Document: Presentment Charges Against Fr. Armstrong

So, the Stalking Bishop is seeking an ecclesiastical trial against a priest not under his jurisdiction and while several real trials, in real courts, are pending? 

I can see why TEC, at least publicly, wants nothing to do with this bishop.

Read this presentment, in its entirity, if you can stand it.  Pure sick.  I got notice this several hours ago and decided that I could not restrain myself to blog it.

Kyrie eleison!

I’m sure the Bishop is not holding his breathe on having an ecclesiastical trial, but wanted to make public the factual charges against Armstrong for a record. It seems that the Attorney’s Report that is part of the basis of the charges is considered “Confidential” and therefore will likely not be made public. The forensic audit will also be kept for a civil trial, that is unless Armstrong has a copy and choses to make it public.

I wonder if the Rev. Konieczny, president of the Standing Committee and candidate for Bishop of Oklahoma, would be willing to address this matter while he is doing the dog and pony shows in OK?

“It seems that the Attorney’s Report that is part of the basis of the charges is considered “Confidential” and therefore will likely not be made public.”

Ohhhh…............. I get it, CB.  Accuse a priest publicly, smear his name with criminal allegations (do all TEC bishops think themselves criminal prosecutors?), and keep the phony “report” with alleged “evidence” secret.  What a smart Stalking Bishop the Diocese of Colorado has!  They must have had to search every nook and cranny to find him;  otherwise, they might have wound up with a theologian for their bishop.  But good thing the Stalking Bishop is a kept man and doesn’t need to earn his keep/catch his prey to get fed.  Then again, even dogs fetch sticks.  Who threw this one?

Seen-too-much, until “officially” released, Fr. Armstrong is still canonically resident in Colorado.  Note I use quotations.  In ECUSA’s eyes, a priest cannot transfer themselves.  Therefore, we are seeing these presentments, trials, and subsquent halts to any future payments in the pension fund.  (He can still receive his pension, of course.)

Let’s see, Smuggs, an archbishop and prelate of the largest province in the Anglican Communion claims oversight of Fr. Armstrong while the Stalking Bishop of Colorado does?  Since the Archbishop is in broken communion with the Stalking Bishop’s church, do you think he really cares whether the Stalking Bishop tries to keep Fr. Armstrong for further abuse and refuses to release him?  Whether Fr. Armstrong is received by another Anglican province depends far more on the receiving bishop rather than on a bishop who has made himself, his diocese and possibly his church, the legitimate target of multiple law suits.  But the HOB wouldn’t have it any other way, so precious is their “autonomy” from the Communion.

My sympathies are with Fr. Armstrong on this and I wish him well. having said that, these charges must be taken seriously, and should not be dismissed as the vindicative action of the “Stalking Bishop”. The legalities aside, having the parish pay the kids’ education costs doesn’t smell right.

Smuggs, can’t go with you there. I doubt Armstrong+ was counting on the Diocese to continue payments into the Church Fund!  There is zero reason for the Diocese to continue with ecclesiastical discipline since he is under CANA.  Every Priest that has left TEC out of conscience has been subjected to a meaningless presentment.  Any warranted discipline should come from his church and CANA authorities.

How is it that the diocese can charge him with tax fraud if the IRS has not?? Serious question -  that makes no sense to me.

Altogether, it kind of looks like throwing everything at him and hoping something will stick…

Dazed wrote:

How is it that the diocese can charge him with tax fraud if the IRS has not?? Serious question - that makes no sense to me.

If you read that charge as listed on the first page of the presentment carefully, you will notice the diocese is not charging him with tax fraud. The diocese has charged him with Commission of a Crime, based - in part - on the diocese’s allegation of tax fraud.

OK so I read it.  It looks to me like the Bishop is claiming that Fr. Armstrong misused a scholarship fund (that apparently had not been awarding any scholarships for years and years) to pay for his son’s college tuition.

Smells pretty fishy to me—what am I missing?

Interesting footnote: the Rev. Annette Brownlee (wife of Dr. Ephraim Radner(?)) resigned from the Standing Committee on Saturday, Mar.  24, two days before the presentment was issued.

Thanks for that i.f. Mark.  I’m always suprised by you Epicopalians, where even your most conservative Priests have wives who are priestesses—and don’t even take their husband’s name.

Even the most liberal members of my denomination aren’t that liberal

Okay, I’ll re-phrase that. How is it that the diocese can allege tax fraud if the IRS has not?

Marty!  I don’t think they are called priestesses, LOL!  I realize the majority of Baptist groups do not ordain women, but there are plenty of other denominations that do.  The Assemblies of God was founded in 1914 and began ordaining women from nearly the start, and whatever you may think of them (being that they are Pentecostal) ya’ can’t say they are liberal!

I do not know the facts first hand.  I have met Fr. Armstrong, and I am more than an acquaintance of Ephraim Radner, whom I greatly admire.  One of the members of the Standing Committee was a mentor to me during the time I was thinking about Anglicanism very many years ago.  His orthodoxy then was, and, I have every reason to believe now, is still impeccable.  I knew him to be a decent and honest man.  So I am conflicted, to say the least.

I know what it is to be falsely accused.  At the same time, the scholarship accusations are serious.  Fr. Armstrong is being accused of diverting funds that were designated for theological scholarships to personal use.  If this is not the case, it should be simple enough to up.  Fr. Armstrong simply has to account for the original funds.  Where are they? How were they disbursed?  Who received them? Were the scholarships properly applied for and awarded?  Can the recipients vouched that they received them?

If the bishop is wrong, he has made libelous accusations.  However, if there is any accuracy to the accusations, this is a most serious charge.  Designated gifts must be used for the cause to which they are donated.

Like all here, I have a horse in this race, and it is my serious wish for Fr. Armstrong to be vindicated.  If he is innocent, it must be excruciating to endure such accusations.  I pray that he is.

I believe these charges to be very serious and very well informed.  Sheri Betzer is a Certified Fraud Examiner who has a good deal of experience in this area as well as having been an IRS Revenue Agent.  She also trains lawyers in how to use the information obtained in a forensic review.  She would not allow her name to be used in a professional capacity unless she was sure of the information she was presenting.  See her bio at http://bccllp-cpa.com/deux.jsp?content=502&decider=betzerc

Father Armstrong can turn his tax returns over the IRS and state with a very clean conscience that he has properly reported all income as it was reported to him by the church.  That does not mean that the “extra” payments were proper or properly reported.  The church may be in a little trouble for not properly reporting compensation similar to the trouble that it may be in for making officer loans under Colorado law.

As an auditor, I would be highly suspicious of any payments made to an officer of a corporation which are not included on their W-2/1099 and for which there was not an invoice or receipt attached to the payment request voucher.  I have taken myself off of several audits after having started the audit because I found questionable disbursements such as the checks written to Father Armstrong.  General auditors are not trained to be forensic investigators and not trained to find intentional misrepresentations (i.e. fraud and abuse).  They are trained to report their findings to management when they do find fraud and/or abuse.

Just my 2 cents

A couple of things:

1. I think that the accusations must be taken seriously.  But let’s not forget that this is just the more detailed accusation against Armstrong.  We need to await the more detailed rebuttal set for April 14.

2. Although CANA undoubtedly sees Armstrong as being under their authority, O’Neill sees Armstrong as being under his authority.  I don’t think that Armstrong’s departure affects whether O’Neill still holds a trial.

3. The recitation of secular statutes that have supposedly been violated I find interesting, unless the diocese knows that secular prosecution is forthcoming.  Absent secular prosecution and conviction, I don’t see how the diocese can maintain that Armstrong committed a crime, and base charges on such.

4. Let’s also remember that this situation may not be entirely clear cut on either side.  My gut feeling on the one hand is that “where there is smoke, there is fire” but on the other hand it seems to me that the bishop has probably grossly overstated the charges here.  You could probably find questionable book-keeping, financial record keeping, and the like in many large churches or organizations, especially in those run by charismatic alpha leaders like Don Armstrong.

5. It is very possible that neither side has “clean hands” on this one.

Being nether a CPA, lawyer, or Episcopalian ( praise the Lord!) let me throw in my 1C worth.  I think it is common for churches and especially TEC to provide free tuition for their clergy, just like medical care, transportation, housing—-fringe benefits.  Maybe some of our detectives in blogdom could research this out.  Often our tax laws give special advantage to clergy for this.  If there is misconduct, I would think the diocese and even ECUSA, since they claim control, would have a problem with their own liability for not catching this and letting it go so long.  Maybe they carry directors and officers liability insurance for this.  It smells fishy to me also, but mostly that when ECUSA looses another large church they suddenly get all righteous against legal issues.  IMHO

If Mr O’Neill (bishops who preach heresy lose the grace of ordination according to the Ecumenical Councils)  tries Fr. Armstrong in absentia, of course the defendant will be found guilty, not having answered the charges, any sentence will be without effect. However, if Fr. Armstrong and his parish should sue for defamation (probably both libel and slander per se, interference with conduct of business, etc), they could possibly collect big time.

Being a conspiracy nut, I think this smells all around.  The presentment stated that members of the church and staff were called to testify adn refused.  The other side, Fr Armstrong says they were never asked (I believe that to be accurate).  So, one side does not have the truth on their side and, we have not seen an explanation for any of this from Fr Armstrong.  I agree that this must be taken very seriously, but we still only have one side of the story.

The credentials of the accountant would scare the pants off me if I were in Fr Armstrong’s position.  For all you vestry members out there, this is why you vote on and check the minutes for every $ you spend.

Serious question:  Is it normal to ask permission of the diocese before getting a loan for improvements?

One of the charges in the presentment basically says the church violated this.  Maybe its Canon in CO.

No offense Pat K., maybe I’m old-fashioned but I still call them “actor and actress”, likewise “priest and priestess”, “prince and princess”, “cigar and cigarette” etc etc ad nauseum.

And viva le differance!

Marty—too funny, in the midst of so much seriousness.  “Priestess” just sounds so wiccan or New-Agie or something awful!  I realized you weren’t thinking that way

Peace,
Pat

Doesn’t it though!  :|

There may not be minutes regarding salary raises and gifts because that part is frequently done as an executive session within a vestry meeting (where no minutes are taken), or done separately by the wardens with emails to vestry members.

Here is a response posted by Fr. Armstrong on titusonenine:
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=18753#comment-2033358

Thank you Kendall for protecting me from the sort of displacement free-for-all I have experienced over the past three months of my ecclesial imposed silence.

Please know, readers of this blog, that this is a prime example of what orthodox clergy will face whenever someone for whom they have made safe space decides not to make safe space for them.

This Saturday I will answer, in a meeting of our congregation, what now appears to be the ever changing charges leveled against me by the Diocese of Colorado.

There is not a single charge that doesn’t contain a footnote in the original investigation stating that they did not have adequate information to assure the validity of the accusation.

The Bishop and Standing Committee members will find in the end that they have humiliated themselves as much as they have defamed and humiliated me.

The vestry and staff of Grace Church during my absence felt the aggressive nature of the follow up investigation by the Standing Committee’s lawyer was abusive and refused to answer questions, preferring instead to interview with the standing committee directly. The request to do that received no response, and so the presentment comes from a very flawed and one sided report–with no interest by the Standing Committee to hear another side. I have been told the clergy on the SC fear for their own parishes and careers.

The bishop released the presentment in full detail to the press last Friday, complete with names of people who have received help from my discretionary fund–a gross violation of pastoral confidentiality.

The idea that one is innocent until proven is a good fantasy, but is simply not founded on any reality in our church.

I am confident that this will be settled in the courts in a reasonable way and that I will be found innocent of wrong doing. These charges are simply the complaints of a small group in a orthodox parish that has found a more than receptive ear with our revisionist bishop.

I have become a big proponent of the separation of church and state since seeing how vicious and incompetent the church can be and how much safer one is in the civil system.

Finally, not withstanding their own scrutiny of these charges, I have found at last a Christian context in which to do ministry since joining CANA. I have longed for this during thirty years of ministry in ECUSA, but it has always been simply non-existent. We are now about the business of the Kingdom using Kingdom principles–and nothing could be more exciting and life giving to both the CANA clergy and their parishes.

So who is D. Armstrong III? 

Call me confused, but is this Fr. Armstrong himself?  His son?  His grandson?

A letter from Father Armstrong may be found here.

The Rev. Brownlee, wife of Rev. Dr. Radner, is a warm, wonderful and caring person, as well as committed and inspiring Christian. We at Ascension Pueblo are so fortunate to have the likes of both of them. Their personalities and ministries complement each other. They both deserve respect, more respect than Marty and Pat are showing.

The fact that the Rev. Brownlee resigned rather than be part of a “presentment” against a priest no longer part of the diocese speaks volumes.  Her husband, Ephraim Radner, said explicitly he did not think the diocese should proceed with a presentment.

What, exactly, is the scholarship fund in question?  We don’t know.  Is it separately incorporated, with its own board of directors, formal application procedures and selection criteria;  does it submit financial audits to a regulating agent in the State (such as the State Attorney General), publish annual reports and other things non-profit organizations and charities do?  Or is the “scholarship fund” merely one of several funds the church has with other accounts?  Can its funds be admixed with others or not?  We know answers to none of these questions. 

Many rectors and priests receive tuition for family members.  This fund may have been used for that purpose, as well as others.  As for using monies for which they were donated, it varies from state to state, I believe, and according to amount.  In the State of NY, for example, at one time any donations under $50,000 to an organization for one cause was considered fungible, meaning the $5, $50, $500, etc., donations people made could be used for things other than what people thought the donation was being used for.  Should this be the case?  If no, the problem becomes how do you track each and every $5 donation from a hundred people?  The amount of administrative costs to do so for non-profit, usually understaffed, agencies becomes onerous.  Whatever standard existed for secular non-profits were usually waived for church-related ones.  Bottom line, is that there is a great deal of flexibility and worse in how churches are permitted to manage their finances.

If there is a misapplication of funds, the vestry as much as, if not more, than Fr. Armstrong would seem to be responsible.  And if there is a misapplication of funds, was there criminal intent in doing so? 

I simply cannot imagine the diocese has evidence of this;  yet, that is what they initially alleged and have not retracted those initial allegations.

Don’t we all love to watch a train wreck?  We are so used to knowing right now what everyone else knows, that we as a culture are willing to jump to a conclusion unsupported by the facts.  So far I have seen only the charges in the presentment, and Fr. Armstrong’s response.  I am sure that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of records and statements to wade through, and weigh, in order to come to a logical conclusion.  We owe it to Fr. Armstrong and Grace Church and St. Stephen’s to wait until the evidence is all in before speculating or reaching a conclusion either way.  +O’Neil may be Lucifer incarnate, or he may be a bumbling fool, or he could be honestly attempting to carry out his fiduciary duties; Fr. Armstrong may have played fast and loose with the facts and funds of his parish, or this may be all on the up-and-up.  My point is that we don’t know.  Obviously Fr. Armstrong will not face a hearing at DioCO.  The proof of the pudding is if the local prosecutor decides to press charges, and/or the IRS begins some sort of punitive procedure.  The best we can do is pray for all parties involved.  My preferred outcome is for Fr. Armstrong to be vindicated by the civil authorities, and for Grace Church and St. Stephen’s congregation to ratify the vote of the vestry, and for them to keep their building.  I’m sure most of us here want the same thing.

RE: “maybe I’m old-fashioned but I still call them “actor and actress”, likewise “priest and priestess”, “prince and princess”, “cigar and cigarette” etc etc ad nauseum.”

Wow . . . and I just thought that Marty the Baptist was expressing his affinity for the Roman Catholic view that the priest re-presents Jesus at the continuing sacrifice of the mass, and that therefore priestesses could not do so due to their gender.

I thought that HUGE ecumenical progress had been made just now between Baptists and Roman Catholics—butt now my hopes have been dashed once more.

; > )

Timothy and Seen-to-much, re-read what I wrote.  No, I don’t think that Akinola cares.  BUT in ECUSA’s eyes, a priest is still canonically resident in whatever diocese they are resident in until such bishop transfers them.  ECUSA does not recognize CANA and no transfer has been made of Armstrong to Nigeria.  So in order for ECUSA to be able to stop ANY payments being made into the Church Pension Fund on his behalf, they have to move forward by either trying him and finding him guilty or inhibiting him and then deposing him.

usma87 wrote:

Serious question:  Is it normal to ask permission of the diocese before getting a loan for improvements?

I can’t speak about elsewhere, but in the Diocese of Colorado, a parish has to apply to the diocese to get an encumbrance on the property. It is required by one of the canons.

Here is a quote from someone in the Colorado Springs paper:

The bishop is no friend to Grace Church and St Stephen’s parish. As I said he could have merely assumed financial oversight during the investigation. Rather, he chose to decapitate the church just before Christmas. The result? Donations off three hundred thousand with the future of the church VERY much compromised. And this is a diocesan concern as well now. Under his leadership, the budget has gone from a surplus of about 75,000 in 2005 to a deficit and projected deficit of the same in 2006 and 2007. And this does not take into account the over 100,000 spent on the investigation.

Can the bishop, under canon law, merely take over financial oversight while the investigation proceeds? Would this have not better for both parties?

jrsftc,

Thank you.  The whole encumberance issue was a mystery to me.

I was on the Diocesan Council of Western Massachusetts for five years. (We acted as a “vestry” of the diocese.)  If a parish in the diocese wanted to take out a loan for improvements or that encumbered the property, we had to know about it and approve it, as did the Standing Committee.  I do not know if that policy is in the National Canons or not, but I suspect that every diocese has a requirement that loans (apart from a church credit card or such) be approved by the diocesan standing committee.

This requirement is, I guess, a way to protect parishes against themselves.  You can imagine a parish getting in a bind and making a foolish financial arrangement out of ignorance—or maybe being used by a con man who got himself on the Vestry.  If mortgages have to be approved by a neutral body, many possible troubles can be avoided.

On another note—I have known the pastors of a number of large congregations, both Episcopal and other denominations.  It is not unusual for the pastor of a large congregation to be big on vision and on personality, but not very good on details.  And sometimes those details can come back and bite you….  I do not think that Fr Armstrong deliberately set out to do anything wrong, but he may have sailed pretty close to the wind—maybe too close.  I hope not, but the letter of presentment is not encouraging.

In my experience, the preachers are good book keepers but poor accountnats.

“Donald Armstrong” and “Donald Armstrong III” are the same person in the financial records of Grace.

r.w.

I know how Curious George must feel - cause I’ve got lots of questions.
First - how can the Diocese make a claim that a state/federal law has been broken?  Isn’t the claim by an unauthorized entity a crime in itself?
Second - How in Sam Hill did the Bishop sit on a Board and not “notice” that there had been no board meeting or even request to see a financial statement - for 15 years? 
Third - If you are willing to give the Bishop a pass because “that’s not his expertise” what about the attorney?
Fourth - Were there other donations made to this trust or was it totally sustained by the donation and requirements of its namesake?  Was the corpus left in tact?  Did the Trust file tax returns?  Who signed them?  Why did it take the Diocese 15 years (1992-2007) to notice a problem?
These are just a few of the questions swirling around out there.  I am anxious to hear Fr. Armstrong’s response.  I pray there are logical explanations but if not he should face whatever consequences any other individual who is not in a conflict with the Bishop would suffer.  If it is found the Bishop is using his office to witchhunt, the shoe needs to be on the other foot in the manner of Haman.

What I don’t like about this debate is the implication that you cannot be supportive of the congregation and its decision to associate with CANA and concerned about the financial allegations. 

At a minimum, the known facts that have been publicized are a basis for concern. A change in treatment of certain expenses after the investigation began would suggest that poor judgement, or at least inattention, may have occurred in the past.  It is black letter law that the payment of tuition of the children of an employee, particularly a high level employee, is considered taxable compensation unless the payments are derived from a qualified scholarship fund and the recipients were selected and the money distributed in accordance with the rules.  It doesnt matter if other churches have done it in the past.  Perhaps it was bad advice, perhaps it was inattention, perhaps there is another explanation.  But if this occurred, it was wrong and there should be no glossing over it.

The suggestion that the Vestry should be held responsible, is probally unfair given the nature of typical Vestry oversight.  However, this should be a wake-up call.  Vestries of large parishes should follow the lead of large non-profits and maintain an audit committee comprised of independent Vestry members, preferably with at least one with an accounting or financial background, that are responsible for the selection and supervision of the auditor and the implementation of appropriate internal controls. Auditing firms should be changed after, say, five years. Non-vanilla compensation and benefit issues should be vetted through independent counsel.  The rules regarding directed donations should be enforced—churches should not give large financial “gifts” to clergy (using donations for which tax deductions were taken) without properly recording the value of such large gifts as compensation.  Discretionary funds may not be used to offset non-work related personal expenses.

As Christian leaders, the plum line is not whether we are prosecuted criminally, but whether we act in financial affairs in a transparent fashion that complies with the letter and spirt of the laws and our higher obligation to be good stewards.  To move that line anywhere else violates our sacred trust, and opens the door for scandal.

My prayer is that this new CANA parish thrive and become a beacon for other churches in Colorado and beyond.  At the same time, I pray that the financial inquiry be handled by the new church and CANA in a way that demonstrates to a cynical world the integrity of the believing church.

Is my memory failing or was there something in the earlier accusation from the diocese about Fr. Armstrong not claiming his parish provided housing on his taxes?  I didn’t see anything about that in the presentment.

Sounds to me like O’Neill was shooting shotgun blasts hoping something might stick.

I also thought that the ACI was a separate entity from Grace.
I agree with the earliers comment about both parties ending up with some uncleaniness on their hands.

jane4re wrote:

Is my memory failing or was there something in the earlier accusation from the diocese about Fr. Armstrong not claiming his parish provided housing on his taxes?  I didn’t see anything about that in the presentment.

Reading back through the various newspaper articles, letters and press releases, the only mention I could find about parish provided housing are below. The first was in a March 29 Rocky Mountain News article:

Here’s how the Rev. Don Armstrong described the allegations against him in an interview Monday:

• He didn’t pay taxes on the home provided by the diocese: Not true, he said. 

• He didn’t report funeral and wedding stipends as income: Not true, he said. “Most of what I get I give away (to the needy), and what I do keep I declare.”

There is also Fr. Armstrong’s letter of March 30 or 31st (it’s not dated). In it he stated:

For example, what is known as the Betzer Report suggests that I did not declare the value of my church provided housing and fees for weddings and funerals on my taxes

I can find no statement from the diocese regarding either parish provided housing or stipendiary income - it is certainly not in the presentment.

Not in the presentment now, just in the press earlier, jrsftc.  The Stalking Bishop’s accusations change over time, since he can’t find anything that will stick.

“As Christian leaders, the plum line is not whether we are prosecuted criminally, but whether we act in financial affairs in a transparent fashion that complies with the letter and spirt of the laws and our higher obligation to be good stewards.”

Transparent to whom, Timothy?  To you, or to the vestry?  Why even mention this, as though it is not obvious to all, including those who, unlike bloggers, need to know?  By the way, do you know what the “letter and spirit of the laws” is in this case?  I see no evidence of it;  if there had been, you might restrain yourself from preaching the obvious to those who know far more than you could ever tell them about this.

Thanks for your posts Matt, rob-roy and Jackie.

Seen-Too-Much - Please show us where in the press Bishop O’Neill or The Standing Committee ever made any accusations against Rev. Armstrong regarding either parish provided housing or stipendiary income as alleged by Rev. Armstrong.  If you can not, please stop defaming people. It is not helpful when many are trying to get a more accurate picture of the nature of the allegations and the dynamics of the dispute involved here.

C.B., since you are so very interested in getting an “accurate picture” of the Stalking Bishop of Colorado, please read the early press releases about this, which, with a little effort on your part, can be located through this blog and other ones, it not through google and other searches.  It is not helpful for you to defame Fr. Armstrong because you are not well informed and can’t be bothered with the accuracy of what the press reported previously.

Thank you - Seen-Too-Much I accept that such press statements don’t exist or you would be able to quote them easily.

Does anyone in the parish know what the additional two million dollar emcumbrance was used for?  Until now, we, as a parish, have not been aware that we are almost twice as much in debt as we thought.

You’re welcome, C.B.  I accept that you are content with not troubling yourself to locate and read the press releases yourself, while trying to mislead people on this blog about your intentions in this controversy, as well as the very existence of an objective record that has already documented O’Neill’s reckless and malicious behavior.

Seen-too-much - You made a specific representation - you said “Not in the presentment now, just in the press earlier, jrsftc.” I challenged you to back up that statement with specific quotes “in the press earlier.” You did not and could not.  What my intentions are, are irrelevant. What your intentions are, are clear.

Marty the Baptist:

OK so I read it.  It looks to me like the Bishop is claiming that Fr. Armstrong misused a scholarship fund (that apparently had not been awarding any scholarships for years and years) to pay for his son’s college tuition. ... Smells pretty fishy to me—what am I missing?

The Bowton Fund did award scholarships in recent history, most recently to a parishioner of Grace (who attended seminary in Virginia in the 90’s and is now an ordained Episcopal priest) immediately before the funds are alleged to have been deposited in the various “college funds”. Several others were in various stages of the discernment process at Grace in recent years, before their discernment disciplines were suspended.
Undergraduate expenses for both a son and a daughter (well-intentioned young adults who did not pursue theological studies) at private, state, and community colleges are at issue. Trust administrators allegedly did not know of or consent to these distributions.

I challenge you to troll another blog, C.B.  Few here are so gullible as to believe your intentions to “get a more accurate picture” of this controversy, since most here have already read the press reports you deny and don’t want to read.  Your intentions speak for themselves and readers can determine their relevance without your fiat about it.  Deception is not as easy here as it is elsewhere in the church.  Where will you ply your art when it becomes more difficult there as well?

I found “Timothy’s” comment very helpful and “Seen too Much’s” response one that made me feel embarrassed for him.  No, many people are not aware of the ins and outs of non-profit accounting.  For that last 25-30 years or so the innovation of “fund accounting” has been an enormous assistance to not-for-profits that must account for “designated” fund expenditures and yet not cripple the efforts of their accountants trying to manage a myriad of funds.  Because my background is in higher-ed fundraising and the tax ramifications of charitable giving, the scholarship issue was a huge red flag for me when it was first mentioned.  Now that more details have emerged, my concern has greatly deepened.  The co-mingling of ACI funds is another major issue.  I share Timothy’s concern that it is essential that adequate accounting supervision is provided and, at minimum, an annual audit by an outside firm.  501c3 status though granting tax free status, does not exempt an institution from sound financial management and I wonder if the ACI, although not separately incorporated, is filing an annual 990AR, for informational purposes.  The Anglican Communion Network, (and some of its various local convocations) is separately incorporated but I do not know if it is filing a 990AR.  On the side of transparency, it would be in its best interest to disclose.  I am assuming that it does not because it sees itself as an association of churches, and has defined itself as exempt.  By contrast, the AAC does file.  On a personal note, I have worked with the W2s of a parish that properly filled out the housing block with x-amount.  That amount, however, did not include the utilities.  Because the clergyman involved is, as they all are, self-employed for tax purposes, when he fills out his tax returns, for social security purposes, he includes the utilities as part of his social security taxes, regardless of what his church may have included in his “housing allowance”.  He includes a note attached to his schedule SE explaining this.  Does any one else have input on how they might handle this?

Just a question?  Did the man ask to be transfered?  Or did he resign from the ECUSA?  If he resigned it does not matter what rules the ECUSA has about transfering?

If CANA is not recognized by the ECUSA thenm they could accept Joe Spiffy off the Street as a Priest and again the ECUSA has nothing to say about it?

Just An Observer

Oh I get it now Seen-too-much. Anyone who challenges what you say is a troll. My mistake. I thought Truth mattered around here. But God Bless anyway.

C.B. I just did a quick Google search and found various newspaper accounts about the Diocese stating that Armstrong had not paid taxes on a house provided to him by the Diocese.  It was such an easy thing to do.  I merely typed in the following:

Rev. Armstrong not paying taxes on house Colorado

Interesting, S. Standish.  Several people were in discernment and deemed unfit to continue, who were expecting to get money from Grace through one or another of its scholarship funds.

I wonder if they and their supporters then lodged complaints with the Stalking Bishop?  Very interesting detail, given that a rector must approve each and every candidate for the priesthood from his or her parish.  A perfect opportunity for opportunists in the parish to retaliate against the rector and interfere with the exercise of his rightful authority, and, surprise, directly on an issue involving theological orthodoxy and integrity.

As more information emerges, it should become clearer why most communicants at Grace Church want to leave the Stalking Bishop and his Diocese.

A quick word to the wise on presuming too much upon innocence or guilt: A member of my previous congregation swore up and down at our Cursillo reunion meetings that there were weapons in Iraq.  I remember looking at him and saying, “You better hope so.”  He said, “I have faith in this president and in the Republican Party.  If they’re wrong, I’ll switch!”  He was wrong, he switched parties, and apologized for the better part of the year for being so adamant.

Moral: If those of you who are so staunchly defending Fr. Armstrong are later proven to be wrong, your statements are going to be remembered.

Moral 2:  If those who are you who are so staunchly defending the bishop are later proven to be wrong, your statements are going to be remembered.

Best to ratchet down the rancor.  Many notches, for some.

Glad you got it, C.B., despite your resistance.  Yes, anyone who refuses to read numerous press articles while denying they exist, and, as if that weren’t enough, pretending to want the “Truth” is a troll.  This profound, if not pathological, denial characterizes many revisionists.  You are entirely representative in that regard.  How good of you, despite yourself, for representing these character traits so well on this blog.

RE: “The co-mingling of ACI funds is another major issue.”

EmilyH, I noticed this comment by Chris Seitz over at Kendall’s blog and post it here because it adds some facts to the conversation [although I remain muddled]:

“This is confusing to us at ACI. ACI was formed at the January 2004 conference in Charleston, with the dissolving of SEAD, so as to assist several Primates and the work of the AC. Prior to this, there was an ‘Anglican Institute’ at Grace Church. Many of the dates in the Presentment pre-date ACI but could pertain to AI. It is unclear where the confusion is being introduced. Then again, in one newspaper account, it is made to appear that ACI was a victim of this ‘bad book-keeping.’ So until there is more public airing, things remain unclear. The way this has unfolded, the potential for confusion and hurt is maximised in a way that is tragic.” C Seitz, President, ACI

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=18753#comment-2034166

ALanglian wrote:

C.B. I just did a quick Google search and found various newspaper accounts about the Diocese stating that Armstrong had not paid taxes on a house provided to him by the Diocese. 

This business about not paying taxes on church provided housing appears to originate with a Washington Times newspaper article and with interviews with Fr. Armstrong. The WT article seems to conflate interviews with the diocesan spokesperson and with Fr. Armstrong into adjacent sentences that appear to attribute the charge to the diocesan spokesperson:

Diocese spokeswoman Beckett Stokes said the investigation had nothing to do with Mr. Armstrong’s views. The accusations include not paying taxes on a home provided by the diocese,

Note the article states “a home provided by the diocese” which is obviously inaccurate - casting doubt on the accuracy the rest of the article.

Fr. Armstrong also mentions this in a letter to the parish:

...the Betzer Report suggests that I did not declare the value of my church provided housing…

Of course, none of us have seen the Betzer report to know what’s in it.

The only official communications of charges I have been able to find from the diocese are the 27 March bishop’s letter to Grace & St. Stephen’s parishioners, cited here:

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=18526

and the presentment itself. Neither of these mention anything about church provided housing.

Unless someone can provide the actual communication from the diocese charging Fr. Armstrong with not paying taxes on church provided housing, people should stop insisting that such a charge was made.

ALanglian - I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are referring to the Washington Times article which repeats Rev. Armstrong’s summary of the charges against him as reported in the Rocky Mountain News, but places the summary in the context of a statement by the diocese spokeswoman who said the investigation had nothing to do with Mr. Armstrong’s views. The summary is not attributed to the spokeswoman, but possibly could be read that way.

-

<font color=“red”>Moral: If those of you who are so staunchly [attacking/defending] are later proven to be wrong, your statements are going to be remembered.

</font>
But only by those who were proven <u>right</u>.
-

Begging your pardon…

Several people were in discernment and deemed unfit?...who were expecting to get money from Grace?...lodged complaints with the Stalking Bishop?

Seen-Too-Much knows a great deal more than I about the lack of qualified candidates for the Bowton trust.

People do not need to know the ins and outs of non-profit accounting, EmilyH, to know what is happening in this case.  Churches are exempt from many, if not most, standards of non-profit accounting.  If a church chooses to use some of them as guidelines, it does so under the direction of its leaders.

If you are a member of Grace Church, EmilyH, and wonder about its finances, ask a warden or vestry member, or attend the widely publicized session on April 14 in which Fr. Armstrong promised to provide details about the church’s and his own finances.

If you are not a member of Grace Church, no church need indulge the voyeurism of bloggers or other non-members, especially in this case, in which Grace is a party in pending trials and many contested accusations of dubious legitimacy from a suspect bishop with a clear grudge against his intended victim.

For Sarah…  Re the AI thing.  If you look at the discretionary fund listing in the presentment, you will find a 5/4/99 AI conference fund dispersement of $1,222.58.  On page 4 of the presentment there is reference to a Jan 1997 “grant” to Frederick Barbee of $8,800.37 from the Bowton (Scholarship) Trust.  From 1995-2001 Barbee was the editor of Anglican Digest which was part of the Anglican Institute..  The current editor is John Dryden Burton and the Digest has a website.  I am uncertain of how AI and ACI are/were related if at all.  Kendall Harmon is a frequent contributor to Anglican Digest and might be able to enlighten on the history of the AI or the Digest?

Transparent to whom, Timothy?  To you, or to the vestry?  Why even mention this, as though it is not obvious to all, including those who, unlike bloggers, need to know? 

Transparent to whom? Transparent to a non-believing world, and those young Christians whose faith might be uprooted by the scandal, Seen-To-Much.  Transparent to the point that it makes it very difficult for the evil one to use this as a point of attack.  Transparant to the point of being an example of how an entity, or an individual, should manage its finances and interact with the IRS.  Those are the rules of the house for Christian organizations. Don’t blame me, I am not the author.

Why publish this? Because you, throughout your posts, appear so blinded by your concern for what the Bishop has done that you dismiss the need for the highest reasonable standards and accountability on the part of the parish and its Rector. 

You are not alone with your complaints about candidates for the Priesthood not being approved by your Bishop; or a Bishop taking action undermining the authority of your Priests…all of us who have left for an Anglican church had similar complaints. In my experience, these complaints are legitimate, and I second Father Radner’s comment that there is no room left in TEC for orthodox opposition.  Several here, including Ms. Hey, have taken me to task on my (over) emphasis on the need for seperation. But I do the enemies work if I allow my fervor to blind me to sin in my own camp or the need to learn from our mistakes. That may be repeating the obvious. But often people are blind to the obvious in the middle of a battle.

Background info on the Rev’d Mr. Barbee, and on his friendship with Fr. Armstrong, in this 2004 posting by Armstrong to Titus 1:9 -

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=1806

EmilyH - Kendall is the editor of The Anglican Digest.  My parents received TAD when I was a kid, which was probably long enough ago that it can’t plausibly be roped into another IRD conspiracy theory variant.

Just a thought on the “grant” issue…to the Rev. Barbee.  Again, coming out of a university setting, sometimes this word was used to indicate payment for a lecture series, or a series of articles etc.  Often it would be acknowledged as 1099 income by the recipient and my understanding, since I actually received such funds for a couple of articles I wrote once, it was supposed to be declared as 1099.  If that were the case, maybe a 1099 was issued by Grace but the auditor did not know the relationship of the parties?  Just positing a theory. ...

On the issue regarding +Radner and the position of his wife on the Grace Board?  Is it possible that +Armstrong signs +Radner’s paycheck and he and his wife, therefore, would want to keep an arm’s length distance from this?  The ACI response was written by the President of ACI, Chris Seitz, rather than its Executive Director, Donald Armstrong.?

ET Malone jr.  in an article for the AC News Service dated 1/13/2004 reported that an ACI conference in Charleston SC was:

“sponsored by the Anglican Communion Institute, recently formed from the merger of the Colorado-based Anglican Institute and SEAD (Scholarly Engagement with Anglican Doctrine), headquartered in Charleston.”

It belongs to those who lead Grace Church to consider, let alone decide, any question of their financial transparency, Timothy, not to you.

EmilyH, you don’t seem to know much about how Episcopal parishes are organized or run.  What is your interest in this matter, since it appears unlikely you are a member of the Episcopal church? 

The “board” of Grace Church is its vestry.  Dr. Radner’s wife, the Rev. Brownlee, is not on it and has never been on it so long as she has been a priest at her own church.

Beware of trolls, ladies and gentlemen.  They are hungry, mad and smell blood.

STM,
“It belongs to those who lead Grace Church to consider, let alone decide, any question of their financial transparency, Timothy, not to you.”

I disagree.  This sounds an awful lot like the HOB saying the Preamble of the TEC says what we say it says.  We decide what it means to be in the AC.  I tend to side with Timothy.  Had there been transparency, would this mess be taking place?  Maybe…given your feelings about Bp O’Neill.

EmilyH - I’m sure you read up thread about Radner’s wife. Radner is on the Board of ACI. His wife was on the Colorado Standing Committee. She resigned from the Standing Committee prior to the vote on the presentment. Much to her credit, I’m sure she felt there was an appearance of a conflict of interest under the circumstances, and was obviously in a difficult position.

For Seen too Much, You are correct regarding the requirement of transparency only to a church and its leader, if you accept a congregational model as your form of church polity.  But there is an issue at stake here, an episcopal model.  The person asking the questions is the ordinary of the diocese to which Grace belongs/belonged?  It is the bishop who is calling the actions of Grace and Fr. Armstrong into question.  It appears to be the lack of transparency to the bishop that is a major issue here.  Should Grace join CANA, what financial accountability will it have to +Minns?  How will it be managed in the future?  If the ACI’s finances are intricately tied up with this congregation, what does that imply for Radner+ etc.?  Has Radner+ hedged his bets with a move to the IRD.  Is he being compensated there, and, if so, is it possibly a more stable employer?

S. Standish, I believe that you are onto something. It appears that any responsibility must always be borne by an external source.  We are witnessing the meltdown.

For C.B.  Thank you for clarifying for me that Radner+‘s spouse was on the diocesan steering com.  I regret my error in assuming that a larger group, possibly an advisory board, existed for the vestry at Grace.

There are different issues being conflated here about Fr. Armstrong’s past actions involving the financial affairs of his parish and the issue of what the parish should do with respect to the Dio. of Colorado, Bishop O’Neill, etc.

Fr. Armstrong is innocent until proven guilty, but the presentment contains enough specific and plausible accusations that should be investigated and resolved by someone with authority over Fr. Armstrong.  We all know, or should know, that theological orthodoxy is no guarantee that one will live one’s life honestly and morally, as the public moral failings of many ministers can illustrate, and credible accusations like this must be addressed.

The worst result for the parishioners of Grace would be to fall between two stools and not be in a position to have the accusations against Fr. Armstrong resolved in a fair manner so as to know whether they are being led by someone deserving of their trust, whether it’s under Bishop O’Neill or CANA, or whatever.  But it looks like the issue of whether Grace should stay in TEC or go to CANA will interfere with any resolution of the accusations.

I fear, however, that this is one of those situations where everyone loses and the cause of Christ is not advanced.

C.B., don’t strain yourself too much trying to implicate the ACI. I can’t help thinking that that motivation is pushing some people. As for Fr. Armstrong+, none of us knows the truth yet and I’m with Smuggs - none of us should be too quick to proclaim what’s what here.

usma87, Timothy is not even a member, let alone a leader, of Grace Church.  You are saying he should decide the level of transparency with which it should conduct its financial affairs?  If so, I think you are both dead wrong.

Even on this tiny blog, such a position is easily exploited by those who are no friends of normative Christianity or of Grace Church.  How much more is this magnified in the real world, when people outside a church are permitted to dictate how it is organized and run?  This very condition is what is driving people, including Grace Church, from TEC.  And it will continue indefinitely unless the Anglican Communion is able to stop it.

Jason, this is why I feel that we need to put the cart back behind the horse, so that these issues can be resolved systematically. I think that a discernment process re: CANA affiliation would not be compromised by waiting for the allegations against Father Armstrong to be dismissed or otherwise resolved.

EmilyH, thanks for the clarification.  I am glad to see that the Anglican Institute was distinct from the Anglican Communion Institute, founded in 2004.

It might, and does, appear to the casual visitor that “revisionists” are not the only folks with a “pathological denial” problem, Seen-Too-Much.  A tad less rhetoric, and maybe a little more substance, wouldn’t hurt.

Im missing the whole situation here?

1.  Did he resign from the ECUSA?  If so what does it have to do with transfering/ to an entitiy the ECUSA does not even recognize?
2. If he resigned and now resides in an entity the ECUSA does not recognize what possible ecclessial authroity could be being exercised?
3.  How can the ECUSA file charges based upon civil violations that seemingly have not been filed, investigated or prosicuted?
4. Last I heard tax information was privilaged?  Transparent? Not.
5. Shouldnt all other accusations other than those supposedly related to taxes be addressed to the congregation?  Who had the check book?  What process was in place?

Just an observer

The episcopal “polity” of TEC as a church has collapsed, EmilyH; or, more precisely, as demonstrated in the last HOB meeting, abdicated itself.  But, as a non-church member, how would you know that, or even care for that matter?  As a whole, all that is left is the “episcopal model” of financial control and other administration.  And as things fall apart, the “episcopal model” of non-church members such as yourself can be relied upon to try to grab as much money as they can.  That is why they/you are so defiant of the “episcopal model” of the Anglican Communion, which has only the theological conciliar authority of a church, rather than the dysfunctional, antiquated “polity” of TEC.  CANA is unlikely to follow the “episcopal model” of your polity since it conforms to the episcopal authority of churches in the Anglican Communion.  So Grace Church and others like it have chosen to follow the “episcopal model” of a church, rather than the “episcopal model” of your polity.

For Sarah, maybe I spoke to quickly, as C.B. has identified: “ET Malone jr.  in an article for the AC News Service dated 1/13/2004 reported that an ACI conference in Charleston SC was:

“sponsored by the Anglican Communion Institute, recently formed from the merger of the Colorado-based Anglican Institute and SEAD (Scholarly Engagement with Anglican Doctrine), headquartered in Charleston.”
And this seems to jive with Kendall Harmon’s comment on another blog that ACI began in 2004.  This is all a bit convoluted for me to follow.  Again, Kendall Harmon might be able to cast more light on both organizations, their history and relationship.

Sarah Hey - Here is some background on the relationship between AI and ACI. As I quoted above, ACI was formed in 2004 when AI and SEAD merged. Rev. Armstrong was the Director of AI beginning around 1992 when it was moved from St. Louis where it was founded by Bishop Michael Marshall in 1984. (Marshall went back to England to live.)  AI operated as a ministry of Grace Church.  After the merger in 2004, Rev. Armstrong became the Executive Director of ACI, and all previous activities carried out by AI were henceforth conducted by ACI ACI is CURRENTLY listed as a ministry of Grace Church on their website.

Rob-Roy—no need to take offense where none is intended.

Seen-too-much, blogs are intended to be public forums.  Who are you to be policing the participants?  You seen awfully concerned that the only people allowed to post an opinion or analysis are leaders of Grace Church, so one must assume you are one.  I do not want to discourage discussion but please stop telling people they are not allowed to be a part of the discussion unless they are members or leaders of the church.

On the relationship between ACI and AI. 

The Anglican Institute (Colorado Springs) and SEAD (Charleston, SC) were two different organizations until 2004.  Both held conferences.  SEAD’s conferences tended to be scholarly in focus. SEAD had originally been located at Virginia Seminary, where David Scott was its Director.  When Scott retired, the leadership shifted to a handful of younger scholars, specifically Christopher Seitz, Ephraim Radner, and Rusty Reno, along with Philip Turner, retired Dean of YDS, Berkeley.  With Scott’s retirement, the headquarters for SEAD shifted to the Charleston Cathedral.

When Ephraim Radner moved to Pueblo, CO, it was decided to merge SEAD and ACI, largely, I understand, for financial reasons.  SEAD had never been profitable, and it was thought that AI and SEAD were to a certain extent duplicating each other’s efforts.

Two years ago, a new organization called Mere Anglicanism began holding annual conferences at Charleston, formed by some who had been past contributors to SEAD, specifically retired Bishop Fitzsimmons Allison.  Interestingly, the newer Mere Anglicanism conferences have more of the popular appeal that used to be associated with AI, with guest speakers like Os Guiness.  They have very nice T-Shirts.

Pat: “If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.” The good book doesn’t say, “keep a loose rein on his tongue but with good intentions.” I, as an ear, nose and throat doc, tell my patients (and myself!) the good Lord gave us two eyes, two ears but one mouth for a reason. The latter can get you in a whole lot of trouble. Peace.

C. B., it seems clear that the parts in the presentment regarding ACI/AI are quite muddled.  Since ACI did not begin until 2004, then any references in the presentment to “ACI” prior to 2004 are clearly referring to AI, an entirely different organization.

So for instance, when the presentment says: “In about March 2003, the payments ceased being booked as an ACI accounts receivable or as a Bowton Trust “expense”” or “Beginning in 2001, ACI issued its own checks to the above-described payees, and booked each payment as a Bowton Trust “expense” that is a rather dramatic error, since the ACI began in 2004 with the merger of AI and SEAD, hence it is impossible for ACI to issue “its own checks”.  The presentment wrongly conflates the activities associated with AI with an organization that was founded in 2004.

Oddly, the presentment also states that beginning in March 2003, the ACI [wrong, it’s AI] “never received any of the payments since they were at that time, and thereafter made payable to “Donald Armstrong-College Fund” or “College Fund.”“

Fear not, however, Enemies of the ACI and Fearers of Ephraim Radner’s being on the Covenant Design Team!

I’m sure that with some more searching . . . something . . .  somewhere, will turn up that reveals that really the ACI is as Wicked An Organization As You Fancy.  ; > )

A few comments about this thread:

1. Seen-too-much, while I appreciate that you are close to the situation and have very strong feelings, I think that Timothy’s and others’ concerns are very valid.  This situation impacts all of orthodox Anglicanism in North America.  A lot of accusations and counter-accusations have been made.  Serious allegations have come forward.  To an outside observer, these waters are very murky.  We shouldn’t come to ill-informed judgements on either side.  I think that you need to cut others some slack here.

2. C.B. - While we have disagreed in the past, I agree with you 100% that if allegations have been made, the person making those allegations has the responsibility for providing supportive evidence.  I did a quick search on what the Diocese alleged and, like you, could find no allegations of housing allowance fraud.  As jrsftc later pointed out, this appears to stem from Armstrong’s belief (whether mistaken or not) that the Diocese was pursuing such a claim against him.

3. My concern here is that in the current atmosphere in TEC - where trust has been broken and where there is a pending constitutional crisis - there is nobody within current TEC polity that can salvage this mess.  It is crying out for a neutral outsider to come in and restore order…..someone like a Primatial Vicar overseen by a Pastoral Council.

Sarah Hey -  I agree that the presentment on its face appears muddled with respect to AI and ACI. I offer one speculation. From the point of view of the church’s books over the period of roughly 1997 -2007, which is what the forensic auditor was looking at,  AI and ACI are the same entity. Meaning that to the public ACI appeared to be distinct, but on the church books it was not. Otherwise, you are quite right, the presentment would appear to be flawed.

Sarah, I think it’s too early to figure out where and how the money was moving.  Obviously the accountant was working with checks that had ACI.  I think we will have to wait to see how this untangles.  If the funds are indeed co-mingled after Jan 2004, this does not bode well for the ACI’s fiscal credibility, if not, well that’s great news for its officers and directors.  But, since ACI is a mission of Grace, it may be possible that it was included in the audit and was found clear of any wrong doing?  Do you know if it has employees as well as officers and directors and are they compensated?

One shouldn’t forget that it is always a good working assumption when book-keeping has got muddled that it was probably down to confusion or sloppy thinking, rather than dishonesty. I’d have thought that the allegations of personal/family benefit and some sort of associated cover-up (if proved, about which it would be utterly wrong to speculate) are much more important. Accountancy skills are not essential for leadership; morality skills rather are.

From over at T19 there are further comments from Chris Seitz:

“C.B. — I appreciate your perspective, but ACI is unrelated to AI and that is true, a fact, etc. That others may perceive the matter differently I accept, but that does not change the reality. The main writers and workers for ACI all were involved in SEAD. SEAD formally dissolved. ACI grew out of that. To be sure, Grace Church had a kind of relationship to AI that they judged to be X or Y — they hosted conferences, etc. ACI has not been a conferencing initiative, in large measure because of the work required. None of us have received any compensation, the work is done pro bono out of conviction regarding the Anglican Communion and due to personal contacts that have nothing whatsoever to do with AI. For all we know, AI still exists. I cannot comment on that.” C Seitz

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=18753#comment-2034719

I am adding these, not because I have a clue, but because Chris Seitz is with the ACI and it adds some details.

“CB–I am the President of ACI. I was the President of SEAD. I worked there with Philip Turner, Ephraim Radner, Peter Walker, Andrew Goddard, +Drexel Gomez, +Jim Stanton, and others. I simply have no sense of the specific history of AI. We ‘inherited’ nothing from that in our day to day work and I was never involved in AI in any formal sense. I am aware of our actual work at ACI, and 90% at least goes by my eyes, and it is work that happens out of the generosity of those contributing. No stipends are paid, and this costs Grace Church nothing in the strict sense. We have a web site, and that is paid for by Grace Church, as I understand it. AI is unrelated to ACI. I suspect you will appreciate how odd it is for me, as President of ACI, to respond to initials from someone telling me how it is in fact related to AI. And I repeat, I don’t know if AI still exists as I was never involved with it. I DO know that SEAD, which was incorporated, was dissolved in 2004. When I see in a Presentment that the Anglican Communion Institute was involved in book-keeping matters at Grace Church prior to 2004, I am confused. But then, this whole thing is confusing. But I may surmise that what is meant is Anglican Institute; that is for others to sort out. In that strict sense, I repeat, ACI and AI are unrelated. Book keeping related to AI has nothing to do with ACI, nor should it. I hope all of this is resolved to Grace Church’s satisfaction. It is serious business and tragic.” Blessings, C Seitz

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=18753#comment-2034861

“I have tried to say this several times. ACI is effectively the work of six or so unpaid, overworked, overtravelled colleagues. ACI is the writing and thinking from university and parish academics that goes up on a web-site or in publications of various kinds. There are no salaries. Conferences in the past years (since 2004) were handled as at SEAD (fees), or as guests of a host (Diocese of West Texas and Diocese of Albany). Unlike at SEAD, we do not even have a hard-copy publication to produce. We all have busy day jobs. As for what is now available via a Presentment — we are as in the dark about that as anyone. ACI is not an incorporated entity, like SEAD. Someone once put it nicely, ’six guys and a web-site.’ We counted on donations to support travel and subsistence, and this was handled by the Executive Director. How the costing was entangled with Grace Church, and also with a prior history with AI, is not clear. But I presume in the light of the Presentment, this is going to have to be addressed.”

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=18753#comment-2035026

You know, I don’t have a dog in this race. I don’t know Fr. Armstrong, I am aware that good people do fail - sinners like us all. So I honestly don’t know what to expect will come of all this. But I can’t help thinking that some people have their blood up and it’s not for Fr. Armstrong, but for a chance to destroy the credibility of the ACI. Pretty sickening, really.

Seen too much,

I echo JamesW’s post above.  I would also add the missin gvoice is that of members of Grace that want to know the details of finances.  Being an “outsider” (non-Grace Episcoanglican), I have no idea if the three - five people on this blog who expressed said concern are members or not.  But, I would suggest that there are probably some in the “2000 member” church who had no clue about some of the information that has come to light.  I am on Fr Armstrong side in this, but I try no to have rose colored glasses.

I suspect I will make all sides mad with the following responses!

Concerned Parishioner—I hope you do not postpone the discernment process because of the allegations against one man.  You cannot operate indefinately in limbo, and the failure to ratify your ties with the GS will be a cancer on your congretation and invite more interference and dissent in the months ahead.  Hopefully, you are not leaving TEC because of loyalty to a particular Priest or any other individual, but out of fidelity to Jesus Christ.  That is the only foundation for your church that will last.  God will take care of the rest. Just take one step at a time in obedience.

Sarah, technically, whether the use of the name ACI is correct or not may depend on the nature of the January 2004 merger (assuming it was a corporate merger). The AI may have been the surviving corporation and its name just changed to ACI. In such instance, it would be legally correct to call it by its current name since it is legally the same entity.  But in any event I agree that it is misleading to the public and like you do not believe for a minute that any bookeeping issues that may have occurred should be allowed to implicate the good name, or diminish the good work of the ACI or its leaders, including Father Radner.

Seen-To-Much—I agree that the current situation is proned to being exploited by those that are against normative Christianity, as you put it. That is precisely why Christian leaders and organizations are called to avoid even the   hint of impropriety.  Frankly, I could care less about these types of allegations against someone like, for example, Bishop Bennison, because I don’t consider him to be a Christian leader in the first place.  But this parish is a leading, orthodox church with strong ministries and with its church leaders are part of Christ’s visible body.  In such instances, all Christians must take some of the blame for allowing the problem to creep in our midst (1 Cor. 5:13); take some of the responsibility for exposing (Matt. 18:15-20) and judging (1 Cor. 6:1-4) it; and some of the burden of holding our erring brother or sister to heartfelt repentance (2 Thess. 3:14-15). 

Paul Stanley, I agree with a small exception. Leaders of larger Christian organizations, including churches, are not required to have accounting skills, but should ensure that the organization follow procedures set and monitered by someone who does.

As someone who was tangentially involved with SEAD before it became ACI—in the sense that I attended conferences from 1998 on and was involved with a group of people who formed a SEAD Northeast local group that finally faded with the departures of several key members to other locations—I can verify that Chris Seitz’s summary of ACI is correct.  They really are “six guys with a website.”  I can verify that ACI did not exist until a couple of years ago because our group had a conversation at the time about whether or not to change our name.  With the permission of Chris Seitz, we contined to call ourselves SEAD Northeast, or, among ourselves, the “Bad SEAD.”

I would imagine that ACI’s finances were handled a lot like SEAD Northeast’s.  We collected $10 from each attendee at our meetings and used this cash to buy sandwiches and soda.  The treasurer held any leftover cash until the next meeting.  Real high finance.  For those who want to connect SEAD Northeast to the current scandal, I’m sorry.  We made sure not to leave a paper trail.  You might be able to dig up some dirt from the guy who ran the deli.

Timothy - According to Rev. Seitz (see up thread quotes),  ACI is NOT incorporated. In addition, it appears that its finances were handled by the Executive Director. Given the level of extreme candidness displayed by Rev. Seitz in my and other’s exchanges with him on T19, I would guess no one else at ACI knew or knows much about the financial matters of ACI except Rev. Armstrong.

C.B. - six guys and a website - doesn’t sound like it’s going to amount to a lot of financial matters, does it?

With utmost respect for the ministry and integrity of Messrs. Seitz and Radner and other ACI scholars, perhaps the “pudding” is in this statement:

We counted on donations to support travel and subsistence, and this was handled by the Executive Director. How the costing was entangled with Grace Church, and also with a prior history with AI, is not clear.

Both the AI and the ACI were regularly represented from the pulpit and in parish publications as ministries of Grace Church.  Both organizations were administered from the offices of Grace Church. The Executive Director’s wife did administrative tasks for both AI and ACI. From appearances, parishioners had no reason to believe that a ministry of Grace Church had changed in anything but name and influence. Moreover, since the affiliated ministries—AI/ACI and St. Stephen’s Classical Academy—were only addressed at the highest level during annual parish meetings, parishioners, like the unpaid ACI scholars, had no reason or means to question affiliation or finances.

We may pray that appearances bare false witness.

The vestry, at an informational meeting on January 21, 2007, told the parish that the Church had made a loan of $170,000 to ACI (the date wasn’t given), and that the ACI will repay the Church at the rate of $10,000 per year.  The loan is reflected in the 2007 budget.

Chris Seitz says, and I believe that this is how he understands the matter, that “ACI and AI are unrelated. Book keeping related to AI has nothing to do with ACI, nor should it.”

However:  AI was a ministry of Grace Church, and as recently as March 27, Don Armstrong has stated that ACI is also “a ministry of Grace Church,” although “separate in its work from the parish.” 

The forensic accountant has found numerous transactions in the ACI checking account dating back to well before the creation of ACI.  It is logical to wonder, therefore, whether the account Grace Church has been using for ACI is not, in fact, the very same account that was formerly used for AI.

One begins to suspect that the right hand has not known what the left hand is doing, with unfortunate (and confusing) consequences.

C.B. -
You seem to be terribly anxious to see ACI destroyed along with Armstrong+.  Why is that, I wonder?

Incidentally, I would say that Armstrong+ is doomed.

CarolynP - I have no interest in destroying ACI. I don’t agree with the views espoused by those who speak for it, but the men are gifted and will continue their work or without ACI. It is merely unfortunate that Rev. Armstrong has embroiled it and them in a mess.

Description of one the elite faculty:
*Shelley Kaehr: ” With a name whose pronunciation reflects the “care” she gives to thousands of students each year, AIHT alumna Shelley Kaehr, Ph.D., is a nationally renowned expert in metaphysics, paranormal psychology, hypnotism, energy modalities, and crystal and gemstone healing.”
I can’t help thinking about Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd in Ghostbusters.
Some memorable lines:

Male Student: [after the beautiful female student has guessed 5 out of 5 cards right while he has “none”; actually he has one] What are you trying to prove here, anyway?
Dr. Peter Venkman (Bill Murray): I’m studying the effects of negative reinforcement on ESP ability
Male Student: The effect? I’ll tell you what the effect is, it’s p#ssing me off!

Walter Peck: Exactly what are you a doctor of, Mr. Venkman?
Dr. Peter Venkman (Bill Murray): Well, I have a PhD in parapsychology and psychology.

Janine Melnitz (Ghostbuster receptionist): Do you believe in UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis?
Winston Zeddemore: Ah, if there’s a steady paycheck in it, I’ll believe anything you say.

Dr Ray Stantz (Dan Akroyd): Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn’t have to produce anything! You’ve never been out of college! You don’t know what it’s like out there! I’ve *worked* in the private sector. They expect *results*.

Sorry, that last comment was suppose to go to Sarah Hey’s posting: A Blogger Comments on the Education of a Bishop Nominee for the Diocese of El Camino Real.
Maybe this threaded needed a little lightening up.

CarolynP,

You know, I’m sure that some progressive activists will attempt to make some hay out of the ACI connection with GraceChurch/St. Stephens.  But I’m not sure that it will help them much. . . .

; > )

The truth is, that if they aren’t able to make some hay over this, then they’ll move on to other attempts.  As I posted over at T19, prior to some progressives’ startled recognition that the ACI appears to have influence, they could afford to ignore the organization or, at best, condescend to it. But once they realized that the communion as a whole listens to the ACI and recognizes its scholarship — so much so that Ephraim Radner was invited to be on the Covenant Design Committee — the rants began and the long knives came out.

That will only continue and escalate, and I trust that the ACI is prepared for that reality.  I actually doubt that much will come of the GraceChurch/St Stephens/financial investigation . . . [as far as bad intent by the ACI] but they’ll work on something else, anyway.
; > )

Just the way the game is played in ECUSA.  And they’re really desperate.

Well, Sarah, I am a progressive, but not much of an activist. I don’t think that given the lack of involvement in the running of ACI as evidenced by Prof. Seitz’s comments on T19 by anyone other than Rev. Armstrong, that there will be much fallout for ACI in this matter.  On that we agree.

Hi CB, I was not trying to imply that you were a progressive activist.  I intended to comment in general about the demonstrable strategery of progressive activists.

On another note, I agree with Timothy in general.  Whatever is the truth, painful or helpful, I would like the truth to be publicly demonstrated with regards to this presentment.

I expect it will have to be so demonstrated in secular and not ecclesial courts. 

I am unable, personally, to discern the truth by viewing what we have been given in the press/etc.  So I truly do not know the truth.

But the truth shall set us free—and if wrongdoing has been done by the bishop, we should know that.  Likewise, if wrongdoing has been been done by Father Armstrong, or the parish’s other leaders, we should know that.

I hope that this will be resolved not in service to “reasserters” or “reappraisers” but in service to the truth.

Sarah, you are quite right about long knives, when they came out and why.  Have no doubt about this either:  if they cannot destroy ACI, the next best thing will be one or more of its officers.  Fr. Armstrong is the first of several attempts that will continue for some time.  Public abuse of Fr. Radner is increasing, most recently at a meeting within the Diocese he mentioned recently and at the HOB meeting where eyewitnesses have atested he was treated outrageously and badly.  Now that Bennison is beginning to break the news to them that the ABC will not cover for them, it will get worse.

As things worsen with the public, unsubstantiated allegations against Fr. Armstrong, and other attacks by TEC, it is important, even on a blog like this, to be conscious when people who could care less about the church attempt to influence the views of church members.  Larger patterns in the church are evident here:  including the appearance of interlopers trying to shift opinions, under the banner of “openess” (another word for “inclusivity”).  The most important decisions of a church are made by those who belong to it, not by those who do not or who have divided and shifting loyalties to it.

Chris Seitz From T19:

At the end of the day, the work of ACI has been the unreimbursed hard work of: Seitz, Radner, Turner, Goddard, Walker and friends. Don Armstrong provided an access to help with travel when called upon. The people named above have no homes in Co Sprgs and have done this work with diligence and hopefulness and will continue to do so.

Don Armstrong from T19

Since 2003 until just this past Fall, Grace Church has funded the ACI from its own monies to maintain its independence and so that it would be free from political pressures that outside fund raising naturally involves…The ACI/AI has granted scholarships for a number of theological and educational ventures over the years, but those funds are separate from the working money given for ACI. In other words I raised money specifically for the purpose of supporting these other various educational ventures–which included clergy and lay continuing education, seminary education expenses for third world students, writing projects and the like.

“Access to help with travel when called upon” or funding the ACI and its “various educational ventures”? As suggested earlier by D. Simonsen, perhaps the right hand has not known what the left hand was doing.
May parishioners of Grace and St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church move forward in their faith and worship with diligence and hopefulness.

Rob Roy—I truly do not understand what your problem is with either of us.  Marty made an honest statement, used the word “priestess” without any ill intent.  I simply mentioned women priests are not “priestesses.”  He responded he meant no offense and I am sure he did not.  He comes from a totally different church tradition and just did not know.  I thought the way he stated his concern over possibly causing offense was cute, and appreciated the little bit of lightness it added.  I do not lke the word priestess because it sounds occult to my ear, that is all.  Marty is kind-hearted and I would not have wanted to say something in a way to hurt his feelings.

If you want to be offended at that, I do not understand it and I think you have placed some kind of wrong construct on what was said.  Yes, it is nice that you feel great loyalty to your friends, but seeing offense where there is none is not helpful all the way around.

Peace,
Pat

The following may shed some light on the AI/ACI, the date that the SEAD merger happened and who was involved but it may further confuse, but I suspect that the dates are important.  In addition, there have been allegations of 1.  An attempt to imply that the ACI is more than it is, strength and support, (influence with US Anglicans and the scholarly voice of Anglicanism) and 2. An attempt to portray it as something very little and insignificant, Chris Seitz’s “six guys with a website”
_________________________
http://www.dioceseofsc.org/news/future_of_church.htm
“The Future of the Anglican Communion
January 8-9, 2004
St. Philip’s Church, Charleston

SEAD and the Anglican Institute have merged to form The Anglican Communion Institute. On behalf of Archbishops Drexel Gomez, Peter Akinola, and Greg Venables, ACI has been involved in events of the Anglican Communion over the past months. This includes the production of the booklet, ‘Claiming Our Anglican Identity,’ for the emergency Lambeth meeting of the Primates in October 2003.”

This reminds me of the Duke LaCrosse players case- last year lots of public indignation, legal documents filed, accusations made in the press - and today- all charges have been dropped

RE: “An attempt to imply that the ACI is more than it is, strength and support, (influence with US Anglicans and the scholarly voice of Anglicanism) . . . “

EmilyH, I’m afraid your progressive bias is showing.  People have not implied at all that the ACI has “influence with US Anglicans” but rather that it has influence with reasserter US Anglicans, and for that matter witih reasserter Anglicans all over the globe.

It also appears to have been noticed by the ABC and Primates, since Ephraim Radner—much to the gnashing of teeth and pouring of ashes by progressives—was appointed to the Covenant Design Team.

But it certainly does NOT have influence with progressive Anglicans in any part of the globe, other than the “influence” of causing heartburn and rage.

How ought it be possible for a priest to switch to another jurisdiction in the midst of an investigation of his use/misuse of parish finances?  In the absence of a vote by the entire congregation so do so and some sort of settlement with the Diocese (agreed or decreed) then Father Armstrong will need to answer the charges in the presentment.  Even when/if such a transfer of jurisdiction takes place there would be an obligation to account for his use of funds.  No?  He seems to be saying ‘too late - I’m here now, not there’.  Does anybody care to argue that Fr Armstrong is correct in his assessment that he has no charges to answer because he ‘got out’ just in time?

It depends, Rabbit.  If the DioCO believes that Fr. Armstrong has harmed it in some manner, it can always file suit against him in court.  After all, TEC isn’t shy about that, is it?  It can then recover whatever it feels +Armstrong has taken from it.  Furthermore, if the relevant taxing authorities believe that +Armstrong has defrauded the taxpayer in some way (which seems to be the crux of the DioCO’s charges), switching from TEC to CANA won’t make a bit of difference.

Absent these remedies, in the end, the sway TEC holds over +Armstrong only lasts as long as he’s part of the club.  Once he’s out, TEC’s sanctions can no longer reach him.

Is it possible that Raspberry Rabbit is asking if letters dimissory were issued from the Bishop of Colorado to CANA?  If that is the question then the answer is No This beggs the question of the support shown by +Minns and Bena.  Since The Church of Nigeria has determined that is not in communion with TEC, Armstrong’s+ position of being a priest in good standing in the Dio Colorado may be irrelevant to +Akinola.  I would think CANA’s wiilingness to so unqualifiedly support Armstrong+ without permitting the investigation to go forward doesn’t seem like good judgment if it hopes to establish moral credibility in the territory of the US.

RE: “without permitting the investigation to go forward . . . “

Why of course the “investigation” may “go forward”!  Certainly CANA cannot prevent lawsuits and civil charges.  Why, the diocese of Colorado could just proceed with the ecclesiastical trial, declare Armstrong guilty and proceed to defrock him.  Not to mention, again, the lawsuits and criminal charges.

And besides, the “investigation” is over and has resulted in presentment.  Now it is up to the Diocese of Colorado to choose to file suit and prosecute.

Isn’t there another way of discourse for us conservatives?  If the ‘stalking bishop’ wanted to take over Grace, why did he put someone canonically resident in Quincy in charge of Grace in exile?  Did I say Quincy?  Fr. O’Donnell is canonically resident in Quincy!!  He is licensed in Colorado and he is one of the most gracious and orthodox priests in the diocese.

I hate that the poison of the evil one has infected us to the point that we can not see wrongdoing and call it as such.

19 former vestry members have posted a letter on the Colorado Springs Gazette indicating that they feel Rev. Armstrong to date has not been entirely forthcoming, and would like him to do so.
http://daily.gazette.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=VGhlR2F6ZXR0ZS8yMDA3LzA0LzEzI0FyMDE5MDE=&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom

19 former vestry members . . .

Let us continue to pray for ALL concerned.  The charges are grave yet I hope we can all agree the presumption of innocence is still the norm wherever we stand on the serious debates within the Anglican Communion.

No matter the outcome lives, families and this parish are changed forever. 

Come Holy Spirit, come . . .

Jim S - More information regarding the Gazette story is available on “daily episcopalian.”

And the senior warden responds…

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=18843#comment-2045119