The Devious Trap
In this article, Peter Hill examines in detail the
document which has come to be known as “the false confession” in
the case of Peter Timms.
Peter Timms has been removed from the Connexion because of
his objections to this document.
----
An unusual email has arrived at the Church Scrutiny
office.
It may be the first time that any senior person in the
Methodist Church has attempted to explain away the document that
Mr. Chris Kitchin sent to Peter Timms in 2016 that caused all the
fuss – ending in Peter Timms being removed from the Connexion.
The email addresses the supposed false
confession directly. It reads:
"This does not look like a
forced admission of wrong-doing to me but a request that he
acknowledges that any material sent him in his capacity ( I assume)
as complainant shall be treated in confidence and not circulated
more widely. It is said that the author had information that
previous documents had not been treated in confidence and a failure
to recognise duties of confidentiality meant that future documents
would no longer be shared.
I see no reason why requiring an acknowledgement of
confidentiality undermines unfairness. This is not a whistle-blower
case where the subject makes a protected disclosure that cannot be
the subject of domestic disciplinary
measures.”
Is it this kind of thinking that has led Gareth Powell,
Jonathan Hustler, Graham Danbury, Donna Ely, John Hellyer, John
Troughton Louise Wilkins and most of the Methodist Executive
to support Chris Kitchin - the man who composed and sent this
document?
Until this email arrived in the office, it seemed that no
one in the Methodist Church cared to attempt to offer an
explanation for the controversial document. The Secretary to
Conference, Gareth Powell had the subject of the false
confession taken off the agenda at the last moment when he
called a peace meeting with Peter Timms. At another
peace meeting, District
Chair John Hellyer said he was not prepared to talk about the
document. He refused to read it and seemed frightened to even
touch it. Both Gareth Powell and John Hellyer appear to be
ashamed of it.
Perhaps only now that Peter Timms has been removed from
the Connexion does anyone in the Church dare to offer an
explanation for this extraordinary document. And that may be why
this apparent explanation has been sent to this office. They may
feel safe in the thought that Peter Timms' life is so ruined by the
argument about this document that he will not reply.
However, a close examination of the document suggests that
it would be easy for Peter Timms to respond, if he cared to
do so. Here is a line by line critique of the document that ruined
his life. The original
document can be seen elsewhere on this
website.
Please read it - for it was sent
on behalf of the Methodist Church and thus in your
name.
--00—
A
paragraph-by-paragraph critique of this key
document.
1. “I am the respondent in a complaint made against
me”.
This is the first misleading line in the document. It is
completely fallacious - there was no formal complaint made
against Peter Timms. He was not a respondent as the
document states.
On the contrary, Peter Timms was the complainant
who had raised three formal complaints against ministers in his
district - because he believed that favouritism had been shown in a
particular stationing and the wrong procedure had been used in
order to stifle his objections and push the appointment through
quickly.
This line, which stated that he was the respondent,
was the very first thing that was communicated to
Peter Timms by Chris Kitchin, the leader of the connexional
complaints team. It was not an auspicious start. Perhaps
significantly, his name did not appear anywhere on the
document.
Further, it was only when Peter Timms received this
document, with the accompanying letter, that he learned that his
complaints were at last being actively taken up in the connexional
complaints process.
The effect of this paragraph was to completely confuse the
issue.
Peter Timms was bewildered by it. The document came from
Methodist Church House. Any complaint against him would
initially have gone to his local complaints officer. He had heard
nothing about a complaint about breach of confidentiality from the
local complaints officer. Yet that is the only way in which such
complaints can be raised.
His initial reaction to this was that Methodist Church had
confused two separate complaints. He thought that
someone else in the Church had had a formal complaint raised
against him and the documents had been handed to Chris
Kitchin, along with Peter Timms’ address. In short, it was all a
mistake.
This mistake caused great
delay - for which Chris Kitchin blamed Peter
Timms.
--00—
2. “I understand that the
Connexional Complaints Team has reviewed the evidence it holds and
has determined, in accordance with Standing Order 1157, that there
have been several breaches of confidentiality by
me.”
This again was confusing. The wrong standing order was
quoted. it is SO 1104 (7) that determines whether or not there
has been a breach of confidence. SO 1157 determines the
consequences of such a breach.
It was a minor point - but it
clearly demonstrated that the writer did not have the grasp of
standing orders that he perhaps should have had. Significantly, it
was a lay person who had sent the document, not a minister. A
minister would not make such a mistake. It left Peter Timms with
little confidence in the opinions expressed elsewhere in the
document.
Apart from this error, this is one of the key paragraphs
of the document. Peter Timms was well aware of the complaints
procedures as laid down in Standing Orders. He knew that there
needed to be an initial investigation by the leader of the team
into whether the complaint might be dealt with in some other
manner, perhaps by another office. Another consideration would be
whether or not this was a trivial complaint and could be dealt with
as such. There was also the question of reconciliation to consider.
None of these actions were mentioned, it seemed that there
had been no initial investigation at
all.
It seemed that this again was a mistake by the
writer.
None of the standing orders about the complaints
procedures suggested that the leader of the team could investigate
beyond such initial steps. Yet, the complaints panel
leader, Chris Kitchin, apparently, had done so.
Most importantly, when the leader of the complaints panel
made such initial steps in the process, he was supposed to contact
both the respondent – and the complainant.
None of this had happened – and yet the document stated
that
“the
Connexional Complaints Team has reviewed the evidence it holds and
has determined,”
Peter Timms had not even been told the names of the other
two members of the complaints panel. Yet they had apparently met -
and judged him on some unknown charge!
Once again his initial reaction to this was that it must
surely concern someone else – the afore-mentioned
“respondent”.
But what if it was genuinely meant for him? Peter
Timms considered the procedures of the complaints system. If
the “Connexional Complaints Team” had already met and
considered evidence, they must first have collected such evidence.
That must have taken weeks – so surely, since he had only
just been told that the process was beginning, there had not
been sufficient time in which to take such action?.
And surely, in this period, the connexional complaints
panel would have put the accusation to Peter Timms himself
for his explanation? That had not happened. Yet, according to the
standing orders, it should have happened.
This was yet another reason to believe that the document
was a part of a different case and meant for someone
else.
The next paragraph became more serious – yet once again
suggested that it was aimed at someone else.
--00—
3. “I acknowledge that I was told in writing and orally
that any breach of confidentiality could result in disciplinary
action being brought against me.”
On one reading, this was somewhat innocuous. There are not
many ministers in the Methodist Church who have not been told in
writing – and possibly orally – that such is the case. The rules on
confidentiality are contained in SO 1104 – particularly
clause 7.
So why was this reminder needed at all? Was the real
respondent perhaps someone who was not a minister and not
aware of the detail of standing orders?
The next paragraph was similarly strange – because,
again, it stated something which was common knowledge
to all Methodist ministers:
4 “I am familiar with the Constitutional Practice and
Discipline of the Methodist Church with particular reference to
Part II which deals with complaints and
Discipline.”
This was somewhat pedantic. After all, which
Methodist minister is not familiar with the
Constitutional Practice and Discipline of the Methodist Church? It
is required reading for all who are engaged in pastoral
work.
This sentence seemed so superfluous, that Peter Timms
thought that there had to be some reason why the writer had
inserted such trivial points. Chris Kitchin, the panel leader,
appeared to be laying down the groundwork for something.
That became clear in paragraph 5.
And it is here where the
great controversy begins - for it was Peter Timms' objections to
this next paragraph that led - after some six years of
argument - to him being removed from the
ministry.
--00—
5 “I accept that if I fail to sign this undertaking or
refuse to do so and return it by 14 October 2016 I will lose the
opportunity to receive further documents and information relating
to the complaint.”
This is the paragraph that has has so damaged the
reputation of the Methodist Church.
It is the paragraph that the Secretary to Conference
Gareth Powell wished had not been written. It is the paragraph
which District Chair John Hellyer was scared to touch, never
mind read. It is the paragraph which some senior members of the Law
and Polity Committee, among others, have labelled “ a
mistake”.
This also is the paragraph which has ruined the life
and career of one of the Church’s most devoted ministers – 92 year
old Peter Timms. It has cast a shadow of doubt over the
competency of the executives of the Methodist Church who have dealt
with the matter. It has even cast a stain on the reputation of the
Methodist Church.
In fact the wording of this paragraph was a trap –
and a fairly disingenuous one at that. It was a devious attempt to
persuade Peter Timms to agree to both a true
statement and to a false statement at one
time - with one signature!
Let us be clear about this.
Peter Timms was quite willing to sign an undertaking to
abide by SO 1104 (7). However, if he signed this
particular document, he was also signing that he agreed
that he had already committed a breach of that same rule – yet
he knew nothing about any such breach. The reader will recall that
paragraph 2 of the document contained the words:
"
I understand that ..... there have been several breaches of
confidentiality by me.”
He was being asked to agree that he had already
breached confidentiality. That would inevitably lead to
restrictions on how he could present his complaint. It might even
kill his complaint before he even began his arguments.
The document was a trap.
He was ejected from the
Ministry before he was too smart to fall into it.
In spite of all the pedantic bland repetition of standing
orders in earlier paragraphs, this was a false confession
that he, the complainant, was being asked to
sign. Worse, it demanded an acceptance of guilt to having
committed a misdemeanour of he knew nothing – and which had
certainly not gone through the proper procedures of the complaints
system.
Since Peter Timms needed disclosure of certain,
hitherto withheld, documents to finalise his formal
complaints, and since this particular document contained the threat
of a deadline, he thought it wise to query the document immediately
and consider what was behind it.
For the next two months (and well beyond the arbitrary
deadline) Peter Timms received demands from Chris
Kitchin that he sign the document. Meanwhile all
cooperation regarding his complaints was withheld. Indeed,
the panel never offered him any cooperation and further
restrictions were even imposed upon him. He never got the
documents he had requested. He never got the witnesses he
wished to call.
Over the next couple of weeks, Peter Timms realised that
the demand for his signature was serious. There had been no
mistake, the document was intended for him.
He wondered how such a captious, threatening, document
might have come to be written. It seemed to him to be completely
contrary to the central doctrines and ethics of the Methodist
Church.
In fact, as all true Methodists,
Peter Timms lived by the words of John Wesley. He believed, as did
Wesley, in fundamental rights that are universal in their
application. He was happy to abide by the standing orders, but he
nevertheless argued, as Wesley had in "Thoughts on Slavery",
that:
"Notwithstanding ten thousand laws, right is right and
wrong is wrong. There must remain an essential difference between
justice and injustice, cruelty and mercy."
Of
course, he wondered if, after all his years as a minister, he had
somehow misinterpreted the standing orders on procedure.
What is termed the “initial stage” (or ‘initial
steps’) of a formal connexional complaint inquiry is covered
in Standing Order 1123. It was introduced partly to avoid wasting
valuable Church time in considering ill-researched, trivial,
or facetious complaints. It sorts the wheat from the
chaff.
There are certain limitations to actions in the
initial stage. The
complaint must be important to the Church. So
the leader of
a complaints panel must determine that the case is not a trivial
one.
SO 1123 (7ii) states that a complaint may be summarily
dismissed if:
“ the matters complained of are so trivial that further
steps would be inappropriate”
Of course, Peter Timms did not consider his
complaints were trivial. At the heart of his complaint was
an allegation that favouritism had been shown in a particular
stationing. He considered that favouritism usually led to
disillusionment in the system and bringing the Church into
disrepute.
However, the three ministers he complained about certainly
did consider his complaints to be trivial. They had refused to
even enter into reconciliation talks with him about them.
If the respondents considered the complaints to be
trivial – could they not be asked for their arguments – and the
complaints be dismissed on that ground alone? The panel
leader had the right to do that. But, it seemed, he had not done
so.
The leader of the complaints panel must also determine in
the initial investigation exactly which Standing Order the
respondent may have breached. The confession document
mentioned SO 1155.
But of course, Peter Timms was not the respondent.
And, although he had his presentation of argument prepared, he,
the complainant, was never asked to explain the basis of his
complaints with regard to the standing orders pertaining to
favouritism. Perhaps he should have been asked - for favouritism is
a somewhat nebulous term and is not directly addressed in the
standing orders.
A
further consideration in the "initial steps" is that the panel
leader must also take note of the standing of the person
being complained about - with regard to the reputation of
the Church. Does that person have any ranking in the Church?
The
situation to consider was, it seemed from the confession, that
there had been a complaint against Peter Timms. Was his
reputation worthy of consideration?
Peter
Timms was a long-serving minister, an O.B.E. – a friend
even of Princess Anne. He was the Chair of several important
national charitable Trusts. This aspect of the initial stage
does not appear to have been considered at all by the leader
of the complaints panel.
And yet the panel had done a lot of work. The false
confession stated explicitly “the Connexional Team has
reviewed the evidence.” In
spite of all this work, they had not considered the standing
and intellectual powers of the complainant. This was a bad
mistake.
"Reviewing the evidence" must have taken up
several weeks of work - yet Peter Timms had heard nothing of
it. The normal legal term for such a secretive judicial practice is
“star chamber” – a relic of medieval judicial history.
In general, what had actually occurred was well beyond the
extent of the investigative powers allowed in the “initial
steps”. S.O. 1123 (12) lays down those
limits:
“In taking the initial steps provided for by this
Standing Order, the complaints team must not come to any conclusion
on the facts or merits of the complaint except to the extent
necessary to reach the decisions required.”
The complaints team had not even discussed the facts and
merits of Peter Timms’ complaints. Instead they had come to
a conclusion on the facts and merit of some unknown secret
evidence. And Peter Timms was being asked to agree to his
guilt in this. For him to do so would effectively kill his formal
complaints about favouritism.
This secretive extension, or re-interpretation, of the
initial stage seemed like a breach of SO 1123 (12) to Peter
Timms.
And what about this supposed “breach of confidentiality”
mentioned in the false confession? Was that perhaps “trivial”? Had
Chris Kitchin even considered dismissing it as a complaint against
Peter Timms?
When Peter Timms later learned of the evidence
behind this alleged breach of confidentiality, he wrote a
paper on why this complaint against him was essentially trivial.
But by then, it was too late to stop the complaints panel. He had
already been found guilty and punished.
--00—
The threatening style of the document as a whole is best
exemplified in the final paragraph.
As with earlier paragraphs, the writer merely repeats
standing orders. The wording, however, is
unusual
6. “I therefore agree to provide this written
acknowledgement that all documents and information already received
or hereafter received in connection with this complaint or other
complaints or charge are confidential and I give this undertaking
to comply with standing order 1104 (7) at all times. I acknowledge
that if I breach this undertaking disciplinary action will be taken
against me.”
The legal style of language of this paragraph might seem
to be quite overbearing. Some may find it intimidating – and, some
might say bullying.
“I therefore agree” is reminiscent of a
legally-binding document from an earlier period in our legal
history, as does “I give this undertaking”. In plain
language they mean simply “I agree”.
The paragraph also uses captious open-ended
phrases, reminiscent of catch-all phrases used in legal
documents such as contracts.
Such open-ended terms as “hereafter
received” ? and “other charges” - actually
allow the leader of the panel the ability to fill in the terms
after the document is signed.
Peter Timms was being asked to sign a blank
cheque.
Ultimately this legalese is used to present the
threat in the paragraph:
“disciplinary action will be taken against
me”.
One can only wonder why, when the point had already
been made several times, the writer considered it right to
insert this line. It is a terrible threat, for “Disciplinary
action” in the Methodist Church is conducted in the complaints
system by an entirely separate set of procedures and by an entirely
different panel. It deals with really serious breaches. A minister
can be removed from the Connexion after disciplinary action is
taken against him.
In the Timms case, a minister was, indeed, removed from the
Ministry.
Is this really the manner in which one Methodist speaks to
another?
The reader will recall that the letter sent to the Church
Scrutiny office stated:
“This does not look like a forced
admission of wrong-doing to me but a request that he acknowledges
that any material sent him in his capacity ( I assume) as
complainant shall be treated in confidence and not circulated more
widely.”
“I see no reason why requiring an acknowledgement of
confidentiality undermines unfairness.”
There are six paragraphs in the false
confession document. The first and the second are
merely confusing – in that they appear to be concerning someone
else, not Peter Timms. The second also shows that there has already
been pre-judgment of an issue of which Peter Timms knows nothing.
The next two paragraphs are similar in that they simply repeat,
superfluously, what is in the Standing Orders. These two paragraphs
together lay out the possible consequences if the recipient
does not sign the document.
The key paragraph 5 builds on the groundwork of
paragraphs 3 and 4.
This paragraph 5 contains the trap which the
writer has been leading up to. It requires the recipient to sign
the document - admitting guilt to having breached
confidentiality. It introduces the pressure of a deadline. The
threat to refuse cooperation is repeated.
That this should be all perfectly normal and
routine in the complaints procedure is suggested by the
boxes at the bottom of the document where the signature is
to be placed.
Look for yourself - does it not look like some kind
of official document?
The final paragraph – 6 – is repetition of most of the
above. It is framed however in legalised language with the clear
threat that should the recipient not sign the document, unspecified
disciplinary action will be taken against him. This is subtle
coercion.
It must be pointed out that if a prior breach of
confidentiality were proved, it could allow the complaints
panel to refuse all cooperation and disclosure to Peter
Timms for the whole of the complaints procedure. If he signed the
document, that may well have been the consequence. Some might
think that it was the intent of the entire document.
Peter Timms was also being asked to accept that
the procedure being used against him was in itself within the rules
– including the intimidating language and the threats of
punishment. That meant that he would be accepting that the
idiosyncratic interpretation of the standing orders by the leader
of the panel was perfectly in order.
This is simply duplicitous and
captious. Such practices do not appear anywhere in the standing
orders of the Methodist Church.
Since the document not only breached standing orders, but
actually laid a trap for the poor recipient to fall into, Peter
Timms could not accept it. It was captious, calculated and
deliberately deceptive.
Further, if he accepted this procedure there would
be no possibility of appeal if, or when, the panel decided
against him. And this document demonstrated that he definitely
needed an appeal system.
So, decide for yourself - was the
document perfectly in order and within the parameters of the
complaints system? Or was it a deliberate trap to ensnare an
unsuspecting complainant?
To return to the recent letter that was sent to this
office -
Was it, as Peter Timms would claim, a “forced admission of
wrong-doing”
- or was it
merely
“ a request that he acknowledges that
any material sent him …..shall be treated in
confidence.”
Perhaps the best proof of the intent behind the
document can be assessed by later events. On October
11th 2016 – a month or so after Peter Timms first saw
the document – he sent a letter to Chris Kitchin in which he
wrote:
“I am happy to affirm here that I will, of course, comply
with the restrictions of S.O. 1104. This does not require my
signing a clause of confidentiality.”
This did not satisfy Mr Kitchin, who continued for
a further month to demand that Peter Timms should sign the
document. An affirmation that any material sent to him would be
treated in confidence was clearly not the issue. Abiding by SO 1104
was not enough - he had to admit guilt.
By continuing his demands for a signature to the captious
document, Mr. Kitchin demonstrated his true intent. He
wanted a signed confession in order to refuse cooperation
and thus damn Peter Timms.
--00--
There is a larger issue in this
affair - one which may explain why Peter Timms has been thrown out
of the ministry.
Almost every
member of the executive that works in Methodist Church House has
dealt with this document at one time or another. None of them has
ever admitted that it was a trap – a captious attempt to
force an admission of wrong-doing. One can only ask why.
Why has the
leader of the complaints panel, Mr.
Chris Kitchin, been so protected when he blatantly
breached the standing orders that require all in the Methodist
Church to act “with
justice, openness and honesty, and ... the need for each
of us to accept responsibility for our own
acts.” (SO
1100)
This affair
must involve something big for such a cover-up to be supported by
so many important people. Something more important than the fate of
a ninety two year old minister must be persuading them that they
should support such a devious policy of entrapment.
The only
clue we might have as to what that larger scandal might be is what
little is known about the
Hailsham Incident.
--00--
If you are shocked by the content of this
article, please email
Rev Jonathan Hustler at:
mailto:asc@methodistchurch.org.uk
for
a contrary view.
