To read between the lines here: the Treasurer of the Church, like all of the staff at 815, works for the Presiding Bishop, not for the Executive Council. When she tells him to “find money for litigation”, his job is not to ask “Where?”, but rather: “How much do you need?” And in exchange for such due obedience, she protects him from all incursions into his territory by the likes of the Executive Council — who only imagine that they run the show when General Convention is not in session.
No, this is the Presiding Bishop’s show — lock, stock, and barrel. If the Church needs money to fund her agenda, then it will jolly well have to supply it, without any interference from the Executive Council. The Church is extraordinarily wealthy, with over $140 million in unrestricted securities and investments, the gifts of innumerable donors over the centuries. And in recent years it has not been shy about borrowing against the endowment to provide it with working capital for the Presiding Bishop’s ongoing litigation agenda.
Thus it should now come as no surprise to learn that, in a face-off between the Committee’s alternatives and those explored by the Treasurer and his investment manager, the latter prevailed. The headquarters building did not have to be mortgaged; the Treasurer simply ponied up more of the endowment as collateral for two new lines of credit.
Here is a lesson for our giving about what can happen when large sums of money are tied up in perpetual endowments. It might have been better for the results intended if there were stipulations on such gifts that they be completely expended over a set period of years. Endowments can insulate a board from the need to be accountable to a constituency. And how much redress is there if an organization goes off on a tangent because of the bent of its directors?
“litigation agenda”
I agree — the litigation agenda of 815 and of the departing entities is horrible. But both sides believe they’re being faithful to the past (from which the property comes) and to the future (for which the property was given). Being an institution is a terrible trap for all concerned.
One question that needs following up is endowment money designated for specific missionary work, and whether the use of the term ‘mission’ entering the lexicon of newer litigious TEC is tied up with wanting to access this money. If a family gave $2M for missionary support and assumed that meant what it has normally meant, only to find it means ‘litigation expenses to further the mission of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, e.g.’ would they have a right to say funds have been misappropriated?
#2–TEC is an institution alright. As in “insane asylum.” Reading the EC minutes is pretty interesting. Thank goodness those Jim Crowers on EC got two sessions of anti-racism training. What they need is two sessions of basic Christian theology. Reading Romans might be a nice start. TEC is irrelevant and its stupidic and its financially wasteful meetings have become a mix of Unitarianism and the Democratic National Convention.
David,
You should add to that list “major supporters of the American Association of Trial Attorneys.”
I can not help but ask, “has the presiding “bishop” listened to herself?” With comments like “”It denigrates the staff, that’s not helpful,” she said of the creation of the subcommittee, adding that “it overreaches the authority of this committee.”, you might think she really is concerned about who has authority to do what. Howeve, when I look at her actions, who has authority to do what only matters when it comes to her authority which she seems to think is unlimited. It might be with the new rules, but it will only get worse. TEC has shown its true colors and could care less what the wndowments were given for, as long as the wicked witch of wall street get her way. I can just hear her saying to anorthodox priest, ” I’ll get you my pretty!”
I am staggered at the variable rate tied to the Euro rate. Was no one watching for the past decade? Interest rates are at an incredible low and endowment funds get exposure to currency fluctuations instead of a fixed rate!
sophy–Agreed.
drummie–That creates a whole new visual of flying monkeys in purple suits (with mitres).
ENS faithfully captures (even brazenly captures) with self-satisfaction the observations from Ms. Schori like her opening remarks at the HOB in Quito:
“Andy Doyle [bishop of Texas] can share something about the beginnings in the aftermath of fires in a state where the governor still thinks climate change is a fairly tale.”
Nothing like the PB’s “peace”, “reconciliation”, and building bridges, eh? What better person than the PB to poke the Governor in the eye? She is one who considers her wise opinions above it all, in a fashion of allowing no dissent. Ms. Schori, hardly a stellar doctor of science, may not care for the Governor of Texas, but she will also have to argue against tens of thousands of real scientists who, unlike herself, have researched, published, and taught and do not agree about climate change….but she just had to get that jibe in.
And ENS was there to parade it. Just wait for dissent about something really important. This is just a taste.
“The interim amounts being paid on principal are insignificant until the full amounts fall due in 2016.” Gee, that’s a year AFTER Katherine’s PB reign ends – coincidence??
#9: let’s be fair here! Ms. Jefferts Schori may have limited knowledge of climatology…but she is eminently qualified on the subject of fairies.
“I’ll get you, my pretty”, etc….
How could anyone not want to be a Christian, after spending a few days in your company? (I’m sure Jesus spoke pretty frankly about Pilate, too, when the evangelists weren’t listening).
RE: “How could anyone not want to be a Christian .. . ”
Actually the revisionist leaders doing such evil things within the Episcopal Church is an excellent opportunity for great conversations with pagans, particularly when they ask informed and thoughtful questions. It’s always good to be able to draw a bright, clear line between those who believe the Gospel and those who do not, and fortunately, the revisionists in TEC make that surprisingly easy.
It all makes for good teachable moments for interested pagans and seekers.
The net tempts us us all to act like junior high schoolers, sitting at lunch and being catty about the new kid we all hate. I’m not judging you, or, more accurately, my judgement is of no account because I’m not immune to this myself. If you read all this and you’re proud to have been a part of it, then fine. Just asking you to take yourselves seriously for a moment.
To Mark P:
I’m sorry, but the PB’s bashing of opinions at variance from her own make her a person that I wouldn’t want to teach Sunday School, much more be a bishop. What she is unleashing on the Church seems to be deeply ingrained within her; that is that she cannot abide people who differ and it is at that point that she gets personal and vindictive, as witnessed by her comments in the HOb about Gov. Perry, or in Church affairs, about those who want fuller accountability. I would not hire this person to work with others, that’s for sure. BTW: I found further confirmation that the PB’s jab in the HOB at the Texas Governor over his unwillingness to wholly swallow climate change, should next be directed to many, many others, namely scientists who disagree with her political stand on the issue. From The Blaze on September 15th. If you don’t like The Blaze, then confirm it elsewhere, or deny it, but either way, the PB is a lightweight on this ground and has no business turning her wrath on so quickly:
Dr. Ivar Giaever, former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, resigned yesterday as a Fellow from the American Physics Society over its ‘incontrovertible’ position on global warming.
Giaever wrote in an email to APS’s executive director (via Climate Depot):
“In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.â€
…and further:
Climate Depot goes on to note that Giaever isn’t the only scientist that has resigned from APS over global warming:
Prominent Physicist Hal Lewis Resigns from APS: ‘Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen…Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science’
Giaever was one of 70 Nobel Prize winners to endorse Obama in 2008. But in 2009 he was one of 100 co-signers of a letter to the president questioning his stance on global warming. In 2010, Giaever was quoted by the New York Times as saying global warming “can’t be discussed, just like religion.â€
Nobel Prize scientist…or Katherine Schori….you decide who to take more credibly.
“you decide who to take more credibly. ”
My point is not about disagreeing with you. My point is that if “credibly” is going to be any part of your argument, tittering about your opponent as the Wicked Witch of the West is only going to hurt you. (Besides demeaning you and your position in the eyes of anyone who might be listening with an open mind.)
RE: “The net tempts us us all to act like junior high schoolers, sitting at lunch and being catty about the new kid we all hate.”
Yes indeed — what that has to do with the topic of this post, which is helpfully titled “A.S. Haley Looks at TEC Finances — Leaders Pledged the Endowment to Handle Major Expenses,” or the comments about the post, I have no idea. It appears that you’re just taking offense at certain comments which is certainly your right, but I’m not certain why any of us would care about your offense or find it relevant.
RE: “I’m not judging you . . . ”
I can’t imagine that anyone here would care if you were.
RE: “If you read all this and you’re proud to have been a part of it . . . ”
I feel just perfectly lovely about being “a part of it.”
You’re welcome to go be “a part of” some other blog where you’ll find the commenting more agreeable to you.
RE: “My point is that if “credibly†[sic] is going to be any part of your argument . . . ”
All depends on with whom we’d like to have credibility. Obviously nobody over here’s gonna have “credibility” with revisionist TEC activists.
RE: “(Besides demeaning you and your position in the eyes of anyone who might be listening with an open mind.)”
Nah — just the random revisionists.
Mark P and Sarah–I am guessing Mark is either a TEC ringer or he is new to the stage. Mark–here’s the deal. We Christian ladies and gentlemen spent about 30 years being polite and nice and trying to hadle the disintegration of the Episcopal Church in a civil manner. What we got in return wes exceptionally uncivil behavior. It is a little like Desmond Tutu said: “They came here and taught us to pray and while we had our heads bowed, they stole our country.” In this instance we acted like Christians and while we were being civil and understanding, they stole our church in a strikingly un-Christian manner. Now, if you were just in off the street, I would explain the situation and my disgust with the heirarchy of TEC in a wholly different way. I would explain to you the sweep of the story of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and how Jesus is our salvation. Once I got you to understand that, then I would tell you how un-Christian the leadership of TEC has become. Then I would tell you about Titus19. But since you aren’t just in off the street, the wicked witch analogy should either be humorous, or if you are a TEC ringer, offensive. Since I know her, I find it humorous. BTW–you will note I don’t hide my identity behind a made up net name.
Hi David — he’s posted comments before and he’s a revisionist TECer — hence his offense and his self-serving musings on this thread about comments he doesn’t appreciate.
What is “revisionist” about MarkP? Or is this just a pejorative category we fling out to avoid dealing with the substance of his remarks? Has he advocated departure from scriptural truths? It would help to know more about the basis of the comments in No. 18. While we’re at it, what makes one a “ringer” in this discussion?