Joiint Meeting Minutes (Part Two of Three)

Mr Geeza:

You have an excellent point that revealing critical pieces of information before an investigation has been completed can be detrmental. In fact, I have a question for Mr Stokoe on that particular point: if PR is working for a client other than the OCA, how is it that "[t]he Commission reviewed 700 pages of documents provided a week earlier in response to a formal request to Proskauer Rose"? 700 pages is a lot of material; is it not reasonable to expect that some of it was the kind of confidential material that would only be shared with the client?

In spite of this particular question, I wish I could believe in general that the patterns of behaviour at Syosset can be attributed fully to an appropriate protection of confidential information. Unfortunately those patterns as a whole speak more of attempts to hold on to power than anything else. It has been made public that what PR did reveal in December was stunning. There was malfeasance, as has been suspected. If the current administration wishes to truly and fully disassociate itself from that malfeasance, one would think that it would be going the extra mile in its transparency. For example, if the Metropolitan had become convinced that there were not enough people on the original search committee for new officers at Syosset, it would have been far more prudent under the circumstances, to ask that the existing members nominate more people from whom the Metropolitan Council itself could make additional selections. That would have avoided any perception of a power-play, which His Beatitude cannot afford at present. One might also expect that priority be given to posting minutes within hours (maybe up to 72) of an MC meeting (or the like), not 2 months! I saw that one person suggested getting a retired court reporter to transcribe the proceedings, and I read that there are to be audio recordings. I was surprised that Mr Nescott suggested that the recordings be destroyed after the minutes have been published. I trust that he had a good reason, but keeping them would seem more prudent in terms of rebuilding confidence, even if legitimate confidentiality issues required those recordings to be secured.

This administration has lost all credibility. It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to be suspicious of what is happening. In my personal opinion, regardless of what comes to light in the next 12 months or less, it would be wise, for the sake of the future of the OCA, if the current administration, including the Metropolitan, would voluntarily leave office by the next AAC, which should not be allowed to be delayed by a lack of budget, or anything else. Finding space in the budget for a 2008 AAC - at the cost of many other things, should be the top priority of the OCA, right next to the completion and publication of the results of the investigation, and the election of a new metropolitan should be at the top of the agenda. Metropolitan HERMAN, no matter how innocent God may know him to be, is too close to the situation. He can step down and be remembered for his wisdom, or attempt to keep power and risk the demise of the OCA and more personal consequences as well.

Confidentiality is a serious issue. I don't think anybody here, either Mr Stokoe or the readers, undervalue confidentiality. Speaking for myself alone, if it were not for the surroundng issues, I'd think nothing of silence in some areas. I'd expect silence where confidentiality is an issue. Unfortunately, the general patterns of behaviour (which necesarily connect back to the primacy of Met. THEODOOSIUS since many key players today were key players then) have torpedoed my trust that confidentiality alone is the reason for silence.