What follows is the submission which was made to the President of Tribunals regarding the Children's Furniture at St Mary the Virgin, Maulden. It has been slightly redacted (a) to remove the various references made to documents which accompanied the original submission (sometimes replaced with "evidenced elsewhere") and (b) by having the names of other parties shortened to initials only.
The Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) dictates that a submission can only been made to the President of Tribunals to explain why the Bishop's decision to take no action in a CDM case is plainly wrong. This is why this document is worded as it is.
What follows are facts which can be fully supported by written documents which can be placed in the public domain at any time if neccessary.
In the face of this self-evident misconduct, the assertions of which are supported at every stage by documentary and photographic evidence, that the (Deputy) President of Tribunals did not remit this matter back to the Bishop can only lead one to conclude that, rather than see justice carried out, the Church's primary objective is to protect its own.
The
Submission...
1.
Introduction
1.1.
The Bishop’s decision to take no further action is based, in part, on his
rejection of a number of specific allegations. I believe the Bishop is wholly
wrong, in the light of the evidence presented to him (to which I draw your
attention in this document) to concur with the Registrar that all but two of the
specific allegations do not, in his opinion, constitute misconduct as defined by
the Clergy Discipline Measure.
1.2.
Having asked the Respondent to respond regarding all
of the allegations, the Bishop was then wrong in his decision not to scrutinise all the evidence so presented to him. For the reasons which I
set out herewith, if he had done so, he must have reached a decision other than
to take no further action, a decision which is plainly wrong, based on this
evidence.
1.3.
In the Registrar’s Preliminary Scrutiny Report in the context of alleged
assurances made, the Registrar states “A deliberate and calculated
misrepresentation of the proposals to potential objectors would, in my view,
have the potential for actionable misconduct under the Measure”. By the same
token, actionable misconduct would equally apply if such a deliberate
misrepresentation of the proposals were made to other parties. This is precisely
what the evidence clearly shows; it supports - as set out herewith - my
allegations that the Respondent deliberately and calculatingly misled, or sought
to mislead, the DAC, the Chancellor and others and this is why the Bishop’s
decision to take no action is manifestly wrong.
2.
The Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC)
2.1.
The initial communications by the Respondent to the DAC on 18 July, 2016 state “The
PCC would like to buy a blue plastic table and 4 blue chairs to put in the Lady
Chapel on a Sunday morning”
and “We do not need to remove anything as there are already chair (sic) in the
Lady Chapel which we can move to make it a children’s corner on
a Sunday”. Therefore, the basis on which the DAC was informed about
the proposals and, thus, the basis upon which it deliberated and made its
decision not to object to the proposals (but not to “recommend” them, as is
usual) was that the furniture would only be placed in the Lady Chapel on a Sunday morning. This
is evidenced by the subsequent Notification of Advice which refers to this
letter (“as described in a letter from Revd (sic) Canon Lynda Klimas”),
which has also been specifically referenced in the resultant Faculty dated 18
November 2016. This point, which is of key importance as explained below, has
been entirely overlooked by the Bishop when reaching his decision.
2.2.
The matter of the wording of this initial approach to the DAC is of key
importance in supporting my allegation that the Respondent deliberately misled
the DAC because, as the Respondent’s evidence states “As the minutes of the
meeting on 29 June states (sic) ‘permission will be needed to install the
furniture in the church’. There was no mention of the vestry and DG seconded
the proposal. If the PCC intended to put the furniture in a vestry there would
have been no need to apply for a Faculty”. The Respondent is relying on this
evidence to assert that there was no intention at that time
(i.e. 29 June) for the furniture “to be put in the Lady Chapel on a Sunday
morning”, as the Respondent deliberately misrepresented to the DAC later
(on 18 July). Rather, the Respondent is asserting that it was known on 29 June
that the furniture was to remain in place there all the time, save when the area
is required for other uses, thereby creating a “children’s corner”
(although, as already stated, the reference is to “a children’s corner on
a Sunday”).
2.3.
The reliability of interpreting the PCC Minute in this way is examined at 3
below but if the Bishop had scrutinised this matter and agreed with the
Respondent’s interpretation, he may also have drawn support from the
Respondent’s response to the Registrar’s Preliminary Scrutiny Report where
she states “The PCC minutes of 29 June 2016 state ‘in the church’. There
was no mention of the furniture being stored elsewhere”. The Respondent, in
turn, relies in support of this assertion on the Witness Statement of SN, Deputy
Churchwarden, which sates “It was thought that we would need an Archdeacon’s
letter but because they were not going to be permanently placed [i.e. the
furniture was portable] we were told that we needed a Faculty so they could be
moved whenever was needed. The plan was we would need to
move them whenever that area was needed for other things that happened
in church”.
2.4.
From this evidence it is clear that the decision had already been taken NOT to
place the furniture in the Lady Chapel only on Sundays for the service held on
that day. These plans, as attested to by Mrs N, were well before the Respondent’s original communication to the DAC,
dated 18 July 2016, stating that the furniture would only be placed there on
Sundays. It is apparent, therefore, that the Respondent deliberately and
calculatingly misrepresented the proposals to the DAC, thereby indisputably
confirming my allegation that she indeed deliberately misled the DAC, which was
not told the truth about this matter from the outset. The Bishop is wrong to
ignore this actionable misconduct when reaching his decision.
2.5.
This deliberate misrepresentation of the proposals to the DAC is further
evidenced by the witness statement of WS in which she asserts she was
told by the Respondent that the table and chairs “would be removed for
Wednesday Holy Communion”; in other words that they would remain in the Lady
Chapel at all other times but be removed from there on Wednesday mornings. This
is in direct contradiction to the application to the DAC by the Respondent (and,
incidentally, in direct contradiction to the evidence elsewhere). Also, the
Respondent’s statement provides details of the meeting on 5 September she held
with PS and Mrs S. In the Bishop’s words, at this meeting she “indicates
that she conveyed to them the assurance that the furniture would be moved
elsewhere for the weekly Wednesday communion service”, which is manifestly NOT
what the Respondent represented to the DAC.
2.6.
Moreover, this deliberate misrepresentation by the Respondent to the DAC is
actually perpetuated, as evidenced. In an e-mail to the DAC dated as late as 29
November 2016 the Respondent states “On Sundays books and toys are
put there for young children to play with. All we want to do is to add
a table and four chairs for children to do some colouring etc. We will also
use the furniture at our weekly tiny tots sing along group” (which group was
not in existence at the time of the lodging of the original Faculty petition; it
started in October 2016 as evidenced elsewhere. It is clear from this that the
Respondent is advising the DAC that the table and chairs are only going to be
placed in the location for use during the Sunday service and the Tuesday tiny
tots group. Again, this is a deliberate and calculated misrepresentation of the
position to the DAC because by 29 November 2016 the children’s furniture had
already been placed in the Lady Chapel permanently (save for Wednesday
mornings), i.e. it was NOT - completely contrary to what the DAC was continuing
to be told - being intentionally placed in there for use on Sundays (as per the
original application and the subsequent Faculty) and, by then, briefly on
Tuesdays too; it was in truth remaining in the location all the time.
2.7.
In the Respondent’s letter (in response to the objections) to the Registrar,
on behalf of the Chancellor, the Respondent writes “It has never been in our
plans for this furniture to be permanent”. Whilst at first sight this might be
seen as supporting what the DAC had been told, i.e. that the furniture would
only be put out on Sundays, this statement is actually made in the context of
the furniture being “light and easily moveable”. In the same letter the
Respondent states: “The children’s furniture will need to be moved
on a Wednesday morning for our regular communion service. The proposal
is to put it in the choir vestry”. This is further evidence that what the DAC
was told right at the start of the process and continued to be told in November
2016 was a complete and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. It is,
accordingly, clear from the evidence submitted to the Bishop, which he was wrong
to ignore or reject when reaching his decision, that there was and never had
been any intention for the furniture “to be put in the Lady Chapel on a Sunday
morning”, as represented to the DAC, because if that were the case it would
never be in place there on a Wednesday needing to be moved out.
2.8.
The Respondent also fails to inform the DAC that the planned location for the
furniture is not simply an unused, convenient space in church but an area which
is actually used for worship at least six times a week and at other times (as
stated elsewhere and attested to by JM), which information the DAC could not
reasonably be expected to know. This omission is unimportant if what the DAC had
been told was true, i.e. that the intention was to place the children’s
furniture in the location on a Sunday, during the main service, because on this
basis the usage of the same area for worship (and, indeed, for other things) at
other times is irrelevant because the table and chairs would not be present in
that area at these other times. However, as evidenced above, this was never the
Respondent’s plan and by the time she communicated with the DAC she already
had no intention of placing the furniture in the location just on Sundays.
Accordingly, this omission takes on a far greater importance in that it actually
supports the allegation of misrepresentation of the facts by the Respondent to
the DAC.
2.9.
In her evidence to the Bishop, the Respondent states “The church is open every
day and so the table shows visitors that children are most welcome and
provides a facility for them”. Mrs M, too, states “Their presence signals to
visitors, the church is open each day, that parents and children have a space in
our church which welcomes them”. I do not dispute these sentiments but my
contention, which the Bishop has been plainly wrong not to take into account
when reaching his decision, is that the children’s furniture being on display
in the Lady Chapel every
day is NOT what the application to the DAC, resulting in the Faculty,
was for, the true plans having been completely misrepresented by the Respondent.
2.10.
In summary it is absolutely apparent, supported by the evidence submitted
to the Bishop, that the DAC was deliberately misled both from the outset (in
other words the DAC Notification of Advice and the Faculty were sought and
obtained under false pretences) and on a continuing basis (by virtue of the 29
November e-mail). The true intention of permanent
display and availability of the furniture was deliberately and calculatingly
misrepresented - and continued to be misrepresented - to the DAC. The Bishop is
wholly wrong not to take this deliberate and calculated misrepresentation -
which is actionable misconduct - into account when considering this matter and
reaching his final decision.
3.
The Faculty Co-Petitioner
3.1.
The Bishop appears entirely to have overlooked the evidence I have submitted.
This is plainly wrong. Mr DG is not merely a casual observer of these matters
but, as Churchwarden at the time, he was a co-petitioner to the Faculty petition
for the children’s furniture. This e-mail of 24 November 2016 sets out the
basis on which he supported the petition. He states “I saw the proposal of the
table and chairs simply as a bright area for the occupation of small children to
read and draw biblically based subject matter during
services under the supervision of their parents. The furniture to be set aside in the Vestry at all other times”. The
proposal described in these terms is entirely consistent with the application to
the DAC, i.e. that the furniture would only be placed in the Lady Chapel “on a
Sunday”, the corollary being that it would clearly
be placed elsewhere at all other times. Indeed, when signing the Faculty
petition, it is entirely reasonable to expect that Mr G saw the communication of
18 July 2016 to the DAC, as this is one of the key documents supporting the
Faculty petition, having been stamped by the DAC on 4 August 2016 and, as
already stated, referenced as a supporting document in the DAC Notification of
Advice and in the Faculty.
3.2.
The understanding that the furniture, when not in the Lady Chapel on Sundays,
would be stored elsewhere is further support of the gravity of the deliberate
and calculated misrepresentation by the Respondent referred to in 2 above. As
already stated and as attested to by the Respondent and Mrs N, the plan had, in
fact, never been to place the furniture in the Lady Chapel only on
Sundays but rather to keep it there at all times, except on the occasions when
the Lady Chapel was required for other purposes. By virtue of extending the
misrepresentation of the true position to Mr G, he was effectively induced to
sign and lodge the Faculty petition as a co-petitioner under false pretences.
The signing by Mr G and the lodging of the Faculty papers was, of course,
carried out after the original submission to the DAC (because the DAC first had
to return the submission with its Notification of Advice and the submitted
papers, duly stamped), so this misrepresentation by the Respondent of the true
intentions continued to be perpetuated when the Faculty papers were signed by Mr
G. The Bishop is wrong not to take this point into consideration when reaching
his decision.
3.3. Further, the Bishop is wrong not to have scrutinised the submitted evidence closely in this regard when reaching his decision. The Respondent seeks to disentangle and distance herself from what was deliberate and calculated misrepresentation made by her, as follows:
(ii)
The Respondent continues: “If the
PCC intended to put the furniture in a (sic) vestry there would have been no
need to apply for a Faculty” but this is an entirely misleading statement
because, as attested to by the respondent in the same document “I assumed that
I would need an Archdeacon’s letter of authority” (rather than a Faculty).
It was, in fact, not until 3 August that the Respondent knew that she “would
need to apply for a Faculty”. As already alluded to at 2.3, the statement of
Mrs N “It was thought that we would need an Archdeacon’s letter” supports
the Respondent’s statement. Thus it was understood at the time of the PCC Resolution that
only an Archdeacon’s Letter of Authority was required, not a full Faculty
(which, incidentally, is the reason why I abstained from the PCC vote, rather
than voting against the proposal, because there is no mechanism formally to
object to an Archdeacon’s Letter of Authority).
(iii)
As the Respondent correctly points out, the PCC Minutes do indeed state
“Permission will be needed to install the furniture in the church” but the
Respondent seeks to suggest this means the furniture was to remain in church and
was not to be stored in the vestry to be put out when needed. However, this is
itself a deceitful interpretation because, wherever the furniture was to be
stored when not in use, permission (which covers both an Archdeacon’s Letter
of Authority or a Faculty) would still be needed to introduce it into the church
in the first place, because the vestry is part of the consecrated church and is
included in and is subject to the Faculty Jurisdiction in the same way as the
remainder of the church building.
(iv)
However, most important of all in the PCC Minutes - on which the Respondent now
endeavours to rely in her defence - is that it states absolutely clearly
“Furniture for the children to use during
services was discussed”. It is an entirely reasonable and appropriate
supposition to derive from this statement that, when there are no services, the
furniture will NOT be available to use in the Lady Chapel. Indeed, the PCC
Minute, as worded, was supplied to the DAC in the original application to support
the letters which state that the furniture
will be put in the Lady Chapel on a Sunday. As explained in 2 above,
this was a deliberate and calculated misrepresentation of the proposals, as
attested to in the evidence submitted to the Bishop.
3.4. Thus, the Bishop is plainly wrong not to have considered the important matter of the evidence of Mr G and not to have taken this into account when making his decision, as it is apparent from the evidence submitted that the misrepresentation discussed at 2 above was being extended to Mr G
as
one of the Faculty co-petitioners (and that the Respondent now recognises this,
given her convoluted attempts to place the PCC Minute of 29 June in an entirely
false light).
4.
The Chancellor
4.1.
As has been made clear above, the Respondent, Mrs N and Mrs S have attested that
there were never any plans only to put the furniture in the Lady Chapel on
Sundays and these assertions support my allegations that the DAC was
deliberately misled. They also support my allegation that the position was
similarly and deliberately misrepresented to the Chancellor (the Judge in the
Consistory Court) because the papers lodged with the Court in support of the
Faculty petition include (i) the correspondence stamped by the DAC on 4 August
2016 stating that the furniture will be placed in the Lady Chapel on a Sunday and (ii) the
PCC Minute stamped by the DAC on 4 August 2016 which states “Furniture for
children to use during
services”. The Respondent is here presenting to the Chancellor an
entirely false position, as nowhere is there a statement made by her countering
or expanding these proposals and explaining that, in fact, the plans were always
- contrary to the documentation lodged - to keep the furniture in the Lady
Chapel all the time (save when that area is needed for other purposes). This is
indisputably deliberate and calculated misrepresentation, being actionable
misconduct under the Measure and the Bishop was wrong to ignore this when
reaching his decision.
4.2.
The Chancellor had the opportunity to try to discern the true intentions of the
Respondent, i.e. for the furniture to be on display in the Lady Chapel and
available there every day, only
because I objected to the proposals and the Respondent was thereby obliged to
respond to my objections. Even then she did not expressly state to the
Registrar, on behalf of the Chancellor, her true intentions but merely wrote
“The children’s furniture will need to be moved on a Wednesday morning”,
thereby leaving it entirely up to the Chancellor to infer (or not) that the
furniture would not, in fact, be placed in the Lady Chapel only on Sundays. Her
wording is deliberately calculated to obfuscate and for the Bishop not to take
this into account when considering the Respondent’s deliberate attempt not
present the true intentions clearly to the Chancellor is plainly wrong.
4.3.
There has also been a deliberate and calculated misrepresentation made by the
Respondent to the Registrar, on behalf of the Chancellor, with regard to the
status of the Lady Chapel which is explained in 5 below. The Bishop is plainly
wrong not to take these most serious misrepresentations into account when
reaching his decision.
4.4.
In addition, there has been a deliberate and calculated withholding of
information by the Respondent to the Chancellor (and to the DAC) regarding the
historical sensitivities of the Lady Chapel. This is explained in 6 below. The
Bishop is wrong not to have considered this point when reaching his decision.
4.5.
Further, there has been a deliberate and calculated misrepresentation made by
the Respondent to the Registrar, on behalf of the Chancellor, regarding the
position at Flitwick, which is explained in 7 below. For the Bishop not to take
account of this misrepresentation is wrong.
5.
The Lady Chapel
5.1.
The fundamental reason why the placing of the furniture discussed above on an
“as needed” or largely “permanent” basis is so important is because of
the location within the church in which it was to be/now is situated. This
location is not directly comparable to the situations highlighted by the
Respondent in Flitwick and elsewhere (discussed in 7 below); at Maulden the
location is a Lady Chapel where
active worship regularly takes place throughout the week (and an area with historic
sensitivities, which are discussed at 6 below). This
point has been entirely overlooked by the Bishop when reaching his decision.
5.2.
The Registrar, in his Preliminary Scrutiny Report states “It seems to me clear
that
the area is a chapel, as that term is commonly understood in the Church
of England (in the sense of a chapel within a larger building). It might be that
she could find no record of the chapel being formally dedicated/set aside as a
particular chapel. At
law this would not be needed to start referring to that part of the building as
a chapel”. The
Bishop is wholly wrong to discount this key issue (perhaps because the Registrar
only goes on in his report to address it from the point of view of the
Chancellor’s determination, which is not relevant to this complaint) because
it is with regard to the unequivocal matter of the location being a chapel (as
further evidenced elsewhere) that the Respondent undertook deliberate and
calculated misrepresentation to the Chancellor, confirmed by the evidence to
which I allude herewith. This is indisputably actionable misconduct under the
Measure, not least because
the deliberate misrepresentation was not made as part of some kind of informal,
internal sign-off procedure but was submitted
by the Respondent, an ordained clergy person, as signed,
written evidence in a Court of Law. Accordingly, the
Bishop is in the wrong to take no action with regard to this matter: to
permit one of the clergy who is accountable to him to escape from actionable
misconduct in this regard is manifestly an incorrect decision on his part.
5.3.
Contrary to that which I had endeavoured to deduce, the initial correspondence
with the DAC on 18 July 2016 states that the area in question
is a Lady Chapel. The Respondent was therefore at that time fully aware
that the area in question was indeed a Lady Chapel. This is in total
contradiction to the (mis)representation made by the Respondent to the
Registrar, on behalf of the Chancellor, as evidenced in the letter of 2 November
2016. In this letter, the Respondent states “I would
like to make it clear that the area where we intend to place the table and four
chairs is not strictly a Chapel”. The Respondent clearly knew well
before this communication to the Registrar, on behalf of the Chancellor, that
the area in question was, in fact, a chapel. For an ordained member of the
clergy to advise the Chancellor in Court proceedings that it is not a chapel is
unquestionably a deliberate and calculated misrepresentation, actionable under
the Measure and I repeat that the Bishop was wholly wrong to take no action over
this.
5.4. In
her evidence to the Bishop, the Respondent writes “I wrote it is not
‘Strictly’ a Lady Chapel”. This is, in fact, not accurate - she wrote it
“is not strictly a Chapel”, i.e. not
any kind of chapel, Lady or otherwise. The Respondent seeks to
rely on the use of her word “strictly” by saying to the Bishop “I meant
that it was not a separate chapel with screens such as in my previous
churches” but this is no defence whatsoever. The fact that the Lady Chapel at
the church of St Mary the Virgin, Maulden was not of the same appearance as
chapels in the Respondent’s previous churches does NOT make it “not strictly
a chapel” - as confirmed by the Registrar in his Preliminary Scrutiny Report -
and, I repeat, this statement is no defence whatsoever for the calculated and
deliberate misrepresentation made. The Respondent has, as I alleged from the
start, intentionally misinformed and misled the Chancellor and the Bishop should
have been gravely concerned over this actionable misconduct, not least because
of the seriousness of the situation in which the statement was made, i.e. in
Faculty proceedings in the Consistory Court.
5.5.
Further evidence that the Respondent knew full well that the area is a chapel is
given where the Respondent states “As a project to mark Her Majesty’s Golden
Jubilee it was decided to refurbish the Chapel. It
was noted in the log book in 2003”. This is born out in the statement
by MH “The first time it was referred to as the Lady Chapel in the Log Book
was in 2003”, although according to the evidence of the PCC Minutes of
February, March and October 2002 and January and February 2003 the area was
clearly already being referred to as “the Lady Chapel” prior to the
refurbishment works. Even though a Faculty could not in recent months be found
for the refurbishment works and a Confirmatory (retrospective) Faculty was
applied for and has now been granted for these works, according to the evidence
submitted to the Bishop the church’s official log book has recorded the area as a “Lady
Chapel” since at least 2003 yet the Chancellor was told it was not a
chapel; a deliberate and calculated misrepresentation. Again, for the Bishop to
take no action over this is wholly wrong, particularly given that the submission
of this written statement was evidence given to a Judge in a Court of Law.
5.6
Thus it is absolutely clear from the evidence submitted to the Bishop that the
Respondent knew that the area in question was a chapel as early as 18
July 2016 (and undoubtedly much earlier) when she wrote to the DAC on that date
saying “The PCC would like to buy a blue plastic
table and 4 blue chairs to put in the Lady
Chapel on a Sunday morning”. Yet later, in her letter of 2
November 2016, she told the Registrar, on behalf of the Chancellor, that it is not
a chapel, a deliberate and calculated misrepresentation of the facts,
actionable as misconduct under the Measure. Effectively, as this statement is
Court evidence, the Respondent has committed perjury and has treated the
Consistory Court with contempt. The Consistory
Court is one of the oldest Courts in England and an example of how serious
Consistory Court procedure is considered is evidenced by the fact that contempt
of the Consistory Court, certified as such by the Chancellor, is equivalent to
contempt of the High Court itself. The Bishop was therefore completely in the
wrong not to act on this most serious of points when reaching his decision.
5.7.
The Respondent even has the effrontery to state in her Form 2 “I replied to
the Chancellor truthfully” yet the evidence submitted to the Bishop
unequivocally shows this not to be the case, not only with regard to her
deliberate misrepresentation of the status of the Lady Chapel but also, as
admitted by the Respondent in counter evidence, to using correct nomenclature.
She states “I should have referred to the north aisle rather than transept”.
However, the Respondent also refers to a “South Transept”, which is a
further misrepresentation since St Mary the Virgin, Maulden has no transept (as
stated elsewhere). In addition, the Respondent states that the “Alban
Chapel” (sic) is “also not a Chapel”. By the Registrar’s definition in
his Preliminary Scrutiny Report this too is a deliberate misrepresentation,
supported by the evidence which clearly refers to this side chapel as the “St
Albans Chapel”. The Bishop, in his determination plays down the importance of
what he calls “rather imprecise terms” but he is wrong to suggest that the
incorrect terminology used - and the deliberate and calculated misrepresentation
to the Registrar, on behalf of the Chancellor, of the fact of the area not being
a chapel, already known to be such by the Respondent - are mere side issues. He
should have seen that the various statements do not in any way reconcile. These
statements are key pieces of written evidence in a Court of Law, submitted to
the Judge in that Court. Thus they take on a significance which the Bishop
entirely fails to recognise. This is plainly wrong and if he had accorded due
weight to the deliberate misrepresentation and the false attestation that the
Respondent has “replied to the Chancellor truthfully”, he must see that
these matters constitute actionable misconduct.
5.8.
There is another point about the Lady Chapel. I entirely accept, as attested in
the evidence supplied to the Bishop, that the Lady Chapel is occasionally used
for purposes other than for worship but, as stated elsewhere, the area is
entered in the church Log Book not as a multi-purpose space but as a Lady
Chapel. This is what its function first and foremost is: a sacred chapel
within the church, dedicated to Our Lady (the dedication service from Easter
2003 has now been added retrospectively in the Register of Services). St Mary
the Virgin is also the dedication of the church itself, so this Lady Chapel
takes on an extra dimension in that it reinforces the importance of Our Lady for
this particular church and for worship generally. This latter point alone has
taken on an even greater import since the church has been open all day, every
day, which it has for the past three years. Mrs M describes the Lady Chapel as a
“friendly, intimate space” and many of those individuals visiting the church
whilst it is open and those seeking to pray there would, before the permanent
arrival of the Children’s Furniture, gravitate towards this smaller, sacred
space with its historic surrounds rather than feel somewhat isolated in the
centre of the main body of the church. The Respondent, a member of the clergy,
has made no representations whatsoever in this regard but instead, as
demonstrated above, has sought at all times deliberately to misrepresent the
true nature of this special area within the consecrated building. When making
his decision the Bishop has, surprisingly for a clergyman of his standing, taken
no account whatsoever of these important spiritual factors and the
Respondent’s deliberate attempts to misrepresent the importance of the Lady
Chapel spiritually perforce make his decision to take no action plainly wrong.
5.9
In summary, had the children’s furniture been placed almost anywhere else in
the church (either on a temporary or permanent basis) or placed in the Lady
Chapel only when needed, there would have been little, if any, rumpus about such
a matter. It is the fact of the location being in the Lady Chapel, denied by the
Respondent in legal proceedings as being a chapel at all, with its historic and
spiritual associations - and on a permanent basis - which is at the heart of
this matter. Because the Registrar sought not to grasp this fundamental point
and the Bishop had seen evidence (to which I had not been party) that the
initial approach to the DAC “made it clear that the proposals related to the
Lady Chapel”, the Bishop has not pursued this fundamental issue leading to the
manifestly incorrect decision to take no action.
6.
Historic sensitivities
6.1.
The Lady Chapel takes on yet further added importance because of its particular
historic sensitivities and the Bishop is wrong not to take this point into
account when gauging the seriousness of the alleged actionable misconduct.
6.2.
Although, contrary to what I originally thought, the Respondent did state to the
DAC that the proposed location for the furniture was to be the Lady Chapel, she
makes no attempt whatsoever to advise the DAC of the historic surrounds and
artefacts in this area, as set out elsewhere. These include, as stated in the
evidence, the fact that the area in question, one of the oldest parts of the
parish church, is bounded by a Victorian sandstone and brick wall and an 1859
window with bath surround, a high oak 1905 organ loft and 1912 choir vestry
surround (which may have been constructed from an older rood screen) and it
includes, inter alia, Victorian altar rails and a fully working “Tavern
clock” dating from at least
1782. The DAC could not reasonably be expected to know these important details,
especially - as evidenced elsewhere - because no Faculty appears to have been
applied for at the time of the refurbishment works completed in 2003 and there
have been no further Faculties related to that area in the intervening decade
and a half.
6.3.
The Respondent did not supply the DAC with, as might be expected, a photograph
of the Lady Chapel at Maulden and she did not enumerate the historic features
immediately within and around that particular area. These serious historic
considerations should have been communicated to the DAC to be taken into account
by the Committee, in the first instance, when formulating its views. The
Registrar completely fails to address this point in his Preliminary Scrutiny
Report even though it is clearly part of my allegation. The Bishop is wrong to
overlook this withholding of important information which could - and should -
have greatly assisted the DAC’s deliberations and properly informed the
Chancellor (by virtue of additional comments on the DAC Notification of Advice
and possibly even an “Object” decision).
6.4.
This deliberate withholding of important historical information is perpetuated
by the respondent when communicating with the Registrar, on behalf of the
Chancellor, in response to the objections raised by me as the Faculty objector.
The Respondent makes no attempt to confirm or deny the assertions made regarding
the historic sensitivities. The Respondent’s only comment in her reply to the
specific points regarding the historic surrounds to and artefacts within the
Lady Chapel is to say “At the west end there is a screen which was erected
during the 1970s [although, I believe this was actually in the 1950s] to make a
choir vestry”. This implies the screen was built in the 1970s: the Respondent
does not go on to make the point that this screen, designed by W.D. Caroe, is
actually Victorian, dating from 1912 as stated and as evidenced elsewhere.
6.5.
I accept that these are matters which may be seen as ones primarily for
consideration by the Chancellor but it is clear that the Respondent has
deliberately misrepresented to him - I say again, a Judge in a Court of Law -
the true historic nature of the Lady Chapel into which the completely
incongruous, coloured, plastic children’s furniture was to be (and now has
been) placed. The Bishop, when reaching his decision, is wrong not to have taken
into account this cavalier attitude to the historic sensitivities of the
building for which the Respondent has responsibility and her serious
misrepresentation of the true position, constituting actionable misconduct.
7.
The position at Flitwick and the colour mismatch
7.1.
The Registrar states that he would not expect a neighbouring Incumbent to know
precisely what authorisation process another parish had gone through to seek
permission for the introduction of furniture. However, in stating this he has
completely ignored the fact that the Respondent is also a Rural Dean and, in
this role, liaises very closely with neighbouring parishes and clergy. Further,
the Respondent, as Rural Dean, is regularly called upon to carry out Inspections
on behalf of the Archdeacon (who has been long-term indisposed). This is born
out by the evidence where the Respondent says, in her letter to the Registrar on
behalf of the Chancellor “As Rural Dean I have inspected most of the churches
in my Deanery”. Accordingly, contrary to the Registrar’s assertion, the
Respondent did and does have a good working knowledge of the situation at
Flitwick and other local churches, as clearly evidenced.
7.2.
The Bishop is wrong to ignore this point when reaching his decision. It is an
important point because, as evidenced, the Respondent is deliberately
misrepresenting the position at Maulden to the DAC and to the Chancellor
respectively. Making the statements “If the DAC gave permission to Flitwick
surely we can have the same” and “As they [Flitwick] have been granted
permission [we] could see no reason why it would not meet with the approval of
the Diocese as a precedent has already
been set” is deliberately misrepresentative - because, as I have alleged
from the start, as the Respondent fully knew, the position at Flitwick is not
directly comparable to that at Maulden. These statements were clearly made to
try and bring pressure to bear on the DAC and the Chancellor by suggesting a
precedent which does not exist.
7.3.
That the position at Flitwick is not directly comparable is immediately evident
from the photograph sent by the Respondent to the DAC in the original
application. It is apparent from this that the walls at Flitwick are plain and
whitewashed, that the floor is bare, that there are no immediately adjacent
historic artefacts and that the area is towards the rear of the main body of the
church. This is completely different to the situation at Maulden, as evidenced.
Contrary to what the Registrar states, the Respondent in her capacity as Rural
Dean would indeed have been very aware that the situation at Flitwick is
entirely different to that at Maulden, where the plan was to place the furniture
on a permanent basis in an historically sensitive Lady Chapel used daily for worship and prayer and the Bishop should have taken
account of this when reaching his decision. Further, as confirmed by the
evidence, the Respondent knew (because this e-mail was copied to her when sent
on 3 August) that the Faculty at Flitwick was to make permanent the introduction
of furniture already in place, which had been authorised by an Archdeacon’s
Temporary Re-ordering Licence, not a Faculty to introduce the furniture into the
church in the first instance as at Maulden.
7.4.
The Respondent fails to disclose to anybody at any time that, as evidenced in
the DAC’s e-mail to the Revd LD at Flitwick dated 3 August 2016, which was
copied to the Respondent, the DAC was endeavouring the encourage the Incumbent
there “to replace the children’s furniture when possible in
wood that would be more in keeping with the character of the grade I listed
church”. This e-mail states “I am copying this to Lynda because I know
she’s thinking of something similar in Maulden church. We may have to proceed
on the same basis there”. Instead, the Respondent continues to pursue her own
agenda by stating “We really want the bright furniture as it is blue and will match
our church”. The only items which are blue in the church at Maulden are
the carpet and the chairs in the Lady Chapel and the respondent tells the
Registrar, on behalf of the Chancellor, “We have chosen blue which will match
the carpet and the existing upholstered chairs”. As evidenced the children’s
furniture does NOT match the carpet and chairs. The Registrar, in his
Preliminary Scrutiny Report endeavours to play down the importance of this but I
believe the Bishop is wrong to dismiss this aspect, when reaching his decision,
given the sensitivities which the evidence confirms the Respondent was clearly
already aware of regarding the DAC’s preferred choice of wood as being more in
character with a listed church. “Match” means “match” and the
Chancellor, from what he was told, might reasonably have expected the colour of
the children’s furniture to be as close as possible to that of the carpet and
other chairs. The evidence is that the Respondent deliberately misrepresented
the true colour of the chairs, which are actually attested to in Mrs M’s
Witness Statement as being “light grey”.
7.5.
To summarise, to suggest to the Chancellor that a precedent existed regarding
the children’s furniture and to inform him that the furniture at Maulden will
“match” is deliberately to misrepresent the position. The Bishop should have
taken this into account when reaching his decision not to take any action
because this calculated misrepresentation, despite the Registrar’s incorrect
(regarding the Respondent’s knowledge of Flitwick) and special (regarding the
meaning of “match”) pleading accrues with all the other statements of
misrepresentation to present a clear picture of actionable misconduct.
8.
The position re Mrs S2
8.1.
I believe the Bishop is wrong to reject the evidence regarding what Mrs S2
understood was said at the meeting with the Respondent on 5 September. I accept
that the Respondent and Mrs S have attested different points of view to that of
Mrs S2 and that the Bishop has to make a reasonable judgement. However, it is
clear from the evidence that both Mrs S2 and Mr G, rightly or wrongly,
understood that the furniture was to be placed in the Lady Chapel on Sundays and
at all other times stored elsewhere. This
understanding did not originate from nowhere. As stated at 3.1 above, in
the case of Mr G this understanding induced him to become a Faculty
co-petitioner. In the case of Mrs S2 it induced her not to object to the Faculty
proposals and to advise Mrs D, Mrs S3 and Mr R - who, with Mrs S2, had planned
to lodge objections to the proposals - that they also did not need to object
because the Lady Chapel was NOT to be the permanent repository for the
children’s furniture.
8.2.
The important point here is that, if Mrs S2 was mistaken - as the Bishop
evidently infers - and thus the furniture was NOT going to be put out in the
Lady Chapel only as and when needed, then this reinforces the deliberate
misrepresentation made by the Respondent in the key documents forming the
application to the DAC (which subsequently became the basis of the Faculty
petition) and the other misrepresentation, all discussed at 2 above. In other
words, if the Bishop - as he seems to have done - accepts what the Respondent
claims to have said at the meeting on 5 September then he must, by the same
token, acknowledge the deliberate misrepresentation discussed at 2 above,
recognise this for what it is - actionable misconduct - and appreciate that, in
deciding to take no action, he has plainly made the wrong decision. The Bishop
cannot have it both ways.
8.3.
The Bishop recognises that the nub of my grievance is that the undertaking to
remove the furniture only on a Wednesday is at variance with assurances that the
furniture would be stored away when not in use and he says “This allegation is
heavily dependent on a meeting where two of the three individuals who were
present have submitted closely similar testimony which contradicts the
complainant’s version”. However, it is not “heavily dependent”; it is
only in part dependent on this meeting. The Bishop has entirely ignored all the
other evidence, unconnected with this meeting, to which I have drawn attention
in this document which demonstrates the deliberate misrepresentations being made
by the Respondent to various parties. Ignoring this important evidence has been
a major contributory factor in the Bishop’s decision to take no action, which
- given the evidence - is plainly wrong.
9.
The end result
9.1
The Bishop at no time has appeared to have “stepped back” to consider what
the end result is of the various papers and arguments laid before him. If he had
done so his decision must have been other than to take no action, for the
following reasons.
9.2.
I do not gainsay the fact, as attested in the evidence submitted to the Bishop,
that the Lady Chapel is used occasionally for other purposes but it is primarily
a Lady Chapel, recorded as such - as
attested - in the church log book. What was once a well loved and special chapel
in the church - a “friendly, intimate space”, as attested to by Mrs M,
dedicated to Our Lady and used daily for worship and prayer - has become instead
the very “children’s corner” which the Respondent was determined to have -
but now on a permanent basis. JS, in her Witness
Statement states “The area must continue to be used by all sections of society
in the widest sense” and RC says “The church needs to be inclusive” but it
is obvious that this wider use and inclusivity does not now, at Maulden, extend
to those who wish to use the Lady Chapel for its primary purpose and to come close to God there in worship and
prayer in an uncluttered area surrounded by rich history. This is what the
Respondent’s actionable deliberate shenanegins have resulted in.
9.3.
The Respondent attests, regarding the meeting with Mrs S2 and Mrs S on 5
September, that “I informed her (sic) of the PCC’s
decision which
was not to change anything”. Yet everything has changed, as is immediately apparent by
comparing the photographs "before the arrival of the furniture" and
"after the furniture’s arrival". Assuring Mrs S2 that nothing would
change is a blatant and deliberate misrepresentation and the Bishop should have
taken this into account when reaching his decision.
9.4.
The Respondent told the DAC “on Sundays books and toys are put there” (i.e. in the Lady
Chapel) but the position now is that the books and toys remain there all the
time. This is a change. Mrs M confirms that “no changes were made” until
the furniture was installed. She goes on to state that “the baskets of
baby toys and children’s books were kept here” but she fails to disclose
that these baskets were carefully stowed out of sight under the chairs (and
often they were stowed out of sight under the nearby pews to the north of the
nave). The photographs evidence that the baskets for the toys and games are now
permanently on display and that some of contents are always, now, left on the
table, as further evidenced in the photographs, which were NOT taken on a Sunday.
Thus the Lady Chapel has now taken on an entirely different appearance: it is,
as I say, no longer primarily a chapel - as recorded in the log book - but is,
primarily, a children’s play area available every day of the week.
9.5.
This children’s play area has been obtained by stealth and misrepresentation.
It has not been, as at Flitwick, the result of experimental permission by means
of an Archdeacon’s Temporary Re-ordering Licence, the Licence having
subsequently been made good by a Faculty. It has not even been obtained by a
Faculty to create a designated children’s area. It has, instead, come about
through the deliberate misrepresentations made by the Respondent to the DAC, to
the Chancellor and to others, as set out in this document. In fact, strictly
speaking, it could be argued that the granted Faculty,
as worded, actually does NOT permit the furniture to remain in the Lady Chapel
each day because the Faculty authorises the proposals “described in the
Schedule in accordance with the designs, plans or other documents accompanying
the petition” and the Schedule states “As described in a letter from Revd
(sic) Canon Lynda Klimas with PCC minute dated 29 June 2016 and a photograph”.
As explained in detail at 2 above, the letter and the PCC Minute refer to
placing the furniture “on a Sunday morning”, “on
a Sunday” and “during services”.
9.6.
Mrs M says “Although they [the table and chairs] are usually in the Lady
Chapel with Bible stories and colouring pictures, they do not prevent other
uses”. I acknowledged this but pointed out that the “atmosphere” of the
Lady Chapel for devotions would be (and, as has been proven, is) altered
detrimentally and considerably by the presence of coloured, plastic furniture.
The Respondent attests that “It [the children’s furniture] would not be in
the way for Morning Prayer as there are at most three or four of us seated in a
semicircle in front of the altar”. This is a further misrepresentation
because, as the hotographs show, it is no longer possible to position the chairs
for Morning Prayer in this prayerful arrangement; they instead have to be placed
almost in a straight line immediately abutting the altar rail. All these things
are permanent changes, none of which
was represented or explained in the original application and none of which
adhere to the (mis)representation given by the Respondent to Mrs S2 “not to
change anything”.
9.7.
Contrary to the evidence supplied by Mrs S I at no time told
Mrs S2 that the Respondent “was going to get rid of the Lady Chapel”. I went
to see Mrs S2 to enquire whether she was (a) aware of the proposal to introduce
children’s plastic furniture into the church and (b) if so, whether she was
aware that the proposed location for this was the Lady Chapel. Mrs S2 told me
she was aware of neither, even though she had seen the dubiously worded Public
Notice (referring to a “children’s area”). I certainly expressed my fear,
in my discussion with Mrs S2, that if the Faculty were successful this might
result in the “downgrading” of the Lady Chapel by it becoming a permanent
children’s area and this
fear has been fully realised as the table, chairs, toys and games are
now left in the Lady Chapel permanently (save for their temporary removal on
Wednesday mornings).
9.8.
If the Bishop had examined the evidence and considered what actually, in
practical terms, was the end result of the process, as described above, he would
have realised that the Respondent sought all along the effective ruin of the
Lady Chapel by turning it into a permanent children’s play area and, in order
to achieve this ultimate goal, used lies, deceit, deviousness, misinformation
and manipulation as I originally alleged. I aver that this level of actual
intent and calculation IS proven in the evidence submitted, hence my statement
that the Bishop’s decision to take no action is plainly wrong.
10.
The wider church and community
10.1.
I also maintain that the Bishop is wrong in his overall decision to take no
further action in this matter for a very important additional reason, as
follows.
10.2.
Paragraph 96 of the Clergy Discipline Measure Code of Practice states that
“The Bishop, when administering discipline, should have regard to the separate
interests of the complainant, the respondent, the respondent’s family, the
local church and community and the wider church and community”. In deciding not to
take any further action in this matter, the Bishop has not had regard to the
implications that his decision will have on the wider church. This is wrong.
10.3.
By deciding to take no action, the Bishop has effectively endorsed a charter
for:
(i)
Clergy across the wider church to seek to obtain Faculties under false pretences
- i.e. by making deliberate, calculated, misrepresentations of proposals to the
DAC, to the Chancellor and to others - without facing any consequences
whatsoever;
(ii)
Clergy across the wider church to seek to make untruthful written statements to
Diocesan Chancellors in Ecclesiastical Courts of Law - without facing any
consequences whatsoever;
(iii)
Clergy across the wider church to seek to withhold and/or obfuscate and/or
misrepresent the historic sensitivities of the buildings, or part thereof, which
need to be taken into account when applying for Faculties - without facing any
consequences whatsoever;
(iv)
Clergy across the wider church to seek to treat chapels in their own churches
with the level of disdain accorded by the Respondent to the Lady Chapel at
Maulden - without facing any consequences whatsoever.
10.4.
These are very serious issues of vital importance for the wider church (and the
Faculty Jurisdiction). Without disciplining the Respondent for the misconduct
which is clearly attested to in the evidence which has been placed before the
Bishop, not only are the Respondent’s misconduct, actions and false statements
effectively condoned by the Bishop but it leaves her free to repeat the process
for future Faculties and, of paramount importance, it sets no precedent
whatsoever for similar actions of evident misconduct which may be attempted
elsewhere across the whole Church of England. Indeed, I would even assert that
by deciding to take no further action in this matter, this decision actually
encourages such misconduct in the future. The decision by the Bishop is,
accordingly, plainly wrong.
10.5.
Paragraph 96 also refers to the wider community. For good or ill, there has been
much interest and publicity in the media about this particular case. The
Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of
the Clergy state “The reputation
of the Church in the community depends to a great extent on the integrity and
example of its clergy”. The Bishop appears to have taken no account of how his
decision will be received in the “wider community”. Deciding to take no
action, in the face of clearly actionable misconduct, sends out a very clear
message to the wider community that clergy are not held accountable and go
unpunished for their deliberate actions and misrepresentations. Such a decision
is plainly wrong.
11.
Conclusion
11.1
The Code of Practice to the Clergy Discipline Measure states (paragraphs 77 and
84) that it is not the function of the Registrar to carry out a detailed
investigation into the complaint but merely to advise the Bishop; it is the
Bishop who makes the decision about these matters. Para 105 of the Code of
Practice reinforces that the Bishop should have regard to the contents of the
Registrar’s report but must exercise his own judgement in deciding on the
appropriate course of action.
11.2.
As evidenced in this document, I do not believe the Bishop has made a
sufficiently detailed investigation into all the specific matters but has merely
summarily dismissed almost all of them as being of no importance when they
clearly are of the greatest importance, for the reasons I give in this document
and which are entirely based on the evidence submitted. Accordingly, I reassert
that I believe the Bishop was wrong in limiting the scope of his considerations,
leading him to a decision to take no action.
11.3.
The evidence supplied supports many of my allegations. It reveals actual intent
and calculated misrepresentation, the motivation for this, deliberate
withholding of information and obfuscation, a cavalier attitude to historical
information and to actual facts and, in short, many examples of actionable
misconduct on the part of the Respondent, especially the submission of
deliberately false statements by the Respondent, a member of the clergy, to a
Judge in a Court of Law, all resulting in arguably ultra vires changes within a
Grade II* listed church.
11.4
For all the reasons stated in this document I re-assert that the Bishop’s
decision to dismiss those allegations where unequivocal evidence submitted to
him clearly attests to deliberate misconduct having been committed are not
within the range of reasonable decisions and that this judgement, leading the
Bishop to decide to take no further action in this matter, is plainly wrong. In
making this decision, the Bishop is effectively being complicit in the
misrepresentations.
11.5.
Accordingly, I trust the Tribunal will forthwith remit this matter back to the
Bishop and direct him to pursue
such of the courses specified in section 12(1)(b) to (e) of the Measure as he
considers appropriate.