FAQs

Following are some frequently asked questions about this dispute, as well as my answers.
  • Do you hate Bob Malm?
           No, I am indifferent.
  • Isn’t this really about the fact you weren’t named senior warden?
No. First, a clarification: Bob did ask me to serve as senior warden, and later backtracked. That said, I had been hoping to serve a second year as junior warden, but was not offered that opportunity. Thus, while I was unhappy with Bob’s handling of the situation, whether or not I served as senior warden was not part of it. Moreover, I believe Bob’s actions in this space were tit-for-tat for pushing him to do his job, which includes supervising parish staff. 
  •  How did this dispute get started?
It started shortly after Bob’s return from his accident, when Bob behaved very badly at two different meetings, including yelling at me and criticizing me in front of others, despite not having had any sort of conversation directly with me about the topics he raised.
Shortly afterwards, I met with Bob to discuss his conduct, and he apologized profusely. I also cautioned him that I would not tolerate future bullying on his part. 
Later that summer, however, Bob moved into full-on passive aggressive mode when I and others insisted that Bob fulfill one of his most basic job requirements as rector, which is to supervise staff. Subsequently, Bob began a series of “micro-aggressions,” culminating in my decision to resign from the vestry and property committee. I did not, however, resign membership in the church until more than 2 years later. Thus, the vestry’s talking points claiming otherwise are a lie. Moreover, Bob has acknowledged in front of the bishop diocesan that his efforts to force me out were a form of retaliation for complaining to the diocese about his conduct.
  •  But didn’t you renege on your commitment not to blog about events at the church?
No. All involved in the meeting with the bishop diocesan knew and understood that Mom and others would continue to blog. Moreover, when the bishop’s office contacted me about Mom’s blogging, staff there did not realize two things: 1) That Mom never had stopped blogging, but had recently shifted blogging platforms and 2) That I was unwilling to triangulate the issue, but that they instead needed to deal directly with those involved. Indeed, I offered to facilitate the latter, but the diocese ignored my offer. I also did not realize that Bishop Shannon Johnston already had sent a letter of support for Bob Malm, in which he falsely stated that the matter had been investigated and resolved long ago.
To clarify, the diocesan intake officer does not, under the canons, undertake any sort of investigation. If they need to make inquiry, it is, per written church guidance, “To understand the matter complained of.” Dismissing the matter at that stage means, by definition, that the matter neither was investigated, nor resolved. 
  • Didn’t the diocese dismiss the matter as “not of weighty and material importance to the ministry of the church”?
It did. 
At that stage of the proceedings, the matter complained of is considered to be true, and the questions are asked, “If true, would the conduct complained of constitute a violation of the canons and, if so, would it be of ‘weighty and material importance to the ministry of the church’?”
Since my allegations included possible ongoing workplace harassment, bullying by clergy, perjury by clergy, and questionable HR, cash management, and financial reporting practices, as well as retaliation for filing a Title IV complaint, the diocese has made clear that it does not consider any of these behaviors problematic for clergy. Moreover, Bishop Johnston has repeatedly himself violated the provisions of Title IV, including dismissing a case at the reference panel stage, in violation of the canons. In other words, this is not an option available to him. Yet, when I pointed this out, I was ignored.
Ironically, the diocese wants things both ways. It decries the damage this dispute is causing the church, yet simultaneously says it’s not important to the church. So which is it? 
In the meantime, my advice is this: Steer clear of any church that thinks bullying, workplace harassment, and retaliation are acceptable. They are not.
I’d add that there are accusations afoot — apparently well-documented — that +Shannon covered up sexual harassment of female church employees by clergy under his supervision. That speaks volumes to ethics within the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia. Such matters should be handled in a manner that makes clear that harassment will not be tolerated.
  •  How do you explain the fact that your Mom’s blog sounds much like yours?
First, by Bob Malm’s own written statement, the tone and tenor typically is quite different. Second,  Mom was one of the holders of my original blog backups, which I sent to various locations in case Bob was able to convince my platform host to take it down, and she has repurposed content on many occasions. Third, Mom and I had several of the same English instructors as kids. Moreover, I am the publisher of my blog, but not necessarily the author of specific posts. Thus, while I can often spot specific, minute differences in our diction, few — immediate family members included — can identify who wrote a particular piece, regardless of the medium used. 

It also should be noted that several independent third parties were aware, long before Bob Malm’s false accusations, that Mom was blogging and had continued to do so. They were prepared to testify to this had I taken the legal case to trial.
  • Have you ever threatened Bob?
No, and he knows that. Indeed, his ludicrous and badly drafted settlement proposal is all about silencing criticism, as one can see from even a cursory review. 
  • Can this dispute be resolved?
Yes, but I doubt that it is feasible. First, Bob and I cannot have any contact until 2020, and even then I don’t want any communication from him. Second, resolution would involve genuine Christian conduct on the part of Bob Malm, the parish, and the diocese. Thus far, none of the three have shown that they are capable of acting in a manner that even suggests any genuine Christian perspective. Moreover, with Mom’s days rapidly dwindling, they are fast running out of time to resolve conflict with a key stakeholder.  There also is the issue, common to all conflict, that the longer parties are at loggerheads, the harder it is to find resolution.

It’s also important to note that clergy are always responsible for maintaining boundaries, and are expected to adhere to a higher standard. Thus, even if everything Bob says were true, lying in court, including family members, and referring to me as “sick,” “twisted,” and “dysfunctional,” to members of the parish, diocesan staff, and others would still be highly inappropriate.
  • The church appears to be lurching towards an existential crisis, in which it can no longer pay its bills. Does that concern you?
No, it doesn’t. Bob Malm, the vestry, and church members have had numerous warnings that things were headed in this direction, and ample time and opportunity to address these issues. So, if the church collapses, I’ll neither feel bad nor rejoice.

It’s worth mentioning, too, that the current pattern, in which the remaining members ramp up giving as attendance and pledging decline, is considered by experts a common sign of a dying church. 
  • What do you think about Bob Malm’s claims that you are mentally ill and violent?
Given that I have successfully passed a polygraph, a psych evaluation, and a background check more rigorous than a federal security clearance, Bob’s comments reflect on him, not me. They’re also remarkably stupid: Either people believe Bob, in which case they are likely to avoid a church that claims to be threatened by “domestic terrorism,” or they don’t believe him, in which case they are likely to avoid a church where the rector may be dishonest, or manipulative, or mentally ill. I offer no conclusions in that space, but instead encourage others to form their own opinions.
  • You are active in the church abuse survivors’ movement. Are you suggesting that Bob Malm has engaged in sexual misconduct?
No.
  • You state that Bob Malm has lied repeatedly. Can you summarize your claim?
Yes. Bob’s lies start with his claim, which he used in order to induce me to agree to serve as junior warden. In response to my concerns about church office staff and their conduct, Bob stated (verbatim): ‘Don’t worry about it. They’ll be retiring this year.” Needless to say, this didn’t happen, and he later admitted he had no basis in fact for his statement.

Other lies:
    • His statement to Kemp Williams that I violated my agreement to abide by the bishop’s guidance during the meeting in Fredericksburg. No such agreement was made, nor was the topic discussed.
    • Bob’s statement during the Fredericksburg meeting, said in front of the bishop and the canon to the ordinary (verbatim), “Having resigned from the vestry, you were no longer eligible to serve as a trustee.” No such policy exists, nor did Bob supply a copy of such a policy during discovery.
    • His claims that I am mentally ill.
    • Various court pleadings, ranging from his claim that I am inspired by a fictional church shooting in the equally fictional town of “Sugarland Texas,” to:
      • His claim I never was licensed as an attorney.
      • His claim that I never served as a police officer.
      • His claim that I have violated the existing court order.
      • His biggest lie of all, which is that I have threatened him. Taking random words out of context is only a threat if you are mentally ill, and even then, it does not meet the requisite legal standard. 
That said, if Grace Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia think these behaviors are acceptable for clergy, they are welcome to Bob Malm. I have no desire to be associated with a church or denomination in which this conduct is acceptable, and where both the bishop and members of the parish endorse such behavior.
  • Why did you reject the church’s settlement offer?
I rejected it for a variety of reasons. Among these were the fact that accepting it would have rewarded Bob’s unethical behavior, including his courtroom lies and knowingly inflammatory rhetoric, as well as Bob’s bullying. Additionally:
    • In short order, we would have been right back where we started from when someone blogged or otherwise criticized Bob and Grace Church. At that point, Bob’s paranoia would again kick in, and he would have argued I was behind it.
    • The offer was entirely one-sided, and would have allowed Bob to continue his behind-the-scenes claims that I am dysfunctional, a “domestic terrorist,” etc.
    • The offer contained no enforcement mechanism for violations by Grace Church.
    • The offer in no way reflected Christian values of truth-telling, repentance and reconciliation. Instead, it gave Bob Malm, the person in the position of power, a pass on his previous conduct, slapped a layer of “Jesus-babble” on things about love and forgiveness and Bob’s usual empty words, and reverted to the status quo.
    • The offer in no way addressed the needs of my Mom, Mike, or other stakeholders, all of whom remain apoplectic over Bob’s conduct, as well as that of Jeff “Sugarland” Chiow.
  • Why do you refer to Jeff Chiow as “Sugarland”?
The moniker is a reference to Jeff’s fabrication, in his discovery documents, of a non-existent town in Texas, and an equally fictional church shooting in that town. These fabrications typify both Jeff’s lack of integrity as an attorney, the remarkably sloppy work reflected in his pleadings, and his other fabrications, previously discussed.
  • What do you predict will happen at Grace Church during 2019?
It’s hard to know, given the erratic nature of Bob Malm’s conduct over the past few years. That said:
    • The church will lurch through the coming months. The budget that the vestry passes in January likely will be balanced on paper, either via rosy predictions of revenue, or equally irrational projections on the expense side.
    • Stalwarts will continue to ramp up their individual giving in an effort to shore up the church’s increasingly shaky finances. 
    • It will become increasingly obvious to all involved that the situation is untenable, but few will have any meaningful proposals to address problems at the church. True to form, folks will dither, kick the can down the road, and more.
    • Given the advancing age of many parishioners, the church may well luck out this year and have someone pass away, leaving the church enough money to — you guessed it — kick the can down the road.
    • Bob will continue to try to have his cake and eat it too, by talking about the need to be kind, even to people whom parishioners hate (like me), in an effort to tamp down the conflict now tearing apart the fabric of the church. But he’ll try to avoid doing anything that comes right out and admits, either directly or tacitly, that he pulled a fast one on the parish with his sudden interest in panic buttons, active shooters, etc. (Keep in mind that, even as recently as 2014, Bob still referenced feelings of personal invincibility in his sermons. That right there should tell parishioners something.)
    • Finding a full-time assistant rector will be problematic. Yes, Bob likely will try to address the concerns of potential applicants by telling them, as he has done in the past, that I’m “off my rocker.” But there’s plenty of written documentation of Bob’s misconduct on this site, and any candidate worth having is going to look closely at Bob’s courtroom lies, his inflammatory rhetoric, and his inappropriate comments about those entrusted to his pastoral care.
    • The diocese may step in and try to help sort out the mess, but if it does, that will require a level of courage, integrity, and Christian commitment thus far not evinced by the diocese or its bishops. And a half-baked effort of the sort that slaps a layer of “Jesus-babble” on things and announces that we are moving past things, with no consideration given to the needs of those hurt by Bob’s misconduct, is worse that nothing at all.
    • There’s increasing evidence, based on conversations with several parishioners, that people have come to realize that things are a hot mess at Grace. The challenge will be finding someone willing to come right out and say it. Grace has a bad case of group-think, as well as the notion that questioning Bob Malm somehow is disloyal. Even those who have been burned by Bob’s actions, like the unfortunates who got to clean out Charlotte’s office while Bob allegedly played golf, seem unlikely to step up to the plate and call a spade a spade.
  • What do you think it would take for Grace Church to again become healthy?
I believe it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the parish to again find its footing with Bob as rector, as he appears to have spent his entire career pursuing power, control, and prestige, versus serving the church. That said, the church will need to work with an outside expert in conflict management to understand how to address conflict in a healthy manner. It also would be helpful for the church to formally adopt written, normative behaviors and a vestry covenant. Combined with an formal annual vestry retreat, performance reviews, and mutual ministry reviews, these steps would help the church transition to a healthier, more effective approach to church governance.

It’s also important for the church not to follow its usual trick of either minimizing or denying conflict. Instead, healing for the church will only occur when there can be truthtelling and disclosure in a safe environment in which all are welcomed, and all vantage points welcomed. This means that past conflicts will need to be revisited with a view towards learning from mistakes. There also are several parishioners who engage in bullying behavior and who are damaging the entire church through their actions. These individuals either will need to learn new ways of interacting with others or decide for themselves whether they wish to continue to be part of the church.

My suspicion is that, when Bob finally does leave, the interim period will prove quite difficult for the parish. But it may also be that the experience will allow parishioners to finally recognize just how unhealthy the parish has become. Meanwhile, the fact that parishioners are okay with Bob lying and engaging in shunning, as well as other parishioners inter alia urging people to commit suicide, mocking the dying, and more shows just how very skewed reference points have become in the parish.
  • Would you consider pulling down this blog and other postings?
Probably not. And in this regard, Grace has an issue on its hands, which is that Fairfax Underground affords no way to pull down content without an account, which I don’t use. And that’s not unfair: The harm that Bob Malm’s has caused others through his bullying, his lies, and his betrayal of trust won’t suddenly evaporate, either.

That said, I may be willing to provide an update that announces meaningful progress towards resolution. But it’s not unfair that people who may be considering becoming involved in the parish know that this is a church that thinks suing its former members is okay, or that it is okay for the rector to lie, abuse his authority, and more. After all, few would argue that the church should obtain members via false pretenses.
  • Why do you post all the time to Fairfax Underground? Maintain an image library on Flickr?
Search engines evaluate a variety of factors in selecting data to index, or not. One of the biggest criteria is frequency of posting. Similarly, the web increasingly is becoming a visual medium, with more and more searches based on imagery.

As long as Bob’s court order is in place, you may count on me continuing to post. 
  • What does your mother think of Bob Malm and The Episcopal Church these days?
You don’t want to know.
  • What does Mike think about Bob Malm and The Episcopal Church?
If he never hears either name again it will be a day too soon. Ironically, I am still the friendliest in my family towards the church — which is not saying much.