As We Knew All Along, "Transparency" by TEO is a Bad Joke

From Pravda Eiscopal Life Online:

Deputies defeated a resolution addressing the disclosure of the costs of Episcopal Church property litigation.  The House of Bishops had asked deputies to concur with their recommendation to refer the resolution to the Standing Commission on Stewardship and Development. The resolution had called for revealing the dollar amount the church spent "on litigation against dioceses, parishes, groups of churches and individuals since General Convention 2006" as well as information about where the funds came from, the money budgeted for litigation in the next triennium and "an estimate of the amount of property value retained and expected to be retained" by the church "because of pending and completed litigation as of General Convention 2009."

"We all need to know about the litigation going on in our church," said the Rev. Ellen Neufeld (Albany). "I speak very strongly in favor of this resolution so that information can be shared."

Deputies debated various options, including referring it to the Joint Standing Committee on Program, Budget and Finance or substituting previous wording to direct the Presiding Bishop and Executive Council to release the litigation information.

Thomas Fitzhugh III (Texas) said he was concerned that the resolution could put the Presiding Bishop and Executive Council "in a bad spot" because divulging information about ongoing litigation would reveal strategy to the other side. "Let's just kill it. This is nothing but an effort by people who try to steal our property" to find out how much the church has spent. "If they didn't try to walk off with it, we wouldn't have this motion."

Deputies ultimately voted not to concur with the bishops' recommendation, killing the legislation.

No surprise there, right? 

Mr. Fitzhugh from Texas was the designated hitter to make the "stealing property" accusation again.  Never mind that the revisionists in TEO have now virtually completed the job of stealing the whole church out from under its orthodox members and clergy, by D025 and the many other elements of the LGBT agenda that are being passed in Anaheim.

I would take issue with Mr. Fitshugh's argument that the disclosure sought would disclose litigation strategy.  That argument applies to the actual attorneys' bills, which usually contain itemized descriptions of the work being done, which could include research or discussions of future moves to be made.  Those should not be disclosed publicly. 

The resolution, however, did not strike me as seeking the actual attorney bills, but rather an accounting of the money spent on litigation since Gen Con 06, the source(s) of funds spent, what has been budgeted for litigation in the next triennium (which is available through the proposed budget), and an analysis of the property either retained or expected top be retained as a result of litigation.

This is the kind of information that would be available to shareholders in a corporation, which I would submit are, in this context, little different than church members who have contributed their time and money to church operations.  In other words, what of our money have you spent on litigation, where did you get it, how much do you propose to spend over the next three years, and is there sufficient property value to justify this huge expenditure? 

This does not disclose strategy, which is pretty well known anyway (sue anyone who disagrees with us and thinks they can keep their buildings).  This does not disclose privileged communications with lawyers; rather, Mr. Fitzhugh's argument begs the question of who exactly is the client in these lawsuits, anyway?  The Dennis Canon purports to hold these properties in trust for the parishioners of TEO, doesn't it?  Doesn't it make the very people asking for this information the clients, then?  The Priestess, et al., are not the purported owners under the Dennis Canon, and therefore are not the clients who are in position to claim the privilege, but merely agents allegedly acting on their behalf.

Following this line of thought, should there not be some resolution made at this Gen Con 09 to allow the delegates to vote on whether the Priestess even has the authority to pursue property litigation?  Again, following the line of thinking of the Dennis Canon, the members of TEO are the client and/or the beneficiary of the property litigation, and leadership are acting as their agents and representatives.  Without ratification by the client/principal, any act of the agent may be declared invalid.

In reality, howver, the Priestess is treating the membership of TEO not as clients and providing them with information to which they are entitled.  Rather, she is treating the membership as mushrooms when it comes to the litigation issues - keeping them in the dark and dumping a load of crap on them from time to time.

Should consideration be given to filing a lawsuit similar in composition to a shareholders' derivative suit, by the membership of TEO against the Priestess for improper actions or inactions in office?  Why not?  The information for a presentment is already there, and grows nearly every time she publicly opens her mouth.

The "why not?" is answered, however, in the question any good attorney asks a prospective client who wants to file suit - "what will you have in the end if we file and win this case"?  In this situation, TEO is finished insofar as it may be considered a Christian church, and probably insofar as it wants to be a member of the Anglican Communion.  Why would the orthodox want it any more?  Better to build ACNA into the true Anglican presence in North America, and let the dying hulk of TEO go.

Comments

[Lone Star]

2006-2008 Legal Expenditures for TEC:
Legal Support to Diocese/Protection of Property for Mission: $3,001,021
Title IV Investigations, Trials and Legal:
$1,720,710
Total: $4,721,731