A new Title IV clergy disciplinary complaint has been filed against Dallas Bishop George Sumner for retaliating against Rich Daly, an Episcopal priest who opposed the sexual harassment of an adult woman connected to St James Episcopal Church of Texarkana.
Acting in collusion with rector David Halt, Sumner retaliated for Daly’s opposition to sexual harassment by forcing Daly out of the parish, then lied to parishioners, telling them that Daly had retired.
Subsequently, Halt has launched a smear campaign against Daly and his wife, which has caused extensive reputational damage not to Daly, but to St. James parish and its members.
A previous Title IV complaint against Sumner, which was filed with intake officer for bishop Barb Kempf, was sandbagged by Kempf, who did not interview the complainant, provided no pastoral response, named the wrong parties to the case, and made findings of fact not authorized under the Title IV church canons. In other words, the complaint was both an exercise in futility and a fuster cluck.
Copies of the new complaint were sent to chancellor Mary Kostel; Nick Knisely, the president of the disciplinary board for bishops, and Sean Rowe’s strategic advisor, Rebecca Wilson. The complaint expressly states that a disciplinary complaint will be filed against Kempf if she again sandbags the complaint or acts outside the authority granted to her by church canons, including by making unauthorized findings of fact at intake. We also note that it is highly inappropriate for Kempf to interview respondents, but not complainants, which suggests a clear bias against complainants.
To be clear, we view this case as the final straw for Kempf: She either cleans up her handling of Title IV complaints, or she needs to tender his resignation. And to be clear, in the previous case against Sumner, Kempf falsely stated that she had contacted Daly, but not heard back. The later did speak, but Kempf still brushed off the complaint. And to be clear: There is no fact-finding role at intake. Even if Kempf could not reach Daly, that was no excuse for dismissal. Instead, she should have contacted the complainant, to make sure she had her facts correct and to see if the complainant could put her in touch with Daly, then worked with the reference panel to send the matter for investigation. Again, Kempf has no investigatory powers under the canons.
Nor should the sexual harassment of an adult woman and subsequent retaliation result in a dismissal. The days when women can be sexually harassed with impunity are long over—except in the Episcopal Church.
A copy of the complaint follows:
Leave a Reply