This paper examines whether the Presiding Bishop is authorized to initiate and conduct recent property litigation and finds no source for such authority in the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Arguments based on a presumed equivalence of the roles of the Presiding Bishop and Executive Council to those of a corporate CEO and board of directors are found not to be valid. The paper also examines claims that pursuit of litigation is necessitated by fiduciary duty. It concludes that no convincing case has been made that this is so. First, no person is under a fiduciary duty to undertake something that has not been authorized. Putting aside the issue of authorization, several factors relevant to a proper fiduciary duty analysis suggest refraining from litigation such as has been commenced against disaffiliating dioceses. In this connection, relevant fiduciary duties are not limited to those that may be owed to TEC as an organization, but also include duties owed to its member dioceses. Claims that a member diocese cannot disaffiliate and retain ownership of its property implicate the latter set of duties. The paper presents a case that the duties to dioceses include duties to those that have withdrawn because the claims against them are based on alleged consequences of their having been dioceses of TEC rather than the actions of an unaffiliated third party.
Another sterling position paper posted on the ACI website. It’s quite long and detailed, but just devastating to the claims advanced by the PB, which are easily shown to be totally bogus.
The author, Mike Watson, is described at the end as a retired lawyer in Houston, and the former parish chancellor of huge St. Martin’s in Houston, the largest congregation left in TEC, and a prominent CP parish. Very nicely done.
David Handy+
Authority, sch(m)orri(ty). I am my own authority. And I’ll get you and you little dog, too.”
Sadly, the Episcopal Church has long since ceased being a body subject to the rule of law–even its own, let alone anything outside itself. “Law” in TEC is not found in its Constitution and Canons, but in whomever holds political power. Like in the frontier west, “the Law” is a person (or persons), not a body of statutes.
Fr. Martins (#3),
Thanks for your lament, which is as insightful as it is saddening. I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Alas, the historical record makes it all too clear that the nefarious PB obviously considers herself above the law, or able to reinterpret it at will with virtually no contraints, except for the limits established by opposing political pressure. She plainly doesn’t feel bound by any matters of principle in interpreting the Constitution and Canons. She has no conscience. Nor do the activist bishops, Bruno, Chane, Shaw, Sauls, and their ilk.
But I couldn’t help being reminded of something by your allusion to the absence of the rule of law in the Wild, Wild West of frontier days. It immediately brought to mind the familiar quip of +Peter James Lee in explaining why the hard-won Protocal agreement with the departing churches in VA was yanked from the negotiating table. [i]”There’s a new sheriff in town.”[/i]
Very apt.
David Handy+