Documents detail allegations of discrimination, financial impropriety against former Florida bishop

[Episcopal News Service] The Episcopal Church on Feb. 3 released documents related to the two Title IV disciplinary cases against former Florida Bishop John Howard, including details of alleged financial impropriety that had not been revealed publicly until now.

Episcopal Church Canons require that such documents be made public, now that the cases against Howard are proceeding to a disciplinary hearing panel. One of the two cases alleges discrimination against a priest as part of a broader pattern of anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination under Howard’s leadership. Those allegations have been thoroughly documented and debated since they first drew public scrutiny in February 2023.

The second case is unrelated and centers on three previously unpublicized allegations. Howard is accused of improperly benefiting from a home loan provided by his Jacksonville-based diocese that the diocese eventually forgave. He also is accused of spending money from a bishop’s discretionary account on home improvements.

The last allegation in the financial case raises concerns about the transparency and propriety of an arrangement between Howard, an anonymous donor and an independent diocesan foundation to boost the bishop’s salary while also fulfilling corresponding pension obligations in the years before his 2023 retirement at age 72, presumably so he could receive larger pension payments.

Howard, in his written responses to these allegations, affirmed many of the underlying facts but denied all wrongdoing. In the financial case, he argued “that each matter was transparent, was approved by lay authorities of the diocese and was properly documented.” As for the allegations of discrimination, Howard acknowledged that his theologically conservative views on homosexuality and same-sex marriage “have not shifted over time,” but he denied discriminating against the complainant.

A three-day Title IV hearing is scheduled to start April 30 unless Presiding Bishop Sean Rowe, in consultation with all parties, reaches an accord with Howard. Such an agreement to resolve the matter would be subject to approval by the church’s Disciplinary Board for Bishops.

Rowe issued a brief statement on the matter while announcing that the documents had been released. “Negotiations among the parties are now underway with the hope that we can reach an accord that promotes healing, repentance, forgiveness, restitution, justice, amendment of life and reconciliation, in accordance with the values that guide the Title IV process,” Rowe said, quoting partly from the church’s goals expressed in the Title IV canons.

The Rev. Sarah Minton, president of the Diocese of Florida Standing Committee, also released a statement in response to the release of the documents.

“The members of the Standing Committee received the news of these allegations against Bishop Howard with sorrow and disappointment,” Minton said. “We pray that as our diocese continues to discern the future and face the issues before us, the Title IV process will allow us to realize God’s healing and reconciliation. We pray that we can move forward together focused on our participation in God’s mission and our true identity as the Body of Christ in the world.”

Title IV of The Episcopal Church’s Canons sets out standards of conduct for all ordained people in the church and provides a process for addressing allegations of misconduct. Most complaints against bishops do not rise to the level of Title IV cases, and when they do, most details typically remain confidential in the initial phases of investigation, until more public disclosure is required at the hearing panel stage.

The Howard documents were posted to The Episcopal Church’s website on active Title IV cases against bishops. The website was launched in February 2024 under orders of Rowe’s predecessor, former Presiding Bishop Michael Curry, partly in response to growing churchwide concerns over the perception that bishops were not being held to the same standards as other clergy under the church’s Title IV canons, which apply to all clergy.

In the statement of alleged offenses in the discrimination case against Howard, the complainant’s name is redacted.

Several people have notified church authorities of alleged discrimination by Howard. The allegations of anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination by Howard first generated public scrutiny with the February 2023 release of a report by the church’s Court of Review that cast doubt on the integrity of the diocese’s two 2022 elections to determine who would replace him as bishop. The winner in those two elections, the Rev. Charlie Holt, ultimately was blocked during the churchwide consent process from being consecrated as bishop, and the Diocese of Florida remains without a diocesan bishop for now.

In November 2023, the Title IV reference panel ordered an investigation into the discrimination allegations, and in June 2024, the case was referred to the Title IV hearing panel.

The second Title IV case against Howard was first revealed publicly a year ago on the church’s Title IV website. At that time, the allegations were identified only as “of a financial nature.” That case, too, was referred for an investigation and then to the hearing panel.

Howard was consecrated bishop coadjutor in 2003 and became Florida’s bishop diocesan the following year. During his nearly two decades of leadership, Howard “exercised control over material financial matters involving both his personal interests and those of the diocese, which on occasion were adverse,” according to a church attorney’s statement of alleged offenses against Howard.

It lists three specific charges. The first is “misuse of discretionary account.” The bishop’s account was intended to “fund such human needs as he deemed pressing and worthy.” In 2019, nearly $18,000 was paid from the account to three contractors making improvements to the HVAC system at Howard’s house.

After the Title IV case was initiated, Howard reportedly issued a check to the diocese labeled “reimbursement” for an amount roughly matching the amount of the contractor payments.

The second alleged offense is described as “use of foundation to recharacterize gift as assessable compensation.” Sometime before December 2013, “an understanding was reached that a wealthy donor, who insisted on anonymity” would make a large donation to the diocese’s foundation, which is incorporated as an independent nonprofit. The donor would also give Howard $120,000 a year, separate from his diocesan compensation. At the same time, the diocese’s foundation committed to paying the corresponding 18% contribution to the Church Pension Fund for Howard, treating the $120,000 as “assessable compensation.”

Over eight years, Howard reportedly received payments from the anonymous donor of at least $960,000, and the foundation was presumed to have made $172,800 in pension payments over the same period.

“The effect of the arrangement to characterize the annual gift to [Howard] as compensation from an employer, the Diocesan Foundation, was to artificially inflate the calculation of [Howard’s] assessable compensation,” the charges state. As a result, “the benefit payable to [Howard] after his retirement will be inflated,” since it is based on average compensation during his seven highest years of employment.

The case’s third alleged offense relates to “loan forgiveness on private residence,” which Howard and his wife purchased in 2004 for $850,000. At the same time, the Howards reportedly entered into a mortgage agreement with the diocese to receive a $175,000 loan to help cover the cost of the house.

The diocese “expressly contemplated the forgiveness of [Howard’s] debt without specifying any ceiling on the amounts that might be forgiven,” according to the alleged offense, and Howard’s “conflicting duties and obligations, to himself and his wife on the one hand, and to the diocese, on the other, made it imperative that there be no self-dealing or placing of personal interest above the financial interest of the diocese.”

Howard, in his written response to the allegations, countered that there was no conflict of interest in the mortgage arrangement, which was “expressly approved by resolutions of the Diocesan Finance Committee” and “fully transparent.”

Howard also denied misusing his discretionary account. He said that the money spent on home repairs in 2019 was appropriate because the diocese “had an equitable interest” in the bishop’s home, which was sometimes used for “fundraising, entertaining and business and pastoral meetings, as well as occasional lodging for diocesan guests.”

As for Howard’s unusual compensation arrangement, “there was nothing misleading or opaque,” according to the bishop, who added in his response to the charges that the additional pension payments had been discussed with and approved by a top Church Pension Group official.

– David Paulsen is a senior reporter and editor for Episcopal News Service based in Wisconsin. He can be reached at dpaulsen@episcopalchurch.org.