Ed: As this shows, the Church of England had procedures in place which can deal effectively with bullying when it occurs. Given the constant allegations of bullying being made on the internet and elsewhere against Revd Dr Richard Turnbull, the Principal of Wycliffe Hall theological college, is it not time someone who believes they can justify these claims made a formal complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure?
The Vicar at the centre of allegations of bullying and indimidation is to be sacked by the Church of England, according to a ruling today.
A rare church tribunal was "unanimous" that there had been a breakdown of pastoral relations after Rev Tom Ambrose, 60, Vicar of St Mary and St Michael in Trumpington, was accused of being a "bully and a liar" and of spitting at one of his church wardens.
Although the hearing took place last September, the tribunal's unanimous findings were only published today and the full 37-page judgement will not be released until the appeals process is exhausted.
In last year's hearing, Dr Ambrose was accused of bringing his once “thriving parish” to breaking point. Church wardens resigned, volunteers left and Dr Ambrose ignored the parochial church council, the hearing was told. Read more
No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.
Wednesday, 23 January 2008
'Bully' vicar to be sacked
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Chelmsford)
Well, the details may be sub judice, but there are not just allegations against Turnbull, he and his college council, including Bishop Jones, have admitted that they wrongfully dismissed Elaine Storkey. That should be sufficient in itself as grounds for a formal complaint. Very likely one will be made in due course. I'm not sure whether Turnbull is subject to such procedures, but Jones surely is.
Perhaps more to the point Turnbull, Jones and their fellow council members should be made personally liable for the damages due to Storkey rather than being able to take this large sum from the general fund of the college, a charity to which people have given sacrificially and whose funds they seem to be abusing.
I'm not so sure this case is so clear cut, or that it proves the effectiveness and fairness of the Clergy Discipline Measure. My understanding of the latter is that it virtually has a assumption of guilt, and puts clergy in a very vulnerable position. Note the comments posted at the end of the Times article, and Ruth Gledhill's blog at:
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/01/ground-control.html#more
I certainly don't think that Richard Turnbull would get a fair hearing under this system! It would lead to still more trial by rumour, without a proper chance to defend himself.
Stephen Walton
Marbury, Cheshire
The sooner someone takes this action, then, the better, as far as I can see. What we have otherwise is just a constant drip of allegations which are damaging to the reputations of individuals without ever being tested. I am minded to quote the scriptural injunction, "Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses." Until such an accusation is brought, however, I do wish others would cease to accuse!
These comments are seriously unhelpful and ill-informed. The Trumpington case refers not to the Clergy Discipline Measure but to the Vacation of Benefices Measure, which deals with parish life, not theological colleges.
It ought to be noted that Dr Ambrose will appeal against the findings, which remain mysteriously unpublished, and until then it should not be assumed that the allegations made against him are true. There are many in his parish who strongly support his view of events.
It is most unlikely that any church legislation could be used in the case of a theological college, which employs its staff (and trustees) not as clergy but as academics, etc.
Alan Marsh
Ely
Alan, thank you for correcting some misunderstandings about the provisions under which the Ely case was brought. However, I am not sure that Richard Turnbull or the Bishop of Liverpool would be immune from action under the Clergy Discipline Measure.
The Clergy Discipline Measure covers, amongst other things, "conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders"
and applies in this regard to "a priest or deacon ... who, when the misconduct complained of was alleged to have been committed, held preferment in the diocese or ... was resident therein".
Holding “preferment” includes "an archbishopric, a bishopric, archdeaconry, dignity or office in a cathedral or collegiate church, and a benefice, and every curacy, lectureship, readership, chaplaincy, office or place which requires the discharge of any spiritual duty". "Resident" means "ordinarily resident".
I would be surprised if being the principal of a theological college was not construed as being "an office ... which requires the discharge of any spiritual duty". But that's why we have lawyers.
Really, though, my personal concern is to see an end to constant, but untested, allegations against individuals and institutions. As Old Bill might have said, "If you know a better way, bring it to the table."
(Chelmsford)
John, as you reported only two weeks ago, one of the main accusations against Turnbull and his fellows, that they wrongfully dismissed Elaine Storkey, has been formally brought to and accepted by a court of law, and has in fact been partially admitted by Turnbull and co (see the letters to the Church Times). So why do you persist in writing things like "Until such an accusation is brought" and "untested, allegations"? Storkey knew a better way and brought it to the table. Why don't you admit this?
The Clergy Discipline measure is an absolute nightmare. I know one Vicar under the process at the moment who is obviously not in the wrong, yet the process assumes guilt, the plaintiff can appeal against findings but it is virtually impossible for the Vicar to respond and they never know how far through the process they are, so they never know when or if the ordeal is over.
So re: Wycliff it would make the uncertainty 10 times worse, I think.
I do think that John is right however that it would be good to do something to draw a line under it. I think the court case or personal liability is nonsense. That is merely seeking revenge. I think we can say for whatever reason some things have been badly handled, as has been admitted. But Scripture says, as I mentioned in a letter to CEN, we are better off being wronged. Leave revenge to God. But there are Christian mediation services available for these sort of things.
sorry - Darren Moore, Tranmere
Peter, there is in the public domain an uncontested accusation - that Elaine Storkey was dismissed before the completion of disciplinary procedures. That is a matter between Elaine and her former employers, on which other people can legitimately comment, if they wish, provided they recognize that the facts in the public domain are limited and provide they limit their comments to what is known.
Then there are the personal accusations of bullying against Richard Turnbull. These are a matter of considerable internet speculation and have affected the way numerous people look on Richard as an individual. They have not, however, been the subject of enquiry or judgement.
It is this latter situation which needs to be addressed. One way would be for those who are in a position to do so to bring some sort of formal complaint in which evidence can be heard.
Another way might have been for the matter to have been heard by an employment tribunal or court. There have been numerous examples of employees winning damages for bullying by their employers. That, however, has not happened, and so the complaint must be brought in some other way if the matter is to be decided and settled.
What I would say is that anonymous blogging, even by someone claiming to be a current student, such as has occurred, is difficult to justify when it makes a personal accusation. Imagine if this was a parish, where a parishioner wrote to the local paper accusing the vicar of "bullying and heavy-handed management", especially if an inaccurate statement was made in the same letter, to wit, "he has unfairly and illegally dismissed" a staff member. ('He' did not.) What would we make of the paper that published that, let alone the accuser?
We need to take a good look at ourselves in this matter.
(Chelmsford)
John, I find it strange that you replied to my comment without publishing it. Perhaps it is because I suggested that Richard Turnbull was personally responsible for the unfair dismissal of Elaine Storkey. I accept that this is not what has been proved from the limited facts in the public domain, although I can hardly imagine that he played no part in this. However, Storkey has claimed, apparently at the employment tribunal, that Turnbull was personally responsible for the situation, as is made clear in this press release, from which you previously quoted another part. And the case continues, at which Storkey will apparently continue to formally put to a court the accusations.
So, to repeat what I wrote before, you really should stop writing things like "Until such an accusation is brought" and "untested allegations". Well, maybe there are further allegations being made which I am not aware of, and I accept that these should be tested. But the fundamental allegation, that "any breakdown of trust and confidence was due to the conduct of the Principal, the failure by the Hall to consider the concerns repeatedly presented by a large number of staff members, and the further failure to properly address her written grievance against the Principal", has been laid before a court of law for it to test.
Peter wrote, "John, I find it strange that you replied to my comment without publishing it. Perhaps it is because I suggested that Richard Turnbull was personally responsible for the unfair dismissal of Elaine Storkey."
No, it is because I hit the wrong button, and thought I had published it. It is up now.
However, to reiterate, my concern is with allegations of bullying being made against an individual. The issue of unfair dismissal has been heard, admitted and settled. The bullying accusation, such as that specifically made on a public blog recently, has not.
I think we both agree we would like to see this settled.
John, I agree that we would like to see this settled. But I am not sure what body could hear the allegations of bullying. An employment tribunal could do so, and might yet do so, but there would be little gain for Storkey to pursue this as wrongful dismissal has already been admitted - although I wonder if she might consider alleging sexual discrimination given what I think Turnbull's views are on this, unless theological colleges are covered by the church's legal exemption in this area. Perhaps other former employees could make formal accusations in this area - but of course only if there are real grounds for complaint, if there is substance behind the rumours. Obviously if the rumours have no substance they should stop.
Post a Comment