Opinion ID: 2453320
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Board's Decision Misstated The Record When Finding Nash To Be Untruthful.

Text: Denying Nash's application, the decision homed in on Nash's inexplicable lack of recollection about the treatment he received [at Jemez Springs] or the contents of [its] report. The decision found Nash had given misleading answers and therefore lacked candor. As support to show that Nash was not telling the truth about Jemez Springs, the decision pointed to a statement by Nash's attorney, asserting that the attorney admitted that the facility was notorious as a treatment facility for priests suffering from sexual disorders. Further, the decision stated that it was well-known to several Board members from reports in the press that [t]he facility has been widely criticized as ineffectively returning priests suffering from sexual disorders to active clerical duties. The Board summed up its decision in this way: It is uncontested that Mr. Nash received a report upon discharge from the facility. It is also uncontested that the report was destroyed. This report effectively ended Mr. Nash's pastoral career. However, neither Mr. Nash, nor his counsel, claims to have any clue as to the report's contents, conclusions, or recommendations. This lack of recollection lacks credibility and appears to be a deliberate, material lack of candor with this tribunal. It is impossible to fathom that Mr. Nash cannot even generally recall the contents of such a report. It derailed a decadal pastoral career. At a minimum, Mr. Nash would recall the general contents of the report. The report was too vital to Mr. Nash's pastoral career to credibly claim its contents were forgotten. The Board stated that this alleged lack of candor was the most serious concern and the key issue regarding Nash's application. However, those assertions are simply not supported by the record. Most notably, it is not clear there was any such thing as a discharge report that contained final results. And if such final results existed, there is no evidence that Nash reviewed such a report or denied knowledge of it. The Board's confusion may stem from the multiple reports. Before attending the program at Jemez Springs, Nash underwent an intake evaluation. Then, while Nash attended Jemez Springs, the facility prepared four progress reports. Although the record does not show that a comprehensive discharge report was ever prepared, the fourth progress report came at the end of Nash's time at Jemez Springs and may have been considered a final report, although there is no evidence it summarized Nash's progress more comprehensively than the other reports. Assuming the Board's discussion of a discharge report referred to the fourth report, there is no evidence supporting the assertion that Nash received and reviewed that report. And it is not true that Nash claimed no knowledge of such a reportrather, it does not appear Nash was ever questioned on the subject. Indeed, at oral argument Bar Counsel could not point to a single piece of evidence in the record supporting the Board's assertion that Nash received a discharge report, or was questioned about the contents of one. [16] This mistake is extremely prejudicial, since Nash's purported failure to remember the purported discharge report was the basis for finding that Nash lacks candor. The Board's misstatement may stem from a finding by the hearing master, who found that Nash's lack of memory about the Jemez Springs evaluation was not credible. The Board's use of this finding is problematic for several reasons. First, assuming the hearing master was correctly referring to the intake evaluation, the Board's confusion between that and a discharge report is not harmless. That is, it is not clear that the Board could have come to the same conclusion had it known its finding was based on Nash's memory of a preliminary intake evaluation, and not, as it believed, on Nash's failure to remember the contents of a comprehensive discharge report which would contain final results from Nash's five months at Jemez Springs. Indeed, the hearing master did not find that Nash's lack of memory warranted denying his application. Second, it is not clear that the hearing master herself was aware of the differing intake evaluation and progress reports. She referenced Nash's testimony about an evaluation, but then referred to testimony about all of the Jemez Springs records being destroyed, and never mentioned the progress reports that the Board may have intended to reference. Third, even ignoring the above two problems, and assuming the failed memory issue refers to Nash's recollection of the intake evaluation, there is no evidence supporting the Board's contention that Nash claims to have [no] clue about that report, or cannot even generally recall the contents. Bar Counsel conceded this at oral argument before us. Regarding an intake evaluation that occurred eighteen years priorat a time when Nash claims to have been depressed and burnt-outwe find his responses to be appropriate. Contrary to the Board's statements, Nash testified extensively. While he did not remember results from certain specific exams, he discussed the evaluation comprehensively, denied any diagnosis of a psychological disorder, gave information corroborating his statements, and attested that the general result showed he was an emotional wreck who would benefit from the Jemez Springs program. On direct exam by his own attorney, he testified as follows: Q: What did you understand you would be evaluated for? A: It was ato be a broad based evaluation, including psychological, physical, medical, spiritual, emotional evaluation. Frankly, I was something of a wreck right at that time. . . . . Q: How long did it take? A: It was about three days. Q: And what was the nature of the evaluation? A: It included interviews andlet me start over. We were asked to complete a number of psychological written examinations similar to the MMPI. I do not remember all of them. We were evaluated for our we were asked to complete an evaluation for IQ. We were asked to spend time with a medical doctor who gave us a complete thorough physical examination, including a treadmill test, or gave me, at least. I was asked to spend time with a spiritual director to evaluate my particular spiritual depth and needs at the time. Was there one more component? I was interviewed about my social interactions and activities. . . . . Q: Were you given the results of the evaluation? A: I was. Q: What were the results? A: I don't remember. I'm sorry. I know it sounds evasive, but there wasultimately, there was a recommendation that I participate in a renewal program offered by the Paraclete Fathers at their facility, what they called Foundation House. Q: And you said you felt you were a wreck at the time, is that correct? A: Yes. . . . . Q: Now, did you discuss with Bishop Kenny the results of the evaluation that you had had? A: Well, the results were forwarded to him, and we discussed the wisdom of my trying the renewal program. . . . Q: Was it your decision to go [to Jemez Springs], or was it Bishop Kenny's? A: It was my decision to go. Q: Why did you decide that you would go? A: He persuaded me that I should give the priesthood another chance, and the results, I think, showed that I was a physical and emotional wreck. Cross-examination was similar: Q: In the evaluation process, you indicated that there were a number of evaluations that were conducted. Was one of those a psychiatric or a psychological evaluation? A: Yes. Q: Were you informed of the results of either a psychiatric or a psychological evaluation? A: I got a packet this thick of the results of the various exams. I'm not sure that that was in there. . . . . Q: Do you have a recollection of the type of psychological tests that you were given at the Servants of the Paraclete? . . . . A: Quite a wide battery. The MMPI, a I think there were four psychological tests of the type where you answer questions of one sort or another, and a Rorschach. Q: Do you recall the results of any of those tests? A: No. I'm sorry. Q: Did any of those tests reflect a personality disorder? A: Not to my knowledge. I think I might have remember[ed] . . . Q: Any psychological diagnosis, such as might be found in DSM-IV? A: Not to my knowledge. Q: Specifically, Mr. Nash, in this evaluation process, were you tested for tendencies toward pedophilia? A: I think so. I think the Rorschach was. . . Q: I mispronounced that. Pedophilia is what I meant tohow I meant to pronounce it. A: I know what you mean. Q: Were there any physical tests for pedophilia that were administered to you. . . ? A: No. While the examination of Nash could have been more effective, we do not find his answers particularly evasive, and they certainly cannot be described as the wholesale lack of recollection upon which the Board denied Nash's application. The evidence does not establish that Nash is feigning forgetfulness of a diagnosis. If one assumes that the report contained a specific diagnosis, such as pedophilia, Nash presumably could not forget such a conclusion. But Nash clearly stated that he believes the tests did not point to a specific diagnosis of a personality disorder, or any other diagnosis that might be found in the DSM-IV. Indeed, the testimony is ambiguous as to whether Nash even received the results of each specific test, and does not demonstrate that the tests were of a kind that produces a specific, quotable result. And even if the results from any of the tests were in the stack of psychological reports Nash received, it is unremarkable that the results phrased in the technical jargon of psychological testing would not produce memorable conclusions for a lay person 18 years later. This comports with Nash's memory, 18 years later, that the results recommended he take part in the Jemez Springs program, and generally concluded that Nash was a physical and emotional wreck. Based on the bishop's encouragement of Nash to continue as a priest, and Father Hoare's assertion that priests attended the center for burn-out, there is simply no evidence to suggest that the evaluation resulted in a memorable, specific diagnosis of a mental disorder which Nash now pretends to forget. The Board's decision contains further mischaracterizations. The decision found it impossible to fathom that Nash could not remember the details of the alleged discharge report, because that report derailed Nash's career as a priest. This is simply wrong. Whether the decision was referring to Nash's intake evaluation, or one of the four progress reports, none of those derailed his career. The reports corresponded with Nash's time at Jemez Springs, which was from January 1990 to May 1990. For the 15 years after that Nash continued his career as a priest. Nash's resignation was negotiated in 2005 after a Diocese report condemned only the tickling and foot massages to which Nash had already openly admitted. There is no evidence that the then 15-year-old Jemez Springs reports led to Nash's resignation, or had any role in it. The Board's decision also mischaracterized the statements of Nash's attorney, Mark McCormick. [17] The decision stated: Only upon pointed questioning did Mr. Nash's counsel finally admit that the facility was notorious as a treatment facility for priests suffering from sexual disorders. Again, that is not true. The exchange began with McCormick giving a lengthy description of the holistic programs at Jemez Springs, noting that Father Hoare, the former director, testified that the facility treated more routine issues such as burn-out. McCormick was then questioned by the board member whose partner represented J.P.: Q: Isn't it true that that was a treatment program for clergymen who molested minors? A: That was onethat was one thing that could be done there. . . . But Father Hoare made it very clear that it was in no way limited to that, that was just one of the things that it was appropriate to handle. . . . . Q: Isn't that the reason that Father Nash was there? Or, do you deny that that was the reason? A: We deny that was the issue that he was there for. And Bishop Kenny made a note that did surface in the evidence in this case, that that was not what [Nash] was there for. McCormick did not, under pointed questioning, admit that Jemez Springs was notorious for treating priests with sexual disorders, let alone indicate Nash had been there for that reason. [18] Instead of pointing to an admission by Nash's attorney, the above questioning demonstrates problems in the Board's analysis. Certainly it demonstrates a disconnect from the record, which was replete with testimony that Nash attended Jemez Springs for more holistic concerns. But more fundamentally the exchange, and the use of the exchange in the decision, demonstrates an attempt to show that Nash had lied by showing that he had attended Jemez Springs for pedophilia or sexual abuse. This is problematic, because the decision had already concluded that a preponderance of the evidence did not support the allegations of sexual misconduct. It points out the larger logical problem: To conclude Nash was lying, the decision assumed that the reports had special significance, and that Nash had a reason to forgetessentially that he was hiding the reports' conclusion that Nash was a pedophile. It is inconsistent for the decision to assume underlying sexual misconduct when the decision had already found that contention unsupported. Without support in the record for such a contention, the decision reached to an admission by Nash's attorney, [19] and even ambiguous press reports not in the record, [20] to show that Jemez Springs treated priests with sexual disorders. This type of analysis belies a conclusory slant that is contrary to the record. Moreover, this is a poorly constructed argument as to Nash's alleged untruthfulness. The fact that a portion of the facility treated priests with sexual disorders neither proves nor implies that Nash attended the facility for treatment of a sexual disorder. And without pre-supposing that Nash attended the facility for treatment of a sexual disorder, Nash's answers do not demonstrate the propensity for lying which the Board's decision attributes to him. Notably, although denying Nash's application based on candor, the decision does not identify a single lie Nash told, nor any contradiction in his answers. It instead appears to rely on Nash's demeanor in testimony that the Board did not hear. This is inexplicable, particularly because the Board declined to question Nash directly when it had the opportunity. The Board concluded the issue of candor by asserting that since no records exist, Nash must be lying: Mr. Nash is likely the only individual alive with direct knowledge and recall of the report's contents. Under these circumstances, his claimed lack of memory is even more damning and incredible. . . . The Board can come to no other conclusion than there is something in the report that Mr. Nash does not want the Board to learn. On the contrary, there are other conclusions that could be drawnthe most plausible being that the reports did not contain a memorable diagnosis of a psychological disorder. This is particularly plausible because Nash was willing to have the Jemez Springs reports introduced into the record before he learned that they had been destroyed. Further, evidence in the record supports the contention that Nash attended Jemez Springs for more benign reasonsthat is, he had asked to leave the priesthood because he was suffering burn-out and behaving or disciplining inappropriatelybut not that he had received a diagnosis that he was a pedophile. Father Hoare's testimony indicated that burn-out was a common reason priests would attend the facility. Also, the bishop handwrote notes in Nash's personnel file indicating that Nash was at Jemez Springs for himself & not because he had ever molested anyone and other consistent remarks. A letter from the Archbishop Emeritus of Anchorage, based on personal knowledge, confirmed that then-Bishop Kenny of Juneau considered Nash to be OK after Jemez Springs and returned Nash to his prior assignment. And Juneau's later bishop, Bishop Warfel, testified that when he took over as bishop in Juneau in the mid-1990s, his impression, based on discussions with Nash and other church officials, was that the allegations against Nash concerned little more than horse play and that Nash was at Jemez Springs for issues like burn-out and depression. Also, Father Hoare indicated that the facility would not have released a priest who posed a threat to the community. Ultimately, it does not appear there was a specific diagnosis, such as pedophilia, made of Nash, and there is insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Nash was untruthful by feigning not to remember such a diagnosis in the reports. In sum, the Board's conclusion that Nash lied because he could not remember a career-ending discharge reportwhen it is not certain that a discharge report ever existed, when it is not certain that Nash received it if it did exist, and when it is clear that any such report did not end his careeris simply not supported. We set aside that conclusion as premised on misstatements of the record. Applying our independent judgment, we have carefully reviewed the record, including Nash's testimony regarding the intake evaluation and related evidence. Finding no evidence that there was a specific diagnosis, and no documented lies or conflicting testimony, we hold that Nash's alleged lack of memory as to specific results from 18-year-old psychological exams neither evidences a lack of candor nor justifies denying his bar application.