The fact that TEC bishops have in aggregate done nothing to determine if the fiduciary duties of the PB’s office have been breached makes them ALL culpable in what appears to be a glaring case of malfeasance.
I agree with #2. BTW, this is very good work done by A.S. Haley based on unaudited online finanacial statements. I’d love to see the real books and records.
So the implication, if not explicit statement is that the PB or her officers are committing a crime and violating the tax laws of the US?
Or am i misunderstanding? I’m frankly surprised that such careless statements are allowed here.
The Episcopal Church has over a quarter billion dollars in trust funds as of 9/2009. Several million dollars in litigation is a lot. However, if we want to judge whether the expenditure is financially responsible, we should consider this wider perspective.
Whether it is a good idea for in-house counsel to be a partner at the firm of the outside litigation counsel is another matter.
For whatever reason, everything A.S. Haley writes makes me think of Matthew 11:16-17. I’m looking forward to his explanation of how the U.S. Supreme Court was completely wrong to refuse certiorari in the St. Luke’s, La Crescenta case.
Reid Hamilton (#8), there is nothing “right” or “wrong” to conclude from the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant certiorari in the St.Luke’s case. They do it in 99% of the cases presented to them. Would you conclude that Matthew 11:16-17 therefore more accurately expresses their justification for doing so, or is it possible that Mt 11:25-26 would have a better application to what is going on?
In other words, is the $2.6 million the Presiding Bishop decided to spend on attorneys last year, based on her Chancellor’s advice, and given that a large share of it would go to his law firm, something that only “the wise and intelligent” are entitled to judge fit and proper, or could the “little children” also possibly have something to say about it?
No – I do not think so – at all. By “real books and records” I meant the actual records – not just a summary. I would want to see each billing and disbursement and it’s purpose. Nevertheless, I’ve worked with Certified Fraud Examiners and forensic accountants and it’s enjoyable to see how they can reconstruct the actions and decisions of persons in an organization to see how and where they went wrong.
I do not think there is anything for the IRS or the US Attorney – frankly, I’m enough of a radical “separatist” that I think the government should stay out of any church’s books and records – but even if I were not, I don’t see anything here.
I do believe, as Mr. Haley demonstrates, that there has been such a significant deviation between what was budgeted and what was actually spent that it calls into question whether the intent of the budgeting authority is being followed or whether there is another agenda.
Sorry, my prior post, at #11, was a response to #9, which asked:
“Do you mean the books that have been cooked, Mr Sulik?”
Also, I agree with #10, that we should not read too much into the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant cert in the St. Luke case. I do suspect, however, that after the Virginia Supreme Court affirms Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Randy I. Bellows, ECUSA will file a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court and that will be granted.
The logic of #8 (and others who see refusal of certiorari as some sort of victory) escapes me. If the same refusal occurs, by the same logic, in South Carolina, and the neutral principles decision of the SCSC stands, the vaunted Dennis Canon is toothless and the Diocese stands under the law and the ‘national church’ becomes what it genuinely is — a fiction. Watch as well in Ft Worth. My point is that the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear certiorari is a knife that cuts boths ways — for now. It doesn’t help assertions of hierarchy to have to say, ‘we got 8 out of 10.’ Hierarchy needs to work all the way down, or it is exposed as assertion and not law.
In addition to the obvious problems this situation describes, it points out the problems with a hierarchial model of church governance, where the hierarchy has gone off the rails. On the other hand, the congregational model brings with it its own problems. Maybe it’s my age providing a longer perspective, or just that the times they are a changin’, but I am seeing more and more evidence of churches (both liberal and conservative) becoming places where we give free reign to our sinful natures. I have seen both clergy and laity being petty, petulant, whiny, and any other manner of behavior I do not associate with loving Christians. Further, when confronted with the truth, spoken in love, they do not repent, but rather strike out even more harshly at those attempting to hold them accountable.
I long for a church where decisions are made prayerfully, carefully, and with the good of the church and God’s kingdom being uppermost in the minds of all involved.
I sure am glad I read that BEFORE I ate.
The fact that TEC bishops have in aggregate done nothing to determine if the fiduciary duties of the PB’s office have been breached makes them ALL culpable in what appears to be a glaring case of malfeasance.
They are at least under budget for their General Corporate Legal fees.
They only spent $216,995 out of a budget of $388,972 in 2009.
I agree with #2. BTW, this is very good work done by A.S. Haley based on unaudited online finanacial statements. I’d love to see the real books and records.
I wish that the IRS and US AG would feel the same way.
Intercessor
So the implication, if not explicit statement is that the PB or her officers are committing a crime and violating the tax laws of the US?
Or am i misunderstanding? I’m frankly surprised that such careless statements are allowed here.
The Episcopal Church has over a quarter billion dollars in trust funds as of 9/2009. Several million dollars in litigation is a lot. However, if we want to judge whether the expenditure is financially responsible, we should consider this wider perspective.
Whether it is a good idea for in-house counsel to be a partner at the firm of the outside litigation counsel is another matter.
For whatever reason, everything A.S. Haley writes makes me think of Matthew 11:16-17. I’m looking forward to his explanation of how the U.S. Supreme Court was completely wrong to refuse certiorari in the St. Luke’s, La Crescenta case.
Do you mean the books that have been cooked, Mr Sulik?
Reid Hamilton (#8), there is nothing “right” or “wrong” to conclude from the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant certiorari in the St.Luke’s case. They do it in 99% of the cases presented to them. Would you conclude that Matthew 11:16-17 therefore more accurately expresses their justification for doing so, or is it possible that Mt 11:25-26 would have a better application to what is going on?
In other words, is the $2.6 million the Presiding Bishop decided to spend on attorneys last year, based on her Chancellor’s advice, and given that a large share of it would go to his law firm, something that only “the wise and intelligent” are entitled to judge fit and proper, or could the “little children” also possibly have something to say about it?
No – I do not think so – at all. By “real books and records” I meant the actual records – not just a summary. I would want to see each billing and disbursement and it’s purpose. Nevertheless, I’ve worked with Certified Fraud Examiners and forensic accountants and it’s enjoyable to see how they can reconstruct the actions and decisions of persons in an organization to see how and where they went wrong.
I do not think there is anything for the IRS or the US Attorney – frankly, I’m enough of a radical “separatist” that I think the government should stay out of any church’s books and records – but even if I were not, I don’t see anything here.
I do believe, as Mr. Haley demonstrates, that there has been such a significant deviation between what was budgeted and what was actually spent that it calls into question whether the intent of the budgeting authority is being followed or whether there is another agenda.
Sorry, my prior post, at #11, was a response to #9, which asked:
“Do you mean the books that have been cooked, Mr Sulik?”
Also, I agree with #10, that we should not read too much into the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant cert in the St. Luke case. I do suspect, however, that after the Virginia Supreme Court affirms Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Randy I. Bellows, ECUSA will file a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court and that will be granted.
The logic of #8 (and others who see refusal of certiorari as some sort of victory) escapes me. If the same refusal occurs, by the same logic, in South Carolina, and the neutral principles decision of the SCSC stands, the vaunted Dennis Canon is toothless and the Diocese stands under the law and the ‘national church’ becomes what it genuinely is — a fiction. Watch as well in Ft Worth. My point is that the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear certiorari is a knife that cuts boths ways — for now. It doesn’t help assertions of hierarchy to have to say, ‘we got 8 out of 10.’ Hierarchy needs to work all the way down, or it is exposed as assertion and not law.
In addition to the obvious problems this situation describes, it points out the problems with a hierarchial model of church governance, where the hierarchy has gone off the rails. On the other hand, the congregational model brings with it its own problems. Maybe it’s my age providing a longer perspective, or just that the times they are a changin’, but I am seeing more and more evidence of churches (both liberal and conservative) becoming places where we give free reign to our sinful natures. I have seen both clergy and laity being petty, petulant, whiny, and any other manner of behavior I do not associate with loving Christians. Further, when confronted with the truth, spoken in love, they do not repent, but rather strike out even more harshly at those attempting to hold them accountable.
I long for a church where decisions are made prayerfully, carefully, and with the good of the church and God’s kingdom being uppermost in the minds of all involved.