Frank Kirkpatrick, professor of religion at Trinity College, wrote in a survey article in 2008 that “there were, as of December [2007], 55 [Episcopal Church] property disputes in one state or another of resolution around the country.” (You may find a listing of those lawsuits in this post from August 2008, and see also the latest report from the American Anglican Council.) Of those fifty-five lawsuits, I estimate that ECUSA itself was a party to about half of them. Thus from the five lawsuits to which it was a party as Bishop Griswold ended his term in November 2006 (the Pawley’s Island case in South Carolina, the three Los Angeles lawsuits, and a case involving St. James Church in Elmhurst, in the Diocese of Long Island), the number increased by five times in the first full year of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s term.
Under Bishop Jefferts Schori, ECUSA did not just passively stand by as the property disputes emerged, and allow the diocese involved to carry the laboring oar. It aggressively prosecuted the cases in both California and Virginia, joined in filings in Connecticut, Georgia and New York (where it intervened as the DFMS against St. Andrew’s, in Syracuse, and filed an amicus brief in this case in New York’s highest court), became enmeshed in additional litigation in San Diego and Colorado, and threatened litigation against the dioceses of San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Quincy if they dared to withdraw from the Church. (The latter two threats were issued by the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor on his own initiative, as discussed in this earlier post.)
There are no records in the minutes of the Executive Council during this period to show that it was ever consulted before any of these multiple filings in the name of the Church took place; as quoted in the previous post, the Presiding Bishop held the view that only she personally, and neither the Council, nor even General Convention, had any authority over litigation. Thus she simply gave her Chancellor free rein — and ECUSA’s legal bills began to mount exponentially.
Read it all (and please note it is part of a series all parts of which need to be perused).
“There are no records in the minutes of the Executive Council during this period to show that it was ever consulted before any of these multiple filings in the name of the Church took place; as quoted in the previous post, the Presiding Bishop held the view that only she personally, and neither the Council, nor even General Convention, had any authority over litigation. Thus she simply gave her Chancellor free rein — and ECUSA’s legal bills began to mount exponentially.”
In particular, this statement,
“…the Presiding Bishop held the view that only she personally, and neither the Council, nor even General Convention, had any authority over litigation.'”
means that the presiding bishop has seized dictatorial, autocratic and non-consultive control of ECUSA.
She is ONLY a bishop who presides over ECUSA’s general confederation of dioceses and for her to have SEIZED these powers is astounding.
If I were a member of EC I would demand, recorded in the minutes, that KJS reveal the amounts and where they are derived from. EC’s failure to do so leaves them open to civil suit and possible (I would agree very unlikely) criminal prosecution for their breach of fiduciary duty. My suspicion is many of them really do know and just aren’t talking about it. Remeber, EC eliminated the Office of Congregational Development and hired a litigation coordinator. It is sad when your church makes Congress look honest.
Perhaps the intended ROI is expected to be found in the disposal of the ‘booty’ from these conquests. Is it not ironic that, with the downturn in real estate values and and investment funds, the payday may turn out to be Pyrrhic?
I think there is a lot of history behind the chancellor being viewed as the PB’s legal advisor, which is not the same as being counsel to the church. I don’t think that was of much importance until TEC became obsessed with property lawsuits, but the cascades of litigation have put the fuzziness of exactly what the authority of the chancellor is on display. Unfortunately, in the current TEC environment, the PB is pretty much “l’etat, c’est moi”, not that the EC has anyone likely to oppose her, so that is pretty much that. One of the things I would observe about Griswold is that he had been a pastor and cared about people, and was also of a background that viewed his legal advisor as just that, an advisor, that is an employee and servant. He made his own judgments. Schori has never been a pastor, and it shows – she barely considers the orthodox to have any feelings, as the excerpts from her chilling deposition in the Virginia litigation show. And she defers to the chancellor, not the other way around. Of course, as far as stewardship goes, that every dollar they may win in litigation is a dollar someone who is saddened by what TEC has become is not going to give to TEC is completely lost on them, but you know what St. Paul said about confused thinking.
If I am not mistaken, TEC is also involved in the suit by the TEC Diocese of Fort Worth against the ACNA Diocese of Fort Worth. I think one of the attorneys involved in that suit represents TEC. (And is doing a rotten job, btw.)
These numbers are outrageous. It is even more outrageous that no one is speaking out about this abuse of power.
Can the Diocese of South Carolina introduce a resolution at the next convention demanding that a full accounting be made?
One of the things I have mentioned before is: what if your family gave 1M to further the missionary work of the Gospel, only to have mission redefined as litigation, and the money used for that? Surely there are donors’ relatives who would not be happy with this — leaving aside the State Attorney General of NY.
#7, what constitutes ‘missions’ is getting protestingly distorted, eh?
If I recall correctly, several bishops did try a couple of years ago to get an accounting of legal expenses and sources for those expenses.
Guess how far they got.
Thanks, A.S. Haley, you who are so liberal with your advice to those who would wrest from TEC its property, for pointing out that we are paying our lawyers too much. We’ll take it under advisement.
Thanks AS Haley — good to see that you’re annoying the right people!
#10-
Well if Jon Nelson and Kathleen Wells are the best that you can do then you deserve what you get. Really? That’s the best you can do? Really?
BigTex AC
Thanks 10 for claiming as your own that which other people paid for. And thanks TEC for claiming as your own the 30 pieces of silver that even Judas threw away.
#7–I don’t know NY law, but generally the contingent beneficiaries of a donation can get an accounting if the money was given for a specific purpose or with restrictions. and there is a reversion clause. That might be a better strategy, because I am certain if DSC (or any other diocese for that matter) made such a motion at GC it would be ruled out of order by the chair and/or voted down soundly. I am also certain if any beneficiary tried to get an accounting TEC would descend with a herd of lawyers to try and stop it.
What may be happening is drawing on old endowment gifts whose donors are now with God. If I recall correctly, after the Ellen Cooke affair when Browning was PB, the auditors said that the accounting procedures followed by TEC made it impossible to determine if endowment funds were being spent in accordance with the donor’s wishes. I think the NY Attorney General was supposed to monitor the situation, but I don’t know how thorough that was or if it is still in effect.
I think a lot of money was given the the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Socieity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America over the centuries that was intended precisely for domestic and foreign mission work. It should be pretty obvious that TEC isn’t spending all that much on missionary work these days.
An attempt was made at GC 2009 to require an accounting concerning the lawuits. It was, of course, voted down. The Deputies [i]generally speaking[/i] take great glee in seeing those rotten conservatives being given as much grief as possible.
To my mind, the real question remains: [b]are they[/b] in fact taking any litigation money out of the Pension Fund?
If they are, then it’s a RICO offense, and someone’s in a whole lot of trouble!
There have been hints, educated guesses — the exchange of knowing looks — but no accessible hard evidence.
What would it take for a real investigation to be undertaken? Who would be able — and willing — to do so?
Everyone is very good at covering their own and each other’s nether parts. To break into such an enclave would take some real clout, or some real chudspa, or better yet, both. Are there any such to be found?
Take a look at the whole Bennison situation. Really good bishops were deposed based on the “abandonment” canon with no due-process and no recourse of any kind. Yet, he uses the system to get himself reinstated. When the system is this rotten, when the insiders protect each other and can oust their “enemies” with impunity, there is nowhere left to go.
I could almost wish that Elliot Spitzer were still NY Attorny General. He didn’t care who he took down, he just took down the “bad guys” and let the chips fall where they might. That is the only way that RICO could be used to find out — and prosecute if necessary — what has really been done to fund the lawsuits.
I thought the following from p. 28 of the 2009 DFMS Consolidated Financial Statement (available from episcopalchurch.org, office of finance) was of interest:
[b]
NOTE M – CONTINGENCIES
3. Litigation[/b]
The Society is subject to various claims and legal proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of its business activities. The Society is not aware of any pending litigation which will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements.[/b]
Curmudgeon writes:
[blockquote] The original triennial budget established at GC 2006 allocated a total of $405,000 for the three years 2007-2009 to be spent on “Title IV expenses and Legal Assistance to Dioceses.” But at the end of just two years of that budget, the actual figures spent were:
2007 – $1,304,137
2008 – $2,954,655
2-yr Total: $ 4,258,792 [/blockquote]
Very impressive. Mismanagement on this scale takes real skill, you can’t just fluke it!