As you can see, Bob Malm’s conduct falls squarely in the former category. Indeed, to this day he continues to try to bully me via the court system; never once has he personally taken steps to resolve this issue, instead requiring the intervention of diocesan officials to make any effort in this space. Indeed, it’s interesting that Bob loves to portray himself as the decisionmaker in day-to-day life; he can even override the vestry, despite the fact that, under the canons, he is elected by, and reports to, the vestry. Yet in this conflict, Bob deliberately ignores that fact that he is responsible at all times for maintaining appropriate boundaries—a truth that is reflected in the recent church legislation to outlaw retaliation in Title IV cases. And Bob repeatedly mischaracterizes past conversations and events, even going so far as to falsely tell people that I resigned my membership in the parish in 2015–a flagrant falsehood, if there ever was one.
Tuesday, July 31, 2018
Bullying versus Peer Conflict
As I look over Bob Malm’s various emails, one of the striking things is how squarely his conduct falls within the definition of bullying, versus peer conflict. That’s not surprising, of course, because clergy are never peers with laity, but instead are ALWAYS responsible for establishing and maintaining appropriate boundaries.
Consider the following comparison, published by various public school districts: