Living Church: Executive Council Officers Address [Retired] Bishops’ Concerns About Litigation Cos

Well, that makes it all worthwhile then, doesn’t it?

I have a blog thingy

Such transparency!  And such a wise course of action while you’re the same day complaining about how the flow of money from dioceses to the temple at 815 isn’t what it ought to be.  Amazing.

These were the original questions:

1 ) How much money has the Episcopal Church spent on litigation against congregations and individuals who have chosen to depart TEC since 2003? What are the sources of those funds?
2) In what budget(s) are those expenditures accounted for?
3) Has any income from trust funds been used to support these litigations? If so, how much and from which funds?
4) How much compensation has the law firm of the Episcopal Church’s chancellor, David Beers, received for servicing this litigation?

They did not answer a single question.

What is value to two lawyers? Do lawyers consider: Bringing ignominy to the church? Bringing unanimous condemnation from the primates of the Anglican Communion (including, paradoxically, Sheriff Schori, herself).

Jill,

You’re being unreasonable. I mean, we have the word of two individuals I’ve never heard of stating that the church is getting “extraordinary value”. It’s the ecclesiastical equivalent of those Publix mystery coupons we get in the Sunday paper down here.

Who needs transparency when you’re getting such a bargain?

/sarcasm

I have a blog thingy

“We reiterate that the Executive Council has no wish or intention to ‘level charges’ or to ‘threaten litigation,’ said Josephine Hicks and John Vanderstar.

These two lawyers have very big noses!

Speaking of Bp Wantland, David Virtue has a must read interview of him here. One of many morsels:

The authority and duties of the Presiding Bishop are set forth in Canon I.2.4….The PB does have certain responsibilities in regard to the charges, as set forth in Title IV of the Canons. However, there is absolutely NO authority in any instance over Standing Committees, Diocesan Councils, or other diocesan leadership.

Civil litigation is the only recourse available when the canons of The Episcopal Church are not honored

I see a desire to return to the ‘good old days’ of beheadings and burning at the stake, but since the state will not support them any more, TEC will just sue clergy, vestry, current vestry as if there was another vestry (thinking the latest in CA) and if +Indy ever gets her way, it’ll include parishioners too. Fear not, there one Jesus they’ve not fit in their awfully small boxes and one we often forget emphasizing His love & grace which is as the true Judge.

“Civil litigation is the only recourse available when the canons of The Episcopal Church are not honored, according to two officers of Executive Council who recently wrote to a group of retired bishops.”

Any day now, all parishes practicing Open Communion should expect to be sued by TEC.

We reiterate that the Executive Council has no wish or intention to ‘level charges’ or to ‘threaten litigation,’ said Josephine Hicks and John Vanderstar.

Within the meaning of the words this may be true, have we not learned from the the trial in Virginia that it is +KJS who reserves to herself the power to “threaten litigation” and to “level charges”.

Civil litigation is the only recourse available when the canons of The Episcopal Church are not honored

(raising hand) What about prayer to the God who judges justly?
What about the same kind of moral suasion the ABC is using now with the Communion?
—and I’ll bet there are even more possibilities…

EXTRAORDINARY VALUE: ELVIS IS IN THE HOUSE

The Rt. Rev. Katherine Jefferts Schori
815
NY NY

Dear Bishop Schori:

I write about use of acquired church property.  If you demolish the church building rather than fixing it, a local developer told me you could sell the property—land plus parish hall less church building—to him for serious cash.  Your only cost would be demolition of the church building, leaving you plenty to pay the lawyers and some cash to boot.

We’re not sure what the developer will do with the property once you flip it.  His schtick is Elvis memorabilia and music.  The parish hall would work for this, plus adjoining land where the church now stands is ideal for parking. The developer suggested a faux Graceland entry from the parking lot to the parish hall.  Not my cup of tea, but who’s going to say no.  If Elton John worked in the Big Apple, Elvis might work here. 

Some parishioners do not want to demolish the church building.  Maybe you can give us cover on this.  You know—tell them it’s out of our hands, it’s what the church needs and some of the loose change will go to the MDG’s.

Let us know if this works for you.

Eddie Fuss, licensed real estate agent

Here’s a question.  Four retired bishops write a series of letters to the Exec Council and cc: their colleagues in the House of Pancakes.  They question the outrageous spending on litigation, ask for the $ amount and where the money is coming from.  Where are the other bishops, retired and active, who also question this spending?  Why is it that our bishops - supposedly the shepherds of the flock, protectors of the faith - always let a small group of retired bishops (not at great risk of inhibition)  do the heavy lifting for them?  Sorry, but if a bishop has any spine left he (or she) should sign this letter and demand accountability.  This is another example of how gutless and detached from reality our bishops have become.  We have no real leaders in this church anymore, in my humble opinion.

They did not answer a single question.

I’m detecting a pattern from 815 here.  Perhaps they’re just living into their lawyerly, mealy-mouthed evasions.  Like a politician.

I’m a lawyer, myself, and lawyers stating a “professional opinion” about “extraordinary value” of legal services is a troubling term.  What is extraordinary value when they’re talking about lawsuits?  Did they get the lawsuit on sale?  Are they working on the cheap?  Is TEC using discount lawyers?  How is it an extraordinary value if they lose?  What nonsense.

Civil litigation is the only recourse available when the canons of The Episcopal Church are not honored

The HoD chancellor recently made a similar comment.  Doesn’t this fly in the face of TEC’s reliance on the deference of courts to the 1st amendment?  You can’t honestly argue that courts shouldn’t intervene in church disputes (the hierarchical church principle) and simultaneously ask the courts to intervene in church disputes.

This is what the CT6 were trying to have the fed court hear, but the court wouldn’t grant jurisdiction.  If we had had these outrageous statements available, maybe it would have been different.

I’m not a lawyer, either. I am spawn of a lawyer though.  Perhaps “extraordinary value” is like a fast food combo deal?  A diocese, two parishes and a few priests for the price of a bishop and a priest?

T

It is extraordinary value if your goal is terrorism of the God’s faithful people. Just ask my entire vestry who is being sued for conspiracy to defraud little Robby O’Neill of what would soon be another leased out property if his grim reaper of church growth got a hold of it.

And for every dollar TEC lawyers spend of the church’s heritage, others in the church are required to raise at least an equal amount to spend on lawyers too…certainly doesn’t help fulfill MDG’s

You know, with what 815 is spending on lawyers’ fees to prosecute the orthodox they could probably buy, or build, new buildings to replace those being taken out of TEC. 

But it’s much more fun being a hard-nosed SOB, ain’t it?

For those who have not yet escaped TEC,  ANOTHER day spent in the light of Truth….

While declining to provide the actual sum spent on litigation, Ms. Hicks and Mr. Vanderstar said, “We give you our professional opinion that the church is receiving extraordinary value for the funds it does spend.”

Well, I guess the answer to this is for me and everyone else to decline to provide any actual sums to TEC. I will give them my professional opinion that the sums I once provided to TEC are now being spent by Anglicans who recognize the extraordinary value of the Church.

Bishops Allison et al. should perhaps expect to receive a statement in the mail for services rendered in giving this professional opinion.  Odd though, for lawyers to be rendering professional advice to people who haven’t asked for it.

... we and the presiding officers have a responsibility to protect the assets of The Episcopal Church and to preserve its structure. That structure, as set forth in the constitution and canons, confers on the General Convention the sole authority to make changes in the identity and responsibilities of dioceses.

Mmmpf. Looks like this is somewhere else the good Committeemen have declined to provide specificity.  The probable answer to the obvious question “What precise clauses in the constitution and canons?” is, “Umm, well, we’ll get back to you on that right after GC09.”

Only a lawyer could use the term “civil litigation” with no trace of irony. There is nothing “civil” about the litigation that TEC has unleashed on parishes who are determined to remain faithful to the plain words of the Bible.

Secondly, in the secular world, pension accounting rules are very strict. The fiduciary responsibilities of the plan administrators are clear, and spending plan assets on law suits would not normally qualify as a legitimate use of plan assets, no matter how much undefined “value” is received.

Additionally, the questions asked are legitimate questions that any member of TEC should have a right to know. One of the lawyers out there may have a view on the legal right of TEC members or retired Bishops to the requested information.

That TEC will not voluntarily disclose the requested information speaks volumes about the dishonesty and duplicity of TEC leadership and the Executive Committee.

The arrogance, the utter, contemptible, un-Christian arrogance.

Civil litigation is the only recourse available when the canons of The Episcopal Church are not honored.

Hmm, I think Paul gave an alternative 200 years ago: “The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?”

Let’s propose that TEC sue the parishes practicing open communion for violating longstanding Church Canons ( Nicaea and Episcopal church canons) that only the Baptized are to receive Holy Communion. What’s good for the gander is good for the goose. Don’t you love selective hearing. Nicaea referenced for jurisdictional violations, and our Canons over property, but not when it comes to a dominical Sacrament of the Church, which should be core doctrine————you would think!!!!!!

In keeping with the new Piskie maths, I’m revising my pledging.

If I pledge $Y to my church and my hourly rate is $X, then I’m going to count my hours of attendance at said church as a pledge at my regular hourly rate. I’m thinking time spent listening to the rector’s sermon should count at my trial appearance rate ($2X). I reckon, calculated that way, and not including any actual cash I’ve contributed I’ve more than doubled the amount I pledged.

I really like this plan…

I have a blog thingy

Overall, the entire letter seems a reasonable response to the question of “why” TEC is being forced into participating in lawsuits. As a result, the questions of financial misspending or dishonesty are moot.  Read as a whole this letter makes the four bishops who wrote the two “open letters” (men whose career history I have great respect for) look a little silly. All four were probably sitting bishops as many of the canons came into being that have created the very situations they are criticizing. Just so much smoke and mirrors to justify the bad behavior of those who are illegally taking the property of the Episcopal Church. Instead, they should be standing up, as should the bishop’s threatening to leave, and demand moral accountability from our leadership in the Church. If as much energy had been put forth to defend the faith from those threatening to leave, and those who have left, and those still within the Episcopal Church, as has been put forth to obtain—-or keep—- property we would not be in the present state of affairs… In the last decades traditionalists and conservatives have always threatened to leave and backed down, now they are cutting and running—- just when they are needed the most.
  Rather than clandestine actions, sniping, and all the other ridiculous actions by both extremes, now is the time to be as “Christian soldiers marching to war,” demanding a true adherence to the Windsor Principles, and those who cannot live into the Communion’s covenant can break communion of their own volition.

FrVan,

The recent unpleasant disclosures about the UN, the Roman Catholic Church and Enron have not convinced you that full disclosure, especially of financial information, is a good idea?

As an Episcopalian, I’m curious to know where the money is coming from. Are any programs being shorted? IS it coming from principal, income or a combination of both? Is it being privately funded?

Furthermore, the lack of disclosure has a cumulative chilling effect. If you won’t tell me how you are spending the money you already have, why on earth would I wish to give you more money? Also, full disclosure of finances deters a great deal of fraud and embezzlement. Entities that hide their finances are much more vulnerable to financial wrongdoing.

The Episcopal Church has in recent years made great strides in financial opacity, I am truly saddened to see that trend reversed. If there are no shenanigans going on then the question could have been answered as simply as:

“Total sums spent so far were $X. The sums were budgeted under two lines in the general budget for 2007. The source of the funds was unrestricted endowment income. The Chancellor and associates are billing the Church at a reduced rate.”

That would not have been a complete answer to the questions, but it would have been a good faith effort from information already readily available.

Sorry for the rambling post. I need more coffee.

I have a blog thingy

But Van,
Exactly what force or persuasion could/has been brought to bear in order to “demand a true adherance to the Windsor Principles” as you put it? Clearly it has not/will not be brought from the ABC and the primates have done all they can. The game is amost over and the unfortunate loss is that of Catholic unity.

The orthodox bishops and deputies simply don’t have the votes, and the middle of institutional liberal votes that used to side with the orthodox has evaporated. Futher engagement only weakens the cause that much more by attrition of orthodox laity.

Add to this the fact that TEC doesn’t seem to care about the loss of a functional church order for communities in rural and small towns. They are interested in being “prophetic” in places where large numbers of academics and left of center people who already agree with them live, such as big cities and college towns. They are content to let most of their parishes die out or be destroyed for attempting to leave, and don’t want any other Anglican presence to feed the ever declining numbers of shepherdless sheep they left behind while creating their new religion.

As to the legality of “taking” the property of TEC, I think the courts must determine that. It’s not illegal just because TEC says it is.

Jill,
They answered question #4, like accomplished political candidates.
Now they should answer 1 - 3, but just as Mousestalker suggested.

FrVan
Surely you jest;

Overall, the entire letter seems a reasonable response to the question of “why” TEC is being forced into participating in lawsuits. As a result, the questions of financial misspending or dishonesty are moot.

Everyone knows “why” TEC has decided to sue the departing parishes. The Bishops asked how much has been spent, where is the money coming from, has money from the pension plan been spent on law suits, and how much has been paid to Beers, all legitimate questions.

Whether or not one agrees with the strategy of suing departing parishes, the fact is that TEC has undertaken a major, expensive, strategic initiative and all members of TEC deserve to know how it is funded.

Retired Bishops in particular, whose retirement income may be threatened if TEC is spending pension assets on an unrelated lawsuit, have a right to know that their pension plan is being managed within normal fiduciary duty of care standards.

It would be the height of hypocrisy for TEC to claim that they are forced to sue departing parishes because of their fiduciary duties, but then raid the pension plan in clear violation of their fiduciary duty to the pension plan in order to do so.

“We give you our professional opinion that the church is receiving extraordinary value for the funds it does spend.”

They receive “extraordinary value” in real estate but they lose “extraordinary value” in that they lose many souls who choose to follow Christ and the Word of God.

Unfortuneatly, TEC is really a real estate empire - the ownership of historic churches (and trusts) seems to be the business model.  I do believe that if one looks at TEC’s strategy of intimidation and conquer -they are getting a good value on the attorneys fees. I keep imploring ya’ll to stop basing your decisions on TEC’s actions as if it cared about religion.  It is about the money and the New Thing.  From what I have read here and at T19 - TEC’s Executive Council is made up primarily of hard core leftists and homosexual activitsts the second being a subset of the former.  As an attorney, I believe their strategy has been successful in that it is designed to 1) limit the number of congregations departing; 2) limit the resources of the departing congregations and 3) be in a position to convert buildings to cash to continue to operate TEC.  Based upon those criteria they are getting value for money from an outsiders perspective.  The only ways to stop such a strategy is 1) mass exodus that overwhelms the litigation strategy’s resources and/or 2) a very hard hitting PR campaign directed at those in TEC who are not prepared to depart but do not wish to beggar thy neighbor who is. We look silly whinning about their non-Christian ways - after 40+ years we should know better.

Chips, how much it must be satisfying to be in charge of a real estate empire with vast holdings, yet with no obligation to pay the mortgage, the light bill, the insurance bill etc., and no worries about liability in case of injuries, etc.

Truly, the best of all possible business models.

...back in the Briar Patch,

Truly, the best of all possible business models.

  I am not so sure about this.  I suspect, when the final grades are in, those whose business models are based on charity, respect for the Church Catholic, and building the Body of Christ will be more likely to succeed in the long run.  A business run on such a model might endure for an eternity.  The real estate empire, on the other hand, will be finite.  Sooner or later, the buildings will fall.  And with global warming, Trinity Wall Street may be underwater in 50 years.  Or, who knows, the Bishop of London might sue to reclaim his property.

Perhaps the “innovative investments” in the pension fund match the “extraordinary values” referred to here?

I agree with Chips, the powers to be at TEC have been very good at avoiding a precipitous departure of overwhelming numbers at one time. Instead of a gush of departures, it has been a steady stream.

However, there are eternal principles at work here.  The Lord will not honor TEC’s conduct, and it will ultimately lose its wealth, probally due to internal disputes that we cannot even imagine now.  I am not envious.

The one specific answer this response gives is that none of the litigation money has come from the pension fund.  So why are commenters here like BillS still beating that horse?  Maybe you flat out think these 2 Executive Council people are lying.  Fine.  Say that.  But don’t go on about raids on pension assets when they’ve specifically addressed that.

DavidH - I remember reading this -
“1. According to Bishop Stacy Sauls of Lexington, Kentucky and the Episcopal News Service, the Church Pension Group has contributed $25,000 to the litigation fund against individuals and parishes.”

And the bishop’s letter addressed this “Last November, Bishop Stacy Sauls reported to the Executive Council that $25,000 had been made available to his committee on property disputes from the Church Pension Fund. It was reported at that time that the money had not been spent, but it was made available. We have not yet been able to determine whether the money has been spent since then. However, one must raise the question whether this might not violate either New York or Federal laws in regard to pension funds. It becomes critical that we (and the whole Church) know the conditions under which such an offer was made, and whether all or any part of the funds were spent for their intended purpose.”

So that “dead horse” was apparently an issue first brought up by Stacy Saul.  And I don’t think the lawyer’s letter fully answered the questions.

I can think of two reasons TEC would not release this information.
1.  It would help their opponents by giving a view into how fast TEC is burning money.  The burn rate could be used to estimate how long TEC can keep this going.
2.  It would be a public-relations disaster.  Do they really want to answer questions about how much money David Booth Beers is raking in while others go begging?  And does anyone really think the trusts are inviolate? 

They aren’t ever going to answer these questions.  They would be fools to do so.

carl

Exactly, Carl.  And it would be quite embarassing to contrast what they are paying David Booth Beers, Esq. with what they have contributed to their sacred MDGs.

Cathy_Lou, two unattributed / undocumented statements in AAC documents aren’t much of a foundation for pension fund concerns.  In any case, you have a flat statement now from the Exec Council that no money is coming from the Church Pension Fund.  Like I said, either you believe they’re lying, or that concern is dead.  My view is that these people, regardless of what you might think of their theology, aren’t so phenomenally stupid that they would lie publicly in writing about that.

Carl’s first point is the real reason you’re not getting specific answers.  The fact is that resource disparities are often a factor in litigation and all the more in public and messy litigation like this.  Both sides want to know how much the other has spent for strategic legal reasons and for the ongoing PR battles.  Neither side readily discloses that, so TEC is not alone.

And “extraordinary value” just means that they think they’re getting high quality legal work for a reasonable price (in light of the going rate for such work).  Like any big client, TEC has a fair amount of sway over their law firm.  I would imagine they’re using it.

DavidH,

Let me put it this way. If a group came to you and asked you to contribute to them, wouldn’t you like to know what they were going to spend the money on? I would. I like to know what any of the targets of my charity do with my money.

Secondly, I am an attorney. I like to think that I give extraordinary value to my clients for their money. I think most members of the Bar feel that way as well. On a related note, Bishop Wantland indicated that Mr Beers has been charging a discounted rate. If that is true, why not admit it? If anything that should dismay the opposition in the lawsuits. Mr Beers is a very talented attorney. If 815 is getting him on the cheap, then they use him much more than otherwise.

Finally and most importantly, the Episcopal Church is not an oligarchy. It is well within the purview of a bishop or bishop to make inquiries about how monies are being spent. For that matter, the laity also have a right and duty to inquire. Stewardship often gets misinterpreted as “give money”. Its real meaning is maximizing the use of resources.

In an era of a dwindling church it well behooves all of us to hold the leadership accountable and to shed light on the church’s affairs. The questions that must be asked are: How much is this going to cost in time and in money and is it worth doing? Smoke-filled rooms and secret dealings belong in politics not in the church.

For the past twenty years I’ve had a rule that any organization, for profit or non-profit, that can not account for its money in a simple, open and honest fashion gets none of my money. That rule kept me from investing in Enron, among other things. I am not accusing 815 of financial misdoing, but merely pointing out that financial obscurity allows corruption to flourish.

Non-disclosure might well help the lawsuits go forward. But ask yourself, at what cost? That may be a case of cutting your nose off to spite your face.

I have a blog thingy

And while I’m ranting, let me point something out. I’m not discussing something about which I have no knowledge. If you look at the official budget for 2007, there are two interesting line items. The first is entitled “Title IV Investigation”. The amount shown is $300,000. The General Convention did allocate $300,000 for this (Title IV is what governs the discipline of clergy). But the budget approved at GC allotted $100,000 per year, or $300,000 in total. This new budget either increases dramatically the total amount allocated or front loads it all to one year.

The second item is “Property Protection For Mission”. The amount designated is $500,000. Maybe my eyes are too weak, but I couldn’t find this item anywhere on the GC approved triennial budget.

So we have either $500,000 or $700,000 of extraordinary expenses on a non_GC approved budget. I think that deserves some inquiry at this point as to whether it’s all been spent or not and if some remains, how much.

On a side note, per the GC budget, the DFMS has at it’s disposal a total of $298,000,000 in its endowments as of 2005.

I have a blog thingy

Mousetalker,

Reported legal expenditures by TEC for all of 2006 and 2007 through October exceed GC 2003 and GC 2006 authorized budgets by more than $1.6 million. I will send you the detail if you wish.  (The Executive Council’s actions, as distinguished from GC’s budgets, are another matter.)

“Extrodinary value”  I bet it is for DBB and companies even factoring in the volumn discount.  But after all,  the only value TEC has now is the real property so you can see what their real “mission” has to be.  They have to defend their real estate values.  I Cor. 6 whould have been cheaper in real dollars, but too expensive in spiritual capital which they are fresh out of.  Now if they really want value, they need to consult some of our prominent attorneys down here in Mississippi who where just fedraly indicted for trying to buy off a judge (who also was on the judicial performance committee) for a mere $40,000!  In the end the real estate suits will be determined by who has the craftiest lawyers——other that that little God factor in the background.  And if anyone wants to know how their offerings are being spent, well——-they will just have to go to court.

“Cathy_Lou, two unattributed / undocumented statements in AAC documents aren’t much of a foundation for pension fund concerns.”

OK, DavidH, I was running out the door before, but here’s a link to the 4/9/2007 report of the Task Force on Property Disputes, chaired by Sauls, addressed to the HOB, the source for AAC’s info.

“The March, 2006 Executive Council meeting allocated $100,000 to fund the work of the Task Force. The Church Pension Group has contributed another $25,000. To date, no funds have been expended, despite a considerable amount of work done by the members of the Task Force. All fees, legal expenses, meeting costs, travel costs, and telephone conference-call costs have been donated by the members and lawyers of the Task Force out
of devotion to The Episcopal Church (TEC).”

It seems, all things being equal, that the weight of the issues of same sex unions and gay bishops will crush the Anglican Communion anyway. Some bishops will not be able to sign on to, or support, the more orthodox (maybe even moderate) “covenant” that ultimately will become the defining factor of who is a part of the Communion and who is not. At which time, some by not signing on, will define themselves out of the Church—- whether a PB, or the bishop of East Bumblia… These lawsuits are not going to be of import when that time comes. In fact, I dare say that leaving TEC at this time is still premature…

Good—a source.  Of course, the money mentioned is from the “Church Pension Group” (not sure what that is—does that entity only hold pension funds?) and apparently was contributed to the HoB task force, not to litigation funds itself.

“The only value TEC has now is the real property so you can see what their real ‘mission’ has to be”—-Prophet Micaiah

Well put and well worth repeating!

Never let ECUSniks get a free ride when they prate about getting back to their sacred mission.