Complainant’s recap of cases
The Layman Online, Posted Thursday, October 17, 2002
The Layman Online asked Paul Rolf Jensen to provide a summary of the status of cases in which he filed complaints. This is his response:
Presbytery of Yellowstone
On March 26, 2002, I filed accusations against the Rev. Paul Peterson and the Rev. Teresa Peterson. During the summer, I was offered the opportunity to testify by phone, and I did so. On August 15, 2002, I wrote the Committee to offer further evidence that had only then come to my attention. On August 21st, I got a fax from the Committee saying that I would hear from them within 30 days, and apologizing for the delay. Now, the investigating committee has notified me of its decision not to file charges, based on the fact that one of the accused ministers said that the original resolution was later rescinded and that he said there had been no actual conduct in violation of the constitution, evidently taking him at his word on this, without asking him questions on the underlying facts (e.g., had his church ordained any elders or deacons that are homosexuals) and without inquiring from members of his congregation. I have sent a petition for review of this decision to the Presbytery PJC, but I doubt they will set aside the investigating committee’s decision, because that IC at least did interview me.
Presbytery of New York City
I have received a letter from the investigating committee that no charges will be filed. I had previously been informed that an investigating committee has been appointed to review my charges against the Rev. Jon Walton. At no time was I ever contacted by the Investigating Committee; I have filed a petition for review of this error with the Presbytery PJC.
Presbytery of Hudson River
I got a letter from the stated clerk, Harriet Sandmeier, stating that in order for her to process the accusations, I would have to file amended versions, because I mixed up the churches where the accused serve. What is mixed up are the pages of the fax (could have been on my end, I guess) but I am confident the pages of the originals mailed to her (the return receipt came back signed yesterday) were correct. I am about to write her to inform her of this, and that I will not be filing any amended accusations, and she should use the originals to submit to presbytery. Also, she responded to my request that the presbytery refer the matters to synod, under the procedure provided for this in the Book of Order, on the grounds of a conflict of interest. She wrote asking me to explain the conflict of interest! Also, I have written five more ministers in Hudson River who signed statements of defiance in 2000, but whose Web sites do NOT contain at the present time any statement of defiance. I have told each that if he wishes to inform me within 10 days that his position is changed, then I will not file charges against him, and that, otherwise, I will.
Presbytery of the Redwoods
On March 26, 2002, I filed complaints against Katie Morrison, Brian Tippen, Chandler Stokes, Mary Wright Gillespe, Carolyn Osborn, Yvette Flunder and Barbara Rowe. On April 2, 2002, the stated clerk wrote back simply acknowledging receipt of the accusations. On June 27th, someone wrote me (without any return address or clarification of her capacity) and said the investigating committee had been appointed and would contact me to schedule an interview. I responded to that letter on August 15th (when I had heard nothing further) by letter to the stated clerk offering to come to California to testify, and reminding the committee of its obligation to hear testimony from all available witnesses. I stated that I had other witnesses for the committee to examine. Last week, I received a letter dated September 19th, from someone identifying himself as the secretary of the investigating committee, stating that the committee had reached its decision on the Stokes matter, and decided not to file charges. Other than these instances, I have had NO communications from Redwoods on ANY matter. Accordingly, I have filed a petition with the Presbytery PJC that the investigating committee ignored its duties under D-10.0202 (d). Finally, it is worth noting that the two remedial cases filed by others alleging irregularities in the Presbytery’s decision to ordain Morrison, a self-admitted practicing lesbian, have both been dismissed by the Synod.
Presbytery of Baltimore
The investigating committee appointed to hear my accusation against the Rev. Don Stroud, after my repeated requests to testify in person, decided on June 28th not to file charges. My requests to testify went without any response. On July 26th, I filed a petition with the Presbytery PJC to review this decision. I also had sought to have one of the members of the committee recused for a conflict of interest, in that he was a large financial contributor to the accused. Similarly, this request went without substantive response, but the conflicted member did NOT recuse himself. Meanwhile, the accused has published a statement wherein he unequivocally admits the truth of my accusation.
Presbytery of National Capital
On March 25, 2002, the PJC rejected my petition to review the decision of the investigating committee not to file charges against the Rev. Eric Scott Winnette. The committee in its investigation did interview me and did examine the videotape I brought where Mr. Winnette spoke on the floor of the 2001 GA and announced his defiance of G-6.0106 (b). The committee said it also reviewed his letter to his congregation “coming out of the closet.” The PJC denied my request for a hearing on my petition and denied my request to even see the response of the investigating committee – although in its final decision the PJC said, incongruously, they themselves were “ill advised” in that regard. In holding against me, the PJC found that the investigating committee had used “excellent judgment”.
Pasadena Presbyterian Church
On March 26, 2002, I filed an accusation against elder Steve Morrison, alleging that he violated his ordination vows by participating in the ordination of his daughter, whom he knew to be a practicing lesbian, as a minister of the Word and Sacrament, in the Presbytery of the Redwoods. The investigating committee denied my request to testify in person, but did hear my testimony over the phone. Subsequently, on July 18th, I was notified that the investigating committee had decided not to file charges. Because the appeal from this decision would not have been to the presbytery, but rather to the session, I decided that to petition for further review would be pointless.
Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area
On April 18th, I was sent a letter by the stated clerk acknowledging receipt of my accusation against the Rev. Tammy Lindahl, stating an investigating committee would be appointed at the May meeting. I have heard nothing since.
Presbytery of the Pacific
On July 20, 2002, the secretary of the investigating committee wrote me and said its investigation of my accusation against the Rev. Ann Petker had begun, and that I would be contacted to testify. I also received several phone messages from the secretary. (I understand the delay was caused in part by the death of the secretary’s father.) I replied in writing on July 31st, offering to come to California to testify. I have heard nothing since.
Presbytery of Cincinnati
On March 14, 2002, I filed accusations against the Rev. Steve Van Kuiken and the Rev. Hal Porter. Subsequently, they have both issued statements admitting the truth of the allegations. On August 8, 2002, I was faxed an unsigned letter, presumably from the Investigating Committee asking me to refrain from further comments on this case in the press. I responded the same day to the stated clerk, and stated that since the accused individuals we
re very public about their defiance, and had made the case a public issue, I was not about to adhere to their request, which had no basis in the Book of Order in any instance. I also stated that I wanted to come to the Presbytery to testify before the Investigating Committee. On August 22nd I was sent a letter by the Stated Clerk saying that I would hear from the investigating committee again. To date, I have not.