THE
CHURCH HAS GONE ASTRAY A
Letter to Rev Peter Timms. Throughout the Timms
affair, Peter Timms also used his many friendships and decades of
experience in the Methodist Church to contact senior members whom he
knew to be honest men and women of high integrity. Some did not reply -
perhaps afraid, for the controversy had already become something of
a scandal. But many replied to Peter. Below is one of those
letters. It was sent to Peter Timms as an email in 2017. The writer
asked to remain anonymous. However,
these are the words of someone who was very influential in the
wording of the current Standing Orders when they were drawn up at
the turn of the century. If one ever wonders
why Peter Timms persists with his objections to what was done to him
in 2016, it is because he has the backing of persons such as this
writer. The letter concerns in
particular the attitude of Ms Louise Wilkins, the senior legal
adviser on the case and Mr Chris Kitchin, the leader of the
connexional complaints panel. It shows that senior figures who
drafted the complaints and discipline procedures believe that a
later generation has gone astray in interpreting them. The Church has gone
astray. This email contains what many in the Methodist
Church are thinking.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
27th October 2017 To:
Rev. Peter Timms OBE MA Dear
Peter,
First, I wish to thank you for the lunch and the opportunity of
considering this matter. I appreciate the helpful manner in which
you have shown me all the evidence which you have available. In
general, I believe this matter to be, potentially, a watershed in
the current history of the Methodist Church. We may, at last, do
something about the atmosphere that has pervaded our circles for far
too long. People have been afraid to put their heads above the
parapet. That is not right. At last you are breaking this vicious
circle and others, such as yourself, will now follow. I support you
in this. As
for Chris Kitchin, I should tell you that there have been complaints
about him in the past. He actually tells people that he always
begins an inquiry by investigating the complainant first. I note
your analysis of Standing Orders on this practice, and I tend to
agree with you.
Herewith is my report on the letter from Louise Wilkins of which I
asked that you send me a copy. I hope that it helps.
REPORT
Overall this is a most captious letter. I am somewhat ashamed that
it ever came out of Methodist Church House. In
particular, one sentence effectively says it all: “I
do not believe that there is any further mechanism that can be
offered to you as the process under Part 11 has run to completion” This
is backed up by the outrageous remark:
“it is no longer appropriate for Alan to continue to respond to your
letters and emails. Obviously if you write making further complaints
then these shall be responded to in accordance with the Part 11
process. All other correspondence shall be placed on the file but
not responded to.” I
understand that it was this letter that caused you to embark on your
current publicity campaign – and I wholeheartedly agree with you
that something drastic had to be done when someone in the Connexion
issues such statements. You put it aptly when you said to me “where
there is no procedure, there can be no law”.
Although the above statements are sufficient to damn this letter, I
shall attempt to analyse it, as you requested, piece by piece, in
the hope that there may be other points that will help you in your
campaign. 1.
Confusion concerning the object of your set aside motion. In
paragraph Mrs Wilkins writes:
“The process under Part 11 in considering the complaint you made has
been completed and no person or body has the authority to set aside
the decision of the complaints. This includes the Secretary of the
Conference.” This
sentence calls your set aside motion “a complaint”. It refers to the
“complaints” without being specific as to which complaints they may
be. As I understand it, the only “complaints” (plural) in the
process were the three complaints which you lodged against the
three ministers in your District. And those are not relevant to this
argument. The
sentence misses the point that your set aside motion was nothing to
do with these “complaints” It was relating exclusively to the
manner in which Mr. Kitchin and his panel processed the complaints. I
fail to understand how a lady such as Mrs Wilkins – who, I recall,
has been involved in writing some of the most recent Standing
Orders, could confuse these two points - unless she did it
deliberately.
Because of her involvement, Mrs Wilkins should know that SO 1155
is a part of PART 11 of the Constitutional Practice and Discipline
of the Methodist Church. She is surely in error in stating that:
“The process under Part 11 in considering the complaint you made has
been completed”. If
there is still the possibility of using SO 1155. The
implication she makes is, of course, that SO 1155 is not applicable
to your set aside motion. I believe that to be incorrect. 2. Is
SO 1155 relevant to your motion? In
her fourth paragraph Mrs Wilkins writes: “
Standing Order 1155..on further reflection I am not sure that this
offers you a way forward that will address the points you have been
raising.” She
does not specify “the points”. If they are the points in your set
aside motion and its addenda, then I consider that, since they deal
with the process, Standing Order 1155 does offer you a way
forward. But until she defines these “points” we cannot say. She
repeats that she is “not sure”, yet, as I pointed out above, she
also gives the impression that she is, in fact, certain on this
point with the words: “The
process under Part 11 in considering the complaint you made has been
completed and no person or body has the authority to set
aside the decision of the complaints.” 3. Did
you incorporate your original complaints with the set aside motion
concerning the panel’s report? Mrs
Wilkins’ paragraph 4 reads in part:
“Standing Order 1155 is not a mechanism for appeal against the
decisions made by the Rev David Chapman as local complaints officer
or the complaints team.” The
evidence you showed me rather proves that you have never doubted
this in the current matter (though I shall later return to the
principle of this). As you said, it seems that you had fully
expected to go “back to square one” with the three complaints. I
quote from the correspondence you gave me. In
your letter to Alan Bolton on the 1st of May 2017, you
wrote:
“I am happy to go ahead with what is essentially a complaint about
the procedures adopted by Mr. Kitchin. My set aside motions would
form the basis for the complaint, though I would wish to add more. “ On
11th April 2017 you wrote again to Alan Bolton:
“In summary, my grievance began initially as a concern about my
treatment at the meeting in question. Since then it has become as
much concerned with the manner in which my protests about such
treatment has been handled. Unsubstantiated accusations have been
made to me, and my responses simply disbelieved as a matter of
opinion. The matter has not been investigated in a transparent and
fair manner.” This
clearly indicates that you are concerned with the report by Chris
Kitchin – not with the original three complaints. I cannot see how
Alan could have read this otherwise. On
6th June 2017 you wrote: “Did
the panel really act correctly in accordance with the relevant
Standing Orders” ? I think that you would find it difficult to back
up that opinion now.”
Having read your set aside motion, I share your sentiment about
this. And the wording clearly suggests that you are dealing with the
panel’s report and not the original three complaints. I
could cite other examples, but one further should suffice. You
actually wrote to Mrs Wilkins on 5th June 2017 with the
words: “Since I have been most
dissatisfied with the actions of Mr. Kitchin, the Rev Reid and Rev
Jones, I wished to ensure that there were safeguards in the process
that made it comply with SO 1100 - in particular the need for:
Surely after this, Mrs. Wilkins could be in no doubt that your aim
was not for a decision, in your favour, to be made on the three
original complaints – but simply to complain against Mr Kitchin’s
report. When
we last spoke, you omitted to remind me of the first page of the
document now on the internet. I recall it well. It was a shock when
I first read it. In fact it reads: “This
motion contains information that:
1. I did not have an adequate opportunity to be heard during the
complaints process. Instead I found yourself meeting charges that
were made against me and being hampered in gathering evidence.
2. I was not treated fairly by the complaints team
3. I did not receive a fair hearing.
4. There were procedural mistakes in that Standing Orders were not
followed and interpreted correctly.
5. The complaint was managed without any proper and required
consideration of whether or not reconciliation between me and the
respondents was possible – despite repeated requests for such.
6. There was material procedural irregularity in the hearing.
Standing Orders were interpreted without consideration of the
principles behind them.
7. The procedure seriously impaired, or might have, seriously
impaired, the mission, witness or integrity of the Church.
8. I did not receive the help and support that should be offered
to the complainant.
9. There was undue interference in the complaints process which was
contrary to Standing Orders.” All
of these points concern the manner in which the inquiry was run, As
such they are about the process. The three original complaints
are not mentioned. I fail to see how Mrs Wilkins could have
failed to notice this. In
paragraph 4 of her letter Mrs Wilkins writes:
“The decisions made by the local complaints officer and complaints
team would remain regardless of the conclusions of the Connexional
Reconciliation Group.”
This, as with (3) above, is confusing. It is clear that this is
exactly what you have always expected i.e. to “go back to square
one”.
However, Mrs Wilkins appears to use this point to turn down your
motion. I find that odd – and it perhaps lacks the openness required
by SO 1100, in that it seems to be a political ploy known as
“deflection”. You will recall that I mentioned this to you when we
met. On
the other hand she was, perhaps, simply mis-led by the evidence
brought to her by, for example, Alan Bolton. Is there any evidence
anywhere to suggest that you wanted the original three complaints
upheld as a part of your campaign? In
her paragraph four she also writes:
“The Standing Order is very clear that the group cannot make any
decisions on the merit of the complaint and would not be engaging
with, or reviewing, your original complaint.” Her
use of the word “complaint” here is, again, extremely confusing and
fails to make any clear point. This is unlike Mrs Wilkins in my
experience. However, the implication is that you were attempting to
have the original three complaints found in your favour. Please
confirm to me that you have never issued any such verbal suggestion
of this.
Further, in paragraph four, she writes:
“The group would be restricted to considering the manner in which
the complaints process was undertaken.” Once
again, she implies that your desire is to have an appeal against
the original three complaints. Is this, perhaps why she believes
that SO 1155 is not relevant to your set aside motion. I urge you to
search for anything in the files which might have given her, or Alan
Bolton, that impression.
However, I should tell you that there is a political tactic of
setting up targets, only to knock them down. Your current
difficulties in Bexhill are another version of this – they are
inventing jobs that you might do, but do not do, in
order to suspend you from doing such duties. When was the last time
you actually preached in Bexhill? I
digress. I shall now take a close look at SO 1155 for your benefit.
for I suspect that you are not as familiar with SO 1155 as some I
know.
STANDING ORDER 1155.
A.
THE RIGHT TO USE SO 1155.
Clause (9) states:
“If the aggrieved person’s concerns have not been resolved and he or
she is not willing to agree not to pursue them further, the relevant
connexional Team member must refer the matter to a person falling
within Standing Order 231(3) for consideration whether the aggrieved
person should be declared to be a persistent complainant.”
Please note the words “the relevant
connexional team member must refer the matter to a person
falling within Standing Order 231(3)” The
relevant Connexional team member has no choice in this.
Mrs Wilkins appears to suggest the contrary. But
what happens if the decision is that the complainant is not “a
persistent complainer”? The implication is surely that the
consideration by the relevant Connexional Team Member must
carry on. So,
in general terms, if the aggrieved person’s concerns have not been
resolved, the case must go to a member of the panel chosen
by Conference under SO 1131. It
would seem from clause 10 of 1155 that it is the relevant
Connexional team member who decides whether the representations are
worthy of reference to the “referee”. I know of no ruling on this.
However, clause 10 (c) appears to suggest that the aggrieved person
has some control over this:
“The relevant connexional Team member must further inform the
aggrieved person that if he or she wishes to make representations to
the referee, those representations must be sent in writing to the
relevant connexional Team member within 14 days from the day on
which the aggrieved person is so informed”. -
this clause appears to allow the aggrieved person to make
representation even if the relevant Connexional team member does
not wish to refer the matter under SO 1155. Once again, I can
find no ruling on this. B. Powers
of the Connexional Reconciliation Group under SO 1155.
Mrs
Wilkins states that “The decisions made by the local complaints
officer and complaints team would remain regardless of the
conclusions of the Connexional Reconciliation Group.” This
would appear to mean that the report by Mr Kitchin and his panel
must remain as is, and on your record, – regardless of the
conclusions reached by the Connexional Reconciliation Group.
That cannot be right. A
part of this is covered by SO1155, 6 ( c ) where it states:
“The convener must also state expressly that the duties and
responsibilities of the team do not extend to making any decision
on the merits of the complaint or charge in relation to which
the complaints of the aggrieved person have been made.” Here
I point to the words “ complaint or charge”. Do they mean one
and the same complaint, or do they cover two complaints, one being
identified as “a charge”? There is no equivalent in either civil or
criminal law. I
speculate. I take it that a reference by the relevant Connexional
Team member to the Reconciliation Group (henceforth called ‘the
Group’) is here termed as “a complaint”. A “charge” surely would
refer to subsequent disciplinary hearings of the inquiry panel
members. I
suspect that this sentence is actually designed to mean that the
Group cannot present any opinion on the merits of the original
complaint. To
clarify this further in present practical terms, the Group cannot
pronounce on the merits of the three complaints you made against
ministers in your District. I know that you accept this and always
have.
However, it does not mean that the Group cannot pronounce on the
merits of your “complaint” (as in the SO) against
the panel of inquiry led by Mr. Kitchin. I
point out here that the title of this Standing Order is “Complaints
about the process.” This surely means that the Group can decide
whether such a complaint against the process is justified or
not. As
you said to me – why else would the Standing Order be written?
C. THE PROCEDURE OF THE RECONCILIATION GROUP. The
procedure and powers of the Reconciliation Group are perhaps most
closely defined in clause 8 of SO 1155:
“When the team has completed its work as far as is possible in the
circumstances, the contact member must prepare a brief report of the
steps taken and the outcome of the team’s work. The report must
state whether or not the aggrieved person’s concerns have been
resolved and any recommendations made by the team and must be sent
to the relevant connexional Team member, who must take appropriate
steps to give effect to any recommendations.”
There are several parts of this clause which need clarification. 1
“As far as is possible” is not defined. It suggests however,
that an exhaustive investigation and consideration must take place until
a point in the process at which the Group reaches some
limitation on its work – perhaps lack of documentary evidence,
or the inability to interview certain witnesses either because of
death or because they are no longer otherwise available.
However, the legal implication of “as far as possible” is
that any such investigative group must approach any case with a view
to considering “the case, the whole case and nothing but the
case.” This is an long-established legal definition from a criminal
case, R v Chard. I think it appropriate here. It
is clear from this that the Group does not have the power to decide
the meaning of “as far as is possible” for itself. Any
such decision can be challenged in another place.
Further, although the system of judicial consideration of the system
of complaints, set out in SO 1133 (8), is that the standard of
proof required to establish a charge is the balance of
probabilities, it is not clear whether this applies to SO 1155. What
constitutes “as far as possible” under the system of balance of
probabilities is clearly not the same as under a system of “beyond
reasonable doubt”. The latter has much more clear boundaries in the
admissibility of evidence. Indeed the two systems exist precisely
because the standard of proof is not the same within the two
systems. My
own opinion on this is that “as far as possible” was an unwise
choice of words. It can too easily be interpreted in a manner that
does not achieve finality. 2. “a
brief report of the steps taken and the outcome of the team’s work.”
There seems to be no particular reason for such a report to be brief. Finality
is not normally achieved by brief summaries.
Further, the determination of what constitutes a “brief report”
would appear to be in the hands of a higher power within the Church
– presumably the Relevant Connexional Team member, or even the
Conference. This pronouncement is unnecessary and harmful.
D. THE POWERS OF THE RECONCILIATION GROUP. The
conclusions, or judgement, of the Group are here described in the
above paragraph (clause 8 of SO 1155) as “the outcome” of the
team’s work. This
surely includes not only the duty to explore the chances of
reconciliation, which are is Clause 6 (3) ( c) (iii) :
“to explore with the aggrieved person whether there is any means of
resolving his or her concerns, including achieving resolution by a
form of reconciliation with a person or persons involved in the
complaints and discipline process;” but
also the duty under 6 (3) (c ) (iv): “to
make any recommendations for the improvement of the process which
the team thinks appropriate." This
clause uses the words “any recommendations” for the
improvement of the process. It is as open as “as far as possible”.
Clearly, one of the Group’s recommendations might be to get rid
of the process - perhaps because it simply does not work in
practice in its compliance with Standing Order 1100. In
other words, the recommendations which the Group may find
appropriate are limitless.
This, I believe, means that the Group may consider, after due
consideration, that it is appropriate to
“set aside” the report of the panel of inquiry.
One
ground for this might be that the inquiry’s methodology, or manner
of working. was not in accord either with SO 1100 – or indeed with
some other part of Standing Orders. I
consider this a strong point in your favour which you should press
with Mrs Wilkins.
E. POWERS OF THE RECONCILIATION GROUP (2)
-
Requirements to set aside a final report by a panel of inquiry I
turn to the question of what is the requirement demanded by
Standing Orders if the Group thinks it appropriate to “set aside”
the report of a panel of inquiry into a complaint?
Standing Order 1100 stipulates that:
(iv) help and support should be offered both to the person making
the complaint and to the person complained against at every stage
during the process;
(v) the process should be fair;
(vi) the person or body making the decision at each stage should be
competent to do so;
(vii) there should be a means of correcting any errors which may be
made;
(viii) there should be a means of ensuring compliance with any
decision; If
the Group concludes that any of these stipulations has not been
complied with by a complaints panel, then it may decide that the
panel has acted outside the bounds of Standing Orders and as such
its decisions are not competent. F. RELEVANCE
TO PRESENT CASE. I
took a note that in one of the documents you showed me, you claimed
that:
a) You
were not given the help and support by the panel that you needed
and requested.
b) The
process used by the panel was not fair in that inter alia you
were presented with a confession to sign which contained falsities.
c) The
persons on the panel making the decision were not competent to do so
– particularly in the use of the system of the balance of
probabilities.
d) There
was no means of correcting errors which were made by the panel. It
follows that if the Group supports your view on this, the decision
of the panel cannot stand and the report must be withdrawn. G.
CONFUSION OVER THE USE OF THE WORDS “COMPLAINT” AND “APPEAL”. I
mention this here because it is a problem which dogs the entire
letter of June 9th. The
letter written by Mrs Wilkins is not a legal document. It is not,
and does not purport to be such. Consequently, it is not
professionally precise, it uses words in a general, confused, way
and contains contradictions. I am
concerned about the use of words and suggest you ask for
clarification. She
writes in her letter of 9th June: “Standing
Order 1155 is not a mechanism for appeal against the decisions made
by the Rev David Chapman as local complaints officer or the
complaints team.” As
an aside, I should note that I believe that this is inaccurate. I
know that you have not considered including Rev Chapman in your set
aside motion, however, I nevertheless point out to you that the
intervention of Rev Chapman as local complaints officer, is
a part of the process and as such may be considered
under SO1155.
However, my main point here is that Mrs Wilkins uses the word
“appeal” in this particular sentence. I think that we need to be
more exact than this. I
must, however, point to apparent contradictions within the Standing
Orders. SO
1100 (3) (vii) states: “
there should be a means of correcting any errors which may be made”
However, SO 1100 (3)(viii) states:
“there should be a means of ensuring compliance with any decision;” This
latter suggests a power to ensure compliance with any decision, no
matter the position of the complainant. In other words, - a system
of no appeal.
Considering what is currently going on between you and the
Connexion, I see little chance that this clause might ever be
effective. It is bad law. In England, finality is not achieved by
diktat.
Outside the Methodist Church, even cases taken to the Supreme Court
may, in a sideways fashion, be appealed by fighting another case on
the same point of law. The aim of our judicial system is to achieve
finality – but these days, particularly since the HRA, that is
becoming more and more elusive. In
any contest, SO 1100(3) (vii) would surely prevail. SO
1126 (2) introduces a further limitation on appeal:
“No appeal may be brought against a decision that a complaint should
be dismissed if the complaint was referred to the connexional
Complaints Panel by the complainant rather than the local complaints
officer.” As
we agreed, this clause applies in your current case against the
three ministers. It could not exist outside the Church, but you have
signed up to it. I consider it bad law. The
above Standing Orders appear to conflict. However, there is an
underlying position, The procedure needs to comply with the
standards set down in SO 1100. The panel needs to demonstrate:
“justice, openness and honesty, and to the need for each of us to
accept responsibility for our own acts.” How
can anyone try to correct any errors if there can be no appeal, or
complaint against any errors, either in matters of fact or in
matters of procedure, that are made within the system of
complaints?
Further, is the Reconciliation Group not a kind of appeal system -
to consider, at the very least, errors made in procedure of any
particular complaint? And
yet, Mrs Wilkins writes in her third paragraph of the letter of June
9th:
“As you are aware, there was no right of appeal against the decision
of the complaints team to dismiss your complaints” I
think she relies here on the fact that you yourself took your
grievances to the Connexion. However, that is irrelevant to the
present issue. In
the context of your set aside motion, the use of the Reconciliation
Group is certainly a form of appeal. Mrs Wilkins’ statement here is
clearly incorrect if she applies it to the present issue.
However, aside from the legal issues, the last three words of the
above quotation points to a basic confusion in her thinking on this
matter – which I think you must concentrate upon. She
writes: “
to dismiss your complaints”
This, again, leads me to the nub of her points in this letter. As I
covered in detail earlier, her letter suggested that you wanted your
three complaints against Revds Pruden, Luscombe and Westwood to be
found in your favour.
According to all the evidence I have seen, this is simply not true.
In your many letters and reports to Alan Bolton, you appear to have
never suggested that the three original complaints should be
overturned. The examples I have quoted are persuasive in this – why
should you elsewhere state the contrary? Mrs
Wilkins further emphasised in your letter of June 9th
that:
“The Standing Order is very clear that the group cannot make any
decisions on the merit of the complaint and would not be engaging
with, or reviewing, your original complaint.” She
seems to think that you have not read SO 1155:
“The group would be restricted to considering the manner in which
the complaints process was undertaken.” If
this is all you ever wanted, then why does Mrs Wilkins suggest that
you have nowhere to turn in this – particularly: “I
do not believe that there is any further mechanism that can be
offered to you as the process under Part 11 has run to completion.” And
why does she write:
“It is no longer appropriate for Alan to continue to respond to your
letters…” In
fact it was highly appropriate for Alan to respond to your
letters because he is the Relevant
Connexional Team Member who has the decision to refer the case to
the Reconciliation Group.
Conclusion: I am
afraid, Peter, that you caught Louise Wilkins on a bad day. She is a
competent lawyer whose abilities rise far higher than are evident in
this letter.
There is a flaw somewhere, and I think I can point to it. Verbal
evidence that is not backed up by documentary evidence is the most
dangerous evidence in a courtroom. Of course, there is a lot of
documentary evidence in this case – particularly from you. However,
the question is – how much of the documentation was ever read? When
Mrs Wilkins was briefed – was this done on paper, with a proper
summary of the documents involved? Or was it, as I suspect, a casual
meeting in Methodist Church House at which objectives were more
important than the evidence to back them up? This letter from Mrs
Wilkins certainly suggests the latter. It is slapdash. She
needed to be briefed better before writing it – and I am afraid that
Alan would make a poor solicitor. Mrs
Wilkins wears several hats within the Connexion. She is, of course,
a legal executive who is employed to be involved in legal debates
and actions. Such situations are normally adversarial and require
the lawyers on both sides to be, on occasion, somewhat economical
with the truth. On
the other hand, she is also the Secretary of the Law and Polity
Committee. This is not a position in which she can take an
adversarial role and therefore be economical with the truth. The
Committee is governed by SO 1100.
Perhaps these two roles have caused the present difficulties. I
find her letter of June 9th uncommonly captious. It is
unlike her. She is not that kind of person.
Several sections of it appear to seek to block your attempts to have
your set aside motion and its addenda considered. It persuades with
half truths. This is essentially an adversarial approach. I do not
think that in doing this, her efforts accord with SO 1100, with its
call for Methodists to act with:
It
is not the behaviour one might expect of a member of the Law and
Polity Committee. You
are not well-versed in the law, nor in Standing Orders. You are
essentially a lay person in this. A lay person, reading the letter
of June 9th, will no doubt come to the conclusion that
your efforts to attack the procedures adopted by Mr. Kitchin have
reached a dead end. The procedure has come to an end, there is no
further mechanism. There is no appeal. That is the finality of the
matter.
That is an erroneous conclusion. And I suspect that Mrs Wilkins
knows it. I
must point out to you, in this examination of the letter, that Mrs
Wilkins has inserted into the text a series of remarks contrary to
that view. That
finality has been reached, is the overall burden of her letter – in
particular the reference to your letters being put on a pile,
unread. Her more “positive” points are subsumed in the general
negative atmosphere of the letter. I
would make two particular suggestions. Such is the obvious confusion
in the Connexion about this, that a “pre-trial conference” is
essential. You should go into Methodist Church House and make clear
what you want, pointing to the various sections of SO 1155 which I
have mentioned above. But
further, it is always good policy to trim the argument down. Get to
the essentials and argue them. I would concentrate on one section
of your set aside motion. You can always call up the rest at a later
opportunity. That section would be the “false confession”. I feel
that the weight of this in the argument is irrefutable.
Anyone reading the text of this “false confession “ swiftly comes to
the conclusion that such a practice is not acceptable behaviour in
any context, never mind the procedures of the Methodist Church. I
wish you well in your endeavours and I shall hold myself available
to you in the future, should you need me. I
understand that others are compiling reports, such as mine, for you.
I should be interested to read their views, if that is possible. I
presume that you have offered them the anonymity that you graciously
offered to me.
-ends |