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.

Louise Wilkins is a very straight lady. She has one or two young children and she lives near Windsor. 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 1^st of May  2017, you wrote:

“I am happy to go ahead with what is essentially a complaint about the procedures adopted by Mr. Kitchin. Your 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  5^th 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:
  
 “justice, openness and honesty, and to the need for each of us to accept responsibility for our own acts.”

 

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 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 9^th. 

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 9^th 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 9^th :

“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 9^th  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 9^th 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 :

“justice, openness and honesty, and to the need for each of us to accept responsibility for our own acts.”

 

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 9^th, 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