The board and editor of the Presbyterian Record appreciate the opportunity afforded by Overture 5 to address the role of the Record within the life of the church community, especially when dealing with the publication of criminal allegations against members of the community.
The prayer in question raises two broad issues: whether the publication of allegations of wrongdoing against a minister is fair and just and whether the editor of the Record is free to publish such allegations.
In answer to the first concern, we believe the church is well served by openness and transparency and poorly served by secretiveness. We assure you that we are sensitive to the potential harm such allegations may cause to a person's reputation, if charges are shown to be false. But we are also aware that secretiveness can cause even greater harm. When people sense a conspiracy of silence, they are unlikely to trust the institution. The recent stories of sexual abuse being hidden by church officials in denominations across North America should serve as ample warning to the dangers of secrecy. As well, we know that secrecy can lead to information being disseminated by innuendo, rumour and gossip, leading to false information being spread, even more harmful to a person's reputation.
As the Leading With Care policy indicates, we believe the church's primary concern must be for the vulnerable in relationships. Publishing alleged crimes creates a climate in which others who may have been affected in a similar situation feel free to come forward to authorities. Finally, despite the risks involved, we trust the church community will extend the presumption of innocence to an individual named in a matter and is able to distinguish between unproven charges and convictions.
Nevertheless, we are aware that publication of such stories is painful for both the individuals and the institution as a whole. The Presbytery of Seaway-Glengarry wrote the editor in June of last year raising essentially the same issues as appear in their overture. In his reply, editor David Harris noted that sexual assault charges are among the most grave in our society and seriously affect both the accused and the complainant and their families.
However, he explained the magazine's obligation to publish such information on the grounds that it is the responsibility of media to inform the community we serve about such situations and to do so fairly and fully. Mr. Harris went on to say that the Record “believe[s] transparency does mean following through public accusations from beginning to end. We believe this affords the best protection to the complainant, the accused and the justice system as a whole, not to mention in this case, the church. … Openness about both the criminal and church processes plays a vital role in building trust in the church and wider community that the church takes such matters seriously.”
To the question of whether publishing a criminal allegation is disparaging, we would note that the Record relies solely on the facts disclosed in the information or charge, the formal, public document setting out the Crown's allegation. We do not believe the Record has ever published any slighting comments.
The overture also raised a question regarding the requirement for confidentiality unless otherwise necessary among those handling a complaint before the church courts under the Sexual Harassment and Abuse protocol. We believe this speaks to the church's internal procedures, not to individuals or organizations outside those handling a complaint and not to matters of public record. Secondly, the policy itself requires the suspension of a minister charged with a criminal offence and that the congregation be (publicly) notified (Section B4) under the policy's guideline that adequate information be disclosed to avoid rumour and innuendo. Thirdly, the policy also requires internal procedures to be stayed where police are investigating an alleged crime or charges are before the courts. (Section C1)
The second issue concerns the role of the editor of the Record to make such judgments about whether to publish a story. This has been the role of the editor before the magazine's incorporation and remains so. The board of directors is a governance board, not an editorial board. Its role is to set out the policies under which management and staff work. We do not believe the editor has breached either the magazine's editorial policy or the ethics codes to which it subscribes.
To sum up then whether publishing the name of a person accused of a crime is unjust, unfair or disparaging:
While acknowledging that publishing criminal allegations against a church leader is unpleasant, we believe that transparency and accountability serve the well-being of the church community as it holds itself open to scrutiny by its own constituency and society at large. The Record plays a role as the primary vehicle of communication regarding the life of the Presbyterian Church to the wider community. Consequently, the board of directors supports the right of the editor to publish such information and does not believe such publication either violates the Record's own fairness guidelines nor any confidentiality clauses in the church's Policy for Dealing with Sexual Abuse and/or Harassment.
Recommendation No 1.That the above be the answer to the prayer of Overture No. 5, 2006.
