Disclosure of Bishop John Howard Title IV charges suggests possible criminal conduct

The Episcopal Church has released details of allegations against Bishop John Howard, the former bishop of the Diocese of Florida. The documents provide compelling insights into both the specifics of these allegations and to problems with governance practices within the Diocese. In addition, the evidence suggests Howard may have engaged in criminal conduct.

The Title IVallegations against Howard fall into two categories, discrimination and financial improprieties.

Allegations of discrimination against LGBTQ+ clergy

Discrimination-wise, the issues with Howard center on his efforts to marginalize LGBTQ+ members of the clergy. These efforts include playing games with licenses to officiate involving a lesbian priest, as well as shenanigans involving letters dismissory from LGBTQ+ clergy moving into the Diocese. Additionally, it appears that Howard tried to game the numbers coming into the recent election of a new bishop diocesan by sidelining just enough LGBTQ+ persons to obtain his desired outcome — a similarly conservative successor.

To be clear, these allegations come as no surprise.

Complaints about Howard, the Diocese of Florida, and their treatment of LGBTQ+ persons have been around forever, and we know of few in the church who haven’t heard of these issues at some point.

But to be clear, the issue is not Howard’s view on same-sex marriage or LGBTQ+ clergy. Rather, the disciplinary issue centers around his efforts to play the system, including his attempts to undercut the canonical rights of LGBTQ+ clergy.

Indeed, Howard can hold whatever view he wishes on these matters. He also can arrange alternative Episcopal oversight if he does not wish to, for example, ordain a lesbian priest. But he cannot act in a way that denies others the right to participation in the life of the church.

Thus, we’ve confident that the Title IV charges of discrimination against Howard are warranted.

Financial improprieties

The allegations of financial improprieties against Howard comprise four primary issues:

Attempting to have the Diocese cede to him, without authorization, its partial ownership of his personal residence, which resulted from a loan the Diocese made to help Howard purchase his home.
Improper use of his discretionary expense account for personal purchases.
Getting a secret, secondary “salary” from an anonymous donor.
Using his “secret salary” to up his reported income with the Church Pension Group, thus attempting to inflate his retirement benefits.

To be clear: Anyone with half the common sense God gave a goat would know these behaviors are problematic. Indeed, they don’t pass the sniff test, even from a mile away.

And before we get the obligatory comments from readers about how these are all allegations, it is important to recognize that Howard admits that he engaged in most of these behaviors, but tries to explain them away.

Let’s start with his house.

The details are too convoluted to go too far into detail, but in essence, the Diocese loaned Howard money to buy his personal residence. The loan was secondary to a bank mortgage, meaning that if the loan defaulted, the bank would be first in line to get paid following sale of the house.

So what was supposed to happen when Howard retired? The answer is laid out by the loan agreement between Howard and the Diocese, which provides for a balloon payment at the end of the loan. In other words, when the home was sold, presumably for more than Howard originally paid for it, the original loan would get repaid in a lump sum.

But what allegedly happened instead is that Howard, without adequate transparency or disclosure, gradually transferred the entire ownership of the house to himself. In other words, it appears he tried to defraud the diocese, which would be a felony, given the amount in question.

Keep in mind, too, that Howard made no payments on the loan over a period of 16 years, which suggests he had no intention of ever repaying the Diocese.

Next, let’s look at the allegations that Howard used his discretionary account to pay for repairs to his personal residence. These charges are straightforward: Howard purportedly paid for various HVAC work at his home.

And while he attempts to justify these expenditures by pointing to the Diocesan interest in his home, this is a ludicrous assertion. Indeed, if the expenses really were those of the Diocese, then all he needed to do was to fill out a requisition form, get approval from the Diocesan treasurer, and pay the bill that way.

In other words, all clergy know damned well you don’t pay for personal expenses from your discretionary account. Moreover, paying for repairs to the bishop’s home is not why church members donate money to discretionary accounts.

Then we come to Howard’s second “secret” salary. Already pulling down approximately $200K a year in compensation (or 10 percent of all Diocesan revenue) Howard was doing just fine. But it turns out he was allegedly getting paid

Even better, Howard got paid an additional $120K annually by an anonymous “donor” to be bishop, over and above his salary, and apparently tried to conceal this revenue stream by flowing it through a diocesan foundation.

To be clear, the only entity authorized to negotiate salary and compensation with Howard was the diocesan standing committee. No one else.

It is an inherent conflict of interest to get paid by an anonymous third party. Consider: What happens when members of Congress take “pay” from third parties? Just ask former US Senator Robert Menendez, who recently sentenced to 11 years in prison for accepting bribes.

Indeed, the fact we don’t know who the donor is should set off alarm bells at every level. It’s one thing to anonymously pay for a new stained-glass window, or to replace the carpeting in a church. But it is rudimentary clergy ethics that you don’t take money from parishioners or others.

On top of Howard’s already extraordinary chutzpah, he had the audacity to show up at the Church Pension Group (CPG) to remit the retirement contributions attributable to his ill-gotten gains. In doing so, he may have relied on a resolution of the Diocesan Foundation authorizing an “expense” of $21,600 annually to be paid as part of his 18 percent mandatory retirement contribution. As we stated earlier, the Foundation does not, and cannot, have authority under church canons to determine the bishop’s compensation.

All we can say is it takes an extraordinary person to play this game with CPG, knowing that someone, somewhere, would sooner or later wonder why Howard’s earnings statements didn’t correlate with his approved diocesan compensation.

Lessons (that should be) learned

In this ugly debacle, there are multiple lessons that the larger church should learn froom this mess. These lessons include:

Getting rebuffed when asking for financial data is a huge warning sign. This allegedly happened when Diocese of Florida officials asked for details of church financial activity.
BS blended budgets need to go. At every level in the denomination, we see budgets that allocate expenses by category, versus line item. This format hides specifics, including salaries, bonuses, and other details deemed too sensitive to be seen by the people who donate money to the church. This in turn provides cover from antics like Howard’s shenanigans.
If you see something, say something sounds good on paper. But doing so almost invariably results in the whistleblower getting in trouble in the Episcopal Church. At best, the result is that you wait a year in silence, then get the big brush-off from the Disciplinary Board for Bishops. At worst, you get shunned, pushed out of the church, and falsely accused of criminal conduct (and yes, it happens, including at Grace Episcopal Alexandria, VA and the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia). And to be clear, the church won’t do jack in these cases.
If a clergyperson lives life large, be suspicious. Howard apparently took out a revolving line of credit on his house, in addition to getting paid under the table by his anonymous “donor.” While it is entirely possible that this revenue went for legitimate expenses, we’d be prepared to bet Howard is a guy who likes the good life. Indeed, his home is in a gated cluster of four houses, all worth north of $1 million, while unconfirmed reports suggest Howard’s son, Augustus P Howard, attended the expensive Hotchkiss School in Connecticut.
Episcopal internal controls are abysmal. Yes, we get that situations change, bonuses get awarded, and in some cases, churches make up pension assessment arrearages with CPG. But the first question from CPG should have been, “Can we see your notarized authorization from your standing committee?”
We question why diocesan auditors did not detect Howard’s antics long ago. To be clear, the accuracy of information provided to auditors is the responsibility of management — i.e.; the standing committee — not auditors. And it may be that auditors sounded the alarm in this situation. That said, there are myriad red flags in this situation.
Relatedly, many bishops surround themselves with sycophants, empaths, enablers, and yes-persons. As a result, too many standing committees don’t insist on seeing audit engagement letters, audited financial statements, and audit reports. If the church wants to survive, this nonsense needs to stop.
Accountability is near-zero in the Episcopal Church. A Title IV case against Howard is far too little, too late.
Many narcissists — and we suspect this includes Howard — thrive on dissent, controversy, and disruption. Thus, we’d be prepared to wager that the toxic dynamics in the Diocese of Florida are anything but random.
The situation in Florida is not exactly unusual. Indeed, the issues with Bishop Santosh Marray, while not involving allegations of criminal conduct, reflect similarly manipulative behavior. That includes efforts by Marray and his minions to resist discussions of a possible merger with another diocese by trying to slide their pre-chosen successor in as bishop diocesan, thus short-circuiting efforts at achieving economies of scale. Regrettably, the national church has done far too little to address the Marray debacle, and the same is true in the Howard case.
It is important not to be sucked in by Howard’s bragging about how he raised more than $15 million for the Diocese, which is reflected in his pleadings. That’s all part of the job, and he doesn’t get to engage in alleged corrupt practices as his reward.
We are not persuaded by Howard’s claims that he was responsible for keeping the Diocese within the denomination. Indeed, in light of the allegations at hand, and Howard’s machinations to ensure that his successor would be a conservative, it looks suspiciously like Howard simply didn’t want to turn off the gravy train. Or get caught with his fingers in the till.
This is not the first time we have seen games played by clergy seeking to double dip on compensation by hitting up an independent or quasi-independent entity. Many times, this happens with church schools, or diocesan retreat centers, or various off-budget church ministries. This underscores the importance of standing committee and vestry members having access to all financials, including line-item details. Indeed, as fiduciaries, vestry members are obligated to see this information.
We cannot fathom why Howard hasn’t been suspended. Yes, we get that he is retired, but he presumably still can show up at House of Bishop meetings and otherwise act as a bishop. To be clear: The church’s conduct should be above reproach, and Howard’s conduct reeks of corruption.

Possible criminal conduct by Howard

As we stated earlier, it appears that Howard may have engaged in criminal activity on multiple levels. This illegal behavior may include:

Attempting to defraud the Diocese of its investment in his home. Of note, it appears that Howard did not sell it upon retirement, but is still living in his tony digs.
Embezzling funds, by paying personal expenses from his discretionary account.
Accepting bribes in the form of payments from a person or entity other than his employer.
Structuring transactions in order to commit fraud.
Criminal conspiracy, by working with other insiders to commit criminal acts.

Next steps

Anglican Watch is shocked and appalled that there is no sign that this matter has been referred to law enforcement for criminal investigation. If this has not happened, it needs to. Moreover, we are not interested in the usual nonsense about not traumatizing the church, protecting the church’s reputation, and the need to provide (cheap) grace. If the allegations in question are true, Howard needs to be held accountable on all fronts, full stop.

Additionally, it is long past time for a forensic audit of diocesan finances.

When we see a pattern and practice of what appears to be criminal conduct, as is the case here, it almost invariably follows that there is more bad news waiting in the wings. Thus, a forensic audit may detect other issues with Diocesan finances, identify areas of needed improvement in internal controls, and provide a clean baseline for future financial reporting.

Additionally, we note that the Diocese of Florida website, which provides other audit-related information, does not reflect audits for fiscal years 2022 and 2023. Given the circumstances surrounding Howard’s alleged misfeasance, the absence of this information is another warning sign of questionable governance and needs to be addressed immediately.

Further, the Diocese should engage outside experts in governance to turn this situation around, including non-profit experts, HR professionals, and forensic accountants. Simply put, the Howard meltdown is a multifaceted problem, reflecting governance problems on multiple levels.

About a possible Title IV accord

As to a possible TItle IV accord, any discussion of a negotiated outcome should be off the table until all the facts in this matter are made available. Even now, Howard is not fully cooperating with the Title IV process, with the tax returns and other information provided by his counsel redacting the name of the donor. Thus, until we have all the facts in front of us, any discussion of a negotiated outcome is premature, ill-advised, and unethical.

Among the facts we need to know:

Who the anonymous “donor” of Howard’s “secret salary” is. While we support anonymity, these payments may meet the legal definition of bribery, and the church should not be a party to criminal conduct.
if there was a quid pro quo for Howard’s “secret salary,” which almost certainly would mean Howard was taking bribes.
The results of a full forensic audit. As we stated earlier, there is every reason to believe this situation goes beyond what appears to be bribery and embezzlement.
Who else knew, and when they knew it.

Without these data points, the whole Title IV process looks less like discipline and more like cover-up, combined with really poor theater intended to provide the illusion of accountability.

Disclaimer

In closing, a word to the inevitable attorneys: Place the word alleged in front of every sentence in this post. Howard is presumed innocent, both under Title IV and in the American judicial system, and has not yet been found guilty of ecclesiastical, civil, or criminal wrongdoing. That said, we find the allegations and evidence presented against Howard convincing, and his behavior appalling.