Title IV clergy disciplinary complaint filed against Episcopal Bishop Susan Brown Snook in sexual harassment case

Anglican Watch has received a copy of a Title IV complaint filed with the national church against Bishop Susan Brown Snook (“Bishop Susan” or “Snook”) of the Diocese of San Diego. The complaint, filed by leaders of a parish in her diocese, alleges a variety of actions by Snook that have:

1. Disrupted the parish.
2. Damaged the relationship between the parish and its rector.
3. Improperly empowered dissidents within the parish who allegedly have not brought concerns directly to the vestry or wardens.
4. Asked vestry members to engage in possibly illegal conduct.

In order to protect the parish, the complainants, and the priest in this matter, Anglican Watch has redacted the Title IV complaint, at the end of this post, to remove names and, where appropriate, gender references.

Allegations of sexual harassment

The matter appears to have sprung to light over allegations of sexual harassment by a former member of the church vestry. These allegations come from three separate individuals and thus seem likely to be accurate.

The church vestry referred the complaints to the bishop diocesan and members of her staff, who advised the parish to handle the matter internally.

Yet, when they did so, it appears that the perpetrator rounded up friends within the parish to undercut the vestry and the rector. Thus, the situation seems to involve retaliation, which is expressly forbidden until the Title IV clergy disciplinary canons.

While the retaliatory actions appear to come from laity and thus are outside the ambit of Title IV, which only addresses clergy misconduct, it seems that diocesan staff and the bishop joined with the malcontents in opposing the rector. Thus, we believe that, at some point, Bishop Susan and her staff, intentionally or otherwise, stepped into the shoes of the bully/oppressor in this situation.

Pro tip: In these situations, it is a best practice for the bishop to meet with parish leaders one-on-one and ask, “What do I need to know?” Doing so lessens the possibility of falling into the trap of what we jokingly call “The Mayo House Syndrome,” where folks hole up in diocesan headquarters, which in Virginia is Tara Mayo House, and talk in circles until they think they have figured something out. Usually, the result is folks end up even more confused than when they started.

Failed mediation

From there, it appears that the Diocese recommended a poorly qualified mediator to the parish.

While some may quibble about the details, it is indisputable that s/he did not appropriately manage expectations regarding confidentiality and outcomes. Indeed, these are issues that should be reduced to writing at the start of the process so that all involved share a common framework for discussion. Thus, we are concerned that the Diocese may not have adequately screened its recommendation. This possibility needs to be explored and addressed, and not just via an empty apology.

A Title IV complaint that possibly is too kind

We also note that the Title IV complaint in question may actually be too kind in its assessment of the situation—despite allegations that include deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Indeed, the complaint alleges negligence, bad advice, and more—all of which are difficult to address via Title IV.

Our biggest concern is that the Diocese appears to have de facto stepped into the shoes of the oppressor in this situation, resulting in the Diocese and Bishop Susan engaging in retaliation forbidden under Title IV.

How did that happen? From where we sit, the answer seems obvious. Specifically, the conflict emanates from a bad actor, a person who repeatedly engaged in sexual harassment.

Once the parish, acting at the Bishop’s direction, lowered the boom on the perpetrator/bad actor, that person looped back into the parish, undercutting the rector with a series of malevolent rumors and unfounded accusations. Yet rather than parsing those claims and learning more, the Diocese seemingly went along for the ride, eventually suspending the rector and behaving badly towards those who opposed the abuser. Thus, at some undetermined point, the Diocese crossed from Planet Clueless into the Constellation of Retaliation.

And while, in our experience, Bishop Susan usually has pretty good common sense, it looks like she got a lot of bad information from her mid-level minions, resulting in questionable decisions.

For example, Snook suspended the rector on the basis that s/he was in a position hostile to the parish. That normally would be a good judgment call if accurate, but it appears that this conclusion was reached with reference to the person engaged in sexual harassment and their friends—hardly representative of the entire parish.

This conclusion is bolstered by claims that the go-to in this situation, as decreed by the Diocese, is actually one of the bad actors in this conflict. That is telling, because even if the named contact person is on the right side of history — which we very much doubt — it is almost always a mistake to name someone directly involved in the conflict. Indeed, the go-to in this situation should be the rector, as s/he is the person ultimately responsible for pastoral care in the parish.

If the rector is, for whatever reason, not able to fill that role, responsibility should almost always shift to someone outside the immediate family system.

But whatever the reasons — and maybe it was just irrational behavior on the part of the Diocese — it looks like it engaged in retaliation against the rector, and possibly against the rector’s supporters, as well.

Where things stand now

As of publication, the Diocese has not responded to our request for comments/background. Moreover, the national intake officer, the Rev. Barb Kempf, does not appear to have responded to the complainants, so it is possible Snook has not yet heard of the complaint. Thus, Anglican Watch has only limited information about this conflict, so we are treading carefully.

We also note that we have a long-standing and positive relationship with Bishop Susan that predates her role as bishop. But that has little probative value in unwrapping the conflict, as many lousy bishops were great priests.

However, there are several things we can say with certainty:

• The Diocese has grossly mishandled this situation, which includes at least one Title IV complaint. That’s a problem because badly handled Title IV cases, as the denomination knows, often result in irreparable harm to the reputations of all involved. And given the glacial pace of Title IV, that is an almost guaranteed recipe for further trauma to all involved.
• As is often the case when a Title IV complaint is made, the requisite pastoral response, which should be among the highest priorities, is either absent or sorely lacking. How can we tell? The answer is easy–there’s a truckload of trauma afoot, and it’s touching every aspect of life within this parish. This shouldn’t happen, and all involved should experience care, respect, and compassion.
• We are concerned that the Rev. Barb Kempf, national Title IV intake officer for bishops, remains unable and unwilling to provide an effective pastoral response. While her predecessors Todd Ousley and Clay Matthews talk a good game when it comes to Title IV, neither has ever developed any capability in this area–despite Ousley living a lie by claiming a pastoral response is a top-level Title IV priority. Meanwhile, Kempf is ignoring requests for a pastoral response in the cases against Bishop Lucinda Ashby, Bishop Santosh Marray, Bishop Alan Gates, and more. Indeed, we have seen signs that Kempf may even be criticizing complainants for coming forward, which is shocking, appalling, and unacceptable. In other words, on the national level, Title IV remains a s*** show.
• One of the first rules of being a successful leader is to have the backs of those who support you. This rule applies in corporate America, in the military, and in churches. Thus, if Bishop Susan wanted the parish to handle the matter, she needed to have the backs of the rector and vestry members, full stop. Indeed, as a leader, there may be times when one ardently disagrees with someone on the team, but those differences are handled quietly, respectfully, and out of the public eye. Publicly, team members get unqualified support as long as their intentions are good.
• Relatedly, the allegations of diocesan staff publicly berating the rector are profoundly disturbing. There is no excuse for this conduct, ever, and Bishop Susan needs to lay down the law, big time, to her staff. Or ring down the curtain. This sort of conduct does not evince good intent and violates the baptismal covenant. Moreover, when leaders in a family system behave this way, it is a given that others will act similarly.
• While we are mindful of the need to parse gender-related issues carefully, we are troubled by Bishop Susan’s apparent indifference to the bullying/mobbing going on in this matter. Women clergy know all too well the perils of leadership in a male-dominated church, and Snook should be profoundly sensitive to the backdoor fun and games that bullies deploy when told not to engage in sexual harassment.
• The allegations that the Diocese may have directed vestry members to redact vestry minutes in violation of state law is deeply concerning. While it indeed is important to avoid making defamatory statements, failing to act with transparency/integrity can have equally devastating results. DO NOT ALTER MINUTES IN SITUATIONS SUCH AS THIS ABSENT WRITTEN GUIDANCE FROM AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE PARISH.
• Apropos the person engaging in sexual harassment, our strong advice is to leave the parish, its rector, and its leadership alone. If you do not, we will drag you and your conduct into the light of day by publishing your name and the allegations against you. And if you know anything about this publication, we have no qualms about doing so.

Next steps

As things stand, the situation is a hot mess, and the responsibility for this sorry state of affairs rests with the Diocese.

If nothing else, we note the deafening silence from the Diocese, which is an example of the Episcopal Church at its worst. In other words, in almost every instance, the worst thing a judicatory can do in these situations is to sit in silence. Or to trot out the empty, “Too sensitive to discuss” routine. Nothing about Title IV requires confidentiality when the result harms others.

Additional steps that need to happen:

1. While it may take some time to put together a more cogent response, we recommend that Bishop Susan make plans to meet with church members, both as a group and one-on-one, if requested, to listen. The key will be to listen carefully and not just take information in but ask the question, “How can I serve you?” Until Snook asks this question, she cannot mount an effective pastoral response, as she does not know what the specific needs within the parish may be.
2. The next step is caring action. We note that the mere presence of a Title IV complaint against Snook doesn’t prevent her from acting to address the problem. So we encourage a robust pastoral response to the parish, its leadership, and its rector, along with clear guidance about the need to avoid retaliation. And a pastoral response, as we have often noted, is not the same as pastoral care, so it’s important not just to drag in some befuddled old retired priest to murmur reassuring inconsequentia. Care for the parish should take a variety of forms and may include counseling, outside experts on trauma, and more.
3. It’s also clear from where we sit that the are issues with communication. Not just in terms of judicatories listening, but in terms of how information flows back to parishioners and church leaders. Again, nothing about Title IV requires confidentiality when to do so results in harm.
4. We also recommend Snook and her leadership team binge-read the Rev. Canon Robin Hammeal-Urban’s excellent book, Wholeness After Betrayal: Restoring Trust in the Wake of Misconduct. The book is not expensive, and its unpacking of the importance of disclosure is a must-read in a denomination that tends towards secrecy. Indeed, we believe the book should be required reading in every seminary, and if we had the money to do so, we’d donate a copy to every first-year Episcopal seminarian. (Don’t get us started, or we might begin fundraising to do exactly that.)

In other words, Listen. Care. Act. Communicate. Disclose.

Lastly, we extend our sincere care and concern to the rector, the parish, and all who this egregious and multi-faceted betrayal of trust has hurt.

The redacted complaint filed against Bishop Susan is below.

Anglican Watch will provide additional information on this situation as it becomes available.