characterized to CPG as an employer ofRespondent, and that the Diocesan Foundation had an account with CPG, with its own Client ID number, set up separately from the account of the Diocese. The Diocesan Foundation reported the annual $120,000 gift as assessable compensation.

19. The arrangement by which an anonymously sourced gift of $120,000 annually was passed through the Diocesan Foundation, paid to Respondent, and characterized to CPG as assessable compensation, began no later than the year 2014 and was terminated effective December 31, 2021. Over those eight years, the unidentified donor made payments to Respondent in the total amount of $960,000.

20. Tax records provided by Respondent through counsel indicate that $120,000 was also received by Respondent in the year 2022, raising the total, if the source of payment is the same, to $1,080,000. This2022 payment, and any payments occurring prior to 2014, are subject to further verification. All tax returns provided todate have been redacted to obscure information concerning the type and source of the $120,000 in additional income received each year.

21. Available records indicate that the Diocesan Foundation kept its commitment to pay money annually into the Pension Fund based on the $120,000 gift. Records showing all payments in their entirety are not available at thepresent date. However, if the Diocesan Foundation’s commitment to pay $21,600 each year to the Pension Fund was met,eight years of full payment would have resulted in a total of $172,800 paid to CPG by the Diocesan Foundation, inaddition to all Diocesan payments into the Pension Fund.

22. At all relevant times, Respondent was receiving annual compensation as an employee of theDiocese. The Diocese made payments to the Pension Fund on Respondent’s behalf in amounts commensuratewith the Respondent’s Diocesan assessable compensation.

23. The effect of the arrangement to characterize the annual gift to Respondent as compensation from anemployer, the Diocesan Foundation, was to artificially inflate the calculation of Respondent’s total assessable compensation each year. For example, in the year 2019, Respondent’s assessable compensation, which would haveotherwise been based on total W-2 earnings of $219,669.12 and other assessable benefits :from the Diocese, wasinflated by an additional $120,000 when the gift was counted as assessable compensation from employment by the Diocesan Foundation.

24. Under the defined benefit plan administered by CPG, the benefit payable to Respondent after his retirement will be inflated as a consequence of counting the annual $120,000 gifts as assessable compensation, as Respondent’s retirement benefit will be based on his Highest Average Compensation during certain years.

Loan Forgiveness on Private Residence

25. Upon moving to Jacksonville, Florida, Respondent and his wife purchased a home on a parcel of land located at [redacted] (the “Property”). Publicly availableinformation, which may not be complete, reports a purchase price of $850,000. Respondent and his wife acquired sole title to the Property as Grantees under a Warranty Deed made on May 14, 2004, and recorded on May 25, 2004.

26. Simultaneously with recordation of the Warranty Deed, a Purchase Money Balloon Mortgage deed was recorded, with a principal balance due at maturity of $175,000.00. Respondent and his wifewere the mortgagors and the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Florida, Inc., that is, the Diocese, was the mortgagee. Themortgage secured the repayment to the Diocese of $175,000.00 loaned to Respondent to help purchase the Property. By virtue of entering into this loan agreement, Respondent acquired a financial and legal interest directly adverse to that of the Diocese.

27. The purchase of the Property was also financed in significant part by a $450,000 loan from EverBank, which recorded its May 14, 2004, mortgage on May 25, 2004.

28. Later in 2004, a Declaration of Trust was prepared that purported to give the Diocese a new form of interest in the Property in addition to the mortgage securing its loan described above in Paragraph 26. The September 21, 2004, Declaration of Trust (“Declaration of Trust”) states that Respondent and his wife, as Trustees, were granting an interest in the Property to the Diocese. The Declaration of Trust includes an acknowledgement by the Trustees (Respondent and his wife) (hereafter referred to collectively as “Respondent” in connection with the trust arrangement) ofthe sources of funds used to purchase the Property, specifically: (1) the loan from EverBank in the sum of $450,000; (2)an unrecorded promissory note in favor of the Diocese in the sum of $100,000, dated May 14, 2004, (3) a purchase money balloon mortgage and note in favor of the Diocese in the sum of$200,000, dated May 14, 2004, which funds had been advance by [redacted]; and (4) contributions by various parishioners of the Diocese in the sum of $205,000.

29. The sum of the listed contributions to purchase of the Property, as stated in the Declaration of Trust, is $955,000. The third listed item, the balloon mortgage and note in favor of the Diocese in the sum of $200,000, is $25,000 higher than the face amount of the balloon mortgage recorded on behalf of the Diocese and referenced in Paragraph 26 above.

30. The Declaration of Trust further states that Respondent is holding the Property in trust for the benefit of the Diocese. It purports to impose a trust on the Property that reflects the respective contributions of theRespondent and the Diocese to the purchase of the Property. Jt states that the Trustees at that time held 58% of the property in their individual capacities and 42% of the Property as Trustees for the benefit of the Diocese. It provided a formula to adjust the percentages in favor of the Trustees to the extent the Trustees made principal payments on the $200,000 loan extended by the Diocese. It expressly contemplated the forgiveness of the Respondent’s debt withoutspecifying any ceiling on the amounts that might be forgiven in the future.

31. The Declaration of Trust provided that the Property would immediately be put up for sale at such time as the Respondent no longer held the position of Bishop Diocesan.

32. A Memorandum of Trust dated October 21, 2004, was recorded on November 29, 2004, reflecting the creation of a trust by the owners of the Property.

33. In subsequent years, other encumbrances were placed on the Property as a result of loan restructuring or borrowing against the value of the Property. In 2015 Wells Fargo became the primary lender on the Property, recording a mortgage for a loan amount of $675,000 on January 12, 2015. In 2017 the Property was used to secure a revolving line of credit agreement dated August 1, 2017, with Ameris Bank, with a credit limit of $108,000, for which a mortgage was recorded on August 9, 2017.

34. With regard to the interest of the Diocese in the Property, the relationships created by the loan agreement and the Declaration of Trust presented plain conflicts of interest. Respondent was a homeowner and borrower who owedthe Diocese money. The Diocese was a lender with an obligation to collect that debt in full with interest. Respondent was the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese, with a duty to protect that Diocesan financial and property interest.Respondent was also a trustee purportedly owing a fiduciary duty to the Diocese to protect its beneficial interest in theProperty.

35. Respondent’s conflicting duties and obligations, to himself and his wife on the one hand, and to theDiocese, on the other, made it imperative that there be no self-dealing or placing of personal interest above thefinancial interests of the Diocese, or any appearance of such activity.

36. The Finance Committee of the Diocese worked closely with the Respondent on financial matters of all kinds. It was a small group that operated with low transparency. Diocesan Council was periodically rebuffed inits efforts to obtain greater information about the Finance Committee and the financial operations of the Diocese.

37. On October 20, 2016, the Finance Committee signed a resolution concerning the Declaration of Trustthat created the 2004 trust arrangement between Respondent and the Diocese. Citing Respondent’s anticipated September 2023 retirement, the Resolution stated that the Diocese desired to reward Respondent for his past and future performance as Bishop of Florida. At the time, seven years of future performance by Respondent remained.

38. The Resolution authorized the Diocese to convey a percentage of its 42% interest in the Property tothe Respondent annually, the intent being that Respondent would own 100% of the Property on his retirement.

39. The plan described in the resolution reflected several things. First, the 2004 Declaration of Trust recognized the potential for payments by Respondent that would reduce the principal amount owed to the Diocese, and over time would adjust the percentage of beneficial ownership in the Property in favor of Respondent. The fact that the ownership percentage as of October 2016 remained at 42% implies that there had been no reduction in the principal amount owed to the Diocese in twelve years. This may have been permissiblegiven the balloon feature of the loan. It is not known if interest payments were current in October 2016, or if the loan was in default at that time. In a letter dated November 17, 2016, the then Chancellor of the Diocese referred to the arrangementas a structured “settlement” between Respondent and the Diocese.

40. Second, the resolution referred to the fact that Respondent had been paying taxes, insurance, andmaintenance costs on the Property. As a real property owner, Respondent bore those obligations as a matter of course;they were unrelated to getting credit for making payments to the Diocese as a lender. This language in the resolutionmisleadingly suggested that these routine expenses constituted an exchange for value between Respondent and theDiocese when in fact they were immaterial to any exchange of value and irrelevant to debt forgiveness.

41. Third, the resolution by implication and without any express reference eliminated the original requirement that the Property be sold upon the Respondent’s retirement, with the Diocese to enjoy the benefits of the sale in proportion to any remaining interest at the time of sale. The arrangement to forgive the debt not only deprived the Diocese of repayment on its loan, but of the potential financial benefit, if the debt had not been fully repaid at the time of theRespondent’s retirement, of a share of the appreciated value of the Property on its anticipated sale in Fall 2023.

42. The Declaration of Trust was modified to reflect the Finance Committee’s October 20, 2016, resolutionon August 1, 2017. The Modification of Declaration of Trust attached the original Declaration of Trust and the October2016 Finance Committee resolution, stating that in the event of conflict, the resolution would govern.

43. The Finance Committee revisited the forgiveness of the debt on the Property in 2021. It passed a resolution dated December 8, 2021. The December 2021 resolution referenced the earlier resolution of October 20, 2016.Enhancing the narrative started in 2016 and described above in Paragraph 40, it assigned a total value of $593,000 to taxes, insurance, HOA dues, and maintenance paid by Respondent since the purchase of the Property in 2004. It claimed that the Diocese had been responsible all along, since 2004, for 42% of the repairs and maintenance on the Property.

44. The plain meaning of the December 8, 2021, resolution was that Respondent was owed money by theDiocese for years of routine repairs, maintenance, and taxes paid on the Property. However, from the time of purchase in2004, Respondent held exclusive title to the Property with his wife. The Diocese was a secondary lender behind banks.In fact, the Diocese on June 23, 2009, had recorded a May 26, 2009, Quit Claim Deed making clear that it released all interests in and had no lien on the Property. Respondent would have incurred the listed expenses in order to maintain thehome he owned and avoid default under his bank loan documents, even if the trust arrangement created in September 2004 had never existed. The Finance Committee resolutions of October 2016 and December 2021 cite no document inwhich the Diocese had agreed to accept responsibility for the payment of any expenses related to taxes, insurance, or maintenance on the Property.

45. The upshot of the resolutions of October 2016 and December 2021 was that, rather than being identified as a borrower accepting a benefit in the form of loan forgiveness, the Respondent was characterized asengaging in an exchange of value with the Diocese, or perhaps relieving the Diocese of obligations to him.

46. On December 13, 2021, Respondent executed another Quit-Claim Deed benefiting his personal financial interest and ensuring that the trust arrangement did not encumber the Property. Inthat document, the Respondent, as Trustee for the benefit of the Diocese, released himself and his wife from “all the right, title, interest, estate, claim, and demand, both at law and in equity,” held by the Trustee for the benefit of the Diocese.

Relevant Canonical Provisions

47. Canon IV.4.1.e. states that, “In exercising his or her ministry, a Member of the Clergy shall …  safeguard the property and funds of the Church and Community.”

48. Canon IV.4.1.h.6 states that, “In exercising his or her ministry, a Member of the Clergy shall . . .refrain from . . . conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”

49. Canon IV.4.1.h.9 states that, “In exercising his or her ministry, a Member of the Clergy shall…           refrain from …                        any Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy.”

50. Canon IV.2, the definitional provision in Title IV of the Canons, states that “Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy shall 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.”

Offenses Charged

51. Respondent’s misuse of funds in the Diocesan discretionary account, from the initial misapplication of the funds in June 2019 until February 2024 was a knowing and continuing deprivation of a monetary resource to be applied for Diocesan purposes, and a violation of Canon IV.4.1.e., in that Respondent failed to safeguard a fundcommitted to his personal oversight.

52. The continued failure to acknowledge the conversion and misapplication of monies from thediscretionary fund from June 2019 through February 2024 was conduct involving dishonesty, in violation of Canon IV.l .h.6.

53. The taking of discretionary money for personal use in any amount is improper. The taking of discretionary fund money in significant sums with full knowledge of its intended uses reflects a fundamental conflict with the good order and discipline of the Church, brings material discredit upon the Church, and is Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy in violation of Canon IV.4.1.h.9.

54. The arrangement to treat a series of monetary gifts from an undisclosed donor as the fruits of employment by the Diocesan Foundation, and to characterize those gifts as assessable compensation for Pension Fund purposes, was a misrepresentation of the true nature and character of the monies received by Respondent over a period of years, concluding no earlier than December 2021.This continuing course of conduct was a series of misrepresentations in violation of Canon IV.4.1.h.6.

55. The annual $120,000 gift, in light of its materiality, raises perceptions of influence on Diocesan policy by a person who resists being identified. By treating the monies received as compensation from the Diocesan Foundation, the arrangement misleadingly suggested that the money was solely a function of work performed and value provided to the Diocesan Foundation by Respondent, and obscured the fact that it was a gift to Respondent from an individual, passed through the Diocesan Foundation. This arrangement prejudiced the good order and discipline of the Church, in that thepotential damaging effects of such an arrangement on trust in the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese were discounted or ignored, in violation of Canon IV.4.1.h.9.

56. The series of transactions by which a trust was created on the Property in September 2004, and thereafter periodically restructured by Respondent and the Finance Committee, concluding in December 2021, and leading insubstance to the forgiveness of a loan under the guise of restructuring beneficial interests in a trust in an exchange for value, deprived the Diocese of the property interest it acquired when it loaned Respondent money to buy the Property in2004. Respondent failed to safeguard the property of the Church, in the form of its right to collect payment from him, in violation of Canon IV.4.1.e.

57. The series of transactions by which a trust was created on the Property in September 2004, and thereafter periodically restructured by Respondent and the Finance Committee, concluding in December 2021, and leading in substance to the forgiveness of a loan under the guise of restructuring beneficial interests in a trust in an exchange forvalue, was not an honest representation of the true substance of the transaction, in violation of Canon IV.4.1.h.6.

58. The series of transactions by which a trust was created on the Property in September 2004, and then restructured by Respondent and the Finance Committee in a series of steps, concluding in December 2021, leading in substance to the forgiveness of a loan under the guise of restructuring beneficial interests in a trust in an exchange for value, reflected an elevation of Respondent’s personal interests over his duty to protect theinterests of the Diocese, a neglect of the interests of the Diocese that prejudiced the good order and discipline of the Church, in violation of Canon IV.4.1.h.9.

Wherefore, the Church Attorney respectfully requests that the Hearing Panel, after the taking of evidence, enter an Order imposing such Sentence upon the Respondent as it may determine is proper.

Dated: June 27, 2024

[signature appears on following Page 18]

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Craig Thomas Merritt
MerrittHill, PLLC
919 East Main Street
Suite 1000
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 916-1600

Church Attorney

IN THE TITLE IV DISCIPLINARY MATTER
INVOLVING THE RT. REV. S. JOHNSON HOWARD, RESPONDENT (FINANCIAL ALLEGATIONS)

TO: The Rt. Rev. S. Johnson Howard, Respondent
The Rt. Rev. Douglas E. Sparks, Respondent’s Advisor
Stephen Busey, Esq., Respondent’s Counsel
Craig Thomas Merritt, Esq., Church Attorney

NOTICE

Pursuant to Episcopal Church Canon IV.12.2, the Hearing Panel hereby notifies all recipients as follows:

  1. The Hearing Panel will convene, at a date and location to be identified in a later communication, in order to hear testimony and argument and review documents and other exhibits that will inform the Panel as it renders its decision in this matter.
  2. The Written Statement prepared by the Church Attorney in this matter, with attachments, is attached hereto.
  3. The Respondent must file with the Hearing Panel a written response to this Notice within 30 days of the date of this Notice.
  4. Episcopal Church Canon IV.19.6 provides as follows:
    In any proceeding under this Title in which the Respondent fails to appear before the Conference Panel as required by Canon IV.12.4, or to appear before the Hearing Panel as required by Canon IV.12.2.a, or to file in a timely manner with the Hearing Panel the written response required by Canon IV.12.2.c, such Panel may, in its discretion, proceed in the absence of the Respondent. In proceedings under this section, such panels may consider the materials described in Canon IV.12.1, and any other types of evidence whose us is permitted in proceeding conducted before such Panels. The failure of aRespondent to appear, or to fail to file a written response, as described in this Section shall not, in itself, provide the basis for a finding at any Offense has been committed, other than any Offense specifically arising for such failure to appear, or failure to file.

ISSUED BY THE HEARING PANEL THIS DATE, JULY 2, 2024:

The Rt. Rev. Jennifer Brooke-Davidson, Convener
The Rt. Rev. Dena Harrison
The Rt. Rev. Wendell Gibbs
The Rev. Mally Lloyd
William Fleener, Esq.

Your written response to this Notice may be sent to the Convener at HearingPanel.Florida.finance@episdionc.org

Please acknowledge receipt of the Notice by replying to the above email.

Notice of Hearing Panel regarding Bishop Howard

HearingPanel Florida <hearingpanel.florida.finance@episdionc.org>                  Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 3:23

To: HearingPanel Florida <hearingpanel.florida.finance@episdionc.org>

———- Forwarded message ———

From: Stephen D. Busey <busey@smithhulsey.com> Date: Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 2:45 PM
Subject: Notice of Hearing Panel regarding Bishop Howard
To: HearingPanel Florida <hearingpanel.florida.finance@episdionc.org>
Cc: Craig Merritt <cmerritt@merrittfirm.com>, sjhoward1@protonmail.com <sjhoward1@protonmail.com>

Bishop Brooke-Davidson:

As counsel for Bishop Howard, I write to inform the Hearing Panel that the mother of Bishop Howard’s wife, Marie Howard, has passed. As a result, Bishop and Mrs.

Howard left Florida last week and do not expect to return to Jacksonville until August 7.

I need Bishop Howard’s assistance to complete the response we are preparing to the Panel’s July 2, 2024 Notice transmitted with the email below in this Title IV proceeding. Due to Bishop Howard’s unexpected unavailability, Bishop Howard and I will require additional time to complete the response. I plan on transmitting the response to the Panel by August 19, 2024.

I trust under the circumstances, that this delay will be acceptable to the Panel.

Bishop Howard and I appreciate the Panel’s consideration.

Stephen D. Busey
Chairman

One Independent Drive | Suite 3300 | Jacksonville, Florida 32202
904-359-7700 | Direct 904-359-7777
busey@smithhulsey.com | www.smithhulsey.com

Patricia Sarazen

Executive Assistant to the Assistant Bishop Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina
4800 Six Forks Rd., Suite 300 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 919-834-7474, x5304
919-600-5304, direct

HEARING PANEL OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD FOR
BISHOPS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH

THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
V
THE RIGHT REVEREND SAMUEL JOHNSON HOWARD, RESPONDENT.

TEC Title IV Matter (Financial Allegations)

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER STATEMENT OF ALLEGED OFFENSES

Upon consideration of the request of the Respondent. the Right Reverand Samuel Johnson Howard (“BishopHoward”) to extend the time to answer the Statement of Alleged Offenses; and The Episcopal Church (“TEC”), via the Church Attorney, Mr. C1iag Me1Titt, Esq consenting to the extension requested;

IT is so ORDERED,

That Respondent’s time to respond to the Statement of Alleged Offenses is extended until August 19, 2024.

/s/ The Rt. Rev. Jennifer Brooke-Davidson
Convener, Hearing Panel

Dated: July 30, 2024

In the Title IV Disciplinary Matter
Involving the Rt. Rev. S.Johnson Howard
(Financial Matters)

Response of Bishop Howard

The Statement of Alleged Offenses prepared by the Church Attorney, Craig Thomas Merritt, dated June 27, 2024 (the “Statement”), states that Bishop Howard had a duty “to operate with transparency, obtain required approvals from Diocesan lay authorities and properly document the transactions and approvals.” (Statement, paragraph 9).

Bishop Howard will show, with regard to each of the three alleged offenses identified in the Statement, that each matter was transparent, was approved by lay authorities of the Diocese and was properly documented. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel should, after taking such evidence as appropriate, issue an order pursuant to Canon IV.13.13. dismissing this Title IV matter.

1. The Alleged Misuse of Discretionary Account.

In 2019 Bishop Howard had repairs made to his residence as indicated in paragraph 11 of the Statement. At that time the Diocese had an equitable interest in Bishop Howard’s residence by reasonof a deed of trust (Statement, paragraphs 28-30). Further, Bishop Howard used his residence for multiple Diocesan purposes. For these reasons Bishop Howard discussed with the then Treasurer of the Diocese, [redacted] the appropriateness of using the Bishop’s discretionary account to pay for the 2019 repairs.

As the Statement suggests, the Bishop’s discretionary fund was to be used “in pursuance of theChurch’s mission,” (Statement paragraph 10). [Redacted] agreed that use of the Bishop’s discretionary funds for the repairs was appropriate because of the Diocese’s interest in the house, and the Bishop’s use of his residence for Diocesan fundraising, entertaining and business and pastoral meetings, as well as occasional lodging for Diocesan guests. (During his tenure as Bishop, Bishop Howard personally raised more than $15 million in donations to the Diocese.) As a result, the then Comptroller of the Diocese issued Diocesan checks to the vendors making the repairs and recorded the disbursements in the Diocesan ledger regarding activity in the Bishop’s discretionary account.

Subsequently, when informed by the Diocese in February 2024 that the Church had inquired about the 2019 disbursements for repairs, Bishop Howard determined, in an act of goodwill and to avoid any controversy surrounding the issue, and because the Diocese then no longer had any legal orequitable interest in the residence, that he would reimburse the Diocese for the repairs. Bishop Howard then issued his check to the Diocese as stated in paragraph 13 of the Statement.

Bishop Howard’s use of his discretionary funds for the repairs, as alleged in the Statement, was transparent, was made with the approval of the lay authorities of the Diocese, and was properly docwnented in the records of the Diocese. And for these reasons, the use of those funds as describedherein was not in violation of any canon law of the Church.

2. Use of Foundation for Assessable Compensation.

In the Statement’s second alleged offense, the Statement complains that supplemental incomepaid to Bishop Howard by a member of the Diocese, and a corresponding pension contribution to theChurch Pension Group by the Foundation of the Diocese, was a “misrepresentation” and prejudiced”the good order and discipline of the Church” (Statement, paragraph 55).

To the contrary, there was nothing misleading or opaque about the supplemental compensation arrangement. On December 12, 2012, a philanthropic member of the Diocese of Florida and President of the Diocesan Foundation,                                   [redacted] accompanied by Bishop Howard, went to New York City and visited with [redacted] then Chief Operating Officer of the Church Pension Group. The purpose of the visit was to disclose to the Church Pension Group the intent of [redacted] to personally supplement Bishop Howard’s income by $120,000 a year and to have the Diocese’s foundation, The Episcopal Foundation, Inc., make a corresponding 18% ($21,600) annual contribution to the Church Pension Group for the benefit of Bishop Howard’s eventual retirement. (As described in the Statement, The Episcopal Foundation, Inc. is a non-profit corporation organized “to support the charitable and religious purposes of the Diocese” (Statement, paragraph 14).)

Through this visit, [redacted], as President of the Diocesan Foundation, sought, and obtained from [redacted], the Church Pension Group’s approval of the intended supplementation of Bishop Howard’s income as Bishop of Florida, and the Foundation’s corresponding annual contribution to the Church Pension Group for Bishop Howard’s benefit. (The Church Attorney was aware of the 2012 disclosure of these arrangements to and the approval of the Church Pension Group but omitted any reference of this disclosure in the Statement.)

Further, as described in paragraph 17 of the Statement, on December 12, 2013 The Episcopal Foundation’s Board of Directors unanimously approved the annual expense of $21,600 “to be contributed to Bishop Howard’s pension account.” The Foundation’s annual contribution to Bishop Howard’s pension was paid to and received by the Church Pension Group.

[Redacted] thereafter supplemented Bishop Howard’s compensation with $120,000 annually through 2022. As further described in the Statement (paragraph 20), BishopHoward reported this supplemental income as earned income on his annual Form 1040 income tax filings with the Internal Revenue Service.

For the foregoing reasons the annual supplement to Bishop Howard’s income, and the Foundation’s corresponding annual payment to the Church Pension Fund for the Bishop’s benefit, were fully transparent, were approved by lay authorities of the Foundation and the Church Pension Group, and were properly documented in the records of the Foundation, the Church Pension Group and the Internal Revenue Service. Those arrangements were not proscribed by any canon law of the Episcopal Church.

3. Loan Forgiveness on the Bishop’s Residence.

The essence of the third (and last) offense alleged in the Statement is that when Bishop Howard was employed by the Diocese in 2004, the Diocese assisted the Bishop in purchasing a residence inJacksonville by lending him money, and subsequently forgiving that loan prior to the Bishop’s retirement in 2023. As a result, upon his retirement the Bishop and his wife owned the residence free and clear of any debt to the Diocese.

The Statement characterizes these circumstances (the loan of money and its subsequent forgiveness) as a “conflict of interest” (Statement, paragraph 34), and “an elevation of Respondent’s personal interest over his duty to protect the interests of the Diocese …  that prejudiced the good order and discipline of the Church, in violation of Canon IVA.l.h.9.” (Statement, paragraph 58).

According to the Canons of the Diocese, however, the Finance Committee of the Diocese “is authorized to manage and invest Diocesan assets” and “to dispose of or encumber Diocesan property” (Canons of the Diocese of Florida, Canon 12, of Finance and Investment, Section 3(b)).

As acknowledged by the Statement, the Diocese’s forgiveness of the Bishop’s debt to the Diocese was expressly approved by resolutions of the Diocesan Finance Committee dated October 20,2016 and December 8, 2021 (Statement, paragraphs 37 and 43). The reasons provided by theresolutions for the loan forgiveness was “to reward Respondent for his past and future performance as Bishop of Florida” (Statement, paragraph 37).

The Declaration of Trust described in the Statement (paragraph 28), the Diocesan Finance Committee’s October 2016 and December 2021 resolutions, and the Diocese’s forgiveness of theBishop’s indebtedness to the Diocese by the time of his retirement are fully disclosed in the Diocese’s annual audited financial statements. Those audited financial statements are available on the Diocese’s website and were provided by the Diocese to the Church.

For these reasons, the transactions regarding the Bishop’s residence described in the Statement’sthird alleged offense were (i) fully transparent, (ii) authorized by Diocesan lay authorities and (iii) properly documented in the records of the Diocese.The transactions are not proscribed by any canon law of the Episcopal Church.

Accordingly, the Hearing Panel should dismiss these proceedings pursuant to Canon IV.13.13.

Respectfully submitted this 19th day of August 2024.

/s/ The Rt. Rev. S. Johnson Howard

/s/ Stephen D. Busey
Counsel for Bishop Howard

The Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina
4800 Six Forks Rd, Suite 300, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609  Telephone 919-834-7474, 800-448-8775

October 23, 2024

Via Email

The Rt. Rev. S. Johnson Howard
[Redacted]

The Rt. Rev. Douglas E. Sparks
117 N. Lafayette Boulevard
South Bend, Indiana 46601
bishop.sparks@ednin.org

Stephen D. Busey, Esq.
Smith Hulsey & Busey
[Redacted]
busey@smithhulsey.com

Craig Merritt, Esq.
Merritt Hill, PLLC
919 East Main Street
Suite 1000
Richmond, Virginia 23219
cmerritt@merrittfirm.com

Re: The Episcopal Church v. The Right Rev. S. Johnson Howard (financial allegations)

Gentlemen:

By my calculation, the time for you each to provide Mandatory Disclosures expires on October 18, 2024. The Canons provide that within 15 days of that time, I am to schedule a conference with you both to issue a Scheduling Order. Title IV. 13.5(c).

Assuming you have completed your disclosures, please meet and confer before November 1, 2024 and provide to me anagreed upon proposed Scheduling Order. If you cannot agree, then please advise, in one letter, where you differ. If the Scheduling Order meets with my approval and there are no disagreements, subject to your consent, there will be no need for a Conference. However, if there are differences, then provide times during the week of November 4,2024, when you are available to have a brief conference, so that I may hear your respective positions.

Sincerely,

/s/ The Right Rev. Jennifer Brooke-Davidson
President

cc: Diane Sammons, Esq.

Bishop Prince Singh (Allegations of improper behavior–Diocese of Rochester)

THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the Disciplinary Board for Bishops
Hearing Panel

In the Matter of Rt. Rev. Prince G. Singh
(Diocese of Rochester Matter)

Statement of Alleged Offenses

The Church Attorney, pursuant to Title IV, Canon 13, Sec. 2 of the Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (referred to respectively in this Statement as the ‘”Canons” and the “Church”), submits this Statement of Alleged Offenses.

Procedural History and Jurisdictional Matters

1. On September 22, 2023, the Intake Officer for the Disciplinary Board for Bishops (the “Board”) referred the matters addressed in this Statement to a Reference Panel composed of the Rt. Rev. Clifton Daniel, III, Presiding Bishop-Designate; the Rt. Rev. Chilton Knudsen, President of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops; and the Rev. Barbara Kempf, Intake Officer for Bishops. The Rt. Rev. Nicholas Knisely succeeded Bishop Knudsen as President of the Board in Spring 2024, and as a consequence succeeded her as a member of the Reference Panel.

2. The Complainants are [redacted].

3. Upon consideration of the matters presented by the Intake Officer, the Reference Panel determined on October 10, 2023, to refer the allegations for investigation pursuant to Canon IV.11. See Canon IV.6.8( c) ( option to refer to investigation). The Board thereafter engaged RC Services of New York, LLC (the “Investigator”) to conduct theinvestigation.

4. On May 3, 2024, the Investigator reported the results of its work to the Reference Panel.

5. After consideration of the information provided by the Investigator, and after due deliberation, the Reference Panel referred the matter to this Hearing Panel on June 7, 2024. See Canon IV.11.3( e) (referral to Hearing Panel).

6. This Hearing Panel was appointed by the President of the Board to hear and adjudicate the matters set forth below, which fall within its jurisdiction pursuant to Canon IV.13.

7. This is an ecclesiastical matter under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Church. See Canon IV.19.1. By taking ordination vows and receiving Holy Orders, Respondent consented to subject himself to the jurisdiction of the Church with regard to the adjudication of alleged violations of the Canons. Id. Pursuant to the Canons, disciplinary cases involving bishops are investigated, adjudicated, or otherwise resolved by the Board. See Canon IV.17 .3 .a. The Hearing Panel in this matter is appointed to hear evidence and impose any remedy authorized by the Canons. See Canon IV.17 .5.

Summary of Material Facts

8. In February 2008, the Rt. Rev. Prince Singh (“Respondent”) was elected Bishop Diocesan of the Episcopal Diocese ofRochester (“Diocese”). He was consecrated as Bishop Diocesan of the Diocese on May 31, 2008, and served in that capacity until his resignation in February 2022.

Episode One

9. In the year 2018, while attending a social event, [redacted] received a report from an attendee concerning alleged sexual activity by a [redacted]Priest [redacted]. The truth or falsity of the allegations was not known [redacted]. If true, the described activity would have constituted a violation of one or more Canons of the Church.

10. [Redacted] reported personally to the Respondent that he had received the allegations of misconduct described in the paragraph above. [Redacted] reminded the Respondent that such allegations required prompt reporting to the Church as required by Title IV of the Canons.

11. Rather than report the allegations to the Intake Officer for the Board, as they related to Respondent, and to the Diocesan Intake Officer, as they related to the Priest, Respondent advised [redacted] that he would handle the matter by other means. [Redacted] disagreed with this proposed handling of the complaint, and specifically the diversion of thematter away from the mandatory reporting processes governed by Title IV of the Canons but was warned by the Respondent to have nothing more to do with it.

12. The allegations were never reported to the Intake Officer for the Board, in the case of Respondent, or to the Diocesan Intake Officer, in the case of the Priest, from the time of [redacted] initial report t-0 the Respondent, until the present day.

13. Instead of referring the allegations against the Priest to the Diocesan Intake Officer, the Respondent engaged in a series of direct contacts with the Priest. Respondent directed the Priest to avail [redacted] of mental health services and made efforts to reassign [redacted] and otherwise pressure [redacted]to accept conditions of employment that were unacceptable to [redacted]. These contacts included a visit to the home of the Priest by the Respondent and [redacted].

14. The effort to coerce the Priest involved threats by the Respondent to initiate a Title IV complaint against [redacted] if[redacted] did not accept Respondent’s demands. Ultimately, [redacted] resigned.

Episode Two

15. In the Fall of 2017, the Respondent attended an event at a parish in the Diocese. A lay leader present at the event, [redacted], stated that [redacted] observed an incident during the visit involving the Respondent’s improper touching [redacted].

16. The lay person, after approximately a year of hesitation, reported the alleged incident to [redacted] parish priest. The complaint was brought to the attention of [redacted]. [Redacted] reported the complaint directly to Respondent, reminding Respondent that such a complaint required mandatory reporting to the Intake Officer for the Board, who was and isexclusively assigned to receive complaints against bishops.

17. Respondent reacted to this report in explosive fashion, admonishing [redacted] in profane terms [redacted], [redacted]. Respondent insisted that the allegations not be routed to the Intake Officer in the Church’s Office for PastoralDevelopment, as required by Title IV of the Canons.

18. [Redacted] pushed back against this treatment of the complaint as being in violation of the Canons. In response, Respondent told [redacted] that [redacted] must comply with the Respondent’s decision or be fired [redacted].

19. Respondent directed [redacted] to forward the complaint to the Diocesan lntake Officer for handling entirely within the Diocese; [redacted] complied.

20. The Diocesan Title IV inquiry exonerated the Respondent. The Diocesan Intake Officer dismissed the complaint and issued a letter on Diocesan Disciplinary Board letterhead to that effect dated November 29, 2018. The letter advised the Complainant of his appeal rights under the Canons, continuing to direct him to the Diocesan process rather than to the Board.

21. Related to the same complaint, Respondent took the opportunity to publicly Humiliate [redacted] who reported the alleged misconduct. [Redacted].

22. During the meeting, the Respondent publicly excoriated [redacted] who had initiated the complaint of improper touching. [Redacted] had urged Respondent not to do so. Nonetheless, the Respondent accused [redacted], in front of attendees, of lying and of threatening Respondent’s reputation, marriage, children, and family. When [redacted] tried to defend his actions, [redacted] was told that the matter had been handled in accordance with Canon law.

23. As a result of this public display of hostility by the Respondent, and in fear that the Respondent might retaliate against the parish, the complaining individual [redacted].

Relevant Canonical Provisions

24. Canon IY.3.1.a states that a member of the Clergy shall be subject to proceedings under Title IV for: “knowingly violating or attempting to violate, directly or through the acts of another person, the Constitution or Canons of the Church or of any Diocese.”

25. Canon IV.3.1.e states that a member of the Clergy shall be subject to proceedings under Title IV for: “discharging, demoting, or otherwise retaliating against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under thisTitle or because the person has reported information concerning an Offense, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this Title.”

26. Canon IV.3.2 states that: “A Member of the Clergy shall be accountable for any breach of the Standards of Conduct set forth in Canon IV.4.”

27. Canon IV.l.f. states that in exercising his or her ministry, a Member of the Clergy shall: “report to the Intake Officer all matters which may constitute an Offense as defined in Canon IV.2 meeting the standards of Canon IV.3.3, except for matters disclosed to the Member of the Clergy as confessor within the Rite of Reconciliation of a Penitent.”

28. Canon IV.4.1.h.9. states that exercising his or her ministry, a Member of the Clergy shall “refrain from … any Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy.”

29. Canon IV.2. describes the terminology used in Title IV, stating that Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy means: “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.”

Offenses Charged

(Episode One)

30. With regard to Episode One, Respondent was under a duty to report the alleged misconduct of the involved Priest to the Intake Officer of the Diocese. Respondent was also under a duty to report the allegations of misconduct against him to the Intake Officer for the Board. From the time he first learned of the allegations of sexual impropriety to date, Respondent took no action to report the allegations. The continuing failures to report, as to either himself or the Priest, constitute violations of Canon IV.4.1.f. for which Respondent is accountable under Canon IV.3 .2.

31. The failures to report the allegations of misconduct by the Priest and the Respondent each constituted a knowing violation of the Canons of the Church, a violation of Canon IV.3 .1.a.

32. The directive to [redacted] not to report the alleged violation by the Priest and to ignore Respondent’s failure to reportthe alleged violation by the Priest, was a violation of the Canons through the acts of another person, a violation of Canon IV.3. I .a.

33. The facts and circumstances of Episode One in their entirety, including the rejection of [redacted] entreaties to follow the requirements of the Canons of the Church, evidence a neglect or disorder that prejudiced the good order and discipline of the Church, and constitute Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy, a violation of Canon IV.4.1.h.9.

(Episode Two)

34. With regard to Episode Two, Respondent was under a duty to report an allegation of his own misconduct to the Intake Officer for the Disciplinary Board for Bishops. He was under a further duty to refrain from impeding legitimate efforts of [redacted] to direct a complaint against Respondent to the Board.

35. From the time he first learned of the allegation that he had engaged in a Canonical offense involving improper touching, Respondent took no action to report the allegation. The continuing failure to report is a violation of CanonIV.4.1.f. for which Respondent is accountable under Canon IV.3.2.

36. The failure to report the alleged violation was a knowing violation of the Canons of the Church, a violation of Canon IV.3.I.a.

37. The redirection of the complaint that Respondent had engaged in a potential Canonical violation to the Diocesan Title IV process rather that to the Intake Officer for the Board was a knowing violation of the Canons of the Church, a violation of Canon IV.3.1.a.

38. The directive to [redacted] to not report the alleged violation and to ignore Respondent’s failure to report the alleged violation, was a violation of the Canons through the acts of another person, a violation of Canon IV.3.l.a.

39. The threats of retaliation, including the threat of termination, directed to [redacted] were made in response to [redacted] proper efforts to engage the Title IV process as it applies to Bishops of the Church, a violation of Canon IV.3. I.e.

40. The facts and circumstances of Episode Two in their entirety, including Respondent’s public shaming and humiliation of a member of the laity who reported alleged misconduct, brought material discredit on the Church and undermined its good order and discipline, constituting Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy, a violation of Canon IV.4.1.h.9.

Wherefore, the Church Attorney respectfully requests that the Hearing Panel, after the

talcing of evidence, enter an Order imposing such Sentence upon the Respondent as it may

determine is proper.

Dated: June 21, 2024

Craig Thomas Merritt
MerrittHill, PLLC
919 East Main Street
Suite 1000
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 916-1600
Church Attorney

IN THE TITLE IV DISCIPLINARY MATTER 
INVOLVING THE RT. REV. PRINCE G. SINGH, 
RESPONDENT 

TO: The Rt. Rev. Prince G. Singh, Respondent 
The Rt. Rev. Phoebe Roaf, Respondent’s Advisor 
Scott Smith, Esq., Respondent’s Counsel 
Craig Thomas Merritt, Esq., Church Attorney 

NOTICE

Pursuant to Episcopal Church Canon IV.12.2, the Hearing Panel hereby notifies all recipients as follows: 

(1) The Hearing Panel will convene, at a date and location to be identified in a later communication, in order to hear testimony and argument and review documents and other exhibits that will inform the Panel as it renders its decision in this matter. 

(2) The Written Statement prepared by the Church Attorney in this matter, with attachments, is attached hereto. 

(3) The Respondent must file with the Hearing Panel a written response to this Notice within 30 days of the date of this Notice. 

(4) Episcopal Church Canon IV.19.6 provides as follows: 

In any proceeding under this Title in which the Respondent fails to appear before the Conference Panel as required by Canon IV.12.4, or to appear before the Hearing Panel as required by Canon IV.12.2.a, or to file in a timely manner with the Hearing Panel the written response required by Canon IV.12.2.c, such Panel may, in its discretion, proceed in the absence of the Respondent. In proceedings under this section, such panels may consider the materials described in Canon IV.12.1, and any other types of evidence whose us is permitted in proceeding conducted before such Panels. The failure of a Respondent to appear, or to fail to file a written response, as described in this Section shall not, in itself, provide the basis for a finding at any Offense has been committed, other than any Offense specifically arising for such failure to appear, or failure to file. 

ISSUED BY THE HEARING PANEL THIS DATE, JUNE 27, 2024: 

The Rt. Rev. Jennifer Brooke-Davidson, Convener 
The Rt. Rev. Mark Borlakas 
The Rt. Rev. A. Robert Hirschfeld 
The Rev. Chris Wendell 
Judith Andrews, Esq. 

Your written response to this Notice may be sent to the Convener at 

hearingpanel.rochester.diocesan@episdionc.org 

Please acknowledge receipt of the Notice by replying to the above email. 

SMITH LEGAL PLLC
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
6313 Loch Moor Drive
Minneapolis, MN 55439
612-987-6546
scott@smithlegalpllc.com
www.smithlegalpllc.com

July 26, 2024

BY EMAIL ONLY (hearingpanel.rochester.diocesan@episdionc.org)

The Rt. Rev. Jennifer Brooke-Davidson
Convenor of the Hearing Panel
Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina
4800 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609

Re: Title IV Matter (Rochester), The Rt. Rev. Prince Singh, Respondent

Dear Bishop Brooke-Davidson:

Pursuant to Canon IV.13.2.c, I am writing on behalf of my client, The Rt. Rev. Prince Singh (“Respondent”) to request that the Hearing Panel grant a 28-day extension of time within which my client may respond to the Written Statement of Offense prepared in this matter. If granted by the Hearing Panel, the new deadline for submitting Respondent’s response to the Written Statement of Offense would be Monday, August 26, 2024.

In support of this request, I respectfully submit the following:

  1. The Written Statement of Offense (“WSO”) was transmitted to Respondent and his counsel via E-mail on Thursday, June 27, 2024. As provided by Canons IV.13.2.c and IV.19.8, Respondent’s response thereto is due on or before Monday, July 29, 2024. That time has not yet expired.
  2. It is Respondent’s understanding that the initial complaint in this matter was received by the Intake Officer in June or July, 2023. According to the WSO, this matter was referred by the Reference Panel for Investigation on October 10, 2023, and the Investigator returned his report approximately seven months later, on May 3, 2024. The matter was thereafter referred by the Reference Panel to this Hearing Panel on June 7, 2024. Thereafter, the Church Attorney requested and Respondent voluntarily agreed to an extension of time for the Church Attorney to complete the WSO.
  3. This matter was referred by the Reference Panel directly to this Hearing Panel, with no intervening Conference Panel proceeding. As such, Respondent was not formally apprised of the allegations against him until his and counsel’s receipt of the WSO. Respondent has no Canonical right of access to investigatory materials during the intake and reference phases of the Title IV process. Moreover, Respondent was never interviewed by the Investigator during the investigatory process. Hence, Respondent was unaware of the specific nature of the factual allegations or purported Canonical violations prior to his receipt of the WSO.
  4. The allegations contained in the WSO stem from events allegedly taking place during 2017 and 2018. Respondent today possesses few if any records from that time frame which are relevant to this matter.
  5. In an effort to prepare an informed and substantive response to the WSO in the hopes of sharpening the factual issues in dispute, in early July I asked the Church Attorney to provide relevant documents from Diocesan files which would shed light on what occurred so many years ago. The Church Attorney has been cooperative with regard to that request. Unfortunately, it has not been possible for the Church Attorney to fully respond thereto prior to the date Respondent’s response to the WSO is due. Based upon my conversations with the Church Attorney, I understand that the Church Attorney is continuing to work on my request in good faith. Allowing an extension of time will permit that process to move forward and hopefully allow for a more cogent and detailed response to the WSO.
  6. In addition to my work in this matter, I represent Respondent in an unrelated Title IV matter which has recently consumed, and will continue to consume, substantial amounts of my time. Beyond that, I currently represent several Members of the Clergy in other Title IV and Title III (dissolution of the pastoral relationship) matters across the United States, and I am currently engaged as the Investigator in two very active Diocesan investigations under Canon IV .11. For these reasons as well, affording Respondent additional time within which to investigate the pertinent facts, and prepare and submit an appropriate response to the WSO is reasonably warranted.
  7. In discussions with the Church Attorney over this matter, I have informed the Church Attorney of Respondent’s intent to seek an extension of time to respond to the WSO. It is my understanding, based upon those discussion, that the Church Attorney does not object to a reasonable extension of time.
  8. Respondent has sought no prior extensions of time with regard to this matter.

Based upon the following, I respectfully submit that the foregoing constitutes good cause for the 28-day extension of time sought by Respondent herein.

Thank you for your attention to this request, and please feel free to contact me at your convenience if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Scott A. Smith

cc: Craig Thomas Merritt, Church Attorney

The Rt. Rev. Phoebe Roaf, Advisor to the Respondent

HEARING PANEL OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE
EPISCOPAL CHURCH

THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH

THE RIGHT REVEREND PRINCE G. SINGH, RESPONDENT.

TEC Title IV Matter (Rochester)

_________________________________________

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER STATEMENT OF ALLEGED OFFENSES

Upon consideration of the request of the Respondent, the Right Reverend Prince G. Singh (“Bishop Singh”) to extend the time to answer the Statement of Alleged Offenses; and The Episcopal Church (“TEC”), via the Church Attorney, Mr. Criag Merritt, Esq., consenting to the extension requested;

IT is so ORDERED,

That Respondent’s time to respond to the Alleged Statement of Offenses is extended until

August 26, 2024.

________________________________

The Rt. Rev. Jennifer Brooke-Davidson

President, Hearing Panel

Dated: July 30, 2024

THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the Disciplinary Board for Bishops
Hearing Panel

In the Matter of The Rt. Rev. Prince G. Singh
(Diocese of Rochester Matter)

RESPONDENT’S WRITTEN RESPONSE TO NOTICE

Respondent, The Rt Rev. Prince G. Singh (“Bishop Singh”), by and through his counsel, Scott A. Smith of Smith Legal PLLC, pursuant to Canon N.13.2.c hereby responds to the Notice provided by the Hearing Panel in this matter.

Response to Statement of Alleged Offenses

For his Response to the Statement of Alleged Offenses (“Statement”) prepared by the Church Attorney, Bishop Singh states and avers as follows:

Response to Procedural History and Jurisdictional Matters

1. Bishop Singh admits that the Disciplinary Board for Bishops (“the Board”) possesses Canonical jurisdiction to hear and resolve this matter pursuant to Canons N.13 and N.17.3 and that this matter is properly before the Hearing Panel. Bishop Singh is without personal knowledge or information sufficient to allow him to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-7 of the Statement.

2. Bishop Singh admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 8 of the Statement.

Response to Allegations of Episode One

3. Bishop Singh expressly denies that he ever engaged in sexual activity with the [redacted] priest referenced in Paragraph 9 of the Statement and notes that no such claim is alleged in the Statement. Bishop Singh is without personal knowledge or information sufficient to allow him to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 9 of the Statement.

4. With regard to Paragraph 10 of the Statement, Bishop Singh expressly denies that he received any report from [redacted] to the effect that Bishop Singh was alleged to have engaged in sexual activity with the [redacted] priest referenced in Paragraph 9 of the Statement Bishop Singh further denies having been ”reminded” by [redacted] regarding Bishop Singh’s obligations to report allegations to the national Church. Bishop Singh is without knowledge or information sufficient to allow him to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 10 of the Statement.

5. Bishop Singh denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 11 of the Statement

6. Bishop Singh affirmatively states that allegations regarding the [redacted] priest’s activities were reported by him to the Intake Officer for the Diocese and the President of the Diocesan Disciplinary Board at the time Bishop Singh became aware of them. On that basis, Bishop Singh denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 12 of the Statement.

7. With regard to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 13 of the Statement, Bishop Singh affirmatively states that he issued multiple Pastoral Directions to the [redacted] priest in question as authorized by Canon IV. 7 and that those Pastoral Directions are a matter of record. Bishop Singh further affirmatively states that, as part of the authority granted him by Canon IV.7, he placed the [redacted] priest in question on paid administrative leave and directed [redacted] to undergo mental health evaluation and treatment and perform other actions before [redacted] administrative leave would be ended. Bishop Singh admits that, again as part of the pastoral direction process, he met with the [redacted] priest in question at [redacted] home, at [redacted] request. To the extent not admitted o qualified above, Bishop Singh denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 13 of the Statement.

8. Bishop Singh admits that the [redacted] priest in question voluntarily resigned from [redacted] position as rector and denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 14 of the Statement.

Response to Allegations of Episode Two

9. Bishop Singh denies that he engaged in any improper touching [redacted] during an event in the fall of 2017 or at any other time and is without knowledge or information sufficient to allow him to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 15 of the Statement.

10. Bishop Singh is without knowledge or information sufficient to allow him to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 16 of the Statement.

11. Bishop Singh denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the Statement.

12. With regard to Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, Bishop Singh admits that the Diocesan Intake Officer conducted a thorough investigation of the allegations at issue, determined that there was no factual basis for them, and advised the Complainant of his findings in a letter dated November 29, 2018, the contents of which speak for itself. To the extent not admitted or qualified above, Bishop Singh denies any remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 20 of the Statement.

13. With regard to Paragraph 21 of the Statement, Bishop Singh admits that he attended several meetings during 2018 and 2019 [redacted] Bishop Singh expressly denies having “publicly humiliate[d]” any individual attending any such meeting. Bishop Singh is without knowledge or information sufficient to allow him to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 21 of the Statement.

14. Bishop Singh denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 22 of the Statement.

15. Bishop Singh denies engaging in any ”public display of hostility” toward the individual in question and is without knowledge or information sufficient to allow him to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 23 of the Statement.

16. Paragraphs 24-29 of the Statement are recitations and/or quotations from certain Canons as identified therein and require no response from Bishop Singh.

Response to Offenses Charged

17. Bishop Singh denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 30-40 of the Statement.

Affirmative Defenses

18. All or a portion of the Offenses with which Bishop Singh has been charged are barred by the expiration of applicable limitations periods set forth at Canon IV.19.4.

19. The charges constitute violations of Canonical due process. Specifically, Bishop Singh was contacted by the Investigator for an interview in this matter and had agreed to give one, and Bishop Singh and the Investigator were working on a time and date for the same when the Reference Panel referred the matter to this Hearing Panel. Bishop Singh was thereby denied the opportunity to present his side of the story before the Reference Panel acted. As a consequence, the Investigator did not fully investigate all facts pertinent to the factual claims of the intake report within the meaning of Canon IV .11.2, and the Reference Panel’s referral of this matter to the Hearing Panel violated Bishop Singh ‘s Canonical rights of due process.

WHEREFORE, Bishop Singh respectfully requests and prays that the Hearing Panel enter

an Order dismissing all charges against him with prejudice, and for such

be proper under the circumstances.

Dated: August 26, 2024.

Scott A Smith

SMITH LEGAL PLLC

6313 Loch Moor Drive

Minneapolis, MN 55439

(612) 987-6546

Counsel for Respondent

THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF NORTH CAROLINA 
4800 Six Forks Rd, Suite 300, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 Telephone 919-834-7474 800-448-8775

October 23, 2024 

VIA EMAIL 

The Rt. Rev. Prince G. Singh 
[redacted]
[redacted]

Rnepsingh@gmail.com 

The Rt. Rev. Phoebe Roaf 
692 Poplar Ave. 
Memphis, TN 38105 
proaf@episwtn.org 

Mr. Scott Smith, Esq. 
6313 Loch Moor Drive 
Minneapolis, MN 55439 
scott@smithlegalpllc.com 

Mr. Craig Merritt, Esq. 
MerrittHill, PLLC 
919 East Main Street 
Suite 1000 
Richmond, Virginia 23219 
cmerritt@merrittfirm.com 

Re: The Episcopal Church v. The Right Rev. Prince G. Singh 

Greetings. 

By my calculation, the time for you each to provide Mandatory Disclosures expires on October 25, 2024. The Canons provide that within 15 days of that time, I am to schedule a conference with you both to issue a Scheduling Order. Title IV. 13.5(c). 

Assuming you have completed your disclosures, please meet and confer before November 1, 2024 and provide to me an agreed upon proposed Scheduling Order. If you cannot agree, then please advise, in one letter, where you differ. If the Scheduling Order meets with my approval and there are no disagreements, upon your consent, there will be no need for a Conference. However, if there are differences, then provide times during 

the week of November 4, 2024 when you are available to have a brief conference, so that I may hear your respective positions. 

Sincerely, 

The Right Rev. Jennifer Brooke-Davidson 
President

cc: Diane Sammons, Esq. 

THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the Disciplinary Board for Bishops Hearing Panel

In the Matter of Rt. Rev. Prince G. Singh
(Diocese of Rochester)

Motion of the Church Attorney
to Extend Initial Disclosure and Related Dates

The Church, by its Church Attorney, moves for the entry of an order extending the deadline for initial disclosures to November 26, 2024. For its grounds it states:

  1. In connection with the ongoing investigation of this matter, the Church Attorney has sought relevant records from the Diocese of Rochester.
  2. The Chancellor of the Diocese of Rochester has notified the Church Attorney that the Diocese is not providing certain records on the ground of privilege.
  3. The Church Attorney does not consider it proper to withhold the requested materials and is working to resolve the matter.
  4. The Church Attorney is of the view that meaningful disclosures will be enhanced after review of the withheld materials.
  5. The Church Attorney is advised that counsel for the Respondent shares the view that disclosures will be more accurate and complete upon identifying and reviewing the materials being withheld by the Diocese.
  6. Counsel for the Respondent has authorized the Church Attorney to represent that the Respondent joins in the request to extend the deadline for initial disclosures to November 26, 2024.

Wherefore, the Church respectfully moves that the Hearing Panel enter an order extending the Initial Disclosure date to November 26, 2024, and that all related procedural dates triggered by the Initial Disclosure date be extended accordingly.

Respectfully submitted,

~~

Craig T. Merritt
Church Attorney

Dated: October 24, 2024

THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the Disciplinary Board for Bishops
Hearing Panel

In the Matter of Rt. Rev. Prince G. Singh
(Diocese of Rochester Matter)

Joinder of Respondent in the Church’s Motion
to Extend Deadline for Exchange of Initial Disclosures

Respondent, the Rt. Rev. Prince G. Singh (“Respondent”), joins in the Church’s request to extend the parties’ deadline for exchange of initial disclosures under Canon IV.13.5.a to November 26, 2024.

According to the Church’s Statement of Alleged Offenses, the events at issue in this matter commenced as early as 2017 and 2018. (See, e.g. Statement of Alleged Offenses at ¶¶ 9 , 15 and 20.) Not surprisingly, Respondent’s present recollection of events occurring 6-7 years ago and the persons associated with those events is affected by the passage of time. Furthermore, Respondent is no longer affiliated with the Diocese of Rochester, possesses no records of his own relevant to the events at issue, and has no access to pertinent Diocesan records outside of the Title IV process. The Diocesan records sought by the Church (and by Respondent as well) are critically important not just to refresh Respondent’s recollection of key events and persons involved, but also to Respondent’s counsel’s ability to identify and interview key witnesses and prepare meaningful initial disclosures based thereon.

Respondent understands that the Church Attorney and the Chancellor of the Diocese of Rochester are in dispute over the production of certain Diocesan records. The nature and reasons for that dispute are best known to the Church Attorney and the Diocesan Chancellor. Respondent also understands that the Church Attorney and the Diocesan Chancellor are attempting to resolve these issues. Nonetheless, without relevant Diocesan records Respondent is essentially unable to prepare meaningful and complete initial disclosures. As such, Respondent respectfully submits that the extension of time sought by the Church is reasonable and warranted under the circumstances.

Dated: October 24, 2024.

Respectfully submitted,

~

Scott A. Smith
SMITH LEGAL PLLC
6313 Loch Moor Drive
Minneapolis, MN 55439
(612) 987-6546
scott@smithlegalpllc.com

Counsel for Respondent

HEARING PANEL OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE
EPISCOPAL CHURCH

THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
V
THE RIGHT REVEREND PRINCE G. SINGH,
RESPONDENT.

—————-

TEC Title IV Matter
(Rochester)

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO EXCHANGE MANDATORY DISCLOSURES

Upon consideration of the motion of The Episcopal Church (“TEC”), via the Church Attorney, Mr. Craig Merritt, Esq., to extend the time to exchange Mandatory Disclosures by thirty (30) days and the Joinder of Respondent, the Right Reverend Prince G. Singh (“Bishop Singh”) through his attorney, Scott A. Smith, Esq., consenting to the extension requested;

IT is so ORDERED,

The time to exchange Mandatory Disclosures is extended until November 24. 2024.

The Rt. Rev. Jennifer Brooke-Davidson
President, Hearing Panel

Dated: October 24, 2024

Obispo John Howard (Acusaciones de discriminación)

Obispo John Howard (Acusaciones de carácter financiero)

Obispo Prince Singh (Acusaciones de conducta impropia – Diócesis de Rochester)

Contact:
The Rev. Barbara Kempf

Title IV Intake Officer for Bishops

Click here