B) The Hearing panel declines to depose Bishop Bruno

C) The Hearing Panel is not aware of any evidence supporting a need for forensic accounting. IF the Church Attorney possesses such evidence he should present it to the appropriate authorities.

D) After thorough and detailed consideration of the facts, positions, contentions, testimony and documents, the Hearing Panel has concluded that the scope and severity of Bishop Bruno's misconduct, as described above, have unjustly and unnecessarily disturbed the ministry of the Church. St James the Great is a casualty of Bishop Bruno's misconduct acting as Diocesan and Corp Sole. While it is beyond the authority and ability of the Hearing Panel to fully assess what might have happened if St James the Great had been allowed to continue its ministry in its church facility, there is ample evidence of its viability and promise to convince the Hearing Panel that St James the Great was robbed of a reasonable chance to succeed as a sustainable community of faith.

The panel essentially affirmed that Diocesan bishops do hold authority over property but also affirmed that the Standing Committee has a crucial role in all issues of property.

"While Canon IV.14.6 would allow the Hearing Panel to take action for the benefit of St James the Great, the Hearing Panel has concluded that Title IV disciplinary actions are not designed to address the complexities of the specific diocesan property issues that are before it. The Hearing Panel believes that bishops do and should have authority over mission property and that Standing Committee review and approval is a crucial part of the fabric and polity of the church. But more importantly, the Hearing Panel is convinced that the Diocese of Los Angeles, particularly its Standing Committee with the supportive leadership of its newly ordained Coadjutor, must consciously choose to take part in a process of self-examination and truth-telling around these unfortunate and tragic events."

Though the panel, however, stopped short of directing the diocese to restore St James the Great congregation to the disputed property. Believing that true reconciliation could not be achieved that way. It did strongly recommend that it do so.

"The Hearing Panel strongly recommends to the Diocese of Los Angeles that as a matter of justice it immediately suspend its efforts to sell the St James property, that it restore the congregation and vicar to the church building and that it reassign St James the Great appropriate mission status"

Though unsigned, the Draft has the names of four members of the panel; The Rt Rev Herman Hollerith, IV, The Rt Rev Nicholas Knisely, The Rev Erik Larsen, and Ms. Deborah Stokes.

Bishop Smith of North Dakota, the fifth member of the panel has offered a dissent. In that dissent, while recognizing the shortcomings of using a Corp Sole, the Standing Committee's neglect of its canonical duties, and Bishop Bruno's mixed signals to the congregation; Smith holds to the belief that Bruno acted wholly within his rights as Bishop Diocesan and that adjudication of property disputes belongs solely within the authority of the diocese.

"It is my understanding that in the Episcopal Church, resolution of property disputes properly resides within local diocesan entities, notably the Bishop and Standing Committee, and should not be adjudicated through the disciplinary process."

One of his most significant complaints is that both Bishop Bruno and Save St James the Great resorted to the secular courts in this dispute. Suggesting even that the effort to reclaim the property from the breakaway group in the first place was inappropriate. After quoting 1Corinthians 6:1, 7-8; he writes;

"Both parties have ignored this scriptural wisdom: the Bishop, when he resorted to the secular court against the Anglicans who attempted to depart with the property; and the congregation of St. James the Great, under the guise of "Save St. James the Great," when it filed a civil complaint against the Bishop to stop the sale of the property. Christian reconciliation becomes an elusive goal under these circumstances."

It should be noted that Bishop Smith is a member of the Communion Partners, which has largely sought to put forth the minority opinion that the church is a confederation of otherwise independent dioceses rather than a single unity organized into separate diocesan jurisdictions.

*****

Episcopal panel recommends suspending bishop three years over attempt to sell St. James church

By HILARY DAVIS
LOS ANGELES TIMES
http://www.latimes.com/
July 21, 2017

An Episcopal Church disciplinary panel has recommended a three-year suspension for the bishop who locked worshippers out of St. James the Great church in Newport Beach after a failed sale attempt two years ago.

The panel also recommended that the shuttered church be restored to its displaced members.

The tentative ruling, which came down late Friday afternoon, determined that the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles, was guilty of all allegations brought against him by the congregation during a hearing the panel conducted in March: that he attempted to sell consecrated property without consent of diocesan leadership, made several misrepresentations along the way and acted in a manner unbecoming of a clergyman.

The panel voted 4-1 to find Bruno guilty, with the Rt. Rev. Michael G. Smith, bishop of North Dakota, dissenting.

The Rev. Canon Cindy Voorhees, St. James the Great's vicar, who has continued to minister to the members, could not be reached for comment Friday evening.

Los Angeles diocese spokesman Bob Williams said in an email Friday that the diocese is withholding comment, "continuing their commitment to respect the integrity of the (disciplinary) process, a priority that Bishop Bruno has upheld through the duration of the two-year proceedings."

In summer 2015, Bruno changed the locks on the church at 3209 Via Lido after committing to sell the site for $15 million to Legacy Partners, a developer that wanted to raze the church to build luxury townhomes. The congregation filed an ecclesiastical complaint not long after its eviction.

The sale fizzled after Legacy's investment partner dropped out, but Bruno did not reopen the building. Members now worship in a community room at Newport Beach City Hall.

In their decision Friday, panelists said there was "no good reason" to lock the church and that doing so "created disorder and prejudiced the reputation of the Episcopal Church."

"Although the building is an asset, Bishop Bruno is not the CEO of a commercial, for-profit company," the ruling reads. "The 'asset' is a consecrated church that should be used for the glory of God and worship by a congregation rather than sold to build condos and left idle and useless after the sale fell through, almost two years ago."

Though the panel said there was no "good" reason to mothball the church, it suggested that Bruno did have motivation: "to punish Canon Voorhees and the St. James congregation for what he views as their defiance of him."

The same panel warned Bruno in June not to sell the property until it reached a decision in the misconduct case. Another disciplinary board rejected Bruno's appeal of the admonishment, and the top bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States, the Most Rev. Michael Curry, issued a similar sale-blocking order late last month.

The series of stern rebukes came after the original hearing panel, acting on a tip from a congregation member about a possible second sale attempt, issued its restriction not knowing whether Bruno had entered a new sale contract. However, an attorney for Bruno eventually confirmed that the bishop contracted with Newport Beach-based developer Burnham-Ward Properties in May. The price and plans for the property were not disclosed, and it's unclear whether escrow closed as planned early this month.

Friday's draft ruling will be finalized after Curry and the congregation submit comments next week.

Congregation member Bill Kroener said he will compile his fellow complainants' feedback by Wednesday's deadline. He declined further comment.

Panelists concluded their 91-page decision by saying that diocese leadership must "consciously choose to take part in a process of self-examination and truth-telling around these unfortunate and tragic events" so healing and justice can be achieved.

And they suggested what church members have wanted most:

"The hearing panel strongly recommends to the Diocese of Los Angeles that as a matter of justice it immediately suspend its efforts to sell the St. James property, that it restore the congregation and vicar [Voorhees] to the church building and that it reassign St. James the Great appropriate mission status."

*****

Dissenting Opinion by the Rt. Rev. Michael G. Smith

1. The current Title IV disciplinary process proposes to "promote healing, repentance, forgiveness, restitution, justice, amendment for life and reconciliation" [Canon IV.14.1(a)]. This task has been made more difficult by two matters in particular: resorting to secular courts for the resolution of ecclesiastical matters, and the institution of Corporation Sole as a legal entity of the state. 2.

2. The biblical instruction is clear: "When any of you has a grievance against another, do you dare to take it to court before the unrighteous, instead of taking it before the saints? ... In fact, to have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud--and believers at that" (1 Corinthians 6:1,7-8). Both parties have ignored this scriptural wisdom: the Bishop, when he resorted to the secular court against the Anglicans who attempted to depart with the property; and the congregation of St. James the Great, under the guise of "Save St. James the Great," when it filed a civil complaint against the Bishop to stop the sale of the property. Christian reconciliation becomes an elusive goal under these circumstances. 3.

3. The canons are clear that the sale of a consecrated Church requires "the consent of the Bishop, acting with the advice and consent of the Standing Committee of the Diocese" (II.6.2). Both the Bishop and the Standing Committee understand, incorrectly in my opinion, that Corp Sole does not need the consent of the Standing Committee to sell church property. Regardless, the minutes of the Standing Committee indicate knowledge and support of both the Bishop's attempts to sell the property in question. 4.

4. It is my understanding that in the Episcopal Church, resolution of property disputes properly resides within local diocesan entities, notably the Bishop and Standing Committee, and should not be adjudicated through the disciplinary process. 5.

5. The building or property is not the congregation. In this season of the Church's life, many congregations are learning to become communities of faith outside the "four walls of the church building." St. James the Great was given a chance to continue as a congregation outside the current property with seed money of $1,000,000 until they took the Bishop to secular court and the Vicar was terminated, as is the prerogative of the Bishop in the Diocese of Los Angeles. Furthermore, the idea to sell either the property of St. James the Great in Newport Beach or St. Michael & All Angels in Corona del Mar and to combine the congregations is entirely plausible as a viable mission strategy since the two church properties are only five miles in distance from one another. 6.

6. Since 2008, Bishop Bruno's intent to sell the disputed properties for the purposes of recovering litigation costs and setting aside resources for diocesan-wide mission strategy was known. It is not unreasonable, however, for St. James the Great or its Vicar to have believed that Bishop Bruno had changed his mind about that decision when he allowed them to use the property of the old congregation of "St. James" for the startup of the new congregation of "St. James the Great." Regrettably, they were given tremendously mixed signals. While one may question his reasoning or the quality of pastoral care provided, the Bishop appears to be within the scope of his rights and responsibilities according to the canons and traditions of the Diocese of Los Angeles.

7. Finally, on June 21, 2017, the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Los Angeles wrote: "By way of unanimous motion, the Standing Committee members reaffirm their action regarding the sale of Lido Isle. The Standing Committee concurs with [Bishop Bruno's] decision and judgment that sale of this property is in the best interest of the Diocese of Los Angeles." Considering this and the matters listed above, I recommend that the matter against Bishop Jon J. Bruno be dismissed

91-PAGE HEARING PANEL ORDER: https://www.scribd.com/document/354402121/Bruno-Hearing-Panel-Draft-Order-of-July-20-2017