Friday, July 21. 2006
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
If Mark Stokoe wants cogent comments from people here, he should reproduce my entire letter, rather than just excerpts.
He seems not to have it in its final form, merely in a draft which was released inadvertently.
And I have not broken my silence. As much as I disagree with Met. Herman, I have never been disobedient to my superiors.
My letter was not sent to any Internet venue, but to the bishops and to members of the Met. Council, with copies to Fr Robert Kondratick and his lawyers. That was PRIVATE correspondence, yet it was apparently 'leaked' by someone with no sense of integrity.
Personally, I don't mind. Everything I wrote is true. I just don't want it said that I was disobedient to my bishop.
#1 Monk James on 2006-07-21 18:57
I find it interesting that you take issue with the fact that your letter, (although only highlights were reprinted here), was confidential in nature and was not intended for public view, and yet, the same can be said for the Kutner letter, I'm sure.
I find it hard to believe that a simple domestic monk would be so privied to have access to such important information and documents.
Perhaps our former chancellor has been feeding selective information to certain individuals who he feels he can still manipulate and who he knows will defend him to the end?
Fr.James, perhaps it's time for you to spend some time in a monastic setting as this entire situation has clearly consumed you.
How anyone with your inteligence can think that the claims made by Protodeacon Eric Weeler and Mr. Paul Hunchak are not true (there is too much detailed and chronological information to think anything otherwise), is beyond my comprehension. Besides, what would they have to gain be releasing any information AFTER leaving employment with the OCA?
The fact of the matter is, Fr. Kondratick had too much power and control over everything for too long. He abused that power, and HE is the reason our church is in this mess.
He took advantage of an administratively incompetent former Metropolitan whom we all loved, and used it to gain so much power that he believed he was invincible.
Patience is a virtue my friend.
Before claiming so defiantly that none of the allegations are true, why not wait till all of the Proskauer Rose facts become public?
If you are right once all of the facts are brought to light, then you'll look like a genius. But if you are wrong, I'm sure it will be very unbecoming and foolish for a monk and a certain bishop to have egg all over their faces!
#1.1 Michael Geeza on 2006-07-22 09:45
Since letters between a client's attorney and the intended recipient generally include a confidentiality statement at the end, (I can only assume this to be the case with the Attorney Kutner letter to Metropolitan Herman), the client is still free to use the documents they are paying for in a variety of ways in their own defense.
Since Father Kondratick has shared this document with Monk James Silver and has permitted him to write about it publicly, why doesn't Father Kondratick share his attorney's letter with all of us? This would exonerate the former chancellor and attack Metropolitan Herman with facts and not fiction.
I'm only guessing, but perhaps he doesn't want anyone to see what was really said in that letter?
#1.2 Michael Geeza on 2006-07-24 10:08
With respect, sending a letter to the members of the Metropolitan Council is equivalent to writing a representative or legislator, and should have no expectation of privacy. It is, in essence, public record. The MC is and should be a legislative body and a deliberative body, transparent to the people represented.
Now, had the letter only been addressed to clergy MC members, there should be a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Sbdn. John Martin
Martin D. Watt, CPA (Inactive)
#1.3 Marty Watt on 2006-07-26 07:27
Huh? What is private about a letter sent to a large group of people? Who would not know this letter was intended to be circulated?
#1.4 Name withheld on 2006-07-27 18:58
My comment is on the Proskauer Rose section of Monk James' letter. I have long suspected that the Proskauer Rose report will have very little to say, for three reasons.
First, law firms do not investigate factual allegations and then make accusations against their own clients. It never happens. Law firms never bite the hand that feeds them. Law firms might be retained to review and "investigate" an organization's policies and procedures and make recommendations, but that's about it. The Proskauer Rose report will certainly not answer the question "Are the allegations true or false?"
Second, even if the scope of work required Proskauer Rose to answer the question "Are the allegations true or false?" the firm would not be able to answer that question without access to all of the relevant information. The administration continues to tell everyone there are no records. If the Administration controls what information Proskauer Rose sees, or determines that there are no records, then we can all guess what the Proskauer Rose report will say. It will say "We do not know. We recommend that you start keeiping records."
Third, having worked with non-profit organizations under fire in the past, I know that hiring a third party is a strategy that incumbent management uses to consolidate its position. If your intention is to resist change, the way to do it is to hire a consultant to do a thorough review (hoping that the storm blows over during the review process) and then implement some or all of the consultant's recommendations afterwards. One sign that's the case here is that the administration has not even made the most basic changes during the Proskauer Rose review period. If they took the allegations seriously (whether they are true or false), they would have at least given assurances that all expenses in the future must be document to be reimbursed, that the OCA will maintain complete records, and that no special collections will ever be misdirected to other purposes. There is no reason to wait on the Proskauer Rose report to make such basic and fundamental changes.
I think that Metropolitan Herman and the Holy Synod have not made much of the opportunity they have had during this "grace period" of the Proskauer Rose report. They could have engaged the Metropolitan Council and started to clean things up, but instead it seems that they are just circling the wagons.
Bishop Tikhon is right -- the Metropolitan should have recused himself from the investigation. By hiring Proskauer Rose directly, by giving the firm the instructions for their scope of work, by controlling their access to information, and by maintaining control over who reviews the report, it all but ensures that the report will either be a complete waste of time and money . . . or will be used as a tool to try to stem criticism and pressure.
#2 Robert Vasilios Wachter on 2006-07-21 19:03
I 've said oh so long ago '' there is no grace in the oca'' i thought i was the olny one who believed that way. just about every time i read something on this site ,the words pop out at me, we need to get together bishops. clergy. and the faithful to stop this or these problems.i now call for an extra ordenary sobor. this 2010 date was to save money ; but to save your church think 2006 before it's to late.
I think that for a monk, Fr. Silver, to speak out against the Metropolitan, when silence was imposed, to me this of clear frustration. It is evident that there are problems in the OCA.
Mark makes a good point to start publishing those financial reports that are finished.
If things are really bad, then my request for an AAC for the summer of 2007 is all the more valid. If things are not really bad, then my request for an AAC for the summer of 2007 still is valid. For we need to establish all that can be established for the good of the Church so that we do not keep taking out $1.7 million dollar loans.
A lack of knowing what is going on with these financial reports creates doubt.
#4 Patty Schellbach on 2006-07-21 20:01
What can the laity really do? As Monk James says, when people are upset, the reaction is that they will give less. We know that in some ways that just hurts the Church we love. On the other hand, we know that "just giving" just perpetuates the problem. What is the solution? The solution is easy. Use carrots instead of sticks.
What is the long term vision for Orthodoxy in America? In addition to the spiritual aspect of seeing Orthodoxy thrive as we yearn for and seek the Kingdom, I think most people desire a united jurisdiction with sound administrative and financial practices. What gets in the way of that? When I first became Orthodox I asked my priest at the time why there is not a united jurisdiction in America. "The answer is easy," he said. "Just follow the money." There is little financial incentive for the OCA, the GOA and the Antiochian Archdiocese to unite, and little financial incentive for the Patriarchates to grant independence. And therein lies the problem.
As the laity we can create an incentive.
People are upset that there is no financial transparency in the OCA. People are upset that administrative expenses seem out of control and poorly documented. What can people do? They can create an incentive for change.
How do we do that? Easy. We put our money where our mouths are. We create a long term tax exempt trust with a panel of clergy and lay trustees. The terms of the trust would say that all funds in the trust will be invested indefinitely until certain events have come to pass. When those events happen, the trust is dissolved and distributed. Those events could be, for example, adopting well-defined financial transparency policies, having a united jurisdiction, etc. Every Orthodox person regardless of jurisdiction could contribute to the vision.
The laity wants financial transparency? Great. The trust will model the type of financial transparency the laity desires. Every contribution would be recorded and verifiable online, so that there is no temptation to any shady or questionable practices. The investment options (the S&P 500 ETF for example) could all be strictly defined in the trust instrument so that nobody has reason to doubt or wonder where the money is invested at any given time. The trust would provide that except for a strictly defined limit for administrative expenses (1-2% for example), every dollar in the trust will eventually be distributed to the parishes, diocese or national administration of the Church.
The lawyers in the Church could come up with such a trust instrument and put everything in place in short order.
It might take 10 years for the vision of a united and financially sound American Orthodox Church to be realized. It might take 50 years. It might take 100 years. But eventually it will happen. And if you believe that money and control are the obstacles to seeing the vision realized in the near future, then perhaps building a long term investment trust would weaken the obstacles. Imagine that there was a $100 Million trust to be distributed to the Orthodox churches in the United States if only the bishops could unite the Church and adopt transparent financial practices. I don't think it would take long to see some real change with an incentive like that.
One thing is certain. In the near term withholding money only hurts the Church. We need to take care of our priests, we need to continue to support our seminaries, and as a practical matter that means contributing to the system in place. But that does not foreclose the possibiity of also contributing to a vision for the future.
#5 Robert Vasilios Wachter on 2006-07-21 20:17
I can't say as I got much out of this post. Until there are documents made available to confirm and substantiate the events that led us to where we are, all the ranting and raving of James Silver and others, do not amount to much. He strikes me as being and apologist for Fr. K, and as such, diminishes his credibility to provide any substance to this argument unless he can back up his statements. SHOW US THE DOCUMENTS AND BRING FORTH THE FACTS! The statements by James Silver seem self serving with the suggestion that he is an insider who has access to and has seen documents that many others have not. If he is priveleged to see them, why then are we, (the laity) not?
"Patience is counseled while we wallow around in ignorance"
#6 Andrew Wakuluk on 2006-07-21 20:28
I agree with you Andrew. After reading the internet ravings of Monk James ( some stating that "poor Metropolitan Herman had lost his mental capabilities after a stroke, and was now a mere puppet in the hands of some evil conspiritors"(some from SVS as I recall ) I wonder which story he would have us believe- Metropolitan Herman is manipulating us all, or he is being manipulated ? Who is Monk James ? I agree with some who responded to his former rantings by asking him to quit being the lap-dog of Kondratick and let Kondratick speak for himself. I notice that he is not asking for the date on the note of the Martin Drive residence. I see that he has no qualms with $2400.00 housing allowance for the Kondraticks but is outraged at the Metropolitan's $1,000.00 housing allowance. Is this the same monk James that started a monastery with the late Fr. Hillary years ago?
#6.1 Anonymous on 2006-07-23 19:02
I have followed this situation on your web-site for some time.
I do not have any comments, insights or calls to action to offer. I would like to share a word of encouragement - and that not my own.
I am reminded of something I heard Fr. Alexander say at a retreat many years ago. Forgive my loose paraphrase - my recollections are nearly thirty years old.
During a question and answer session, someone asked why there were so many quarrels and problems in the church. Fr Alexander replied something like this :
"We ought not be surprised that the devil stirs up so much trouble in the church. Do you think he needs to start trouble in Times Square ? - he owns that territory ! ( This was long before Rudi Giuliani cleaned up New York City ). The devil attacks the church from without - and from within - because he is terrified of the church. The church is the one body capable of overthrowing Satan's reign on earth. This is why he attacks the church with such vigor"
On the night of His betrayal, Our Lord told us " In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." John 16:33, and "I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you." John 1":18.
When we experience the tribulations that Our Lord promised us; we can take comfort that he also promised to be with us and share in our trials. If the Lord is with us, then all will be well.
I'm going to share one more recollection - from my childhood. The late Fr John Karateyev, once told my parents: "There is no sin so big, that God cannot forgive it." Whatever has been done in the church - and TO the church, God can still forgive and heal. We should all try to do the same.
Best wishes to all
#7 Francis Frost on 2006-07-21 23:01
IT IS ABOUT TIME THE TRUTH CAME OUT !
IF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED SOONER, WE WOULD ALL BE FURTHER AHEAD! ALL OF THE TIME, EFFORT, ENERGY AND MONEY, COULD HAVE BEEN CHANNELED TO EXPAND OUR CHURCH.
THANK YOU "BROTHER JAMES" FOR FOLLOWING GOD'S LAW, NOT MAN'S SELFISH WORDS.
My God, My God, why have you forsaken us?
I can only sit in stunned amazement. The facts, what happened and what should happen, are no longer really even relevant. Regardless of the facts, the conflict alone shows the depth of (forgive me) hatred that exists within the central administration.
The only solution, in my view, is for the laity to forcably remove the money (i.e., power) of the central administration and return it to the dioceses.
Syosset must be dismantled. The Metropolitan Council should be disbanded. There is, I fear, no other option now available. We must move away from the federal, monarchial model and to a confederation (dare I say synodal?) model. Outsource the functions of the central administration like pension funds management. Liturgics and education should be given to the synod and funded by the dioceses.
The central administration is beyond repair. Independent dioceses with synodal responsibility for matters of faith is the solution, in my view.
Sbdn. John Martin
Martin D. Watt, CPA (Inactive)
#9 Marty Watt on 2006-07-22 07:02
In reading Fr. Reeves' latest reflection, I know that everyone keeps asking.....WHY SHOULD WE REPLACE THE MONIES FROM THE APPEALS FUNDS? WHY CAN"T WE JUST CHALK IT UP TO MISUSED FUNDS AND BE DONE WITH IT?
There are many more people who post on this site with much more knowledge about the laws than I, but I know that all those monies were " tax deductible donations" and since they were not used for that purpose.....we HAVE to replace them and use them for them intended purpose or it is more than MISUSED funds.....it's ILLEGAL. Is that not correct? Pehaps someone with a legal or financial background can answer that for us once and for all.
Name withheld by request
#10 Name withheld by request on 2006-07-23 12:52
Perhaps Sdn. John Martin would like to comment on this as well but the answer to your question is not as simple as it may appear.
Several years ago the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued some pronouncements that outline how contributions are to be classified. They designated three primary classifications: Unrestricted funds (funds that the organization can use in whatever manner they choose), Temporarily Restricted Funds (funds that have been given for a specific purpose, for example the 9/11 funds) and Permanently Restricted Funds (funds that are not to be spent such as an endowment and only the interest or investment income is to be used).
In this mess there are whole host of issues: (1) were the funds diverted from temporarily restricted funds to unrestricted funds, (2) were permanently restricted funds diverted to unrestricted funds, and/or (3) were some of the funds used for things that were outside of the not-for-profit organization's purpose.
My guess is that you probably have all three situations here. As the expression goes, "the devil is in the details." The worst case scenario is scenario three because someone will have to pay taxes on this money. The vast majority of these diversions were probably taking temporarily restricted funds and using them for unrestricted purposes.
To use another expression, "it ain't over to till it's over," these issues are not going to be resolved very quickly. Some of the funds may not necessarily have been given with the intention of being restricted. Also, some of the intentions have sadly passed by and there is no way to disperse the funds (the 9/11 funds come to mind).
As several people have pointed out, borrowing money to pay yourself is foolish and I have to agree. To take out such a large loan without fully examining what has to be restored and what doesn't makes little sense.
All of this is yet another shining example of why the MC of the OCA is an utter disaster. How many people on the MC know this stuff? How many of them have ever negotiated a million dollar loan or created a budget? How many of them have the requisite experience to sit on any type of board of directors other than this one simply because they were deemed good Orthodox Christians? Doesn't competency matter anymore?
I hope and pray that the membership of the OCA will genuinely rise up and do something. There are amazingly talented people in the OCA who would gladly help but have never been asked. There are many people that have the knowledge and experience to help with this crisis but they have sadly been excluded because they are not part of the inner circle. Taking on a million dollar plus loan when people don't even have any idea how much money is available to service the debt is mind boggling.
#10.1 Fr. Michael Tassos on 2006-07-24 20:43
Only an attorney is competent to really comment on the legality or illegality of specific acts. From an accounting standpoint, while the first two options are bad, Fr. Michael's third option (diversion of funds to non-exempt purposes) is the only really "illegal" activity from an accounting standpoint and involves civil (not criminal) liability.
Any member, or group of members, or any donor can sue the OCA for fraud, and would shoulder the burden of proof that fraud occurred. This would be a difficult case to prove, given the lack of evidence made public so far, but not unreachable. If you can show that monies went from the church to private individuals, you can show fraud.
Perhaps the threat of a suit would be sufficient to ensure the MC and Synod are more responsive to the comments of the laity. In any event, I think a suit would more likely result in change than by any "pressure" the laity brought to bear in an attempt to remove the Metropolitan.
The one thing I would like to see is a slate of candidates to stand for the next Metropolitan Council election from amongst the more independent minded, running on a governance reform agenda.
Sdn. John Martin
Martin D. Watt, CPA (Inactive)
#10.1.1 Marty Watt on 2006-07-25 13:53
"Only an attorney is competent to really comment on the legality or illegality of specific acts."
I disagree, Marty. Anyone can comment on the legality of an action, just as anyone can comment on whether a column of numbers adds up correctly. Everyday, in court rooms across the country, non-lawyers make the ultimate 'comment' on the legality of issues. Only lawyers may provide legal advice in most states, but all of us have the right to judge for ourselves and comment on the legality of others' actions.
#10.1.1.1 Anonymous on 2006-07-27 11:47
Amen to your summation, Mark. Publish or perish is what they say! Publish! We have the right to know. The truth will make you free. How very sad it is that we are still shackled by machinations, threats and obfuscation.
As to our former-Chancellor, he should never be restored to that post. We may not yet have all the facts about his handling of our churches finances and resources (all those missing documents!), but one thing I know and witnessed. Our ex-Chancellor ruled by and large using threats and bullying. Rather than instilling love, he appeared to love power and preferred to instill fear. I pray for him.
Very sadly, others in Syosset still rule by bullying and instilling fear.
May Our merciful Lord guide us and protect us! May He send true pastors to shepherd His flock!
Yous seem to have alot of opinion to remain Anonymous on this subject. I fail to see where you are coming from when you refer to Fr. Kondratick as bing "bullying". From my experience and many of those who I know, Fr. Bob's mission was one of love, consideration, compassion and understanding,.
Please come forth wit hyour accusations and identify yourself
#11.1 Tina Rhodes on 2006-07-30 01:53
Fr. Reeves reflection is way off base, but one bit was okay. The off base part is the notion we don't have a liability or that it is to "ourself". The liability is to disburse funds as they were intended, not to keep them in our pocket. No different than the child that is supposed to pay the school $1.00 for lunch, but spends the dollar on candy. The school still provides the lunch, but the dollar is still owed.
Take the Beslan Fund, for example. Suppose a priest really worked hard to challenge his church to pay to this collection when it occurred. To not pay the Beslan children is to make jest of the priest's efforts. I can think of a certain priest who fits this bill perfectly, and he is extremely upset about the nondisbursements to the needy.
The notion of not paying out these charitable collections has legal consequence because if I donated to the Beslan fund and you don't pay, you owe ME the money BACK. The legal consequence is also that the money was collected fraudulently, etc. This is unimaginably sticky folks. If the church decides not to pay the money back, I will demand $1000. Who will say I didn't pay it? Is there a record of every dollar donated, heck no. The funds must be disbursed as planned. They were loosely collected and cannot be returned loosely to the contributors. The payments are not to ourselves, not at all.
There is no way anyone can consider, even in a secular non-legal context, that we don't pay the funds as they were intended. Even an atheist generally does what's right. In fact, they have lower divorce rates than Southern Baptists, for example. I really hope to not hear another word about not paying these funds as they were intended, lest I compare all Christians to atheists again. Away from legalities, comparisons to secular society and atheists, what would Jesus want us to do? Fr. Reeves reflection is off base a ton.
Now, on to the not totally off base part. Fr. Reeve's mentions a debt service plan, etc. Most entities that get themselves into this type of bind do a couple of things. First, they recognize they are in a bind and contact all the creditors and ask/tell them to reduce the payment amounts, and remove all finance charges in order to settle, etc. This is a recommendation I would make to the administration. Call all creditors and ask them for the best deal, or you use them as the financing agent. For example, if you owe a hotel 250k, you ask them to reduce the bill or eliminate finance charges for an immediate payment, or pay them over the next year or two and pay the finance charges. You'd be surprised at how much cash is valued on slow pay accounts and what people will settle for.. Typically, a third party would be hired to perform this debt reduction effort, or it would be done by the Controller/CFO. A priest should not be expected to because it would go against his ethics. Second, once you have negotiated with all creditors, the balance that is left is the first debt service reduction. If the OCA were able to reduce creditor amounts by $25,000, this is used as a paydown of the debt.
Now, onto other things from Fr. Reeves. The church needs competent financial staff to address its problems and create the debt service plan. It hasn't reported against Budgets for 2006. To me, this means the OCA lacks software, information infrastructure, a demanding board, staff, and general financial competancy, or some combination of these.
A debt reduction plan would be debt service payments from laity. An AAC would be required for this most likely. Another reason to look to 2007/8, not 2010.
The Metropolitan Council should ask for a three person oversight committee from non-members that can challenge anything and add value to all of these processes, including debt service reduction planning, reduction of liabilities to creditors, reporting against budgets to laity, making requests to laity, etc.
The Oversight group would be a non-binding recommending group only. The Oversight group could carry for'd the concerns of laity and hierarchy and be a direct link.
Mark, would you please add the email addresses of the MC to a place outside the forum, or better yet. Put all of them in a place we can cut from?
#12 Daniel E. Fall on 2006-07-24 16:31
the Metropolitan Council members' e-mail addresses and snail mail addresses are on the OCA website
no need to re-post them. Good luck in contacting them, I contacted the representative from my area and got no response.
#12.1 Janet on 2006-07-26 10:09
It can be worth it.
I sent a letter just before the last MC meeting addressed to the representatives of my diocese and cc'd to the whole council. I got three responses, which I hadn't really expected at all since it wasn't really a letter that asked for a response. And all three responses were thoughtful and positive, which also surprised me somewhat particularly from one significant person that I never would have anticipated a response from.
Even if you don't get a response, they'll know you care and are following this. I'd especially urge people who prefer either not to post or to remain anonymous in public fora to write and include your name and parish identifiers. Write honestly of your hopes and fears whatever your position on the issues, even if your position is simply one of concerned confusion -- it is important for them to know that this isn't blowing over and that openess will be better than secrecy. Otherwise we're still at risk that some key persons continue to feel that stalling and obfuscation are "for the good of the church."
(glad to be leaving the country for 3 weeks and not to think about this stuff for a while)
#12.1.1 Rebecca Matovic on 2006-07-27 08:42
I didn't read Fr. Reeves as saying that the funds should not be paid back. In fact, he quite clearly states that they should. But he does question why money is being borrowed so hastily to do so. Was this merely an internal loan, or were the funds spent on something not so noble? Is there more being covered up here?
#12.2 Jack Miller on 2006-07-29 19:35
"My letter was not sent to any Internet venue, but to the bishops and to members of the Met. Council, with copies to Fr Robert Kondratick and his lawyers. That was PRIVATE correspondence, yet it was apparently 'leaked' by someone with no sense of integrity."
With the opening comment by Monk James, and his statement that the excerpts from his letter (1) are from a draft, (2) was a private corresondence not sent for the internet as a venue, and (3) was 'leaked' indicates to me, rather clearly, the dubious integrity and lack of trustworthiness of this site and the hosts who post any/all of these letters.
#13 Philippa Alan on 2006-07-25 20:30
well.I ,as an Orthodox Christian,believe,that when someone is placed in such a position,as Theodosius,should ALWAYS BE THE EPITOME,BY DEFINITION,OF THE HUMBLE POST HE SERVED.HOWEVER,WHEN such a situation arises,we,as Orthodox Christians,need not look to place blame ,but rather,find a CONDUCIVE resolution,RATHER,THAN PUT A" BAND-AID-ON- IT "approach.That serves,to put a further gap between Him and those he serves.Not only that,if trust,is an issue,than we need to look for a neutral mediation,where all truth will be clear,without worrying about people that persist in the ever DESTRUCTIVE BLAME GAME.
#13.1 terrelyn whittall on 2006-07-29 18:08
The Metropolitan members phone #'s and e-mail addresses are listed on the OCA web site: www.oca.org. Go to Central Administration and then to Metropolitan Council.
Now is the time to let these people know your opinions about the misappropiated funds, Fr. Kondratick's dismissal, the Metropolitan Council's approval of the loan, AAC dates, etc, etc, etc. Exchanging information and opinions on this site is helpful, but don't you think we should let the Metropolitan Council in on what is on your mind? After all, they are supposed to represent us.
#14 Eugenie on 2006-07-26 10:09
They do not respond to email. I doubt that they bother to read communications addressed to them. Writing to them is a wasted effort. Any ideas on how to get their attention?
#14.1 Withheld upon request on 2006-07-27 18:45
Before the last MC meeting, I e-mailed every member of the Metropolitan Council, asking them not withhold anything and telling them I was praying for them. Four persons replied, thanking me.
Also, I recently e-mailed Fr. Paul Kucynda, asking him why this year's Mission Grants would not include the money missing from the Mission Appeals Fund, since the loan would be funded in July. (We have since learned it is not to be funded until August.) While Fr. Kucynda did not reply to me directly, someone from Syosset did send a rather confusing (to me) reply. Also got a stiff reply from Fr. Tosi, who I believe heads the Mission activities of OCA. So, they did reply, although they clearly did not like my questions.The idea was to let them know what was on my mind.
#14.1.1 Eugenie on 2006-07-28 21:10
The author does not allow comments to this entry