The meeting went very well. We arrived ready to offer half of a six hundred thousand dollar bequest in exchange for a diocesan agreement to quit any claim to parish property. Property prices in Central New York are quite low compared to those in Virginia and elsewhere so the offer was a generous one. The amount offered would, we would later (after a joint appraisal) discover, fall just under fair market value. But, we reasoned, this first meeting was just the beginning of negotiations and we were ready to offer more if necessary.
It did not prove necessary. Bishop Adams expressed a great deal of interest in the arrangement. Not only did he think such a deal possible but he expressed the opinion that it was preferable to any court proceeding.
There were questions about whether a transfer of the bequest was possible. The bequest stated that should Good Shepherd "cease to exist" the principle would pass to another local parish. But, on the other hand, Good Shepherd was not going to "cease to exist". We were simply going to disaffiliate from the Episcopal Church.
The bishop promised to follow up on this question from his side (as we would from ours) and to query the standing committee regarding our offer.
We all agreed that nothing should be said publicly until a deal was finalized. We spent some time discussing what sort of statement we ought to make, agreeing finally that it should be a joint statement and that, perhaps, such a gesture might serve as a model of amicable separation for parishes and dioceses elsewhere.
Here is my brief report to the parish on that meeting published in our weekly parish newsletter dated August 4th, 2006:
MEETING WITH THE BISHOP: This Thursday Chris Jones (treasurer), Tom Woolsey (Jr. warden) and I met with bishop Adams and a representative from the diocese of Central New York (Our Sr. warden, John King, is currently vacationing in Florida) . We are not currently at liberty to discuss the details of the meeting, but we can say that it was very positive and that we left Syracuse rejoicing and thanking God for his blessings and with a great sense of confidence and hope.
Given the overall friendly tone of the meeting, Bishop Adams' explicit acknowledgment that retaining our property without litigation was possible, and his expressed desire to negotiate an amicable resolution, I was indeed feeling quite confident.
On September 15th, 2006, I sent Bishop Adams the following email:
Dear Bishop Adams,
If and when we come to the point of issuing any letters or statements, I commend these two public letters from Christ Church Plano and bishop Stanton of Dallas as a valuable model.
http://www.christchurchplano.org/documents/06_0915_roseberry.html
Yours in Christ,
Matt
About a month and a half later, on October 26th, 2006 the bishop and I spoke over the phone regarding some follow up steps subsequent to our meeting. Here is my report of that call to the vestry:
Dear Vestry,
I spoke with Bishop Adams this morning. I had a pastoral appointment afterwards so I am just now getting this report to you.
The bishop reported that the Standing Committee was very open to our suggestion of an amicable parting of ways. His words were: "The Standing committee most open to this venture. They want work things out.."
There were two requests and one piece of information:
1. The Standing Committee would like copy of the Brandon(sp) bequest. They would like to know how the transfer of funds might be worked out legally.
2. They also would like us to pay half of the cost of an appraisal of the property. I asked whether we could agree on the appraiser. The bishop said the diocese had an appraiser. I told him I would pass this on to you and we would let him know.
Information: the bishop mentioned that Christ Church is named in the Brandon(sp) bequest. He does not think this should pose a problem, but mentioned that Christ Church does know about it and did bring it to his attention. Christ Church is an interested party and may need to be included in the negotiations.
That is where things stand. Overall it was a courteous and friendly conversation.
God bless you all.
Matt
Ultimately, the vestry decided that an amicable separation was our most important consideration and we agreed to pay half the cost for a joint appraisal which, in the end, turned out to cost far more than was assumed in the following letter to Bishop Adams:
On December 31st, 2006, the eve of the new year, the mood at Good Shepherd was optimistic. There were some who still believed that the bishop would change his mind about negotiating but most of us believed that if we just continued acting in good faith, there would be a just and amicable settlement and parting.
Past installments of the Rector's Journal may be found by following the links below:
Summer 2006
Spring 2006
Comments:
What a contrast between these amicable negotiations and the diocese’s current resort to litigation!
And how tellingly it highlights the gratuitous malice of ECUSA’s revisionist rulers.