Three important points according to UMC Book of Discipline :
1.the complainant should be apprised of the nature and operations of any official investigative or judicial hearing,
2. the complainant has the right to be advised of the composition of parties attending such hearings, and
3. must be notified not less than 20 days in advance, and has a right to have an advocate or attorney present at such hearings.
______________________________________________________________________
Attn: Mike Stonbraker, NW District Superintendent
4.26.12
Pursuant to the ‘investigative’ meeting of today’s date, in
your office:
I hereby formally notify you and your convened ‘committee’
of my position of NO CONFIDENCE which prevents my daughter ___________ and
myself, Sharon Howarth, from attending any previously scheduled investigatory
or procedural meeting without the presence of an impartial third party and
specifically without the advocacy involvement of the General Commission on the
Status and Role of Women, of the United Methodist Church.
The following statements will serve to elucidate my position
of NO CONFIDENCE in the NW District Superintendent’s oversight of my April 12,
2012 complaint against Greg Reynolds’ ministerial sexual misconduct:
1. the material facts of my April 17,2012 meeting with Mike
Stonbraker, during which he foisted duress, obfuscating and manipulative
tactics, upon my person when I attended the meeting in good faith, at his
request, in response to my complaint to Bishop William Willimon,
2. the material facts of that meeting, to wit, Mike
Stonbraker’s demonstrations of a complete and abject lack of regard for and
pastoral concern for myself as a long-standing female employee of the NW
District churches I have worked for, as a parishioner within that United
Methodist Church District, and as a mother of the young woman (herself, also a
parishioner) who was witness to and recipient of Greg Reynolds’ unwanted
ministerial sexual misconduct,
3. the material facts in that meeting, of Mike Stonbraker’s
witnessed statement minimizing Greg Reynold’s sexual misconduct, ostensibly
stating that “not touching” my daughter, instead rather “just looking at her”
did not support a construct of the same magnitude of sexual misconduct, which
is in direct conflict with the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline’s
duly mandated parameters of appropriate ministerial sexual ethics,
4. and last, but not least, Mike Stonbraker’s outright
threats of financial and legal reprisal directed at myself, when I physically
attempted to leave the meeting and his office, in order to speak to a GCSRW
advocate and to obtain godly counsel from my husband and a spiritual advisor, the
DS stating that if I “walk out that door this check won’t be waiting here and
you won’t be meeting with me anymore”, referring to the severance check that
had been prepared and signed for me to pick up from the DS’s office and making
clear references to heightened litigious reprisals by stating “then you’ll have
to meet with the NW District’s attorney,”
Mr. McElheny.
No loving parent would ever be willing to subject their
daughter of any age, to such demeaning, threatening and perverse demonstrations
of improper use of power and position.
I am unable to be in contact with the GCSRW general secretary until after our UMC Charge Conference is over, thus I will not be able to facilitate further contact with the NW District Office, until such time as I am able to consider further advice, support and spiritual nurture afforded me through the GCSRW’s duly appointed services available to me as a parishioner and lay staff worker.
Very truly yours,
Sharon Howarth
Cc Bishop Willimon’s office
GCSRW general
secretary
_________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Update: Under the presumed direction and/or knowledge of Bishop William Willimon and the email documented direct counsel of Conference Attorney, Terry McElheny, District Superintendent Mike Stonbraker failed to comply with any of these requirements, after his reported threats and alleged acts of extortion committed against the female complainant in Stonbraker's office on 4.17.12.
In his response (below) to her letter of no confidence , Stonbraker carefully crafted language apparently trying not to create any direct written answer to her complaints, which might unintentionally document lies by the DS regarding his defense of the allegations put forth in her letter of no confidence to Bishop Willimon.
The generalized denial has been highlighted in yellow from DS Stonbraker's response to her
allegations. (1)
Stonbraker's document, also signed by Birmingham DS, Sherrill Clontz and Rev. Bill Brunson, both apparent close associates of Willimon's in Birmingham, reportedly does put forth a lie in the second highlighted statement (2), as explained in the following assertions from the complainant's corroborating documents:
The complainant documented both in her formal complaint to the bishop and in her original resignation letter that her demands for severance pay, if needed as a response to potential attempts by Rev. Greg Reynolds' to retaliate against her, were unequivocally affirmed by the SPRC CHAIR, Van Brown, to be as follows: her weekly salary times the number of weeks left unpaid of her 90-day offered resignation notice, based upon the pastor's refusal to allow her to continue to work during her notice.
The complainant specifically documented in meeting notes and in her formal complaint that, in her meetings with SPRC Committee Chair, Van Brown, he agreed that the severance amount would be her weekly salary multiplied by the number of Sundays she was unable to work due to Reynolds' refusal to allow her to work out her 90-day notice. This number was agreed to be either $1750 or $2000 per her meeting with Van Brown on or about March 20th, 2012. The date of payment was to have been April 9, 2012 her first payday cycle after resigning, per agreement with Brown, et al.
The complainant has reported she did not 'feel' she was owed additional monies. Instead the complainant referenced the discrepancy to the DS on April 17, 2012 after he had waved the check in front of her face, while threatening to permanently take away her SPRC-voted severance pay and enact malicious litigation filed by conference attorney Terry McElheny, unless she immediately, without notice or advice of counsel, sign both the 'release' from Greg Reynolds executed by his attorney and father-in-law, AND a suddenly presented, after-hours constructed, back-room document demanding she withdraw her formal complaint to the Bishop in order to receive her final salary check.
The complainant has also reportedly submitted to law enforcement, an affidavit of the above eyewitness accounting of Stonbraker's actions, which includes sworn statements describing Stonbraker's following behaviors in the April 17th, 2012 meeting:
1. grandiose assertions as to HIS offer of $500 which he described as "nothing" for him to immediately put his hands on, as he stood up from his desk, reached into a closet behind him, quickly pulling out and holding up $500 in cash, waving it toward her direction, stating that he would easily "get them to reimburse me", referencing the Finance Committee members of New Vision UMC,
2. his willful dismissal of her concerns about the lack of proper IRS withholding for the sake of accuracy and legality regarding her final paycheck, in the context of reporting her previous experiences of financial duress, manipulations and ultimately, restitution the church had just paid her four months prior, for tax withholding liabilities not properly executed by Greg Reynolds and the church, during her employment.
3. Stonbraker's various comments regarding her age, her youthful appearance and his incredulity that she "didn't look old enough to be a grandmother" followed by his statements requesting she "not disclose what [he'd] just said", as he openly admitted he "shouldn't have made those comments" to a female employee of the district, and finally,
4. his elaborate discussion about his desire to enlist her as a means of entrapment of Reynolds in the upcoming April 26 formal judicial hearing, regarding publicly repeated and derogatory statements the pastor had made about Stonbraker to his congregational members in conversations and statements from the pulpit during Sunday gatherings.
She reports the DS went so far as to gleefully and smiling, ask her a "personal favor" to return "after lunch" on April 26th, 2012, to be "seated" at a particular vantage point at a table in a favorable proximity to DS Stonbraker and respondent, Greg Reynolds, so that Stonbraker could "watch [Reynolds'] face while you tell me how he criticized me in front of church members".
These actions, only in partial recapitulation here, constitute the reasons behind an extortion investigation currently underway, to include questions around the manner and timing of the 'additional' payment, which could constitute a personal attempt by the DS to further assure that the extortion attempts developed in after-hours discussions on April 16th with conference attorney McElheny, would have a successful outcome.
Of particular note: At no time does the DS affirm or validate the co-victims' need for assurance of safety and justice in the investigative or judicial process.
There is never any mention of 'aid, help, assistance, fellowship, counsel, inclusion or healing and restoration' for the complainant, her family or her daughter/victim in Greg Reynolds' clergy sexual misconduct, outside of the financial manipulations which likely appeared expedient to UMC leaders who, after delaying her paycheck for an additional week, likely assured themselves of her willingness to comply with their highly questionable threats of further harm to her person and her family members.
The organized crime term for the above reported behavior is known as "putting the squeeze" on such victims of extortion or blackmail.
Documented and time-stamped text and email correspondence indicates Willimon's, Stonbraker's, McElheny's, Reynolds' and Van Brown's awareness of New Vision Church's and the North Alabama Conference's intentional delays in responding to her repeated pleas and several unfulfilled promises by Brown for proper execution of her final salary check, absent any reprisal or the improper emcumbrances of personally motivated and thus extorting, after-the-fact legal papers or demands brought forth by respondent, Greg Reynolds.
Reynolds' attempts to protect himself legally and professionally, while maintaining non-disclosure to the SPRC Comittee members of his sexual misconduct and the extreme relevancy of such, likely affected and even controlled their disposition toward the complainant's notice of resignation, and such egregious abuses by that UMC ordained minister are worth examining further.
Reynolds' actions may indicate he caused church members to unknowingly aid and abet his early attempts at extortion of the worship leader, subsequently finding himself knowingly further aided by the actions of certain NW District and Conference leaders, including the informed or ignorant complicity of other persons in documents and evidence submissions to investigators.
The complainant repeatedly offered from March 20 - April 12, 2012, to accept an alternate document which would be restricted to addressing her covenanted employment and release for any further payments owed her, based on the performance of her appropriate employee duties. She only asked that any required documents of severance remain pertinent to her resignation, such that her duly submitted formal complaint might be addressed according to UMC ethics and the Book of Discipline, regarding clergy sexual misconduct.
Finally, it is also noteworthy that no written record exists of the complainant's April 17, 2012 reporting regarding a separate incidence of a minor's sexual molestation, which had recently been reported to her. After duly reporting this information to Stonbraker, her affidavit states he asked her to "hold off" on reporting this further, while he dealt "with the current issue."
Stonbraker initially stated he desired to write a "letter of apology" to the victim, later amending his promised action in the meeting, saying instead, that he would prefer to have the "young man come into my office, so I can personally offer him an apology."
Obviously, his offers of a verbal "apology" would work well in the continuing context of non-compliance with mandatory reporting to law enforcement and child welfare agencies, regarding sexual abuse incident reporting, and would certainly go a long way toward limiting any admission of responsibility, complicity or liability in covering up sexual misconduct and sexual molestation incidents in the North Alabama Conference of the United Methodist Church.
There is a separate police investigation pending, regarding the child molestation incidents.
The generalized denial has been highlighted in yellow from DS Stonbraker's response to her
allegations. (1)
Stonbraker's document, also signed by Birmingham DS, Sherrill Clontz and Rev. Bill Brunson, both apparent close associates of Willimon's in Birmingham, reportedly does put forth a lie in the second highlighted statement (2), as explained in the following assertions from the complainant's corroborating documents:
The complainant documented both in her formal complaint to the bishop and in her original resignation letter that her demands for severance pay, if needed as a response to potential attempts by Rev. Greg Reynolds' to retaliate against her, were unequivocally affirmed by the SPRC CHAIR, Van Brown, to be as follows: her weekly salary times the number of weeks left unpaid of her 90-day offered resignation notice, based upon the pastor's refusal to allow her to continue to work during her notice.
Stonbraker, duly notified of the discrepancy seems to "attempt to obfuscate and alter" his recording of his statements, later casting them in a much more gracious light when compared to a witness affidavit prepared for investigators. Specifically, the DS writes the following statement: "While I don’t know any specifics about what caused the delay at the New Vision SPRC level" (3), later attempting a blame-shifting stance in direct conflict to written evidence that the SPRC chair, was NOT acting alone, in delaying the disbursement of the check, as evidenced by Stonbraker's personal referral of the matter to North Alabama Conference Attorney McElheny, days prior to the complainant's April 9th regular and agreed upon, payday cycle.
The complainant specifically documented in meeting notes and in her formal complaint that, in her meetings with SPRC Committee Chair, Van Brown, he agreed that the severance amount would be her weekly salary multiplied by the number of Sundays she was unable to work due to Reynolds' refusal to allow her to work out her 90-day notice. This number was agreed to be either $1750 or $2000 per her meeting with Van Brown on or about March 20th, 2012. The date of payment was to have been April 9, 2012 her first payday cycle after resigning, per agreement with Brown, et al.
The complainant has reported she did not 'feel' she was owed additional monies. Instead the complainant referenced the discrepancy to the DS on April 17, 2012 after he had waved the check in front of her face, while threatening to permanently take away her SPRC-voted severance pay and enact malicious litigation filed by conference attorney Terry McElheny, unless she immediately, without notice or advice of counsel, sign both the 'release' from Greg Reynolds executed by his attorney and father-in-law, AND a suddenly presented, after-hours constructed, back-room document demanding she withdraw her formal complaint to the Bishop in order to receive her final salary check.
The complainant has also reportedly submitted to law enforcement, an affidavit of the above eyewitness accounting of Stonbraker's actions, which includes sworn statements describing Stonbraker's following behaviors in the April 17th, 2012 meeting:
1. grandiose assertions as to HIS offer of $500 which he described as "nothing" for him to immediately put his hands on, as he stood up from his desk, reached into a closet behind him, quickly pulling out and holding up $500 in cash, waving it toward her direction, stating that he would easily "get them to reimburse me", referencing the Finance Committee members of New Vision UMC,
2. his willful dismissal of her concerns about the lack of proper IRS withholding for the sake of accuracy and legality regarding her final paycheck, in the context of reporting her previous experiences of financial duress, manipulations and ultimately, restitution the church had just paid her four months prior, for tax withholding liabilities not properly executed by Greg Reynolds and the church, during her employment.
3. Stonbraker's various comments regarding her age, her youthful appearance and his incredulity that she "didn't look old enough to be a grandmother" followed by his statements requesting she "not disclose what [he'd] just said", as he openly admitted he "shouldn't have made those comments" to a female employee of the district, and finally,
4. his elaborate discussion about his desire to enlist her as a means of entrapment of Reynolds in the upcoming April 26 formal judicial hearing, regarding publicly repeated and derogatory statements the pastor had made about Stonbraker to his congregational members in conversations and statements from the pulpit during Sunday gatherings.
She reports the DS went so far as to gleefully and smiling, ask her a "personal favor" to return "after lunch" on April 26th, 2012, to be "seated" at a particular vantage point at a table in a favorable proximity to DS Stonbraker and respondent, Greg Reynolds, so that Stonbraker could "watch [Reynolds'] face while you tell me how he criticized me in front of church members".
These actions, only in partial recapitulation here, constitute the reasons behind an extortion investigation currently underway, to include questions around the manner and timing of the 'additional' payment, which could constitute a personal attempt by the DS to further assure that the extortion attempts developed in after-hours discussions on April 16th with conference attorney McElheny, would have a successful outcome.
Of particular note: At no time does the DS affirm or validate the co-victims' need for assurance of safety and justice in the investigative or judicial process.
There is never any mention of 'aid, help, assistance, fellowship, counsel, inclusion or healing and restoration' for the complainant, her family or her daughter/victim in Greg Reynolds' clergy sexual misconduct, outside of the financial manipulations which likely appeared expedient to UMC leaders who, after delaying her paycheck for an additional week, likely assured themselves of her willingness to comply with their highly questionable threats of further harm to her person and her family members.
The organized crime term for the above reported behavior is known as "putting the squeeze" on such victims of extortion or blackmail.
Documented and time-stamped text and email correspondence indicates Willimon's, Stonbraker's, McElheny's, Reynolds' and Van Brown's awareness of New Vision Church's and the North Alabama Conference's intentional delays in responding to her repeated pleas and several unfulfilled promises by Brown for proper execution of her final salary check, absent any reprisal or the improper emcumbrances of personally motivated and thus extorting, after-the-fact legal papers or demands brought forth by respondent, Greg Reynolds.
Reynolds' attempts to protect himself legally and professionally, while maintaining non-disclosure to the SPRC Comittee members of his sexual misconduct and the extreme relevancy of such, likely affected and even controlled their disposition toward the complainant's notice of resignation, and such egregious abuses by that UMC ordained minister are worth examining further.
Reynolds' actions may indicate he caused church members to unknowingly aid and abet his early attempts at extortion of the worship leader, subsequently finding himself knowingly further aided by the actions of certain NW District and Conference leaders, including the informed or ignorant complicity of other persons in documents and evidence submissions to investigators.
The complainant repeatedly offered from March 20 - April 12, 2012, to accept an alternate document which would be restricted to addressing her covenanted employment and release for any further payments owed her, based on the performance of her appropriate employee duties. She only asked that any required documents of severance remain pertinent to her resignation, such that her duly submitted formal complaint might be addressed according to UMC ethics and the Book of Discipline, regarding clergy sexual misconduct.
Finally, it is also noteworthy that no written record exists of the complainant's April 17, 2012 reporting regarding a separate incidence of a minor's sexual molestation, which had recently been reported to her. After duly reporting this information to Stonbraker, her affidavit states he asked her to "hold off" on reporting this further, while he dealt "with the current issue."
Stonbraker initially stated he desired to write a "letter of apology" to the victim, later amending his promised action in the meeting, saying instead, that he would prefer to have the "young man come into my office, so I can personally offer him an apology."
Obviously, his offers of a verbal "apology" would work well in the continuing context of non-compliance with mandatory reporting to law enforcement and child welfare agencies, regarding sexual abuse incident reporting, and would certainly go a long way toward limiting any admission of responsibility, complicity or liability in covering up sexual misconduct and sexual molestation incidents in the North Alabama Conference of the United Methodist Church.
There is a separate police investigation pending, regarding the child molestation incidents.
Below, Bishop Willimon's flaccid and avoidant non-response to complainant's request for review:
[Editor's note : Why would William Willimon cc Birmingham DS, Ron Schultz?]
from:
|
WillWillimon wwillimon@northalabamaumc.org
|
|
to:
|
sharonhowarthauthor@gmail.com
|
|
cc:
|
Ron Schultz <rschultz@northalabamaumc.org>
|
|
date:
|
Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 3:48 PM
|
|
subject:
|
Email / Mrs. Howarth
|
|
Dear Mrs. Howarth,
I am in receipt of your email
correspondence today regarding Reverend Mike Stonbraker, North West District
Superintendent, and Reverend Greg Reynolds. Be assured that I am working thru
the Cabinet and Board of Ordained Ministry to find a just resolution for all
parties in these matters.
Sincerely,
.jpg) William H. Willimon
Bishop, Birmingham Area
[Update 9.9.12 : Bishop Willimon stated a desire "to find a just resolution for all parties". To date, complainant reports no single statement or offer toward such has been rendered from any officer, representative or clergy of the UMC, despite her attempts to contact such.] |
||
