BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD FOR BISHOPS IN THE TITLE IV DISCIPLINARY MATTER INVOLVING RT. REV. JON BRUNO, RESPONDENT APPEAL OF THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS Submission of the Hearing Panel In her June 30, 2017 procedural order, the President of the Disciplinary Board invited the Hearing Panel to present any written submission it may choose to make for consideration in this appeal. This is the Hearing Panel’s submission. ‘The Hearing Panel sees no need to repeat the statements made by the Church Attorney in his Opposition to the Appeal. It supplements them as follows. (1) On page 2 of his Appeal, Bishop Bruno states that the Hearing Panel did not provide Bishop Bruno or his counsel with Mr. Kroener’s June 9, 2017 email or any other communications from or to Mr. Kroener. That is wrong, as shown by Exhibits C-1 and C-2 to Bishop Bruno’s own Appeal. (2) Also on page 2 of his Appeal, Bishop Bruno says that on June 14, 2017 the Hearing Panel provided Bishop Bruno with Mr. Kroener’s June 9 and June 14, 2017 emails, “stating there was ‘proof.”” The Hearing Panel did not say that, It asked Bishop Bruno and Church Attorney to express their views on Mr. Kroener’s emails, “including the exact status and related documentation on the sigseeasvlalleged sales contract.” (Exhibit C-1 to Bishop Bruno’s Appeal). The Hearing Panel did not know what the facts were, which is why it said “alleged” and asked for information. Bishop Bruno furnished no information. The Hearing Panel never referred to “proof.” Rather, in its Imposition of Sanctions (Exhibit A to Bishop Bruno’s Appeal) it was careful to describe Mr. Kroener’s claim as “colorable.” The “proof” of Mr. Kroener’s allegations came later, from Bishop Bruno himself. Exhibit 1 hereto. (3) Bishop Bruno’s objections to Mr. Kroener’s emails of June 9 and 14, 2017 focused almost entirely on the screenshot. He ignored the substance of the matter: the pending sale. The objections to the screenshot became irrelevant and moot with Bishop Bruno’s June 22, 2017 email (Exhibit 1 hereto). (4) The Hearing Panel gave Bishop Bruno not one, but two, opportunities to address the matter. (Exhibit C-1 to Respondent's appeal; Exhibit 1 hereto.) The Hearing Panel suggests that the Disciplinary Board may consider the events that took place after the June 17, 2017 issuance of the Imposition of Sanctions because the standard of review for this appeal is de novo. Canon IV.13.9(c). Moreover, Bishop Bruno himself has put post-June 17, 2017 evidence before the Disciplinary Board: Exhibit H to his Appeal. (5) Inall events, the Hearing Panel believes that it gave Bishop Bruno all the process he was due under the Canons and the circumstances of this case. 2 sigsseasv1(6) Until it read page 3 of the Appeal, the Hearing Panel had never heard of the alleged conversation among the Chair of the Conference Panel, Bishop Bruno, his Advisor, and his attorneys at the conclusion of the Conference Panel proceedings on June 30, 2016. Aside from the fact that Bishop Bruno never even attempted to present this evidence to the Hearing Panel, Canon IV.12.8 (“Proceedings before the Conference Panel shall be confidential except as may be provided in an Order or Accord! or as provided elsewhere in this Title. No statements made by any participant in such proceeding may be used as evidence before the Hearing Panel”) expressly forbade it. If the conversation could not be used before the Hearing Panel, surely it cannot be used in this appeal from the Hearing Panel to the Disciplinary Board. M May 4, 2017 response, through Bishop F. Clayton Matthews, to Ms. Scuderi’s Bishop Bruno’s discussion on page 3 of the Presiding Bishop’s request (Exhibit G to the Appeal) is dishonest. Compare what Bishop Matthews actually said with the block quote in Bishop Bruno’s Appeal: Bishop Matthews ‘Your message to The Most Rev'd Michael B. Curry requesting him to ask Bishop Bruno to allow for a Memorial Service and interment of ashes for your mother, Nancy Knight, ‘Your message to The Most Rev'd Michael B. Curry requesting him to ask Bishop Bruno to allow for a Memorial Service and interment of ashes for your mother, Nancy Knight, s1gs4s2sv1 "There was no Order or Accord from the Conference Panel 3at St. James the Great has been received, and forwarded to me for response. Please excuse the informality of this note, but I wanted to respond to you as soon at St. James the Great has been received, and forwarded to me for response. **** As you have rightly acknowledged this is a decision to be made by as I could. Bishop Jon Bruno of Los . Angeles as the Presiding As you have rightly Bishop has no jurisdiction over acknowledged this is a decision to be made by Bishop Jon Bruno of Los Angeles as the Presiding Bishop has no jurisdiction over your request. Also, Lam sure you know that the Disciplinary matter between the Bishop and St. James the Great is now in the hands of the Hearing Panel of this Church, and we are waiting for their judgment. your request. (Emphasis supplied). In the bolded language in Bishop Matthews’ email he specifically referred to the disciplinary matter before the Hearing Panel, but Bishop Bruno deleted that. The deleted language belies Bishop Bruno’s argument that the “Hearing Panel’s Sanction is Outside the Jurisdiction of the Hearing Panel” and the suggestion that the Presiding Bishop agrees. Bishop Bruno has misrepresented what Bishop Matthews, speaking on behalf of the Presiding Bishop, said. By Laled Ut Desosal fp. radfute W. Davenport, Legal Counsel July 5, 2017 4 steptaasviLY AIOT ff Davenport, Bradfute W. From: Julie Dean Larsen [larsen@jd2counsel.com] Sent: ‘Thursday, June 22, 2017 8:06 PM To: Davenport, Bradfute W.; 'The Rt. Rev. H. Hollerith IV’ ‘Nicholas Knisely’; BpNoDak@aol.com; rector@stcolumbaschapel.org; dstokes@live. com ce: ‘David Tumilty’ ‘Jerry Coughlan’; ‘Richard Zevnik’; ‘Jon Bruno! Subject: RE: Hearing Panel's June 14, 2017 Inquiry Attachments: November 16 Standing committee minutes..pdf To the Hearing Panel, ‘The Hearing Panel asked Respondent to address emails on June 9" and 14" from complainant Kroener to the Hearing Panel. The Respondent timely objected by the Hearing Panel's deadline of June 15". The Hearing Panel issued Sanctions against the Respondent on June 17" for not providing information about the alleged sale of the Newport Beach Property raised by the Kroener emails. On June 21, 2017, the Hearing Panel again asked for information regarding the alleged sale of the Newport Beach Property from Respondent. Until earlier today, the Respondent could not provide the Hearing Panel with any information regarding the Newport Beach Property sale without violating a Confidentiality Agreement between the Buyer and the Seller. Earlier today, the Buyer and the Seller agreed to modify the Confidentiality Agreement and are waiting on documentation of the modification, which the Respondent will provide to the Hearing Panel. Pursuant to the modification of the Confidentiality Agreement, Respondent can inform the Hearing Panel that a sale and deconsecration of the NPB Property was authorized and reaffirmed by the Standing Committee on November 16, 2016. A confidentiality agreement and sales contract regarding the NPB Property were entered into by the Bishop as Corporation Sole and Burnham-Ward Properties LLC on April 19, and May 20, 2017, respectfully. The sales contract has been fully complied with by the buyer and seller to date. Escrow on the sale of the property Is to close on July 3, 2017. ‘The Bishop, as Corporation Sole, must sign documents for the Escrow to close. If the Bishop refuses to sign the documents, the Bishop will be in default under paragraph 16 which allows the buyer the option of terminating the agreement, seeking specific performance of the agreement in court within 60 days, or seeking out-of- pocket costs. The parties agreed to modify the confidentiality provisions of the agreement during a conference call at 11:00 am today, June 22, 2017. Warmest Regards, Julie Julie Dean Larsen 3D2 Counsel 32565 B Golden Lantern #376 Dana Point, CA 92629 (949) 467-4678 Jarsen(@id2counsel.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This email, and any attachment to i, contains privileged andor confidential infomation intended only forthe se ofthe intended (Cele ofthis ema. the reader ofthis e-mail snot the intended recipient. you ate hereby ated thal reading, using or diseminating this eal or any ‘Stament ti ss prohibited you hve eceved this eal in car, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail and ten delete the original ond ‘ny opie of ths email and any attachments oi fom yur system. Thank you.From: Davenport, Bradfute W. [mailto:brad.davenport@troutmansanders.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 11:22 AM To: Richard Zevnik Ce: The Rt. Rev. H. Hollerith IV ; David Tumilty ; Julie Dean Larsen ; Jerry Coughlan Subject: Re: Hearing Panel's June 14, 2017 Inquiry Richard-Bishop Hollerith needs to know, by noon EDT tomorrow, if Bishop Bruno Intends to respond on the merits to the June 17 request. Le., whether there Is a pending sale or contract to sell. Ifso, the Hearing Panel needs all relevant documentation, Bradfute W. Davenport, Jr. Retired Partner ‘TROUTMAN SANDERS Direct: 804.697.1311 | Mobile: 804.690.3136 | Internal: 15-1311 brad.davenport@troutmansanders.com (On Jun 15, 2017, at 4:01 PM, Richard Zevnik wrote: Dear Bishop Hollerith and Panel Members: This will respond to the Hearing Panel's June 14, 2017, request to Respondent to address emails and a “screen shot” provided to the Hearing Panel by non-party, William Kroener, Ii Respondent objects to the Hearing Panel's consideration of the document described as a “screen shot” by a non-party. As with the unsolicited submissions of other non-parties, this document should be rejected by the Hearing Panel and not made part of the record. The Respondent objects to acceptance of the “screenshot” because it is not relevant. On its face it was created after the Title IV complaint and after the Hearing and cannot provide relevant evidence related to the charges. ‘The Respondent objects to the document because it lacks foundation. Nothing in its submission tells how it was created or by whom. ‘The Respondent objects to the document because it is ambiguous, as the Church Attorney admits.The Respondent objects to Mr. Kroener's testimony regarding the document. Respondent has no opportunity to cross examine Mr. Kroener, or the creator of the document, regarding the document. Canon IV.13. 6 provides: “All testimony shall be given under oath or solemn affirmation and be subject to cross-examination.” Respondent objects to the emails from Kroener as prejudicial to Respondent and in violation of Canon 1V.19.11 in seeking to improperly influence the Presiding Bishop and the Hearing Panel in this Title IV proceeding. Respectfully submitted, Richard Zevnik, Chancellor EDLA Dean Larsen, Vice Chancellor, EDLA This e-mail message (and any attachments) from Troutman Sanders LLP may contain legally privileged and confidential information solely for the use of the intended recipient. If ou received this message in error, please delete the message and notify the sender. ‘Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other use of this message (and attachments) Is strictly prohibited.Meeting oi ber 16, 2018 £ The meeting was held at che Cathedral Center of St. Paul, 840 Echo Park Avenue, Los Angeles, California in the Absalom Jones' Conference Room, Members present were: Canon Patsy Brierley, Dr. Betty Ferrell, Canon Lynn Headley, MEMBERS PRESENT | Ms Julie Dean Larsen, the Very Reverend Melissa McCarthy, and the Reverend Dr Rachel Nyback. Also present were: Canon Janet Wylie (Recording Secrerary), and Canon Richard Zevnik (Vice-Chancellor | Absenr members were: The Reverend Michael Archer and the Reverend Abel Lopez. MEMBERS ABSENT ‘The President, the Very Reverend Melissa McCarthy, called the meeting to ‘CALL TO ORDER AND ' order at 1:00 p.m. and Dr, Berty Ferrell offered the invocation. INVOCATION ‘The agenda was accepted as presented. AGENDA ACCEPTED i The minutes of the October meeting were presented. The minutes were y approved with one correction. The Reverend Dr. Nyback did not recuse herself MINUTES APPROVED from running for President of the Standing Committee for 2017. hi fer The President chen excused the Recording Secretary and Vice-Chancellor for CORDONE INTERVIEW the interview with Ms Holly Cordone. After the interview, Canon Patsy Cordone, Holly 6,0, 0 Brierley moved, and Ms Julie Dean Larsen seconded the motion, to approve Ms Cordone for Candidacy to the Transitional Diaconate under Canon VIIL The Recording Secretary and Vice-Chancellor then returned co the meeting. Ms Julie Dean Larsen attended the November 15 meeting of the Corporation CORPORATION OF THE of the Diocese. She presented Packet D (enclosed with the original copy of the DIOCESE TEMS Corporation minutes for November), as a request from St. George's in Laguna Laguna tills Hills to enter into or continue three separate leases. Based on the eared recommendation from the directors of the Corporation, Ms Larsen moved, and Canon Lynn Headley seconded the motion, co approve the three leases. The motion carried. ‘A motion ro accept the amendment to the Bylaws from St. Joseph’s in Buena BYLAWS Park was made by Canon Brierley. Canon Headley seconded the motion Buena Park Because this amendment follows the approved template and has been reviewed eared ‘The Reverend by che Bishop's staff, the motion to accept the revised Bylaws carried. ‘The Cathecral Center ot Sant Paul» 840 Echo Park Avenue « Las Angeles. Callonia 90026 81 Office Box 512164 + Los Angeles, Cabfornie 90051 ~ 213.482.2040 + 800 266.1836 + 213.482 5004 facsimle - wwwlacoese orgMembers, Standing Committee Meeting Minutes of November 16, 2016, meeting Page 2 ‘The Reverend Dr, Rachel Nyback moved, and Canon Brierley seconded the REQUEST FOR CONSENT” motion, to consent to the election of a Bishop Coadjator for the Diocese of Coadjtor for Halt 4 Haiti, The motion carried unanimously. —earried— . By way of a packer B, Bishop Bruno asked the members to approve the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NOMINEES Disciplinary Board nominees for ratification at the 2016 Diocesan Convention. Canon Brierley moved, and Ms Larsen seconded the motion, to approve the slate of nominees. The motion carried. ‘A list of those submitting Clergy Ministry Reports (non-stipendiary clergy, CLERGY MmNIsTRY hon-parochial clergy, reticed clergy, and all Deacons) was presented for the REPORTS member's advice and consent to the Bishop Diocesan. (See the lise enclosed —earred— with the original copy of these minutes.) Ms Larsen moved, and Dr. Nyback Seconded the motion, to accept the report (list) in accordance with Article VL.15e of the Constitution of the Diocese of Los Angeles, The motion carried. ‘There was no report regarding the Commission on Ministry. Canon Lynn REPRESENTATIVE: = Headley reported an the work of the Diocesan Council. The main focus of the PORT November meeting was on the Task Force report on transferring properties nist from Corporation Sole to the Corporation of the Diocese. A summary report Diooesan Counell ‘was presented to the Couneil members from representatives of the Task Force, oe ‘This summary will be presented at Convention with Council's oral report. da letcer from Bishop Bruno regarding Title OTHER MATTERS 0 Ted of the Cenone of The Episcopal Church. The letter is enclosed with the IMPORT x: original copy of these minures. Acknowledging the Standing Commitee has no sae antec Canonical authority over Corporation Sole, the members of the Standing property—-Hlew Commitee, meeting on November 16, 2016, formally go on record and oad = consent to the Bishop Diocesan to dispose of the consecrated Church property, oT Suhose title is legally held by Corporation Sole, and provide consent to the Secularization and sale of the Lido Isle real and personal property, previously ecupied by St. James the Great congregation. Canon Headley moved Scceprance ofthis statement and Dr. Ferrell seconded the motion. The motion Ganried with a vote of five (5) positive, one (1) negative, and no abstentions. The Standing Committee also recommends to the Bishop Diocesan a8 Cotporation Sole that the Articles for Corporation Sole be amencled to require the gdvice and consent of the Standing Committee for the disposition of Conseevated Church property within the meaning of Title 1.6.3. Dr. Nyback moved the resolution for this recommendation, and Canon Brierley seconded the motion. The miction carried. Canon Kkichard Zevnik and Ms Larsen then gave updates on the Title 1V presentment charges against Bishop Bruno and the Hearing Panel's actions «, the President adjourned the meeting at 2:50 Dean McCarthy then presente: nuns ‘There being no further business p.m, with a closing prayer. Respectfully submitted, Lynd Headley (Canon) Secretary for the Standing Comitteethe kpiscopal Diocese it Lis Apacios November 16, 2016 Dear Standing Committee, {i has become apparent that some members of the Diocese believe TEC Canon 11.6.3 and certain Diocesan canons apply to Corporation Sole when it determines to sell the real and "sonal property of a dedicated and consecrated Church or Chapel. This issue has been raised in the Title IV proceedinys agains! me by certain individuals, in my eapacity asthe incumbent of Corporation Sole, in regard tothe intended sale ofthe Lido Isle property Subsequent to th intial sales agreement which | signed with Legacy Partners in April 2015, my office has been approached by other interested parties which would like to purchase the property. including recently, At this point in time. the question regarding authority of the above referenced canons over the Corporation Sole has not been resolved. The National Canons do not refer to corporations sole, either specifically or generally. Further, EDLA Canon 30-00, whieh mandates the existence of Corporation Sole, and provides that the incumbent Diocesan Bishop is also the incumbent of Corporation Sole, likewise is silent to whether any other body ofthe Diocese, whether Diocesan Convention or the Standing Committee, has any role in Corporation Sole's decisions with respect ro consecrated Church property However. so that | ean proceed without worry of further Title IV filings of alleged pclations of Canon 1.6.3 arising out ofa poientia! sale of that property, Iam asking the Standing Committee to formally go un record, even ifthe canons do not provide expressly for advice and consent of the Standing Committee to disposition of consecrated Church property whose ttle is held by Corporation Sole, as providing its consent to the Sceularization and sale ofthe Lido Isle real and personal property, previously occupied by St. James the Great. ‘Thank you for your consideration. ’ 1) alo o Ine Arts Pawaeh | ken Sun Papa