Support the Café
Search our site

Sauls claims a vast conspiracy was in place to oust him

Sauls claims a vast conspiracy was in place to oust him

According the lawsuit filed in Mobile Circuit Court in Alabama, Stacy Sauls (former COO of the the Episcopal Church) alleges that there was concerted conspiracy headed by President of the House of Deputies, Gay Clark Jennings determined to oust him from his position.

“Sauls, however, is the victim of a wrongful conspiracy via a calculated, determined, and prolonged series of acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, as carried out by individuals employed by the Church, and others outside the employment of the Church, who repeatedly have attacked the office and person of Chief Operating Officer, including by measures calculated to undermine the authority, stature, and leadership of the Plaintiff and his former office, as part of a scheme to elevate the stature and authority of the President of the Church’s House of Deputies and to constitute that position as an office to be regarded and treated, in respect to Church governance and the exercise of authority over the staff and resources of the Church, as co-equal with the office of the Presiding Bishop.”

The suit alleges that up to 30 people (John Does 1-30) in and out of the Church Center were involved in the conspiracy;

“Defendants John Does 1-10 are individuals not employed by the DFMS who participated in the wrongful acts alleged herein. Defendants John Does 11-20 are employees of the DFMS who, acting outside the line and scope of their employment, joined and participated in the wrongful acts alleged herein. Defendants John Does 21-30 are corporations, partnerships, or other entities that joined and participated in the wrongful acts alleged herein. At present, Plaintiff is unable to identify the John Doe Defendants and expects to be able to do so in the discovery phase of this litigation.”

The suit also gives the first public glance at the charges levelled against two of Bishop Sauls associates which led tho their dismissal and the end of his tenure as COO.

“At the noon meeting, Mr. Beers told the Plaintiff and his colleagues that the allegations against them were grim and serious, including charges of racism, sexism, retaliation, sexual harassment, and creation of a hostile workplace.”

The heart of Sauls’ complaint seems to be that the nature of his termination, being publicly linked to the misconduct of his associates has damaged his reputation, despite being cleared of any wrongdoing, so that he has been unable to find employment anywhere in the church.

“Since April 2016, even though he has had the benefit of the enthusiastic, unqualified, and active support of numerous other Bishops and other clergy in the Church, Bishop Sauls’s efforts to find other employment have been to no avail. He has asked to be considered for employment in numerous vacant positions in parishes of the Church—for each of which, by any reasonable measure, he is eminently qualified by virtue of his education, background, and professional experience; yet, every one of these prospective employers has uniformly and summarily denied him employment. From the inception of the Defendants’ wrongful conduct, carried out by, among other things, their baseless charges and serial unfounded investigations, their knowing dissemination and publication of false, defamatory, and malicious attacks upon the Plaintiff, and their repeated wrongful manipulation, misuse, and abuse of the internal procedures and policies of the Church, for the purpose and with the intent of injuring and defaming the Plaintiff, smearing his reputation, and causing the termination of his employment by the Church, and with the said conspiracy continuing daily, unabated, the wrongful acts of the Defendants have made it impossible for the Plaintiff to obtain employment in the Episcopal Church, anywhere.
Furthermore, at no time has the Presiding Bishop discussed with Bishop Sauls or his colleagues the specifics of the allegations that were the basis of the investigations and its consequences. Bishop Curry has refused to discuss the allegations with the three officers who were charged with misconduct.”

You can download a pdf version of the suit here.

Dislike (0)
0 0 vote
Article Rating
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

41 Comments
Newest
Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gale Forswarth

Have they ever managed to hire a replacement? I know of at least one brilliantly qualified candidate who was approached and, after looking into it, declined further consideration.

The PB is wonderful, but the governance around him makes Game of Thrones look like an after-school special.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Prof Christopher Seitz

"My sense was and continues to be that one underlying issue is our understanding of the role of personal conscience in our Anglican tradition."

Fascinating...

This is still obscure in the context of TEC's present neuralgias.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Nathaniel W. Pierce

Resolution C004sa was adopted by the 1994 General Convention. It called upon the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies to "appoint a committee to promote dialogue and understanding and to discuss how the Canon [III.8.1 pertaining to the ordination of women] can be implemented in every diocese of this church" and to "report to the interim meeting of the House of Bishops in 1995 and subsequently to the Executive Council." The Committee met twice in 1995; a majority proposed four canonical changes even though it was not authorized to do so. A minority report stated: "absolutely no time was allowed for any meaningful dialogue or even an attempt at understanding."
As I predicted in an article published in 1997: "The tide of ecclesiastical litigation which will follow will turn the Righter trial into a minor historical footnote."
My sense was and continues to be that one underlying issue is our understanding of the role of personal conscience in our Anglican tradition. No less important is the continuing discussion of the role and authority of Bishops in our ecclesiastical polity.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Prof Christopher Seitz

"...became the catalyst for 15 years of litigation which has cost DFMS an estimated $40 million."

Frankly, scandal upon scandal, massive funds gone, and dreadful witness.

Could you amplify? Was this C004sa about PHD being co-equal?

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Nathaniel W. Pierce

I disagree with Fr. Dinoto. My sense is that the roots of this issue go back to COO4sa as adopted by the 71st General Convention. The process was hijacked by Executive Council in 1997 and the Rowley Report (named after the Chair of the Dialogue Committee, the Rt. Rev. Robert D. Rowley of NW Pennsylvania) became the catalyst for 15 years of litigation which has cost DFMS an estimated $40 million. For those interested in taking the analysis one step further into the past, I would cite the magnificent 1977 statement from our House of Bishops on the Anglican understanding of the theological, biblical, and spiritual foundations of the role of conscience. By 1994 many had come to disregard the important teachings in this pastoral letter.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts
2020_001

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café