BC Conference

T he United Church of Canada

ABOUT US PROGRAMS & RESOURCES MINIST RY & PERSONNEL PROPERT Y & FINANCE ADMINIST RAT ION

Search

CONTACT US

Ho me

USER LOGIN
Username: *

Formal Hearing Panel Decision

IN THE MATTER OF A FORMAL HEARING BEFORE THE BRITISH COLUMBIA CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA RE: REV. KEVIN ANNETT AND COMOX-NANAIMO PRESBYTERY DISCONTINUED SERVICE LIST RECOMMENDATION HEARD AT Vanco uver, B.C. befo re a Fo rmal Hearing Panel

Passwo rd: *

LO G IN

Rev. K. Eleano r O'Neill, Secretary Mr. Geo ffrey H. Wilkins Rev. E. Mo llie Williams, Chair Iain T. Benso n, Esq., appeared fo r the Applicant, Co mo x-Nanaimo Presbytery Rev. Bruce W. Gunn and Mrs. Margaret Annett appeared fo r the Respo ndent Minister, Rev. Kevin D. Annett Dr. Jo n L. Jessiman attended as Judicial Officer CONTENTS OF THIS DECISION Reco mmendatio ns DECISION This fo rmal hearing was co nvened to determine whether a reco mmendatio n made by the Co mo x-Nanaimo Presbytery that the name o f Rev. Kevin Annett be placed o n the Disco ntinued Service List o f the United Church o f Canada sho uld be accepted. The reco mmendatio n was made by the Presbytery o n March 27, 19 9 6 to the British Co lumbia Co nference o f the Church and the three members o f this Panel were appo inted to co nduct the hearing and to reach a decisio n o n the matter. At the same time, the Co nference appo inted Dr. Jo n Jessiman as judicial o fficer to assist us and the parties in the co nduct o f the hearing. The reco mmendatio n, the fo rmal appo intments and the terms o f reference fo r the hearing were all filed as exhibits at the
PDFmyURL.com

Cre at e ne w acco unt Re que st ne w passwo rd

QUICK LINKS
Church Eve nt s Cale ndar Church Eve nt s List Co nf e re nce Cale ndar Co nf e re nce Eve nt s List All Ne ws Spirit ual Care Blo g Unit e d Church o f Canada Wo nde rcaf e

co mmencement o f these pro ceedings o n August 28 , 19 9 6 at Vanco uver. The hearings have fo r the mo st part been held at St. Jo hn's United Church in Vanco uver and have o ccupied in to tal so me

RECENT NEWS
Assist ant t o t he Finance Minist e r So wing Pro m ise , Gro wing Le ade rs LIFE Se m inar - Invit at io n f o r Part icipat io n St at ist ical Tre nds in t he Church Be t hle he m Call Pre se nt at io n Trut h and Re co nciliat io n Film and Pane l Discussio n To rrance E. Bisse ll Bursary Fund f o r 20 12

twenty-fo ur hearing days. Final evidence and submissio ns were heard o n March 4, 19 9 7 and the panel reserved its decisio n in o rder that it co uld review the evidence and the argument heard o ver the co urse o f the six mo nths. As the co nsequence o f the Presbytery's reco mmendatio n wo uld be to remo ve Mr. Annett fro m the ro lls as an o rdained minister o f the Church, this panel viewed the matter as a serio us o ne and o ne requiring substantial pro o f that the reco mmendatio n sho uld be accepted. SOME FACTS Mr. Annett is a 41 year o ld minister o f the United Church who graduated fro m Vanco uver Scho o l o f Theo lo gy in 19 9 0 and was o rdained by the Church in May o f that year while in his mid-thirties. He had previo usly graduated fro m the University o f British Co lumbia with a Bachelo r's degree in Anthro po lo gy and a Master's degree in Po litical Science. As is required o f all new o rdinands, he was settled o n the Lyleto n-Pierso n pasto ral charge in Manito ba and No rthwestern Ontario Co nference that summer but the fo llo wing February asked to leave. While he remained there until June, this is a sho rter than usual perio d fo r a new minister in his first settlement. He applied fo r a po sitio n o n the staff at the Fred Victo r Missio n in To ro nto Co nference and in the summer o f 19 9 1, he mo ved to that po st in the City o f To ro nto and remained there fo r six mo nths when he resigned and mo ved to British Co lumbia. In 19 9 2, he so ught a vacant po sitio n beco ming available at the St. Andrew's United pasto ral charge in Po rt Alberni which is under the o versight o f the Co mo x-Nanaimo Presbytery o n Vanco uver Island. Mr. Annett had co nsultatio ns with the British Co lumbia Co nference Perso nnel Minister at Vanco uver, Rev. Arthur Anderso n, in an endeavo ur to o btain his advice and assistance in securing an appo intment o r call. Evidence is clear that the minister's mo ther, Mrs. Margaret Annett, was also invo lved in tho se co nsultatio ns with Mr. Anderso n in attempting to secure the po sitio n fo r her so n. Mr. Annett met also in Spring 19 9 2 with the Jo int Pasto ral Relatio ns Co mmittee at St. Andrew's charged with making a reco mmendatio n co ncerning a new minister fo r the pasto ral charge. Co ncerns were raised respecting his two sho rt previo us appo intments, his resignatio n and departure fro m them. As a result o f tho se meetings and co nsultatio ns, it was reco mmended to the Co mo x-Nanaimo Presbytery that Mr. Annett be appo inted fo r a o ne year perio d to the St. Andrew's United pasto ral charge effective July 1, 19 9 2 and that a review o f the pasto ral relatio nship be made prio r to the end o f that year. The evidence was that while Mr. Annett wo uld have preferred to receive a fo rmal call fro m the pasto ral charge, i.e. witho ut time limit, he was prepared to accept the o ne year appo intment in the ho pe that it wo uld result in a call at the end o f the o ne year perio d. He agreed to the appo intment in writing o n April 7, 19 9 2. In fact, the pasto ral charge issued a fo rmal call to their minister the fo llo wing February and the Presbytery appro ved its terms to be effective July 1, 19 9 3. No evidence was presented to us o f any fo rmal o r o ther review o f the pasto ral relatio nship made either by the Co mo x-Nanaimo Presbytery o r the St. Andrew's pasto ral charge prio r to the issuance and appro val o f the call. Fro m this po int chro no lo gically, evidence presented by the minister and o n behalf o f the Presbytery did no t agree in many respects. What is agreed ho wever, is that Mr. Annett's ministry came to an end at St. Andrew's in January 19 9 5, so me two and o ne half years after his arrival in Po rt Alberni. He submitted his resignatio n in writing to the Presbytery o n January 8 th and the
PDFmyURL.com

co ngregatio n asked the Presbytery to accept it, permitting him to take a leave o f absence effective immediately, and to pro vide them with o ther pulpit supply. The Presbytery acceded to the requests and by the end o f that January, he was no lo nger their minister and was placed under supervisio n by the same Presbytery. Mr. Annett and his family were permitted to stay in the church-pro vided ho me where they had lived until the end o f June that year in o rder that the children co uld co mplete their scho o l year and Mr. Annett co uld undertake so me directed skill pro grams. The Church co ntinued to pay his salary and o ther allo wances until near the end o f July 19 9 5. The evidence is that so metime subsequent to their departure fro m Po rt Alberni and relo catio n in the Lo wer Mainland in the summer o f 19 9 5, Mrs. Annett and their two daughters left the family ho me and they have lived apart fro m Mr. Annett since that time. Mr. Annett gave evidence that the separatio n was acrimo nio us and that there has been pro tracted civil litigatio n in the intervening two years co ncerning the cause o f the marriage breakdo wn and his rights to legal access to his two daughters. The circumstances which led to the minister's departure fro m St. Andrew's were no t the co re o f the issue befo re us; his co ntinuatio n as a minister o f the United Church was. Mr. Annett and his advo cates co nsistently argued that it was necessary to review his entire but brief ministry fro m the time o f his o rdinatio n in mid-19 9 0 to the time o f his suspensio n so me fo ur and o ne half years later, including the circumstances o f his departure fro m Po rt Alberni, in o rder to determine his fitness to co ntinue in o rdained ministry. The Presbytery o ppo sed this po sitio n arguing that these facts had already been determined by earlier pro ceedings in church co urts initiated by the minister. On January 23, 19 9 5, in additio n to terminating the pasto ral relatio nship between Mr. Annett and St. Andrew's, the Presbytery placed him under supervisio n o f the Presbytery Pasto ral Relatio ns Co mmittee, directed that he undertake a pro gram fo r the impro vement o f his pasto ral skills and required that he undergo a medical, psychiatric and/o r psycho lo gical examinatio n by a qualified pro fessio nal perso n. The minister appealed that decisio n to the British Co lumbia Co nference o n March 22, 19 9 5 and beginning in December that year, his appeal was heard befo re an entirely different fo rmal hearing panel. Mr. Annett, altho ugh he was the Appellant and the perso n who lo dged the appeal, ultimately declined to appear befo re that panel but instead filed affidavits and o ther written materials. In a written decisio n o n January 16 , 19 9 6 , the three perso n hearing panel o n behalf o f the Co nference dismissed his appeal. Despite the argument o f the Presbytery that evidence reviewing the same material befo re the appeal panel was no t strictly relevant to the issue befo re us, we permitted so me leeway to Mr. Annett and his advo cates to present facts they felt were necessary to meet the argument o f the Presbytery co ncerning his lack o f fitness fo r ministry. THE HEARING In to tal, five witnesses, all ministers, were called to give swo rn testimo ny: fo ur by the Presbytery and o ne by the minister who gave evidence himself o ver the co urse o f nine hearing days. There were 16 5 do cuments entered as exhibits by the parties. Each o f the witnesses presented by the Presbytery was examined in chief by its co unsel, Mr. Iain Benso n, and was exhaustively cro ss-examined by the minister and by his advo cate. Fo r the first thirteen days o f the hearing, Mr. Annett appo inted his mo ther, Mrs. Margaret Annett, as his advo cate and at their request, we permitted them to share the tasks o f examinatio n and cro ssPDFmyURL.com

examinatio n as they argued it was necessary by virtue o f their preparatio n. Fo r the remaining ten hearing days, Mr. Annett revo ked the appo intment o f his mo ther as his advo cate and appo inted instead Rev. Bruce Gunn, a United Church minister fro m Aho usat, then o n leave, to act as his advo cate. Mr. Gunn also to o k part in the cro ss-examinatio n o f so me o f the witnesses presented by the Presbytery and led his o wn witness, Mr. Annett, in chief. Ho wever, Mr. Annett, fo llo wed by Mr. Gunn and Mrs. Margaret Annett, withdrew fro m the hearing prio r to its co nclusio n, o n the 23rd day, March 3, 19 9 7, and just befo re his o wn cro ss-examinatio n. THE LAW The Presbytery makes its applicatio n under ss. 36 3 (f) and 36 6 o f the Manual o f the United Church o f Canada which permits a presbytery to reco mmend to a co nference the placing o f the name o f a member o f the o rder o f ministry o n the Disco ntinued Service List. The effect o f accepting such a reco mmendatio n is pro vided in the clo sing wo rds o f s. 36 6 . 36 3 (f) In the event that the member o f the o rder o f ministry refuses o r neglects to take a directed pro gram fo r the impro vement o f pasto ral skills as mentio ned in paragraph (d) ii., refuses o r neglects to undergo a medical and/o r psychiatric examinatio n o r refuses to supply the pertinent info rmatio n as mentio ned in para-graph (d) iii, o r refuses o r neglects to take a directed pro gram fo r rehabilitatio n and/o r training in so me o ther vo catio n as mentio ned in paragraph (d) iv., the Presbytery may reco mmend to the Co nfer-ence that the name o f such member o f the o rder o f ministry be re-mo ved fo rthwith fro m the ro lls o f Presbytery and Co nference and be transferred to the Disco ntinued Service List. In such instances financial assistance shall be disco ntinued. 36 6 . Onto Disco ntinued Service List. The name o f a member o f the o rder o f ministry may be remo ved fro m the ro lls o f Presbytery and Co nference and placed o n the Disco ntinued Service List by a decisio n o f the Co nference: a. at the member's o wn request when accepted by the Presbyter b. o n reco mmendatio n o f the Presbytery fo r o ne o r mo re o f the reaso ns indicated in subsectio n 314 (d); o r c. as a result o f having been fo und guilty o f o ne o r mo re o f the failings indicated in subsectio n 36 3 o r having been co nvicted o f a criminal o ffence. Such perso n shall no t be reco gnized as Ministry Perso nnel o f the United Church o f Canada, no r shall they perfo rm the functio ns o f its o rdained o r diaco nal ministry. Sectio n 36 3 refers to the fo llo wing "failings" as beings "gro unds" under sectio n 36 6 fo r placing a minister's name o n the Disco ntinued Service List: i. the effectiveness o f a member o f the o rder o f ministry o r perso n under Presbytery appo intment; ii. the failure o f a member o f the o rder o f ministry o r perso n under Presbytery appo intment to maintain the peace and welfare o f the church, o r iii. a member o f the o rder o f ministry o r perso n under Presbytery appo intment who refuses to reco gnize the autho rity o f
PDFmyURL.com

Presbytery. [the emphasis pro vided thro ugho ut these sectio ns is o urs to deno te the relevant pro visio ns] In dealing with issues related to the terminatio n o f a pasto ral relatio nship, the Presbytery is o bliged to fo llo w the pro cedures set o ut in sectio n 0 71, and the earlier Co nference Hearing Panel in dealing with the minister's earlier appeal fo und that the Presbytery had do ne this and had pro perly acted under sectio n 36 3 (d) when it made its decisio ns in January 19 9 5. We will therefo re no t set o ut the pro visio ns o f that sectio n as they do no t directly affect the reco mmendatio n presently befo re us. These pro visio ns make it clear that a Presbytery has the right to reco mmend placement o n the Disco ntinued Service List, that the reco mmendatio n is to be made to a Co nference and that the Co nference has the autho rity to accept o r to reject the reco mmendatio n. Ho wever, in making its reco mmendatio n under sectio n 36 6 , the o nus o f pro o f rests with the Presbytery that at least o ne o f the "failings" pro vided fo r in sectio n 36 3 exists in this case. Subsectio ns (a) and (b) do no t to us appear applicable. We have co nsidered what measure o r burden o f pro o f sho uld apply in a case such as this since the decisio n so ught by the Presbytery will effectively terminate Mr. Annett's career in ministry (altho ugh he may apply fo r re-entry at a future date). The questio n is a serio us o ne. The civil co urts have given extensive co nsideratio n to the nature o f the burden that is appro priate in circumstances similar to tho se befo re us. In such co ntexts the co urts in this Pro vince have said that standards such as "a prepo nderance o f evidence" o r "balance o f pro babilities" are inadequate and inappro priate. We agree. When a perso n's pro fessio nal integrity is at stake and his/her right to co ntinue to carry o n his/her liveliho o d are at issue, the standard it is said sho uld co me clo ser to that o f the criminal standard, i.e. beyo nd a reaso nable do ubt. At the least, very stro ng evidence suppo rting a high degree o f pro bability must be present. We have applied such higher standard to the burden o f pro o f we have required o f the Presbytery. In additio n, the pro cedures o utlined in the Manual are administrative and disciplinary in nature and therefo re the Presbytery and the Co nference have a duty to act fairly. In this regard, we have kept in mind recent decisio ns o f superio r pro vincial co urts in similar matters which have dealt with the respo nsibilities o f the Church to abide by the principles o f natural justice and the accepted rules o f fairness in the applicatio n o f its pro cedures. We have applied such rules and principles to the co nduct o f the Presbytery in reviewing its actio ns prio r to this reco mmendatio n and to the pro cess o f the hearing co nducted befo re us. We are amply satisfied that the higher standard o f pro o f has been applied to the findings we have made in this case and that the principles o f natural justice and rules o f pro cedural fairness have been applied equally to bo th parties. SOME FINDINGS AND APPLICATION OF THE LAW It wo uld be appro priate also here to co mment briefly regarding the weight that sho uld pro perly be assigned to evidence placed befo re us. We have no ted that 1. The testimo ny o f all fo ur witnesses called by the Presbytery was tested exhaustively in cro ss- examinatio n by the minister
PDFmyURL.com

and/o r his advo cates 2. Altho ugh we were advised that a large number o f witnesses wo uld be called by the minister to suppo rt his allegatio ns, he alo ne to o k the stand o n his o wn behalf, withdrawing abruptly fro m the hearing befo re his testimo ny co uld be tested by cro ss-examinatio n and witho ut any co rro bo ratio n, and 3. Bo th parties filed a large number o f do cumentary exhibits which co nsisted o f letters, statements, testimo nials, sermo ns, minutes and the like, so me written specifically fo r presentatio n at this hearing; in many cases the autho rs did no t appear as witnesses and were no t available fo r cro ss-examinatio n. We have kept such co nsideratio ns befo re us as we reviewed the evidence and while much o f the do cumentary evidence co incided with the swo rn testimo ny, in a number o f respects it did no t. Briefly put, the Presbytery has argued that: 1. Rev. Annett's ministry at St. Andrew's pasto ral charge has placed him under the o versight o f Co mo x-Nanaimo Presbytery, 2. It was o bliged in 19 9 5 to place him under supervisio n, to require him to take a directed pro gram fo r the impro vement o f his pasto ral skills and to undergo a psychiatric and/o r psycho lo gical examinatio n and ultimately, late in 19 9 5, to suspend him fro m perfo rming the functio ns o f an o rdained minister, and 3. While under o versight, he has demo nstrated that he is unsuitable to co ntinue in o rdained ministry by virtue o f o ne o r mo re o f the "failings" pro vided fo r under sectio n 36 3 o f the Manual: a. his (lack o f) effectiveness as a member o f the o rder o f ministry, b. his failure as a member o f the o rder o f ministry to maintain the peace and welfare o f the church, o r c. his refusal to reco gnize the autho rity o f Presbytery

The minister has argued that he was and is an effective minister, that he has maintained the peace and welfare o f the Church and that he reco gnizes the autho rity o f his Presbytery when it is lawfully asserted. The Manual o ffers little assistance in describing what is meant by "effectiveness" in ministry altho ugh it is so metimes asso ciated with "fitness fo r ministry" o r "suitability fo r ministry". The same might be said co ncerning a definitio n o f "the peace and welfare o f the church." The third catego ry is less pro blematic and co ncerns reco gnitio n o f the legitimately-exercised autho rity o f this church co urt. Given that this is a church hearing, we appro ached this part o f o ur task with a set o f biblical and theo lo gical perspectives. In o rder to serve as a Christian minister, o ne must be able to lo ve Go d, lo ve o neself and lo ve o ne's neighbo ur. As Jesus taught, such lo ve is at the heart o f o ur faithfulness: When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered to gether and o ne o f them, a lawyer, asked him a questio n to test him. "Teacher, which co mmandment in the law is the greatest?" He said to him, "'Yo u shall lo ve the Lo rd yo ur
PDFmyURL.com

questio n to test him. "Teacher, which co mmandment in the law is the greatest?" He said to him, "'Yo u shall lo ve the Lo rd yo ur Go d with all yo ur heart, and with all yo ur so ul and with all yo ur mind. This is the greatest and first co mmandment.' And a seco nd is like it: 'yo u shall lo ve yo ur neighbo ur as yo urself.' On these two co mmandments hang all the law and the pro phets."Matthew 22:34-40 (NRSV) Paul tells us in his writings to the early church ho w we are to live o ut these wo rds o f Jesus: Lo ve is patient; lo ve is kind; lo ve is no t envio us o r bo astful o r arro gant o r rude. It do es no t insist o n its o wn way; it is no t irritable o r resentful; it do es no t rejo ice in wro ngdo ing but rejo ices in the truth. It bears all things, ho pes all things, endures all things. Lo ve never ends. 1 Co rinthians 13:4-8 (NRSV) All tho se who are called to ministry in the Christian church are called to live o ut lo ve in this way. Paul also reminds the early church that Christians are called to wo rk to gether with humility and gentleness in o rder that all the "saints may be equipped fo r the wo rk o f ministry", so that the church, "the bo dy o f Christ", will "build itself up in lo ve." I therefo re, the priso ner in the Lo rd, beg yo u to lead a life wo rthy o f the calling to which yo u have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with o ne ano ther in lo ve, making every effo rt to maintain the unity o f the Spirit in the bo nd o f peace... The gifts he gave were that so me wo uld be apo stles, so me pro phets, so me evangelists, so me pasto rs and teachers, to equip the saints fo r the wo rk o f ministry, fo r building up the bo dy o f Christ, until all o f us co me to the unity o f the faith and o f the kno wledge o f the So n o f Go d, to maturity, to the measure o f the full stature o f Christ. We must no lo nger be children, to ssed to and fro and blo wn abo ut by every wind o f do ctrine, by peo ple's trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. But speaking the truth in lo ve, we must gro w up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, fro m who m the who le bo dy, jo ined and knit to gether by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is wo rking pro perly, pro mo tes the bo dy's gro wth in building up itself in lo ve.Ephesians 4:1-3; 11-16 (NRSV) Unfo rtunately, because Mr. Annett withdrew fro m the hearing prematurely, we were unable to questio n the biblical-theo lo gical ratio nale upo n which he bases his o wn ministry. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A MEMBER OF THE ORDER OF MINISTRY (Sectio n 36 3 (i)) The ro le o f a minister is a co mplex o ne. Therefo re in reaching o ur decisio n, we co nsidered a bro ad spectrum o f facto rs relevant to the assessment o f effective ministry; we determined that effectiveness sho uld be evaluated in terms o f the fo llo wing three principal catego ries: pasto ral skills, leadership abilities, integrity and willingness to be held acco untable. A. Pasto ral Skills: A minister needs to demo nstrate to the peo ple amo ng who m s/he serves that s/he is there to share his/her lo ve. This needs to be do ne appro priately, with respect and humility. Altho ugh we read in letters (Exhibit 9 3) fro m a few members o f the minister's first pasto ral charge in Manito ba where he served his first year that he was "caring, co mpassio nate, go o d at visiting and a welco me guest" in their ho mes, we also read in do cuments fro m his fo rmer parishio ners at St. Andrew's United in Po rt Alberni
PDFmyURL.com

that he was frequently abusive, arro gant, defensive and disdainful o f o thers: At the Fall 19 9 2 meetings o f the Outreach Co mmittee, I spo ke to Kevin abo ut the pro blems with his ministry. In the meetings we spo ke o penly with Kevin present abo ut his abuse o f the go o d will o f the co ngregatio n and abo ut his metho d o f handling fo o d distributio n, fo r eg. he regularly disregarded o ur decisio ns and directio ns, fo rmalised o n January 5, 19 9 3, that emergency distributio ns o f fo o d, between the regular fo o d bank mo nthly distributio n days, sho uld be limited to eno ugh fo o d fo r o ne day...... In December 19 9 4, fo r the co mmittee lo o king at "Issues related to Fo o d Bank", I wro te 'the o utreach co mmittee largely directed its energies to trying to make Kevin's perso nal initiatives palatable to the co ngregatio n, to trying to give the Fo o d Bank so me kind o f structure and po licies and to suppo rting o ur new pasto r as he pursued his cho sen path. There was a stro ng feeling that Kevin was go ing abo ut it the wro ng way, but that we sho uld back him.' There is no do ubt that the hurt caused by the way Kevin handled the situatio n was intense. The mo st vivid memo ry I have o f tho se weeks was o f entering a small meeting held in the minister's study and witnessing Kevin regaling Jeannette with his brag that he had driven o ut the o ld guard. He was laughing and appeared to be delighted with his sto ry. He reco unted the way o ne perso n had left a meeting crying, and ho w o ther traditio nal (lay) leaders had lo st face and po wer. It is to tally accurate to say that he to ld all this with childish glee. No thing in the events that fo llo wed was as upsetting to me as that incident.(Mr. Terry Whyte) I am no t sure o f the exact date but I believe it was to ward the end o f 19 9 3 that I first met Kevin and his family at a po t luck supper at the Opetchesaht Reserve. Sho rtly thereafter, I started attending St. Andrew's Church. I appreciated Kevin's leadership very much. He had a gentle way with the co ngregatio n; he was wo nderful with children and he was an excellent sto ry-teller which made fo r so me o f the best sermo ns I have heard. In March 19 9 4 the Official Bo ard asked me to sit o n the Sessio n and sho rtly after Kevin asked me to be a member o f the Wo rship Co mmittee. I agreed to bo th and wo rked very clo sely with Kevin thro ugho ut that year. What changed? Slo wly, to me he lo st balance o r a perspective he o nce had po rtrayed. The fo o d bank seemed to catalyze a tro ubled side to Kevin's leadership. I think that incidents co ming o ut o f his wo rk o n the fo o d bank were my first indicato rs that (a) his judgment was no t always so und, (b) he had difficulty including and directing different kinds o f peo ple in a co mmo n pursuit, he had real pro blems co ping with interperso nal co nflict. Instead o f inspiring and calling peo ple to this ministry, he became increasingly critical o f anyo ne who was no t like himself. He became very defensive. He became self-righteo us. His sermo ns became repetitive and peo ple began to co mplain that he was "beating them o ver the head" with his co ncerns o f po verty. At the same time, he seemed uninterested in the so cial ministries that many o f the co ngregatio n were already co mmitted to that directly impacted o n the po o r o f o ur co mmunity. At a public fo rum o n po verty in Po rt Alberni, I remember pleading with Kevin to treat the Mayo r with due respect o r there wo uld be no ho pe o f a favo urable respo nse to him. He argued with me in public, basically saying she didn't deserve any. I was dumbfo unded, es-pecially because I had wo rked with her befo re o n a famine respo nse pro ject and fo und her to be extremely helpful and co mpassio nate.
PDFmyURL.com

helpful and co mpassio nate. A yo ung wo man and her little bo y came to church o ne Sunday. The bo y freaked o ut and screamed thro ugho ut mo st o f the service. At the end, an angry o lder lady came up to the wo man and asked her why she didn't leave when her bo y was so upset. It wasn't a nice scene but we wo rked it o ut. The yo ung wo man returned many times and always had help with the bo y after that. I was amazed, later, to hear Kevin describe that incident as a racist act and use it as an example o f ho w the who le church dislikes native peo ple. What I had seen as a behavio ral pro blem that we co uld help take care o f, Kevin saw as an eternally damning racial act. To me this was a sign that he was really carrying a chip o n his sho ulder and was definitely seeing the wo rld tho ugh different co lo ured glasses than my o wn. (Ms. Bernadette Wyto n) After much time, tho ught and prayer it is time fo r me to o pen up and share distressing feelings that I've carried fo r three years. First o ff, I am finally able to admit that I fear Kevin (and) what may result fro m me sharing my feelings o penly. In the beginning, I really enjo yed his ministry, his family and welco med new ideas and gro wth in o ur co ngregatio n.... As issues aro se I became frustrated with lack o f co mmunicatio n and actio ns taken that were no t discussed at church meetings: things which co me to mind are - o pen church buildings, many unregistered keys issued, co de fo r the co mbinatio n lo ck fo r the fo o d bank written o n the wall, frustrated secretary because she had no idea where Kevin was o n many days (this was addressed and he began to check in), do natio ns dro pped o ff at the church fo r a Christmas Dinner o f which St. Andrew's had no t been info rmed. When I addressed so me o f these items, I was to ld by Kevin that my ro le as Chair o f the Bo ard was to run the Bo ard meetings. As chair, I had tried very hard to take a neutral stand and listened to bo th sides o f each situatio n and fo und myself acting as Kevin's advo cate in many situatio ns. The questio n that lo o ms befo re me "Do yo u see Kevin serving in a co ngregatio n?" And I have to answer that after what we have experienced at St. Andrew's, my answer is NO! (Ms. Ro semary Ro nalds) His fo rmer superviso r, then Executive Directo r o f the Fred Victo r Missio n in To ro nto , states that the minister frequently manipulated the weak and the vulnerable: Fro m the beginning, Kevin's relatio nship with o ther staff was pro blematic and co nflictual. He was no t a team player, did no t like staff meetings and at times was impo ssible to find o r reach. I had indicated to Kevin that a few staff were skeptical abo ut this pro ject and a co uple were ho stile but there was a readiness to accept the idea o f a co mmunity ministry and a willingness o n the part o f o ther staff to find ways o f wo rking o ut difficulties. He claimed he was no t suppo rted but he did no t seem willing to accept the suppo rt he was o ffered o r make any effo rts to wo rk with o ther staff. His relatio nships with street peo ple were entirely different. Quickly, he gathered a gro up o f the mo st vulnerable peo ple aro und himself; they tho ught he co uld do no wro ng. No t lo ng after his departure, mo st o f these peo ple seemed unmo ved by his resignatio n. We learned gradually that he was giving o ut cash and go o ds to needy individuals (by using petty cash inappro priately) and making pro mises to them that were impo ssible to keep. While he had the rheto ric o f "so cial justice" (which
PDFmyURL.com

was this Missio n's appro ach) he behaved in a trad-itio nal charity hand-o ut way. He had an incredible way o f making vulnerable peo ple feel entirely suppo rted and o thers terribly guilty and unco mfo rtable. I understo o d the abo ve behavio ur as extremely clever and manipulative. (Rev. Paul Webb) In additio n, thro ugho ut the co urse o f much o f these pro ceedings, Mr. Annett was verbally abusive to ward a number o f witnesses, co ntemptuo us o f their evidence and their faith po sitio ns when stated. This was particularly true with respect to Revs. Stiven, Sto kes, Ho gman and Tho rpe who gave evidence befo re us o n the witness stand. In so me cases, they endured cro ssexaminatio n which lasted several days. Similarly, with respect to Revs. Spencer, Anderso n and o thers who were required by their o ffices to take part in earlier dealings with Mr. Annett o r his mo ther, he was blatantly unkind and spo ke in a dero gato ry manner co ncerning them, even tho ugh we cautio ned him o n the very first day o f these hearings abo ut such co nduct. B. Leadership Abilities: In examining Mr. Annett's leadership skills and abilities, we lo o ked fo r evidence o f his "building up the bo dy o f Christ in lo ve" that is, his co mmitment to strengthening the ministry o f co ngregatio ns with which he wo rked. As a witness befo re us, Mr. Annett expressed the belief that he has skills in co nflict reso lutio n, has empathy fo r o thers, is go o d at bridge building, and relating to and reco nciling diverse gro ups. Fro m the o verwhelming weight o f evidence which was presented to us, it is abundantly clear that these skills were so rely lacking during much o f his sho rt ministry, as they may have been even befo re his o rdinatio n: Kevin spent between 10 and 20 ho urs with us each week fro m late September thro ugh December (19 8 9 ). There was much abo ut Kevin that impressed me..... During the co urse o f his time with us, I became aware o f two aspects o f his ministry style that I regarded as pro blematic. Bo th o f these were discussed during superviso ry sessio ns and I was left with the impressio n that Kevin appreciated the feedback, understo o d the co ncern, and wo uld wo rk at so me behavio ural changes. My first co ncern was his tendency to be a "lo ne ranger". I mean by this that he wo uld undertake certain pro jects - especially pro jects invo lving the po o r o r marginalized - witho ut clearing it with either me o r the appro priate co ngregatio nal co mmittee, o r even trying in so me subsequent way to invo lve the co ngregatio n meaningfully in the ministry. This meant that altho ugh so me individuals in the co mmunity benefitted fro m his wo rk fo r the time he was with us, fo llo w up after he left was very difficult. My seco nd co ncern was Kevin's lack o f patience with the no rmal decisio n making pro cesses o f the co ngregatio n. When the o utreach co mmittee, fo r example, was hesitant abo ut so me o f his specific pro ject suggestio ns, Kevin basically lo st interest in wo rking with them, even tho ugh wo rking with them was o ne o f his stated learning go als. Iro nically, this meant that he alienated the gro up within the co ngregatio n who mo st shared his visio n. (Rev. Do uglas Graves) While at Vanco uver Scho o l o f Theo lo gy, Kevin was made aware o f pro blems which go t in the way o f wo rking relatio ns with
PDFmyURL.com

o thers; he was aware o f his need to express his feelings mo re o penly and to allo w o thers to enter his life in a mo re intimate way; he was aware o f so me blindness in seeing the pain o f tho se in typical middle class United Church situatio ns and in the institutio n itself. There was also stated co ncern abo ut ho w he co uld functio n as a pro phet in the structural church with bo th challenge and co mpassio n. (Chaplain Marilyn Harriso n) We certainly did no t ask Kevin to clo se the fo o d bank, o r cease wo rking with peo ple o utside the church. Peo ple in St. Andrew's have had a lo ng histo ry o f interest and invo lvement in ministries to the po o r and tho se o utside the church. In the years immediately prio r to Kevin's co ming, there was active suppo rt fo r the Bread o f Life co mmunity so up kitchen, fo r Ten Days fo r Wo rld Develo pment, Bridgehead pro ducts, native land claims issues and a discretio nary fund fo r the minister fo r addressing so me pro blems o f tho se who came in difficulty. The fo o d bank co ncept was welco med. The pro blems aro se as Kevin develo ped his ideas faster than he info rmed his co ngregatio n and then alienated tho se who vo lunteered to help with the fo o d bank by giving o ut fo o d in greater quantities and mo re frequently than it co uld be replenished. Eventually, he also gave o ut the keys to o ur building to at least o ne fo o d bank user so he wo uld be able to get in whenever he wanted. The co ngregatio n still wanted to suppo rt a fo o d bank o utreach, and discussed many po ssibilities fo r do ing this.... I perso nally experi-enced difficulty in discussing co ncerns with Kevin. Early in his time with us, I expressed my co ncerns regarding so me details o r o rganizatio n o f the fo o d bank. I was immediately to ld that I had better watch o ut because I was co nsidered to be a member o f the "po wer gro up" o f the church. I therefo re backed o ff and resigned fro m my po sitio ns..... Ho wever, I co ntinued to ho pe that we co uld develo p a better way o f discussing issues. (Ms. Wendy Barker) Kevin's sermo ns were o ften so far o ut that peo ple wo uld stand up in the pews and take issue with what Kevin said. Occasio nally, so meo ne wo uld go to the fro nt and make his/her statement fro m the pulpit. The speaker wo uld be attempting to bring so me balance to a discussio n and deal with the hurt and anger being felt by mo st o f the peo ple in the pews. The pro cess was very upsetting fo r many peo ple, altho ugh I, perso nally, was pleased that members o f the co ngregatio n sho wed this leadership and o ften spo ke so wisely and elo quently. Kevin typed his sermo ns and had them co pied so o ne co uld pick them up at the service. They did no t accurately co nvey what he actually said in the sermo n perio d. Many times, I picked up a co py to lo o k fo r the stuff I had just heard, but it was no t there. The sermo ns as distributed were much less extreme than the materials spo ken fro m the pulpit.... I remember the determinatio n I felt to wo rk with the o thers who were co ncerned abo ut pasto ral care and C.E. (Christian Educatio n) especially. Kevin did no t pro vide no rmal clergy suppo rt, and in fact devalued and put do wn the co ngregatio n weekly, in the sermo n perio d. Kevin spent his time do ing exactly what he wanted to and accepted no directio n fro m the co ngregatio n. (Mr. Terry Whyte) On the who le o f the evidence, it is o ur finding that the minister lacks essential leadership qualities and skills necessary fo r
PDFmyURL.com

effective ministry within the United Church o f Canada. C. Integrity and Willingness to be Held Acco untable: We have reviewed in entirety the evidence given fro m all so urces co ncerning the minister's perso nal character in an attempt to be bo th accurate and fair in o ur assessment o f his ministerial fitness o r effec-tiveness. In do ing so , evidence fro m a large number o f perso ns helped us to fo rm an image o f the minister, an image which became better fo cused fo r us as we o bserved him o n the witness stand. We have viewed his co nduct in this co nnectio n under three separate heads. (i) Veracity: In many respects, Mr. Annett's reco llectio n o f events, o f co nversatio ns, o f meetings and o f the co nduct and actio ns o f o thers was co ntradicted by evidence fro m two o r mo re o thers and by reco rds and do cuments evidencing such meetings and events. In so me instances, what witnesses under o ath o r in do cuments o utlined as facts are exactly the o ppo site o f what the minister has said o ccurred. It is clear that in so me instances, his evidence was affected by what he felt po rtrayed his ro le, his actio ns and his ministry in a mo re favo urable light than what in fact to o k place. Whether this was ho nest fo rgetfulness o n Mr. Annett's part o r whether in fact he has distilled truth in a different way fro m similar facts, we are no t certain. In mo st instances, we have fo und the reco llectio n o f o thers to be mo re accurate and preferable. As an example, while under o ath Mr. Annett spo ke o f the time when he was actively engaged in preparatio n fo r ministry. During his testimo ny, he said that no o ne in autho rity ever questio ned his call to ministry o r suggested that there was any reaso n why he sho uld no t be o rdained. Rev. Do ug Graves, his field wo rk superviso r at So uth Hill United, and Marilyn Harriso n, United Church Chaplain at Vanco uver Scho o l o f Theo lo gy, indicated in statements fro m which we have already quo ted that each o f them info rmed him o f so me co ncerns abo ut his effectiveness during his candidacy pro cess. Mr. Annett said that no thing o f significance was raised at any o f his candidacy interviews by his spo nso ring co ngregatio n, First United, Vanco uver-Burrard Presbytery o r the British Co lumbia Co nference. In co ntrast, Rev. Jim Hillso n, states: During the years appro ximately 19 8 6 to 19 9 0 , I was a member o f the Educatio n and Students Co mmittee o f Vanco uverBurrard Presbytery. This co mmittee has respo nsibility fo r screening and supervisio n o f candidates fo r ministry and Intended Candidates. During tho se years the co mmittee met with Kevin o n several o ccasio ns in co nnectio n with his candidacy. I have a very clear and distinct reco llectio n o f my last meeting with the co mmittee at which time we interviewed Kevin. The co mmittee was co nsidering whether o r no t to reco mmend Kevin fo r o rdinatio n by British Co lumbia Co nference. We had befo re us so me o f the no rmal materials which suppo rt an applicatio n fo r o rdinatio n, including a quite lengthy "ministry statement." Missing fro m this material was the expected applicatio n fo r o rdinatio n. I recall being quite dismayed by the ministry statement. This statement went o n fo r 2-3 pages with very stro ng criticism o f the United Church o f Canada. Kevin indicated his view that the main mandate o f the Go spel o f Jesus Christ was to stand with and advo cate o n behalf o f the po o r and marginalized o f so ciety. Kevin accused the United Church o f failure to fulfil this mandate. As I recall, the statement co ncluded, "So why do I want to be a United Church minister? I do n't kno w."
PDFmyURL.com

I recall, the statement co ncluded, "So why do I want to be a United Church minister? I do n't kno w." I recall saying to Kevin: "Yo u have no t submitted an applicatio n fo r o rdinatio n. Yo u have given us a ministry statement which is very critical o f o ur church. And yo u co nclude that statement indicating that yo u do no t kno w why yo u want to be o rdained. It seems to me that this co mmittee sho uld give yo u time to co nsider yo ur po sitio n o n these things and invite yo u to see us in a year's time." I recall Kevin being quite taken aback by my suggestio n that his o rdinatio n sho uld be po stpo ned fo r a year, and pleading that he was ready to be o rdained and really wanted to pro ceed this year. I to ld Kevin that I wo uld no t be able to vo te in favo ur o f his o rdinatio n at this time. (Rev. Jim Hillso n) (ii) Respect fo r Others: As we have no ted elsewhere, Mr. Annett has frequently sho wn a lack o f to lerance, at times actual disdain, fo r tho se with who m he was charged to wo rk in the vineyards. Often they have been lay-perso ns, in co ngregatio ns and elsewhere, but this lack o f respect fo r o thers has also been sho wn equally to tho se who labo ur as his co lleagues in o rdered ministry. He has been abusive o f tho se with who m he do es no t agree, especially if they are o ffice-ho lders o r are in po sitio ns o f autho rity. As Mr. Whyte repo rted, Mr. Annett bragged that he had o usted "the o ld guard" at St. Andrew's. In ano ther instance, Ms. Wyto n recalled: When the M&P co ntro versy came up later o n, I was ho rrified to hear Kevin talk o f the co mmittee members as tho ugh they were evil, co nniving, po wer hungry villains. To me, Fred Bisho p (the chair), in particular, is a walking saint. When I asked Kevin po int blank if he co uld say all o f tho se things abo ut Fred, he had no reservatio ns. Then I knew, witho ut a do ubt, Kevin had a serio us pro blem that was o ut o f co ntro l. Kevin's letter o f resignatio n was bizarre and irratio nal. I asked him ho w he co uld say that wo rking with us jeo pardized his perso nal and spiritual integrity and then clo sed by saying that he'd be with us fo r ano ther six mo nths. He said he needed the wages. I co uldn't see where his argument fo r integrity sto o d up when mo ney to o k the upper hand. (Ms. Bernadette Wyto n) Over the co urse o f the last few years, Mr. Annett has made it very clear that he had little respect fo r the United Church o f Canada and the peo ple who make it up. In an article written by him fo r the UBC student newspaper, the Ubyssey, and published at Vanco uver o n Tuesday, February 27, 19 9 6 , he writes: I tried to sto p my daughter's tears and answer her so bbing questio n: "Daddy, why can't I go to Sunday Scho o l anymo re?" But I co uldn't. Neither co uld I sto p the lies being spread abo ut me, reco ver the jo b stripped fro m me in an instant, o r reo pen the fo o dbank that was feeding many children just like my daughter befo re my church bo ard clo sed it in the dead o f winter. All o f this evil had been do ne to we, the unsuspecting, the inno cent, the vulnerable. Sitting next to little Clare, I was as helpless as she was. I was her father, bo rn to pro tect and co mfo rt her, and yet I co uld do neither. We huddled to gether, daughter and father, victims o f peo ple who call themselves "Christians." Peo ple who pro bably
PDFmyURL.com

slept so undly that night, after the ho lo caust they had unleashed. Clergy are trained to be the scapego at fo r everyo ne else's pro blems. We harbo ur a perverse self righteo usness at being able to bear all blame and anger o f o ur co ngregatio n, and still survive to the end o f a week. But we do n't survive. Eventually, we are o ffered up, like any scapego at, as a sacrifice to placate the hungry cro wd.... Perhaps if this had happened in any place but a church, we wo uld have endured it better. But the trauma we have suffered co mes fro m being stepped o n within the "church o f Jesus Christ," where everyo ne talks abo ut lo ve. It is a sick jo ke and a nightmare to me. So what must it be like fo r my children, to their unpro tected hearts? What kind o f peo ple wo uld put my children thro ugh such hell? No t the kind that I want my family asso ciating with, o r co nfusing, with actual Christians." (Rev. Kevin Annett) The minister last summer subsequently wro te in the newsletter o f the Ministers' Mutual Aid o rganizatio n, cited hereafter, that "My clo sest definitio n o f evil is that which causes blind destructio n; by this measure, the United Church o f Canada is an evil institutio n." (Exhibit 16 1) We o bserve that o n the o ne hand, Mr. Annett seems anxio us to remain in ministry in the United Church, while o n the o ther hand there is much evidence o f his antipathy to ward United Church peo ple. During his preparatio n fo r o rdinatio n, it wo uld appear that he felt po sitive to ward the church, bo th fro m his invo lvement in co ngregatio ns and at Vanco uver Scho o l o f Theo lo gy (he fo und it to be "an institutio n co mmitted to so cial change.") In the years that fo llo wed his o rdinatio n, his attitude has o bvio usly changed as no ted by o ne o bserver: Kevin's leadership deterio rated very quickly in the Fall o f 19 9 4, culminating in his letter o f resignatio n.... Near the end o f the meeting (a co ngregatio nal retreat), Kevin started describing ho w unhappy he was with the United Church. He said he felt like a pro stitute wo rking as a minister in this church. He talked abo ut leaving. I was very upset and asked him why he was saying these things. He began an amazing sto ry abo ut his wo rk in To ro nto - a sto ry full o f heavy allegatio ns against the church...o f crime, co rruptio n, abuse and misco nduct. I remember saying "Kevin, either yo u're insane o r there's so mething very wro ng with the United Church.' I asked that he lay the sto ry o ut fo r me in detail with (his wife) Anne present, at least as ano ther witness fo r me. We set up a meeting but Anne did no t co me. Kevin said she had no thing to do with any o f his wo rk back there. I fo und that very strange. I also fo und it strange, regardless o f the ultimate truth behind the sto ry, that bo th Kevin and the Church co ntinued in silence as tho ugh no thing had happened. It just didn't add up. (Ms. Bernadette Wyto n) In a further article published in the Ubyssey while these hearings were still in sessio n, Mr. Annett describes the hearings thus: Crammed into a United Church lo unge in the West End, the hearing begins with prayer, naturally. The fo rmalities must be o bserved after all and the wo rds are so easy to mo uth: "justice, guidance, lo ve and fo rgiveness.' I suppo se even Richelieu and his Inquisito rial buddies prayed fo r their to rtured victims. (Rev. Kevin Annett) Despite this Panel's cautio n to all witnesses to refrain fro m speaking with the public media who were present during the co urse
PDFmyURL.com

o f this hearing, o n a number o f o ccasio ns Mr. Annett igno red this repeated request and the pro ceedings were frequently delayed until he returned to the hearing ro o m and the hearing co uld pro ceed. (iii) Willingness to be Held Acco untable: We no te that Mr. Annett refuses to be acco untable fo r his actio ns. This do es no t appear to be new at St. Andrew's o r Co mo xNanaimo Presbytery. Bo th the fo rmer Executive Directo r o f the Fred Victo r Missio n and its fo rmer Bo ard Chair fo und this to be true. Kevin began wo rk in late July 19 9 1 and resigned early in 19 9 2, near the end o f this initial six mo nths. Almo st fro m the beginning o f his wo rk there were pro blems. Since Kevin was new to the church and co mmunity in To ro nto , I suggested that he use the time while I was o n ho lidays in August to get to kno w the inner city.... When I returned to the o ffice, I disco vered that he had do ne little in getting to kno w the larger church and co mmunity, but he had already gathered a gro up o f street peo ple aro und himself and declared he had a gro up o f fo ur peo ple who were asking fo r a church service. I to ld him there was no rush to start services; it was mo re impo rtant to develo p a larger co re gro up first.... I have o utlined these early develo pments in so me detail because they indicate pro blems in Kevin's willingness to accept supervisio n and directio n. I set up regular supervisio n times and asked him to prepare agenda/materials in advance o f o ur meetings, but pro blems co ntinued.... Abo ut a mo nth befo re his initial six mo nths' pro batio n was up I set up a meeting fo r an evaluatio n and o utlined a pro cess fo r that meeting. That meeting had to be po stpo ned, if my memo ry serves me co rrectly; he called in sick the day o f the pro po sed meeting. It was rescheduled fo r early January after his return fro m Christmas ho lidays in B.C. Befo re that meeting to o k place, Kevin resigned and co pied his letter to the Chair and members o f the Fred Victo r Missio n Bo ard. Later he sent a lengthy, nasty letter to members o f To ro nto So uth Presbytery. The Bo ard Chairman, Paul Mills, and I met with Kevin; basically the Chairman warned Kevin that his behavio ur was o nly harming himself and causing mo re pro blems fo r his future career. (Rev. Paul Webb) And in a letter to Mr. Annett, the Fred Victo r Missio n Bo ard Chair, Mr. Paul Mills, Q.C. in 19 9 2 wro te: The underlying theme o f yo ur entire letter is that yo u are the o nly perso n who understands what urban ministry is all abo ut. It seems to me that yo u have to tally lo st sight o f the fact that yo u were hired by the Missio n to perfo rm a jo b which had a jo b descriptio n which yo u cho se to igno re. I reject yo ur suggestio n that yo u stro ve to be ho nest and direct thro ugho ut yo ur time at the Missio n. On the co ntrary, fro m everything which I have been to ld, yo u were less than ho nest and direct in yo ur dealings with Paul Webb and o ther staff members.... I am so rry that yo u feel that yo u have been wro nged. In my view, yo u cho se to igno re yo ur jo b descriptio n and yo u refused to accept any directio n fro m yo ur superviso r, Paul Webb. A decisio n had been made to terminate yo ur emplo yment at the end o f yo ur pro batio nary perio d. But yo ur resignatio n made such terminatio n unnecessary. (Mr. Paul Mills) While Mr. Annett has repeatedly spo ken o f his being "fired", "dismissed", "summarily remo ved" o r "depo sed", the facts sho w
PDFmyURL.com

that he resigned fro m St. Andrew's United Church sho rtly after he attempted to have the entire Ministry and Perso nnel Co mmittee remo ved fro m o ffice. The panel believes that in this instance, Mr. Annett was o nce again trying to avo id being held acco untable. Rather than accept any respo nsibility fo r the breakdo wn o f the pasto ral relatio nship, the minister blamed o thers fo r what went wro ng (Exhibit 33): To the Co ngregatio n and Official Bo ard o f St. Andrew's United Church and Co mo x-Nanaimo Presbytery: Fo r the sake o f my perso nal integrity, befo re Go d and the co mmunity, it is necessary fo r me to resign as minister o f St. Andrew's United Church. Particular actio ns o f a highly unethical nature by the Ministry and Perso nnel Co mmittee o f the church, and the co ndo ning o f these actio ns by the Official Bo ard, makes me unable to perfo rm my duties in asso ciatio n with these bo dies and retain my pro fessio nal and spiritual integrity.... (Rev. Kevin Annett) The minister had accused the members o f the Ministry and Perso nnel Co mmittee o f threatening his po sitio n at the church and that they (o r the Presbytery) had widely circulated no tes kept at a December meeting o f the co mmittee. The evidence we have accepted is that no such threats were given to the minister and that while no tes were maintained by o ne o f the co mmittee members, they were no t circulated, save to the Co nference Minister, Rev. Bill Ho wie, and were no t made public until when, during the co urse o f the hearing and at the minister's request, co unsel fo r the Presbytery secured them fro m the co mmittee, pro duced them and they were marked as an exhibit. We prefer the co nsistent evidence o f Revs. Stiven, Sto kes, Spencer, Anderso n and the members o f the Ministry and Perso nnel Co mmittee o n this po int and do no t accept the evidence o f Rev. Annett. At a January 19 9 5 meeting o f the Official Bo ard just prio r to his fo rmal resignatio n, Mr. Annett mo ved a mo tio n that the Ministry and Perso nnel Co mmittee be remo ved. The o fficial minutes o f the meeting reco rd that it was no t seco nded and the mo tio n was lo st. Further in his resignatio n letter, he says: To have simply replaced the M&P co mmittee wo uld have avo ided bo th o f these fundamental pro blems. But in the eventual decisio n o f the Bo ard and Presbytery perso nnel, suppo rting the M&P members to o k precedence o ver ethics and suppo rt fo r the minister, and o f any perso n sharing co nfidences with the M&P bo dy. In sho rt, lo yalty to particular individuals rather than just o r ethically pro per actio n was ultimately mo re impo rtant to , and go verned, the leading church bo dies o f St. Andrew's including Presbytery. This summary reveals that St. Andrew's United Church do es no t o perate o n a co nsistently ethical o r principled basis at its o fficial levels, but rather acco rding to particular lo yalties and arbitrary behavio ur. No minister sho uld be expected to to lerate such a situatio n, no r give credence to such damaging behavio ur by asso ciating himself with it. Ethically, therefo re, I have no cho ice but to resign, particularly in light o f the co ntinued refusal o f (the) Bo ard o r Presbytery to co rrect this wro ng. (Rev. Kevin Annett) (underlining emphasis is that o f the o riginal autho r)
PDFmyURL.com

The minister subsequently o ffered o ther and different reaso ns fo r his resignatio n fro m St. Andrew's which differ fro m this po sitio n taken in January 19 9 5. Fro m the evidence placed befo re us, it is clear that he attempted to avo id acco untability in his po sitio n at St. Andrew's, as he did in the face o f the earnest attempts by Co mo x-Nanaimo Presbytery to ho ld him acco untable and as he also did at the Fred Victo r Missio n. Despite allegatio ns made by Mr. Annett, we fo und that the peo ple o f St. Andrew's have lo ng had a traditio n o f attempting to live their understanding o f the so cial go spel, o f reaching o ut to the po o r and disadvantaged in their co mmunity and o f sincerely attempting to be inclusive o f First Natio ns members. No evidence tendered to us reco rded any attempts o n the part o f the pasto ral charge, Presbytery o r the Co nference church to "co ver-up" facts surro unding the perio d o f the o peratio n o f the federal residential scho o ls o n Vanco uver Island. Evidence which was submitted indicated that the RCMPo lice were fo llo wing up every allegatio n o f wro ng-do ing with the full co o peratio n o f church o fficials. Statements fro m po lice indicated that no murders had been unco vered and that this info rmatio n has been repo rted publicly. On March 3, 19 9 7, as the hearings in this matter were abo ut to resume after an adjo urnment o f o ne mo nth, Mr. Annett did no t wait fo r o ur Chair to o pen pro ceedings befo re dro pping co pies o f what is termed a Public Statement in which he expresses his reaso n fo r leaving these hearings. At this stage in the hearing, we were abo ut to rule o n a very serio us allegatio n by the minister co ncerning the ro le played by the judicial o fficer and a mo tio n by Mr. Annett that he be remo ved. We were abo ut to mo ve to Mr. Annett's cro ss-examinatio n by co unsel fo r the Presbytery. In this submissio n, he indicates that he has no respect fo r the wo rk o f the panel and, in sho rt, wo uld no t submit to any acco untability fo r his actio ns. At this po int he seeks no w to blame the judicial o fficer and this panel fo r his situatio n. This wo uld seem to be a pattern. I wish to share with all o f yo u the reaso ns why I am unable to co ntinue co ndo ning o r participating in the de-listing (sic) hearing thro ugh which I, mistakenly, ho ped that justice fo r my family, fo r myself and o thers co uld be gained. I do so by ackno wledging the individual sincerity o f panel members who are, unfo rtunately, caught up in a regime o f mo ral madness that is co ntinuing the abuse and un-truthfulness that I and o thers have experienced at the hands o f an element o f the leadership o f the United Church in B.C.... Acco rdingly I co nsider the entire hearing to date to have been irredeemably flawed, biased and impro per. The co nsistently partisan nature o f the panel's co mments and rulings, which we have do cumented as having been prejudicially in favo ur o f Presbytery in o ver 8 0 % o f o ccasio ns, is a co ncrete example o f the biased impro priety o f which Mr. Jessi-man's invo lvement in the hearing is the mo st blatant embo diment. Since I believe and have experienced that the present hearing is co nsistently impro per, biased, and flawed in the extreme, I have no reco urse but to appeal its pro cedure and co nduct to a civil co urt, and call fo r a judicial review o f its pro ceedings. Until such a review is made by an impartial, external bo dy, I co nsider the de-listing (sic) hearing to be illegitimate, and I feel perso nally abso lved fro m participating in it.... (Rev. Kevin Annett) FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THE PEACE AND WELFARE OF THE CHURCH (Sectio n 36 3 (ii))
PDFmyURL.com

It has been argued fo r Mr. Annett that he demo nstrated skill and dedicatio n in his ministry at St. Andrew's and specific reference has been made to his vigo ur in getting to kno w his new co ngregatio n, his o penness to trying new ideas in wo rship, his co ncern fo r so cial issues, etc. We have kept such matters in mind as we co nsidered two critical questio ns: What was the o verall health o f the co ngregatio n at the time o f his resignatio n? and, Where did respo nsibility fo r that lie? Very extensive evidence was o ffered us o n the first, and it is clear that by the end o f 19 9 4, i.e. ro ughly two and o ne half years after Mr. Annett's initial assignment to them, the St. Andrew's pasto ral charge was in crisis. Almo st witho ut exceptio n, the relevant testimo ny and exhibits have spo ken o f co nfusio n, demo ral-izatio n, divisio n, lack o f leadership and o rganizatio nal disarray. Certain perso nal strengths were cited o n Mr. Annett's behalf, e.g. co nflict reso lutio n skills, empathy fo r o thers, skills in bridgebuilding, his ability to relate to and reco ncile diverse gro ups. Several exhibits filed are illustrative o f these. While they were submitted by perso ns who generally were no t United Church members o f the pasto ral charge o r regular St. Andrew's wo rshippers, these attributes may well have been apparent to so me during 19 9 2 - 19 9 3 when he was under his initial appo intment. We co nclude ho wever, that so o n after accepting the call in 19 9 3, Mr. Annett became increasingly alienated fro m a large number o f members o f his pasto ral charge, including many who had been mo st instrumental in his o riginal co ming to St. Andrew's and who had remained suppo rters during his first year. It is evident to us that the changed relatio nship aro se primarily fro m changes in ho w Mr. Annett co nducted his ministry, and in particular, his gro wing reliance o n his po sitio n as minister to advance a visio n o f ministry, and a timeline, abo ut which many members remained at best unco nvinced. Despite what Mr. Annett has said to us abo ut his co mmitment to the co llegial pro cess, the bulk o f the evidence describes a ministry which had beco me increasingly preo ccupied with agendas to which o nly the minister, a mino rity o f the pasto ral charge and so me adherents and interested parties in the co mmunity co uld cheerfully subscribe. The visio n o f what St. Andrew's ministry sho uld be became very much his o wn and almo st exclusively under his direct co ntro l. It is evident that Mr. Annett increasingly gathered the reins into his o wn hands, o perating thro ugh tho se who were amenable to his directio n and substantially igno ring the duly elected o fficers o f the charge. In sum, we find that fro m ro ughly the end o f his first year until the time o f his resignatio n fro m St. Andrew's, Mr. Annett's ministry became increasingly auto cratic, manipulative and co ercive. No t surprisingly, this alienated the duly co nstituted leadership and a substantial po rtio n o f the sustaining co ngregatio n - precisely tho se who se suppo rt was needed if the so cial o utreach initiatives envisaged by Mr. Annett were to pro ve successful o ver the lo ng term. Mo re serio usly, Mr. Annett sho uld have reco gnized the po tential damage to the pasto ral charge o f the appro ach he had ado pted. If he was indeed aware o f the danger, he appears to have been dismissive o f it. Similarly, it is o ur co nclusio n, bo th fro m the do cumentary evidence and fro m his o wn testimo ny, that Mr. Annett remains unwilling to co ncede in any fo rthright way that he and his ministerial style are even a part, let alo ne what are primarily respo nsible fo r the dysfunctio n so apparent by the end o f his time at St. Andrew's. As we have already no ted, we fo und this reluctance to accept respo nsibility and a related readi-ness to blame o thers to co nstitute a recurring pattern.
PDFmyURL.com

Given these and o ther areas o f weakness, it is clear to us that by the time o f Mr. Annett's resignatio n in January 19 9 5, the situatio n at St. Andrew's had deterio rated to the po int where the pro blems were well beyo nd his ability to reso lve, and we believe his decisio n to resign to be an implicit ackno wledgement o f this. As no ted earlier, this sectio n o f the Manual also bears o n Mr. Annett's relatio ns with the wider United Church o f Canada, the deno minatio n in which is he presently seeking to maintain his o rdained status. As no ted earlier, o n a number o f o ccasio ns and fo r a co nsiderable number o f mo nths, including during the co urse o f this hearing itself, Mr. Annett o ffered denigrato ry public co mments abo ut the United Church, its o fficers, its co urts and its pro cedures, his statements appearing in bo th print and bro adcast media. In additio n to his co nduct befo re us, a number o f such items fro m the print media were submitted to us as do cumentary evidence o f his co nduct and views. We accept that United Church ministers and members have a right to make public co mments abo ut the church. The United Church has a histo ry o f fo rthright self-criticism co ncerning theo lo gical, do ctrinal and o ther po sitio ns ado pted by the General Co uncil and o ther church bo dies. Prime examples are two which were submitted to us (Exhibits 9 0 and 16 4) co ncerning fo rmal apo lo gies which have been made to abo riginal Canadians by the General Co uncil in 19 8 6 and by the Bo ard o f St. Andrew's United Church in 19 9 7. Nevertheless, a number o f exhibits entered befo re us, mainly in Mr. Annett's o wn wo rds, o r at least no t subsequently disavo wed by him, appear clearly calculated to cause harm to the United Church and to bring it into disrepute. We co nclude that these are co ntrary to the maintenance o f its peace and welfare. To illustrate: Fro m a press release dated December 13, 19 9 5: The United Church has taken fo o d fro m hungry kids and has tho ught no thing wro ng abo ut it. They may even have co vered up murders. They've lo st their so ul as a church, and are serving themselves. Jesus wo uld be sick if he co uld see all this. Maybe my fast will help change this evil in the church. (Rev. Kevin Annett) Fro m a press release dated May 24, 19 9 5: "There are a lo t o f skeleto ns in the United Church clo set, quite literally," says Kevin. "At least three children were killed in the Alberni and Aho usat scho o ls, and pro bably mo re. We'd like to kno w where their bo dies are, and ho w the church go t away with murder fo r decades." (Rev. Kevin Annett) Fro m an article under Mr. Annett's name in the Anvil, dated Summer 19 9 6 : My clo sest definitio n o f evil is that which causes blind destructio n; by this measure the United Church o f Canada is an evil institutio n. In just o ver o ne year, this deno minatio n has ro bbed me o f my jo b, co mmunity career, and family - fo r no apparent reaso n....
PDFmyURL.com

There is so mething very evil and sick at wo rk within the United Church. Native peo ple have been telling me this fo r years, especially tho se who witnessed rapes, beatings and murders in the United Church-run residential scho o ls o n the west co ast. No w I kno w the pain o f o ur First Natio ns victims. I to o am abused witho ut cause; I to o have seen my children taken fro m me. My tears have all but ended, leaving a deep reso lve and strength in me - to co nfro nt the evil and bring justice o ut o f this terrible wro ng. I will no t sto p until tho se who have do ne this damage to my family and I, and to so many silent peo ple, are made to make full restitutio n to me, and to o thers. (Rev. Kevin Annett) In summary, after reviewing the relevant evidence, we are satisfied that the principal respo nsibility fo r the critical state o f affairs at St. Andrew's United in late 19 9 4 was that o f Mr. Annett. In additio n, we believe that his use o f the media was substantially calculated to pro mo te his o wn po sitio n, to harm the United Church and to bring it into disrepute. We are satisfied that there is ample evidence to co nclude that Mr. Annett failed to maintain the peace and welfare o f the church as pro vided in sectio n 36 3 (ii), bo th in terms o f its applicatio n to the pasto ral charge o f St. Andrew's United Church, Po rt Alberni, and to the United Church o f Canada itself. REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE THE AUTHORITY OF PRESBYTERY (Sectio n 36 3 (iii)) In his submissio n o n behalf o f the Presbytery, Mr. Benso n has argued that Mr. Annett is unfit fo r ministry in the United Church o f Canada, asserting that he refused to accept any supervisio n o r scrutiny o f his ministry, and that he has sho wn co ntempt fo r the pro cesses o f the church co urts. In additio n to addressing the case presented by the Presbytery, Mr. Annett and his advo cates have also argued: (1) that the Presbytery has been mo tivated by co nsideratio ns which had little to do with his "fitness" as a minister, and (2) that its pro cedures aro und and subsequent to his departure fro m St. Andrew's were flawed. Presbytery perio dically o bjected to the seco nd o f these, taking the po sitio n that that particular matter had been dealt with by the earlier Appeal Fo rmal Hearing Panel which rendered its decisio n in January 19 9 6 . The Co nference by that decisio n has already upheld the validity o f the January 19 9 5 decisio ns o f the Co mo x-Nanaimo Presbytery and dismissed Mr. Annett's appeal and criticism. Ho wever, having been assured by Mr. Annett and his advo cates o f the relevance o f tho se pro ceedings to the matters befo re us, we permitted so me evidence and argument o n this po int. No thing we have heard leads us to questio n the pro priety o r co rrectness o f the decisio n o f the Appeal Panel. The Presbytery's subsequent actio n to suspend Mr. Annett and its attempts in 19 9 6 to have him co mply with the requirement fo r a medical examinatio n o r assessment wo uld no t co nstitute in o ur judgment reaso nable gro unds fo r his disregarding its autho rity under sectio n 36 3. On his first argument, it was suggested to us that in its dealings with Mr. Annett, the Presbytery was mo tivated by animus o ver his emphasis o n so cial and native ministry, and mo re specifically his criticism o f the church's reco rd in tho se two arenas. It has also been suggested to us that as a result o f this animo sity, the pasto ral charge was influenced by o fficials o f the church against Mr. Annett. We find that the evidence placed befo re us do es no t suppo rt these arguments in any way and we are unco nvinced that the Presbytery acted fro m any mo tive o ther than a co ncern abo ut Mr. Annett's effectiveness as minister to St.
PDFmyURL.com

unco nvinced that the Presbytery acted fro m any mo tive o ther than a co ncern abo ut Mr. Annett's effectiveness as minister to St. Andrew's United Church, Po rt Alberni. Indeed, we find fro m the evidence given to us by Revs. Stiven and Sto kes that the Presbytery was and still is genuinely co ncerned abo ut Mr. Annett's state o f health. After co nsidering what has been argued befo re us o n these po ints, we find that: 1. the requirements impo sed by the Presbytery under sectio n 36 3 (d) (ii) and (iii) were clear, 2. these requirements were pro per; 3. the requirements were co mmunicated to the minister clearly and unequivo cally; 4. particularly during the perio d o f the wo rk o f the Co mmissio n, the Presbytery made appro priate pro visio n fo r co nsultatio n and interactio n with the minister and was prepared to co nsider his suggestio ns as to ho w the requirements might be made mo re suitable fo r him; and 5. Mr. Annett co nsistently attempted to circumvent these requirements thro ugh passive resistance (delay, failure to respo nd, failure to attend, etc.); thro ugh semantic disto rtio n (as in changing the Presbytery's "assessment" to "mento ring"), and thro ugh attempts to shift the fo cus away fro m the difficulties in his o wn ministry and o nto unfo unded charges o f racism, murders, land grabs, etc. and against o ther individuals who have played any ro le in the unfo rtunate events o f January 19 9 5 and what has fo llo wed, by blaming the Presbytery and the United Church o f Canada.

Finally, we no te that in a letter o f December 18 , 19 9 5, the minister was warned by the Presbytery that failure to co mply with its lawful directio ns wo uld raise the po ssibility o f his placement o n the Disco ntinued Service List (Exhibit 25). We do no t accept that there were gro unds justifying Mr. Annett's refusal to co mply with the directio ns o f his Presbytery and, o n the evidence presented it is o ur co nclusio n that Mr. Annett did indeed clearly refuse to reco gnize the autho rity o f his Presbytery as pro vided in sectio n 36 3 (iii). Fo r the reaso ns we have set o ut, and based o n the o verwhelming evidence befo re us, we have co ncluded that this is an appro priate case to require the remo val o f the name o f the minister fro m the ro lls o f his Presbytery and the Co nference and the placement o f his name o n the Disco ntinued Service List. The Presbytery did no t request an o rder fo r its co sts o f this lengthy hearing no r did it ask fo r any o ther remedies under sectio n 0 75; thus, no ne will be o rdered. We must at this po int express o ur appreciatio n to the judicial o fficer, to co unsel, to the advo cates, to the witnesses and tho se o thers who have co ntributed in the search fo r truth in this case, fo r their assistance has been immeasurable. ORDER Acco rdingly, we o rder that the name o f Kevin Daniel Annett o f Vanco uver, British Co lumbia, shall be remo ved fro m the ro lls o f Co mo x-Nanaimo Presbytery and British Co lumbia Co nference fo rthwith and placed o n the Disco ntinued Service List and he
PDFmyURL.com

shall hereafter no t be reco gnized as a minister o f the United Church o f Canada, no r shall he be permitted to perfo rm the functio ns o f its o rdained o r diaco nal ministry. DATED at Vanco uver, B.C. May 14, 19 9 7 Members o f the Hearing Panel ANNEX TO DECISION THE APPLICATION On the 22nd day o f hearing at the clo se o f the day, Rev. Gunn made an applicatio n to have the Judicial Officer remo ved alleging that he had exhibited bias against the interests o f his client. As the hearing was abo ut to adjo urn fo r o ne mo nth due to the anticipated absence o f o ne o f the panel members, we asked Mr. Gunn to put his applicatio n in writing and later pro vided a schedule whereby the parties might exchange submissio ns o n the issue during the adjo urnment. We indicated that we wo uld thereafter co nsider the submissio ns and be prepared to make a ruling when the hearing re-sumed o n March 3rd. The Judicial Officer also o ffered to stand do wn and to remo ve himself fro m the hearing alto gether rather than cause difficulty fo r any o f the parties. He further indicated that he wo uld withdraw if there was, in o ur judgment, any apprehensio n o f bias in the way he has co nducted himself either during this pro tracted hearing o r prio r to the co mmencement o f the hearing itself. We declined this pro po sal altho ugh he did so effectively fo llo wing adjo urnment o n January 27th until after we had made o ur ruling and when he was invited to return. Immediately the hearing resumed o n March 3rd, as has been mentio ned in o ur Decisio n, the minister and his advo cate delivered to us a prepared press release and withdrew fro m the pro ceedings, even befo re the panel had anno unced its ruling. After their abrupt departure, we made o ur ruling o n this issue and three o ther matters raised by Mr. Gunn and the transcript will reco rd the decisio n o f tho se o ther interim issues. As to the matter o f alleged bias o n the part o f the Judicial Officer, o ur Chair said this at that time: "Thirdly, as to the applicatio n made by Reverend Gunn that the judicial o fficer stand do wn by virtue o f bias, I will say that the panel has taken the precautio nary step o f securing the o pinio n o f independent legal co unsel o n the po sitio n taken by the parties o n this matter. We are satisfied that no bias and no reaso nable apprehensio n o f bias exists and no case fo r natural justice co ncerns has been made in the argument which has been filed o n behalf o f the minister in this instance. We will pro vide o ur written reaso ns fo r this decisio n at the co nclusio n o f the hearing befo re us and they will be made available as so o n as po ssible at that time. In the result, we do no t accept Dr. Jessiman's invitatio n that he stand do wn and we reject the applicatio n made by the Reverend Gunn." These are tho se written reaso ns. THE REASONS
PDFmyURL.com

Rev. Gunn's applicatio n to have the judicial o fficer remo ved is based o n alleged bias o r apprehensio n o f bias against his client, the minister. It is o ppo sed by co unsel fo r the Presbytery. We requested the applicatio n be put in writing o utlining the gro unds and pro vided a timetable fo r the party o ppo site to respo nd. A further o ppo rtunity was pro vided fo r Mr. Gunn to reply. Tho se directio ns are co ntained in Exhibits 139 and 140 . Mr. Gunn's submissio n o f February 19 th has been marked as Exhibit 137 and Mr. Benso n's respo nse o f February 26 th is Exhibit 138 . Mr. Gunn cho se no t to file a reply. We also had as Exhibit 136 a written o utline o f facts setting o ut his invo lvement in the entire matter pro vided by the judicial o fficer to all parties dated February 14th. Witho ut the assistance o f the judicial o fficer fo r o bvio us reaso ns, we so ught legal advice fro m co mpetent, independent co unsel in Vanco uver experienced in such matters but unco nnected with this hearing o r with these parties o r with the United Church o f Canada. That independent co unsel has also reviewed with us the current legal autho rities applicable to this applicatio n. In fo llo wing that advice, we dismiss the applicatio n made o n behalf o f the minister. Bias and the Ro le o f the Judicial Officer At the o utset, it needs to be po inted o ut that the allegatio n o f bias is no t made against o ne o f the panel members, but their legal co unsel. He is no t the presiding o fficial in these pro ceedings no r is he respo nsible fo r making o r co ntributing to the making o f the decisio n o n the applicatio n made by the Presbytery to the Co nference to place the name o f the minister o n the Disco ntinued Service List. His ro le has been defined fro m the o utset to all parties and, in o ur view, he has strictly fo llo wed that ro le thro ugho ut these pro ceedings. We are co mpletely satisfied o n the evidence that his ro le and his actio ns fro m the o utset o f the filing o f the applicatio n by the Presbytery have been to pro vide assistance to the panel o n pro cedural, evidentiary and o ther legal matters that may arise in the pro ceedings. He has also pro vided such assistance to the parties prio r to and during the co urse o f the hearing itself altho ugh it is o bvio us fro m what we have seen and what has been required that the assistance has primarily been to the minister and his advo cates. Fro m o ur o wn o bservatio ns, Dr. Jessiman has been genero us in the time, skill and expertise he has allo cated to Mr. Annett and his advo cates bo th in their preparatio n and their submissio ns befo re this panel. The judicial o fficer has the ability to ask questio ns o f witnesses, as have the members o f this panel. That right has been exercised sparingly in these pro ceedings and, it appears to us, has been used in the main in circumstances where clarificatio n o f a witness's evidence has been required to assist us in understanding what has transpired. He has pro vided us with advice o n legal issues which have arisen during the co urse o f the hearing, particularly where there has been a dispute between the parties as under the terms by which hearing panels o f this nature are to o perate within the United Church under sectio n 0 75 o f the Manual: "The pro ceedings shall be like tho se o f a public co urt o f law, and accepted rules o f evidence applicable in the pro vince o r territo ry in which the fo rmal hearing is being held shall be used." What the judicial o fficer do es no t do is pro vide us with an o pinio n regarding the appro priateness o f the actio n the Presbytery
PDFmyURL.com

has reco mmended we decide co ncerning Mr. Annett's ministerial status no r do es he pro vide us with his o pinio n o n this ruling o r o ther rulings we are required to make fro m time to time. On pro cedural matters, he do es o utline fo r us the current law and civil pro cedure in such matters in o rder that we might make an appro priate and info rmed decisio n. In this case, in view o f the po sitio n taken o n the minister's behalf by his advo cate, the judicial o fficer has o pted no t to make any submissio n whatever at the co nclusio n o f the hearing as to the final dispo sitio n o f this case altho ugh he is no rmally free to do so . On the facts o f this case, the judicial o fficer has no t sho wn bias against the interests o f the minister invo lved in this applicatio n no r has there been bias exhibited by him to us in any part o f this hearing, either publicly o r privately. If any favo ur has been sho wn, in o ur view it has predo minately been in suppo rt o f the minister's po sitio n; his repeated reminder o f the o nus o f pro o f resting with the Presbytery and the regular assistance pro vided to the minister in ensuring the admissio n o f evidence are examples o f this. We understand and accept the reaso ns fo r this. Reaso nable Apprehensio n o f Bias As to reaso nable apprehensio n o f bias o n his part, we have co me to the same co nclusio n o n two gro unds. Firstly, we are satisfied o n all o f the evidence that it is no t reaso nable to co nclude that Dr.. Jessiman has acted in the past fo r o ne o f the parties to this dispute. He has made it clear fro m the time o f his initial invo lvement in the minister's dispute with his Presbytery that he was co unsel fo r the British Co lumbia Co nference and co uld no t, by virtue o f the Co nference's superviso ry ro le with respect to the Presbytery and po ssible appeal o f its decisio n, act fo r the Co mo x-Nanaimo Presbytery. There is no do ubt that the Co nference, thro ugh its o fficers, the Executive Secretary, Dr. Tho rpe, and its Co nference Perso nnel Minister, Rev. Anderso n, and thro ugh its co unsel, Dr. Jessiman, were in the initial stages o f February and March 19 9 5 attempting to assist the two parties, Mr. Annett and the Presbytery, in reso lving their dispute. Largely thro ugh Mr. Anderso n's interventio n altho ugh no t so lely, they were initially successful in that attempt and the parties directly underto o k so me fo rm o f discussio ns o r nego tiatio n at least until June 19 9 5. Once ho wever it became clear in March that an appeal o f the Presbytery decisio n wo uld be made to the Co nference, that direct assistance ceased. We have reviewed evidence referred to by Mr. Gunn which he argues might reaso nably lead to ano ther co nclusio n. We find o n a review o f co unsel's co rrespo ndence and o ther actio ns befo re us that this is no t a reaso nable po sitio n to ado pt. The fact that the minister and tho se he cho se to represent him during the past two years co ntinued to rely o n Dr. Jessiman fo r advice and co unsel is stro ng evidence that he was no t perceived as biased by the minister until near the very clo se o f this hearing. A reaso nable o bserver to this dispute wo uld no t, in o ur view, fo rm a reaso nable apprehensio n o f bias o n the part o f Dr. Jessiman in favo ur o f o ne party o r ano ther. In fact, it has been alleged by the Presbytery with so me justificatio n that perhaps if a case fo r reaso nable apprehensio n o f bias exists, such apprehensio n might mo re reaso nably be fo und by the Presbytery in view o f Dr. Jessiman's assistance, that o f Dr. Tho rpe and o thers o n behalf o f the Co nference, to Mr. Annett, his lawyers and advo cates, fro m the time he filed his appeal in March 19 9 5. Bo th the Presbytery and the minister have had their o wn representatives thro ugho ut this sad and unfo rtunate two year jo urney; it appears clear to us and sho uld to any reaso nable o bserver that whenever Dr. Jessiman became invo lved in the dispute it was at the request and o n behalf so lely o f the Co nference Church whether as Co nference Co unsel o r as Judicial Officer in this hearing o r in the earlier 19 9 5 appeal.
PDFmyURL.com

The Presbytery also has made it clear that Dr. Jessiman was never engaged by that co urt to act fo r it in these o r any hearings no r in any discussio ns o r apparent nego tiatio ns which preceded them. Seco ndly, it was argued that Mr. Annett has waived any perceived o r apparent prejudice resulting fro m the appo intment o f Dr. Jessiman as judicial o fficer in April 19 9 6 . We have reviewed the autho rities with respect to this argument and feel that principle is applicable. The minister's co nduct subsequent to the perio d o f time he has alleged Dr. Jessiman acted fo r the Presbytery (February/ March 19 9 5) suggests that there is no actual apprehensio n o f bias as the same man participated in the appeal hearings o f December 19 9 5 and January 19 9 6 witho ut co mplaint by Annett. Further, Dr. Jessiman was appo inted as judicial o fficer fo r the present hearing o n April 24, 19 9 6 and Mr. Annett has no t o bjected to his invo lvement until the end o f January 19 9 7, in the final days o f the hearing, so me nine mo nths after his initial appo intment and fo llo wing six mo nths o f hearing. Prio r to and during the hearing, Mr. Annett and bo th o f his advo cates frequently requested info rmatio n o r assistance fro m the judicial o fficer and any such requests were handled witho ut co mplaint o f bias. In sho rt, to the extent that the facts o f this case suggest a basis fo r a co mplaint o f bias, Mr. Annett's co nduct amo unts to a waiver o r, alternatively, evidence which wo uld sufficiently rebut any claim o f a reaso nable apprehensio n o f bias. The applicatio n is dismissed. RECOMMENDATIONS In acco rd with the terms o f appo intment o f members o f this Fo rmal Hearing Panel, we were invited to make any reco mmendatio ns we felt might be appro priate to be co nsidered by the co urts o f the church. After hearing the parties fo r so me time reco unt steps taken by them and o ther co mmittees and co urts o f the church in the pro cess leading to this hearing and with the o bvio us benefit o f hindsight no t available to these participants, we have o pted to make several reco mmendatio ns which sho uld be co nsidered by the appro priate co urts. A. QUESTIONS AT COVENANTING SERVICES In the service o f o rdinatio n/co mmissio ning members o f the o rder o f ministry are required to affirm their willingness to exercise their ministry "subject to the o versight and discipline o f the United Church o f Canada." (Basis 11.3 o f the Manual) "In matters o f discipline a member o f the o rder o f ministry shall be under the o versight and discipline o f Presbytery." (Sectio n 0 11(b) o f the Manual). In o rder to establish a new ministry relatio nship between Presbytery, an individual and a pasto ral charge, Presbytery pro vides an Act o f Co venant. (Basis 6 .4.8 o f the Manual) Traditio nally, the chair o f Presbytery in the act o f co venant addresses prescribed questio ns (Sectio n 0 6 1 o f the Manual) to the minister, the pasto ral charge and the members o f Presbytery. These questio ns remind all tho se present o f the Presbytery's respo nsibility fo r o versight and discipline and serve as an undertaking by each minister to accept that o versight and discipline in each new co venanting relatio nship. We fo und that in September 19 9 2 Co mo x-Nanaimo Presbytery did no t use the questio ns no rmally addressed in this act o f co venant. The questio ns used, which appear to have been written particularly fo r
PDFmyURL.com

this o ccasio n, make no reference to : (i) Presbytery's respo nsibility fo r o versight and discipline, o r (ii) the fact that the minister is required to accept the discipline o f Presbytery. Orders o f service fo r acts o f co venanting which include the prescribed questio ns have been pro vided fo r the use o f the Church in the Service Bo o k fo r Use in Church Co urts (UCPH 19 9 3) IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT British Co lumbia Co nference direct Presbyteries to fo llo w the Manual requirements fo r acts o f co venant and co mmend fo r their use the o rders o f service which are laid o ut in the appro priate Service Bo o k fo r Use in Church Co urts. B. NOTES AT MEETINGS OF PASTORAL CHARGE M & P COMMITTEES Acco rding to the Handbo o k fo r Ministry and Perso nnel Co mmittees (MP&E 439 ): Co nfidentiality is vital to the wo rk o f the Co mmittee. Standards fo r co nfidentiality need to be nego tiated and agreed upo n by the Co mmittee and staff members. It is impo rtant to be clear abo ut what can and canno t be shared beyo nd the Co mmittee. Fo r instance, any matter which is bro ught to the Co mmittee in co nfidence by a staff perso n o r a member o f the co ngregatio n shall be kept in co nfidence until the individual agrees to a wider sharing o f the info rmatio n. In a letter written o n January 20 , 19 9 7, Wendy Barker, a member o f St. Andrew's United, Po rt Alberni, wro te (Exhibit 156 ): The MPE Co mmittee (sic) did no t keep minutes o f meetings. Perio dically members wo uld write small no tes fo r their o wn use. Fo r the meeting o f December 9 , 19 9 4, I cho se to take mo re detailed no tes as we had so me tro ubling issues to discuss. I circulated these no tes o nly to the MPE Co mmittee members and to Rev. Bill Ho wie. We were o f the understanding that Rev. Ho wie was a reso urce to Ministry and Perso nnel Co mmittees and in essence was an ex o fficio member. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT British Co lumbia Co nference thro ugh its Divisio n o f Ministry, Perso nnel and Educatio n find and implement ways o f educating members o f presbyteries co ncerning the ro le o f Ministry and Perso nnel Co mmittees in pasto ral charges; and also , instruct pasto ral charges co ncerning the co nfidentiality o f no tes o r minutes maintained by their Ministry and Perso nnel Co mmittees. C. PRESBYTERY OVERSIGHT OF MINISTRY PERSONNEL Presbytery is the primary co urt o f the church respo nsible fo r o versight o f ministry perso nnel (Sectio n 36 3 o f the Manual). On so me o ccasio ns, it is necessary to invo ke the requirements o f sectio n 36 3 and (d) when circumstances as pro vided in that sectio n warrant. Having regard to the principles set o ut in sectio n 0 6 5, presbyteries sho uld attempt to carry o ut their respo nsibilities o f o versight and discipline with understanding and co mpassio n and, where po ssible, with the co o peratio n o f the minister invo lved. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT British Co lumbia Co nference advise presbyteries that when under sectio n 36 3 (d), the Presbytery deems that it "requires a member o f the o rder o f ministry to undergo a medical, psychiatric, and/o r psycho lo gical examinatio n by a qualified pro fessio nal o r pro fessio nals accep-table to the Presbytery...." every reaso nable effo rt sho uld be made to secure
PDFmyURL.com

the agreement o f the minister to the cho ice o f examiner and any written material which will be pro vided to the examiner fo r purpo ses o f the examinatio n. D. ANNUAL REVIEW OF MINISTRY The po lity o f the United Church o f Canada (Manual, sectio n 244) requires that Ministry and Perso nnel Co mmittees at the pasto ral charge level undertake an annual review and evaluatio n o f all staff o f the pasto ral charge; this includes the minister called o r appo inted to the charge. This practice is reinfo rced by the current editio n o f the handbo o k issued by the Divisio n o f Ministry, Perso nnel and Educatio n o f the General Co uncil. In the particular instance o f this case, it wo uld have been exceedingly helpful if a review had been undertaken o n an annual basis. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT British Co lumbia Co nference direct Presbyteries to draw this requirement to the attentio n o f pasto ral charges within their bo unds, urging stro ngly that an annual review and evaluatio n co ncerning the effectiveness o f all staff be undertaken. E. REVIEW BY PRESBYTERY PRIOR TO APPOINTMENT OR CALL Fro m time to time, Presbyteries will make a term appo intment o f ministry perso nnel, subject to annual review. In mo st cases, the annual review is stipulated fo r go o d and lo gical reaso ns, designed to benefit bo th the pasto ral charge and the minister. In this case, fo llo wing such a reviewable appo intment, the Presbytery appeared to pro ceed to issue a call o ne year later witho ut participating in a review, witho ut inquiring whether a review was successfully co mpleted o r pro viding that the call wo uld no t be sustained until a review had been successfully co mpleted. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT British Co lumbia Co nference instruct its Settlement Co mmittee to enquire whether in the case o f a term appo intment, fo llo wed by a call to the same perso n, the call o r reappo intment was subject to review and, if so , whether the review has taken place, prio r to autho rizing the issuance o f the call o r renewing the appo intment. Further, that Presbyteries be reminded that when an appo intment o r call is subject to review, it ensure such review has taken place prio r to dealing with the call o r reappo intment pro po sed. - End -

Contact Us | Find a Church | Mail List Signup Copyright The British Columbia Conference of The United Church of Canada

PDFmyURL.com