Monday, August 7. 2006
A Welcome Change
The Protodeacon has asked for comments, support, feedback. Now is your chance to offer your five cents, publicly. All comments welcome. Don't be afraid to sign your name. If you wish to contact him privately, you may do so at dnpeter22@yahoo.com.
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
In the 1970's, the Evangelical Protestant world was racked with financial scandals. From these arose, the Evangelical Council For Financial Accountability (www.ECFA.org). On their website, they have the Seven Standards of Responsible Stewardship.
"Standard 1 - Doctrinal Statement
Every member organization shall subscribe to a written statement of faith clearly affirming its commitment to the evangelical Christian faith [insert Orthodox Faith here and the Nicene Creed--BWB] and shall conduct its financial and other operations in a manner which reflects those generally accepted biblical truths and practices.
Standard 2 - Board of Directors and Audit Committee
Every member organization shall be governed by a responsible board of not less than five individuals, a majority of whom shall be independent, which shall meet at least semiannually to establish policy and review its accomplishments. The board or a committee consisting of a majority of independent members shall review the annual audit and maintain direct communication between the board and the independent certified public accountants.
Standard 3 - Audited Financial Statements
Every member organization shall obtain an annual audit performed by an independent certified public accounting firm in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS) with its financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles accepted in the United States of America (GAAP).
Standard 4 - Use of Resources
Every member organization shall exercise the management and financial controls necessary to provide reasonable assurance that all resources are used (nationally and internationally) in conformity with applicable federal and state laws and regulations to accomplish the exempt purposes for which they are intended.
Standard 5 - Financial Disclosure
Every member organization shall provide a copy of its current audited financial statements upon written request and provide other disclosures as the law may require. An organization must provide a report, on request, including financial information, on the specific project for which it is soliciting gifts.
Standard 6 - Conflicts of Interest
Every member organization shall avoid conflicts of interest. Transactions with related parties may be undertaken only if all of the following are observed: 1) a material transaction is fully disclosed in the audited financial statements of the organization; 2) the related party is excluded from the discussion and approval of such transaction; 3) a competitive bid or comparable valuation exists; and 4) the organization's board has acted upon and demonstrated that the transaction is in the best interest of the member organization.
Standard 7 - Fund-Raising
Every member organization shall comply with each of the ECFA Standards for fund-raising:
7.1 Truthfulness in Communication
All representations of fact, description of financial condition of the organization, or narrative about events must be current, complete, and accurate. References to past activities or events must be appropriately dated. There must be no material omissions or exaggerations of fact or use of misleading photographs or any other communication which would tend to create a false impression or misunderstanding.
7.2 Communication and Donor Expectations
Fund-raising appeals must not create unrealistic donor expectations of what a donor's gift will actually accomplish within the limits of the organization's ministry.
7.3 Communication and Donor Intent
All statements made by the organization in its fund-raising appeals about the use of the gift must be honored by the organization. The donor's intent is related both to what was communicated in the appeal and to any donor instructions accompanying the gift. The organization should be aware that communications made in fund-raising appeals may create a legally binding restriction.
7.4 Projects Unrelated to a Ministry's Primary Purpose
An organization raising or receiving funds for programs that are not part of its present or prospective ministry, but are proper in accordance with its exempt purpose, must either treat them as restricted funds and channel them through an organization that can carry out the donor's intent or return the funds to the donor.
7.5 Incentives and Premiums
Organizations making fund-raising appeals which, in exchange for a contribution, offer premiums or incentives (the value of which is not insubstantial, but is significant in relation to the amount of the donation) must advise the donor of the fair market value of the premium or incentive and that the value is not deductible for tax purposes.
7.6 Financial Advice
The representative of the organization, when dealing with persons regarding commitments on major estate assets, must seek to guide and advise donors so they have adequately considered the broad interests of the family and the various ministries they are currently supporting before they make final decisions. Donors should be encouraged to use the services of their attorneys, accountants, or other professional advisors.
7.7 Percentage Compensation for Fund-raisers
Compensation of outside fund-raising consultants or an organization's own employees based directly or indirectly on a percentage of charitable contributions raised is not allowed.
VIEW COMMENTARY
7.8 Tax-deductible Gifts for a Named Recipient's Personal Benefit
Tax-deductible gifts may not be used to pass money or benefits to any named individual for personal use.
7.9 Conflict of Interest on Royalties
An officer, director, or other principal of the organization must not receive royalties for any product that the organization uses for fund-raising or promotional purposes.
7.10 Acknowledgement of Gifts-in-Kind
Property or gifts-in-kind received by an organization should be acknowledged describing the property or gift accurately without a statement of the gift's market value. It is the responsibility of the donor to determine the fair market value of the property for tax purposes. The organization may be required to provide additional information for gifts of motor vehicles, boats, and airplanes.
7.11 Acting in the Interest of the Donor
An organization must make every effort to avoid accepting a gift from or entering into a contract with a prospective donor which would knowingly place a hardship on the donor, or place the donor's future well-being in jeopardy."
Also, from the website is the Donor's Bill of Rights:
"When you give, be sure your selected charity employs standards and policies that assure you of a "bill of rights" as a donor. You have the right to:
Know how the funds of an organization are being spent.
Know what the programs you support are accomplishing.
Know that the organization is complies with federal, state, and municipal laws.
Restrict or designate your gifts to a particular project within the organization's mission objectives.
A timely and courteous response to your inquiries about finances and programs.
Visit office and program sites of an organization to talk personally with the staff.
Give cheerfully without being pressured by the organization.
Obtain a copy of the organization's most recent audited financial statements
Know that there is a responsible governing board providing oversight to the organization's mission.
Know that all appeals for funds are truthful and accurate."
The website lists questions that should be answered:
"GOOD CHARITIES WILLINGLY ANSWER TOUGH QUESTIONS.
Before you give to any charity, ask these questions. Worthy nonprofit organizations recognize they are recipients of the public trust, and are willing and prepared to supply the answers.
Does the organization have a clear and strong commitment to a certain mission objective?
Does an independent board that oversees the organization's operations and accepts responsibility for itsactivities?
Are the organization's financial records audited annually by independent certified public accountants?
Does the organization practice financial disclosure?
Can anyone receive a copy of the organization's most recent audited financial statements upon written request?
Can donors obtain financial and other information about any program they have supported?
How does the organization avoid conflicts of interest?
What are the guidelines and standards for fund-raising?
Is there a review procedure to assure compliance with fund-raising standards and guidelines?"
I am sorry for the length, but I think the text is valuable for spurring discussion on this list. I do not think we need to create our own "Best Practices", but should look to others who have best practices that have proven their value over the years. World Vision and OMS are both a part of this network.
"Standard 1 - Doctrinal Statement
Every member organization shall subscribe to a written statement of faith clearly affirming its commitment to the evangelical Christian faith [insert Orthodox Faith here and the Nicene Creed--BWB] and shall conduct its financial and other operations in a manner which reflects those generally accepted biblical truths and practices.
Standard 2 - Board of Directors and Audit Committee
Every member organization shall be governed by a responsible board of not less than five individuals, a majority of whom shall be independent, which shall meet at least semiannually to establish policy and review its accomplishments. The board or a committee consisting of a majority of independent members shall review the annual audit and maintain direct communication between the board and the independent certified public accountants.
Standard 3 - Audited Financial Statements
Every member organization shall obtain an annual audit performed by an independent certified public accounting firm in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS) with its financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles accepted in the United States of America (GAAP).
Standard 4 - Use of Resources
Every member organization shall exercise the management and financial controls necessary to provide reasonable assurance that all resources are used (nationally and internationally) in conformity with applicable federal and state laws and regulations to accomplish the exempt purposes for which they are intended.
Standard 5 - Financial Disclosure
Every member organization shall provide a copy of its current audited financial statements upon written request and provide other disclosures as the law may require. An organization must provide a report, on request, including financial information, on the specific project for which it is soliciting gifts.
Standard 6 - Conflicts of Interest
Every member organization shall avoid conflicts of interest. Transactions with related parties may be undertaken only if all of the following are observed: 1) a material transaction is fully disclosed in the audited financial statements of the organization; 2) the related party is excluded from the discussion and approval of such transaction; 3) a competitive bid or comparable valuation exists; and 4) the organization's board has acted upon and demonstrated that the transaction is in the best interest of the member organization.
Standard 7 - Fund-Raising
Every member organization shall comply with each of the ECFA Standards for fund-raising:
7.1 Truthfulness in Communication
All representations of fact, description of financial condition of the organization, or narrative about events must be current, complete, and accurate. References to past activities or events must be appropriately dated. There must be no material omissions or exaggerations of fact or use of misleading photographs or any other communication which would tend to create a false impression or misunderstanding.
7.2 Communication and Donor Expectations
Fund-raising appeals must not create unrealistic donor expectations of what a donor's gift will actually accomplish within the limits of the organization's ministry.
7.3 Communication and Donor Intent
All statements made by the organization in its fund-raising appeals about the use of the gift must be honored by the organization. The donor's intent is related both to what was communicated in the appeal and to any donor instructions accompanying the gift. The organization should be aware that communications made in fund-raising appeals may create a legally binding restriction.
7.4 Projects Unrelated to a Ministry's Primary Purpose
An organization raising or receiving funds for programs that are not part of its present or prospective ministry, but are proper in accordance with its exempt purpose, must either treat them as restricted funds and channel them through an organization that can carry out the donor's intent or return the funds to the donor.
7.5 Incentives and Premiums
Organizations making fund-raising appeals which, in exchange for a contribution, offer premiums or incentives (the value of which is not insubstantial, but is significant in relation to the amount of the donation) must advise the donor of the fair market value of the premium or incentive and that the value is not deductible for tax purposes.
7.6 Financial Advice
The representative of the organization, when dealing with persons regarding commitments on major estate assets, must seek to guide and advise donors so they have adequately considered the broad interests of the family and the various ministries they are currently supporting before they make final decisions. Donors should be encouraged to use the services of their attorneys, accountants, or other professional advisors.
7.7 Percentage Compensation for Fund-raisers
Compensation of outside fund-raising consultants or an organization's own employees based directly or indirectly on a percentage of charitable contributions raised is not allowed.
VIEW COMMENTARY
7.8 Tax-deductible Gifts for a Named Recipient's Personal Benefit
Tax-deductible gifts may not be used to pass money or benefits to any named individual for personal use.
7.9 Conflict of Interest on Royalties
An officer, director, or other principal of the organization must not receive royalties for any product that the organization uses for fund-raising or promotional purposes.
7.10 Acknowledgement of Gifts-in-Kind
Property or gifts-in-kind received by an organization should be acknowledged describing the property or gift accurately without a statement of the gift's market value. It is the responsibility of the donor to determine the fair market value of the property for tax purposes. The organization may be required to provide additional information for gifts of motor vehicles, boats, and airplanes.
7.11 Acting in the Interest of the Donor
An organization must make every effort to avoid accepting a gift from or entering into a contract with a prospective donor which would knowingly place a hardship on the donor, or place the donor's future well-being in jeopardy."
Also, from the website is the Donor's Bill of Rights:
"When you give, be sure your selected charity employs standards and policies that assure you of a "bill of rights" as a donor. You have the right to:
Know how the funds of an organization are being spent.
Know what the programs you support are accomplishing.
Know that the organization is complies with federal, state, and municipal laws.
Restrict or designate your gifts to a particular project within the organization's mission objectives.
A timely and courteous response to your inquiries about finances and programs.
Visit office and program sites of an organization to talk personally with the staff.
Give cheerfully without being pressured by the organization.
Obtain a copy of the organization's most recent audited financial statements
Know that there is a responsible governing board providing oversight to the organization's mission.
Know that all appeals for funds are truthful and accurate."
The website lists questions that should be answered:
"GOOD CHARITIES WILLINGLY ANSWER TOUGH QUESTIONS.
Before you give to any charity, ask these questions. Worthy nonprofit organizations recognize they are recipients of the public trust, and are willing and prepared to supply the answers.
Does the organization have a clear and strong commitment to a certain mission objective?
Does an independent board that oversees the organization's operations and accepts responsibility for itsactivities?
Are the organization's financial records audited annually by independent certified public accountants?
Does the organization practice financial disclosure?
Can anyone receive a copy of the organization's most recent audited financial statements upon written request?
Can donors obtain financial and other information about any program they have supported?
How does the organization avoid conflicts of interest?
What are the guidelines and standards for fund-raising?
Is there a review procedure to assure compliance with fund-raising standards and guidelines?"
I am sorry for the length, but I think the text is valuable for spurring discussion on this list. I do not think we need to create our own "Best Practices", but should look to others who have best practices that have proven their value over the years. World Vision and OMS are both a part of this network.
#1
Brent Beasley
on
2006-08-07 12:24
Dear Protodeacon Peter:
I read your draft document and I commend you on your efforts. As I have followed this saga over the past 8 months I do see some things that your document doesn't address. Perhaps it shouldn't and they should be addressed someplace else, but nonetheless I believe that they must be addressed contemporaneously.
First, the exact delineation of duties of the Treasurer, the Comptroller, and the Chancellor need to be in writing and available to all.
Second, the exact duties and responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council should be spelled out as well. I know that you have quoted Article 1:5 in your document. I don't have the actual document in front of me but based upon what you have quoted the Metropolitan Council: "establishes," "examines," "supervises," "determines," "organizes," "provides for," and "decides on."
In only one instance, namely "supervises" (and even in this specific instance they only supervise the collection of assessments) the Metropolitan Council has no teeth. Who gets to hire and fire the Chancellor, the Treasurer, the CEO, the CFO or anyone else? Whose responsibility is it to engage legal counsel? Whose is responsible for tax matters? Who is responsible for other administrative matters such as signature authority, the ability to open bank accounts, the ability to transfer funds? Who is responsible for human resource issues?
Additionally, it would be nice to see something in writing that requires a balanced budget every year. Clearly based upon information from the OCA's own website, this did not occur with the 2006 budget.
I realize that most of what I have written here is beyond your document but as someone who also works with large companies and someone that has worked with large not-for-profits, it is my opinion that these other issues must get resolved as well.
Fr. Michael Tassos
I read your draft document and I commend you on your efforts. As I have followed this saga over the past 8 months I do see some things that your document doesn't address. Perhaps it shouldn't and they should be addressed someplace else, but nonetheless I believe that they must be addressed contemporaneously.
First, the exact delineation of duties of the Treasurer, the Comptroller, and the Chancellor need to be in writing and available to all.
Second, the exact duties and responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council should be spelled out as well. I know that you have quoted Article 1:5 in your document. I don't have the actual document in front of me but based upon what you have quoted the Metropolitan Council: "establishes," "examines," "supervises," "determines," "organizes," "provides for," and "decides on."
In only one instance, namely "supervises" (and even in this specific instance they only supervise the collection of assessments) the Metropolitan Council has no teeth. Who gets to hire and fire the Chancellor, the Treasurer, the CEO, the CFO or anyone else? Whose responsibility is it to engage legal counsel? Whose is responsible for tax matters? Who is responsible for other administrative matters such as signature authority, the ability to open bank accounts, the ability to transfer funds? Who is responsible for human resource issues?
Additionally, it would be nice to see something in writing that requires a balanced budget every year. Clearly based upon information from the OCA's own website, this did not occur with the 2006 budget.
I realize that most of what I have written here is beyond your document but as someone who also works with large companies and someone that has worked with large not-for-profits, it is my opinion that these other issues must get resolved as well.
Fr. Michael Tassos
#2
Fr. Michael Tassos
on
2006-08-07 12:36
Dear Protodeacon Peter Danilchick,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts in the Reflections article and thank you for volunteering your time and expertise to prepare the “BEST PRACTICE PRINCIPLES FOR NON-PROFIT FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY” document in an effort to move in a positive direction in “fixing” this awful mess. What you described as the shameful treatment of the volunteers is nothing unusual in the church (or anywhere where there are volunteers really!)…but it is still a shame. I THANK EVERYONE who is working towards a solution to this horrible wrong that was done to ALL OF US! Please continue your efforts and I will continue to keep you all in my prayers!
I’d like to also comment on the Best Practices document that you, Protodeacon Peter, have asked for our input. When I got to the 3rd paragraph of the introduction section, which reads as follows:
“The above statements go double for the Church, the Body of Christ. We must be truthful, as Christ is the Truth (John 14:6). We must be trustworthy for “it is required of stewards
that they be found trustworthy.” (1 Cor 4:1-2) All must be open, as Jesus said: “There is nothing hid, except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret, except to come to light.” (Mark 4:22) We must be willing to be measured, as the Lord desired to measure Israel “Behold, I am setting a plumb line in the midst of my people Israel.” (Amos 7:8).”
…I had to stop!
Why go any further?
"We must be truthful"…this has not happened yet…has it? Why should I believe that it will happen in the future when there is no indication that a change in administration, or a “change of heart” in the current administration, is part of the plan? I’m not one that rejoices in punishment or in “watching heads roll!” But, we are taught that the first step on the road to recovery is confession and repentance. If those that are responsible and have chosen to be silent don’t come out to speak to the people about what has happened in the past and don't ask for forgiveness from their brothers and sisters in Christ, whom they have wronged, I really don’t think this or any other document is going to do any good! Someone else made this point in an earlier post, and much better than I can ever articulate...but, I really think that most of us are more concerned now with our spiritual leadership and not so much with the financial leadership!
Asking for His continued mercy!
Helen O’Sullivan
(Holy Resurrection OCA parish, Palatine, IL)
Thank you for sharing your thoughts in the Reflections article and thank you for volunteering your time and expertise to prepare the “BEST PRACTICE PRINCIPLES FOR NON-PROFIT FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY” document in an effort to move in a positive direction in “fixing” this awful mess. What you described as the shameful treatment of the volunteers is nothing unusual in the church (or anywhere where there are volunteers really!)…but it is still a shame. I THANK EVERYONE who is working towards a solution to this horrible wrong that was done to ALL OF US! Please continue your efforts and I will continue to keep you all in my prayers!
I’d like to also comment on the Best Practices document that you, Protodeacon Peter, have asked for our input. When I got to the 3rd paragraph of the introduction section, which reads as follows:
“The above statements go double for the Church, the Body of Christ. We must be truthful, as Christ is the Truth (John 14:6). We must be trustworthy for “it is required of stewards
that they be found trustworthy.” (1 Cor 4:1-2) All must be open, as Jesus said: “There is nothing hid, except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret, except to come to light.” (Mark 4:22) We must be willing to be measured, as the Lord desired to measure Israel “Behold, I am setting a plumb line in the midst of my people Israel.” (Amos 7:8).”
…I had to stop!
Why go any further?
"We must be truthful"…this has not happened yet…has it? Why should I believe that it will happen in the future when there is no indication that a change in administration, or a “change of heart” in the current administration, is part of the plan? I’m not one that rejoices in punishment or in “watching heads roll!” But, we are taught that the first step on the road to recovery is confession and repentance. If those that are responsible and have chosen to be silent don’t come out to speak to the people about what has happened in the past and don't ask for forgiveness from their brothers and sisters in Christ, whom they have wronged, I really don’t think this or any other document is going to do any good! Someone else made this point in an earlier post, and much better than I can ever articulate...but, I really think that most of us are more concerned now with our spiritual leadership and not so much with the financial leadership!
Asking for His continued mercy!
Helen O’Sullivan
(Holy Resurrection OCA parish, Palatine, IL)
#3
Helen O'Sullivan
on
2006-08-07 12:52
You have hit the nail on the head and said it with even more clarity than my previous post!
KRT
KRT
#4
Kenneth R. Tobin
on
2006-08-07 14:14
Dear Protodeacon Peter,
Thank you for sending in your reflection and thank you Mark for its posting.
I have two initial comments to make based on what I have read.
First, I tried to locate the "Best Practices" posting on the OCA website, but could not find it. Perhaps I simply overlooked it. What I did find was a posting dated July 5 in which the "Best Practices" effort was described as being presented to the Metropolitan Council. However, the document itself was not posted. Forgive me if I have not seen it on the website.
I would like to suggest that your reflection soliciting comments from the faithful as posted on this website be also posted appropriately edited on the OCA website along with the "Best Practices" document, if it indeed has not been posted to date. This would provide you with additional comments from our entire OCA.
Second, I have a small practical suggestion that one might call "walking the talk" with regard to the message delivered in the draft "Best Practices" document. A beginning of implementing Article V, Openess and Disclosure of the Ethics Policy can be demonstrated by how the recently concluded Seminary Appeal is handled. It would be wonderful if on the OCA website, and perhaps in a letter to all the parishes, that the following information be given about this most recent Appeal: The date that the Appeal was considered to be concluded, the total dollar amount collected, and the dates and amounts distributed to our three seminaries.
I would suggest that consideration be given to all future annual Appeals and Special Appeals to be handled in a similar open and transparent manner. Would it not be appreciated and well received by doing so?
I appreciate the work you are doing with others to bring about the "Best Practices." It is your love, as you have stated, and the love of all the faithful for His Holy Church that will move us foward in a way well pleasing unto Him.
In Christ,
Dn. John
Thank you for sending in your reflection and thank you Mark for its posting.
I have two initial comments to make based on what I have read.
First, I tried to locate the "Best Practices" posting on the OCA website, but could not find it. Perhaps I simply overlooked it. What I did find was a posting dated July 5 in which the "Best Practices" effort was described as being presented to the Metropolitan Council. However, the document itself was not posted. Forgive me if I have not seen it on the website.
I would like to suggest that your reflection soliciting comments from the faithful as posted on this website be also posted appropriately edited on the OCA website along with the "Best Practices" document, if it indeed has not been posted to date. This would provide you with additional comments from our entire OCA.
Second, I have a small practical suggestion that one might call "walking the talk" with regard to the message delivered in the draft "Best Practices" document. A beginning of implementing Article V, Openess and Disclosure of the Ethics Policy can be demonstrated by how the recently concluded Seminary Appeal is handled. It would be wonderful if on the OCA website, and perhaps in a letter to all the parishes, that the following information be given about this most recent Appeal: The date that the Appeal was considered to be concluded, the total dollar amount collected, and the dates and amounts distributed to our three seminaries.
I would suggest that consideration be given to all future annual Appeals and Special Appeals to be handled in a similar open and transparent manner. Would it not be appreciated and well received by doing so?
I appreciate the work you are doing with others to bring about the "Best Practices." It is your love, as you have stated, and the love of all the faithful for His Holy Church that will move us foward in a way well pleasing unto Him.
In Christ,
Dn. John
#5
Dn. John Zarras
on
2006-08-07 15:10
Protodeacon Peter, it is a very good thing that you've posted a link to your prelimary Best Practices document on OCAnews.org, because searching for "best practices" on the OCA web site itself does not return this very important work. I hope it is made available for comment to a much wider audience than reads OCAnews!
You are correct that the only reason a person would volunteer for a committee like Best Practices is love of the Church and service to God. I can only pray that by the time you and the Best Practices group is done, there is still an Orthodox Church in America left... please forgive me for saying so, but YOU and the WHOLE COMMITTEE should have been heralded on the splash screen of the OCA web site and pictured on the front page of the OCA paper LAST NOVEMBER! Then, the administration would have retained some of its credibility, and appeared to be proactive and truly interested in correcting its sinful financial situation. You are a lay professional, asked to lend your expertise to the Church by an elected official of the OCA's governing body -- the Metropolitan Council. That would have been SO reassuring to know 8 or even 6 months ago!
Now, unfortunately, revelation of a Best Practices document looks like a scramble by the Metropolitan and current Treasurer to do something, anything, to stop the hemmorage. That does no credit to your work and dedication...
You're in my prayers! God bless your efforts!
You are correct that the only reason a person would volunteer for a committee like Best Practices is love of the Church and service to God. I can only pray that by the time you and the Best Practices group is done, there is still an Orthodox Church in America left... please forgive me for saying so, but YOU and the WHOLE COMMITTEE should have been heralded on the splash screen of the OCA web site and pictured on the front page of the OCA paper LAST NOVEMBER! Then, the administration would have retained some of its credibility, and appeared to be proactive and truly interested in correcting its sinful financial situation. You are a lay professional, asked to lend your expertise to the Church by an elected official of the OCA's governing body -- the Metropolitan Council. That would have been SO reassuring to know 8 or even 6 months ago!
Now, unfortunately, revelation of a Best Practices document looks like a scramble by the Metropolitan and current Treasurer to do something, anything, to stop the hemmorage. That does no credit to your work and dedication...
You're in my prayers! God bless your efforts!
#6
Nicole Marcu
on
2006-08-07 16:20
Pdn. Peter:
The document as prepared is excellent. As a person with some background in the area of internal control and not-for-profit management, I'd ask for the inclusion of the following concepts:
1. Internal Control begins with the committment of leadership (i.e., the paid staff, including the heirarchs) to the concept of transparency. Responsible deeds need not be done in secret. The MC, as a whole, must be informed of every available point of information, and have every question answered timely, accurately and completely. No amount of procedure or policy will be effective if the committment to transparency is absent.
2. I fully concur with incorporating the ECFA Donor Bill of Rights concepts into our financial accountability best practices.
3. In order to properly describe the responsibilities involved, there must be a clear delineation between issues of faith and morals, which is the exclusive domain of the heirarchy, and issues of administration and management which are the responsibility of the MC.
4. There should be a clear deliniation of the various responsibilities of the Central administration (which, ecclesiastically, doesn't exist?) and the diocese, and ultimately parish. I think ecclesiastically and administratively, the diocese should be the primary focal point (locus) of activity. The tasks of the central administrative body should be those delegated by the dioceses.
I am most willing to assist in any effort to build up the Church. My only "non-negotiable" is the demonstrated committment to openness and transparency. There is no way around this point -- administratively, everything/one reports to the Metropolitan Council, as your document points out.
In Christ our Savior,
Sdn. John Martin
Martin D. Watt, CPA (Inactive)
The document as prepared is excellent. As a person with some background in the area of internal control and not-for-profit management, I'd ask for the inclusion of the following concepts:
1. Internal Control begins with the committment of leadership (i.e., the paid staff, including the heirarchs) to the concept of transparency. Responsible deeds need not be done in secret. The MC, as a whole, must be informed of every available point of information, and have every question answered timely, accurately and completely. No amount of procedure or policy will be effective if the committment to transparency is absent.
2. I fully concur with incorporating the ECFA Donor Bill of Rights concepts into our financial accountability best practices.
3. In order to properly describe the responsibilities involved, there must be a clear delineation between issues of faith and morals, which is the exclusive domain of the heirarchy, and issues of administration and management which are the responsibility of the MC.
4. There should be a clear deliniation of the various responsibilities of the Central administration (which, ecclesiastically, doesn't exist?) and the diocese, and ultimately parish. I think ecclesiastically and administratively, the diocese should be the primary focal point (locus) of activity. The tasks of the central administrative body should be those delegated by the dioceses.
I am most willing to assist in any effort to build up the Church. My only "non-negotiable" is the demonstrated committment to openness and transparency. There is no way around this point -- administratively, everything/one reports to the Metropolitan Council, as your document points out.
In Christ our Savior,
Sdn. John Martin
Martin D. Watt, CPA (Inactive)
#7
Marty Watt
on
2006-08-07 16:32
Dear Brent - thank you for your response. The ECFA Standards were in fact consulted in putting together the draft specific to the OCA. If you make a side-by-side comparison, I think that you will find they are not inconsistent. There is additional detail on donor's rights in the ECFA which I believe is quite good and should be reflected in the next edition of the BPs - which will have more detail on all the Practices.
You may be interested in consulting the following standards which I utilized as well, among others, in putting together the OCA BPs:
http://www.ecfa.org/?Page=7standards
http://www.aicpa.org/audcommctr/toolkitsnpo/Resources.htm
http://www.ncna.org/index.cfm?fuseactionfiltered=Page.viewPage&pageId=336
http://www.mncn.org/info_principles8.htm
http://www.independentsector.org/issues/accountability/standards2.html
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/charities/charities.html
http://www.nasconet.org/
http://www.blackbaud.com/resources/white-papers.aspx#Financial
http://www.wcnwebsite.org/practices/financial.htm
http://www.boardsource.org/dl.asp?document_id=460
http://www.boardsource.org/Knowledge.asp?ID=3.1013
Thanks again for your response. I appreciate it.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
You may be interested in consulting the following standards which I utilized as well, among others, in putting together the OCA BPs:
http://www.ecfa.org/?Page=7standards
http://www.aicpa.org/audcommctr/toolkitsnpo/Resources.htm
http://www.ncna.org/index.cfm?fuseactionfiltered=Page.viewPage&pageId=336
http://www.mncn.org/info_principles8.htm
http://www.independentsector.org/issues/accountability/standards2.html
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/charities/charities.html
http://www.nasconet.org/
http://www.blackbaud.com/resources/white-papers.aspx#Financial
http://www.wcnwebsite.org/practices/financial.htm
http://www.boardsource.org/dl.asp?document_id=460
http://www.boardsource.org/Knowledge.asp?ID=3.1013
Thanks again for your response. I appreciate it.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
#8
Protodeacon Peter Danilchick
on
2006-08-07 18:47
Dear Fr Michael,
Thank you for your excellent suggestions. On the first, job descriptions for key positions such as these are certainly necessary. Further, these are normally reviewed from time to time to adapt to any changed circumstances. On the second, I would agree that the Metropolitan Council needs to have a Process Manual to give more meaning to the "action verbs" which you refer to (including the balanced budget item). I do not know if they have one (or not) to guide them in fulfilling their responsibilities.
Thanks again for your comments.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
Thank you for your excellent suggestions. On the first, job descriptions for key positions such as these are certainly necessary. Further, these are normally reviewed from time to time to adapt to any changed circumstances. On the second, I would agree that the Metropolitan Council needs to have a Process Manual to give more meaning to the "action verbs" which you refer to (including the balanced budget item). I do not know if they have one (or not) to guide them in fulfilling their responsibilities.
Thanks again for your comments.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
#9
Protodeacon Peter Danilchick
on
2006-08-07 18:56
Dear Fr. Protodeacon Peter,
In 4.1 of the Best Practices document you define independent in a way that allows clergy to serve on the audit committee. While I am sure that many clergy are capable of conducting audits, I am not sure they are independent. It seems to me that much of lives of priests and deacons are controlled by bishops. I think laymen are less likely to succumb to pressure from that might be put on them from a metropolitan or chancellor. So, at the most there should only be one priest or deacon on the audit committee.
In 4.1 of the Best Practices document you define independent in a way that allows clergy to serve on the audit committee. While I am sure that many clergy are capable of conducting audits, I am not sure they are independent. It seems to me that much of lives of priests and deacons are controlled by bishops. I think laymen are less likely to succumb to pressure from that might be put on them from a metropolitan or chancellor. So, at the most there should only be one priest or deacon on the audit committee.
#10
Matt Karnes
on
2006-08-07 18:58
Dear Helen - thanks for your understanding and support. On the difficulty of getting past "we must be truthful" - I recall the story Fr Tom Hopko tells of a novice monk who was tasked (as all monks) with learning the Psalter by heart. When the Abbot called him in to evaluate his progress, the novice stated: "I read the first verse of the first psalm: 'Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners nor sits in the seat of scoffers" and I thought 'If I can't do that, then why go any further?'" I understand what you are saying and what you are feeling. Yes you are right that if this document is not followed in a spiritual sense, then nothing will be accomplished. I am hopeful that it will be followed and that is why it was developed. I hope that this will happen with the help of our Lord. By ourselves, nothing will be done -- like the monk above - but with the Lord all things are possible.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
In Christ, Deacon Peter
#11
Protodeacon Peter Danilchick
on
2006-08-07 19:15
Dear Fr Deacon John,
Thanks for your note. I will pass on your two suggestions to the OCA administration. The BP document is on the website -- but in a second link layer in the Report of the Acting Treasurer to the June MC meeting. Yes you are completely right on the Appeals. Any good fund-raising campaign needs to give immediate reports back to the contributors. That's standard.
Thanks for the words of support as well.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
Thanks for your note. I will pass on your two suggestions to the OCA administration. The BP document is on the website -- but in a second link layer in the Report of the Acting Treasurer to the June MC meeting. Yes you are completely right on the Appeals. Any good fund-raising campaign needs to give immediate reports back to the contributors. That's standard.
Thanks for the words of support as well.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
#12
Protodeacon Peter Danilchick
on
2006-08-07 19:22
Dear Nicole - thanks for your support and prayers. I need them! I could not agree with you more on the need for more publicity on what is going right in this whole issue. That is why I wrote the reflection. This was NOT done at the behest of His Beatitude or the Treasurer. But I will pass your recommendation for an OCA website posting to the administration.
Thanks again.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
Thanks again.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
#13
Protodeacon Peter Danilchick
on
2006-08-07 19:29
Wow! My last post on the last thread was pretty sour stuff. It is at least encouraging to see someone, anyone engaging anyone here. I'm sort of getting the feeling this is a steam vent and was going to resign from any further posting last nite.
I am an accountant. There are a couple of things I have especially noted about the church and how it failed and I will try to bring those back to the Best Practices document.
Budgets. Budgets are accepted by whom? I'm assuming a budget is brought forward by the administration and approved by the MC. If the MC doesn't approve of the budget, what are the remedies? Who can break a stalemate in the budget cycle? Could the Synod break a stalemate?
Broken governance. Humble priests can't really take on the administration. The MCs makeup is not independent enough with a 50/50 setup. This is not addressed by Best Practices.
Timeliness. You speak of timeliness, without a reference to what that means. Timeliness to me is quarterly reporting versus plan, yet I don't even know what the OCAs budget looks like and its 3rd quarter. This means timeliness by my definition isn't being met today. We haven't seen a Statement of Activities and an MC member asked to vote on a 1.7M proposal doesn't have last two year's compilation reports. This is beyond frustrating because it essentially invalidates your document for the learned. I've asked if we are rowing hard enough, but noone has told me and its 8/7.
Remedies. You don't speak to remedies. Many Best Practices documents won't or don't. This is the toughest part. If the administration didn't want to bother to report against the budget, what are the remedies? If the Metropolitan tells the Chief Administrator don't report the budget, who gets the ax? You have three governing bodies in the OCA. The Metropolitan Council is powerless against the Metropolitan. He is a chairman of it. In the OCA noone was accountable for anything. The Synod got a pass, the MC got a pass, and now everyone is looking for the Metropolitan's head. I have an idea on remedies. It is harsh, but it might be good. If the MC controlled fair share, it could withhold fair share if reporting stopped or was missed for two periods (or something like this). This would be a great internal control for the near term. Another remedy would be for the MC to appeal to the Synod. Would they respond? If the Synod approved of the failure, what would a remedy be for the MC? Could they write a letter to clergy and laity appealing the non-action by the Synod? In the public sector, remedial action for failing to provide a financial report is almost always termination, or losing the right to sell equity shares, or getting pushed into a poorer equity market.
The AAC. I read the document twice fast, but I don't have recall of the AACs impact on Best Practices. Perhaps it is by design they vote for the MC members who vote for changes to Best Practices, I guess this is sufficient, it should be so noted to avoid long discussions at the AAC.
The other thing the document doesn't do is provide language that flows with the times. The current times are bad. Bad times demand tough action. For the present period, more transparency is needed. Tougher controls. The document really needs a phase in period (WE AREN'T MEETING THE DOCUMENT AT ALL< NOT ONE BIT), an overphase period until the church behaves well, and a normal application period defined and accepted by the MC and Synod.
The committee could best help by establishing and getting the MC to report the above timeline. Goals met, goals not met.
Financial appeals to meet Best Practices. The committee could tell everyone what it will cost. Best Practices isn't free. A report on what Best Practices will cost.
I've spent countless hours on this site asking/venting for very objective results. I have tried endlessly to understand how our Bishops don't even know 5 years of running in the red. Until Tikhon posted they don't look at them much, nothing made any sense.
Communication. Communication is an imperative in the near term. A regular letter from administration. A monthly letter. Like the fireside chats.. It seems extreme, but it really isn't. A letter from the Metropolitan even updating on missing goals or meeting them would be great.
Openness about membership. The church really has a problem on this. Member churches report what they want to, what they can afford. The church needs to have multiple membership statuses. College/student, elderly, etc.
Today
Members 1 Fair Share $100
Tomorrow
Members
1 elderly Fair share $20
1 regular Fair share $100
1 student Fair share $30
1 student regular member Fair share $80 (for those able, this would cost the church $20)
Same church. More accurate representation of the faithful, better revenues, still fair. The Best Practices document needs to clarify membership practices, fair share revenue management, receipts, inflows, how to defer anticipated revenues from fair share when cash flows aren't timely, etc. This is different for the OCA than for the Red Cross because we are dues paying members.
The relationship between the Synod, the MC, and the administration as it pertains to budgets and financial statement reporting. The role of the Synod, I don't believe is addressed by the document. Do they provide a critical oversight? Can they act without the administration? The Congress can impeach a President. Could the MC carry forward a remedy to the Synod that the administration be removed?
These are some of my thoughts. The document loses credibility each day anything on it is missed. Not reporting the budget on the website or elsewhere for 8 months, instant credibility killer. The document needs tougher definition and a timeline and it needs to address clear governance problems, clear revenue concerns, the relationship/roles between three governing bodies, remedies, independence of the MC in financial matters. This can be managed by anonymous voting.
I spent two hours reading and working on this for you. Thanks for soliciting opinions.
Daniel Fall, Financial Analyst, spending each month explaining financial results, performance versus plan, etc.
I am an accountant. There are a couple of things I have especially noted about the church and how it failed and I will try to bring those back to the Best Practices document.
Budgets. Budgets are accepted by whom? I'm assuming a budget is brought forward by the administration and approved by the MC. If the MC doesn't approve of the budget, what are the remedies? Who can break a stalemate in the budget cycle? Could the Synod break a stalemate?
Broken governance. Humble priests can't really take on the administration. The MCs makeup is not independent enough with a 50/50 setup. This is not addressed by Best Practices.
Timeliness. You speak of timeliness, without a reference to what that means. Timeliness to me is quarterly reporting versus plan, yet I don't even know what the OCAs budget looks like and its 3rd quarter. This means timeliness by my definition isn't being met today. We haven't seen a Statement of Activities and an MC member asked to vote on a 1.7M proposal doesn't have last two year's compilation reports. This is beyond frustrating because it essentially invalidates your document for the learned. I've asked if we are rowing hard enough, but noone has told me and its 8/7.
Remedies. You don't speak to remedies. Many Best Practices documents won't or don't. This is the toughest part. If the administration didn't want to bother to report against the budget, what are the remedies? If the Metropolitan tells the Chief Administrator don't report the budget, who gets the ax? You have three governing bodies in the OCA. The Metropolitan Council is powerless against the Metropolitan. He is a chairman of it. In the OCA noone was accountable for anything. The Synod got a pass, the MC got a pass, and now everyone is looking for the Metropolitan's head. I have an idea on remedies. It is harsh, but it might be good. If the MC controlled fair share, it could withhold fair share if reporting stopped or was missed for two periods (or something like this). This would be a great internal control for the near term. Another remedy would be for the MC to appeal to the Synod. Would they respond? If the Synod approved of the failure, what would a remedy be for the MC? Could they write a letter to clergy and laity appealing the non-action by the Synod? In the public sector, remedial action for failing to provide a financial report is almost always termination, or losing the right to sell equity shares, or getting pushed into a poorer equity market.
The AAC. I read the document twice fast, but I don't have recall of the AACs impact on Best Practices. Perhaps it is by design they vote for the MC members who vote for changes to Best Practices, I guess this is sufficient, it should be so noted to avoid long discussions at the AAC.
The other thing the document doesn't do is provide language that flows with the times. The current times are bad. Bad times demand tough action. For the present period, more transparency is needed. Tougher controls. The document really needs a phase in period (WE AREN'T MEETING THE DOCUMENT AT ALL< NOT ONE BIT), an overphase period until the church behaves well, and a normal application period defined and accepted by the MC and Synod.
The committee could best help by establishing and getting the MC to report the above timeline. Goals met, goals not met.
Financial appeals to meet Best Practices. The committee could tell everyone what it will cost. Best Practices isn't free. A report on what Best Practices will cost.
I've spent countless hours on this site asking/venting for very objective results. I have tried endlessly to understand how our Bishops don't even know 5 years of running in the red. Until Tikhon posted they don't look at them much, nothing made any sense.
Communication. Communication is an imperative in the near term. A regular letter from administration. A monthly letter. Like the fireside chats.. It seems extreme, but it really isn't. A letter from the Metropolitan even updating on missing goals or meeting them would be great.
Openness about membership. The church really has a problem on this. Member churches report what they want to, what they can afford. The church needs to have multiple membership statuses. College/student, elderly, etc.
Today
Members 1 Fair Share $100
Tomorrow
Members
1 elderly Fair share $20
1 regular Fair share $100
1 student Fair share $30
1 student regular member Fair share $80 (for those able, this would cost the church $20)
Same church. More accurate representation of the faithful, better revenues, still fair. The Best Practices document needs to clarify membership practices, fair share revenue management, receipts, inflows, how to defer anticipated revenues from fair share when cash flows aren't timely, etc. This is different for the OCA than for the Red Cross because we are dues paying members.
The relationship between the Synod, the MC, and the administration as it pertains to budgets and financial statement reporting. The role of the Synod, I don't believe is addressed by the document. Do they provide a critical oversight? Can they act without the administration? The Congress can impeach a President. Could the MC carry forward a remedy to the Synod that the administration be removed?
These are some of my thoughts. The document loses credibility each day anything on it is missed. Not reporting the budget on the website or elsewhere for 8 months, instant credibility killer. The document needs tougher definition and a timeline and it needs to address clear governance problems, clear revenue concerns, the relationship/roles between three governing bodies, remedies, independence of the MC in financial matters. This can be managed by anonymous voting.
I spent two hours reading and working on this for you. Thanks for soliciting opinions.
Daniel Fall, Financial Analyst, spending each month explaining financial results, performance versus plan, etc.
#14
Daniel E. Fall
on
2006-08-07 19:42
Dear Subdeacon Martin - thanks for your response and suggestions. Here are some comments:
1. Agree. This is covered in the Ethics Policy section on governance in general and would be expected to be dealt with in more detail in any Metropolitan Council Process Manual.
2. Agree.
3 & 4. These are issues already dealt with in the Statute but are worthy of reasonable discussion by reasonable people.
Agree that demonstrated committment is to be expected - "by their fruits shall you know them". But you know that we will be disappointed sometimes - we aren't perfect and neither are others - even those in seats of responsibility. They need our encouragement when they falter, our correction when they fall short and our praise when they do well...
Thanks again.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
1. Agree. This is covered in the Ethics Policy section on governance in general and would be expected to be dealt with in more detail in any Metropolitan Council Process Manual.
2. Agree.
3 & 4. These are issues already dealt with in the Statute but are worthy of reasonable discussion by reasonable people.
Agree that demonstrated committment is to be expected - "by their fruits shall you know them". But you know that we will be disappointed sometimes - we aren't perfect and neither are others - even those in seats of responsibility. They need our encouragement when they falter, our correction when they fall short and our praise when they do well...
Thanks again.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
#15
Protodeacon Peter Danilchick
on
2006-08-07 19:54
If Protodeacon Peter's reflection represents the official position of the OCA, I think the most welcomed comment is that any non-profit organization "is accountable to donors and recipients of its services." What certainly has been reflected in the past several years in the OCA is an arrogant stance that in fact chancery or bishops answer to no one and the "leadership" neither values nor trusts the membership. So indeed it would be a welcomed change in our church that mutual respect between all members of the church on all levels be upheld. Accountability and mutual respect are the two sides of the same coin. Neither one can be positively enacted unless the other one is also accepted.
My other two comments probably can be better expressed by those experienced in administration and financial accountability. 1) Whatever "Best" practices we adopt, we should make sure we don't just adopt a partial set of practices in response to our current fiscal fiasco. Adopting a partial set of practices to deal only with known past mistakes or abuses is purely like putting fingers in the leaking dyke - a temporary solution at best that will not stop the floodgates from bursting. We need to accept in toto a well established system of financing and accounting, GAAP or whatever full set of practices are now considered proper for Non-profits. This may mean revamping our entire system of doing finances to confrom to a complete system. If we try to "patch" our current system by putting new pieces of "best practices" onto the old system, we will go against Gospel wisdom, "No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse" (Mark 2:21). We need new wineskins for the new wine of Best practices. We need to adopt an entire system, replacing all our old ways so that tears and leaks in the system don't occur. If we simply adopt "some" rules to deal only with past mistakes and abuses, we will open ourselves to new abuses. An entire new system of doing church finances needs to be adopted as the best way to address all types of financial wrong doing. We need to bring together the best minds we can on this issue to adopt the system we need to REPLACE not simply repair the old way of doing business.
2) To repeat what others have said, part of the new way of doing things must include having clear job descriptions for whatever positions the OCA is going to have in administration. Clear job descriptions and clear qualifications for candidates. No longer should such positions be part of some kind of priestly nepotism or crony-ism. This means there has to be a description of job hiring practices, who actually selects and hires the candidate, who can fire them, what their salary is, what if any system is to be in effect for raises. While the Metropolitan Council is probably charged with this, we know the impracticality and expense of trying to have such a "board" do the actual hiring or to take care of all personnel issues. So a clear system of posting jobs, doing interviews, and doing regular job evaluations must be established - with publicly available job descriptions and a publicized committee which handles these personnel issues. It should never happen that somebody gets hired for a position without the entire OCA being aware that there was a job vacancy. Job descriptions and qualifications and open hiring practices are a must.
My other two comments probably can be better expressed by those experienced in administration and financial accountability. 1) Whatever "Best" practices we adopt, we should make sure we don't just adopt a partial set of practices in response to our current fiscal fiasco. Adopting a partial set of practices to deal only with known past mistakes or abuses is purely like putting fingers in the leaking dyke - a temporary solution at best that will not stop the floodgates from bursting. We need to accept in toto a well established system of financing and accounting, GAAP or whatever full set of practices are now considered proper for Non-profits. This may mean revamping our entire system of doing finances to confrom to a complete system. If we try to "patch" our current system by putting new pieces of "best practices" onto the old system, we will go against Gospel wisdom, "No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse" (Mark 2:21). We need new wineskins for the new wine of Best practices. We need to adopt an entire system, replacing all our old ways so that tears and leaks in the system don't occur. If we simply adopt "some" rules to deal only with past mistakes and abuses, we will open ourselves to new abuses. An entire new system of doing church finances needs to be adopted as the best way to address all types of financial wrong doing. We need to bring together the best minds we can on this issue to adopt the system we need to REPLACE not simply repair the old way of doing business.
2) To repeat what others have said, part of the new way of doing things must include having clear job descriptions for whatever positions the OCA is going to have in administration. Clear job descriptions and clear qualifications for candidates. No longer should such positions be part of some kind of priestly nepotism or crony-ism. This means there has to be a description of job hiring practices, who actually selects and hires the candidate, who can fire them, what their salary is, what if any system is to be in effect for raises. While the Metropolitan Council is probably charged with this, we know the impracticality and expense of trying to have such a "board" do the actual hiring or to take care of all personnel issues. So a clear system of posting jobs, doing interviews, and doing regular job evaluations must be established - with publicly available job descriptions and a publicized committee which handles these personnel issues. It should never happen that somebody gets hired for a position without the entire OCA being aware that there was a job vacancy. Job descriptions and qualifications and open hiring practices are a must.
#16
Fr. Ted Bobosh
on
2006-08-07 21:29
Countless volunteers can (and no doubt will) spend hours honing a best practices policy out of love for the Church. However, these efforts will be in vain if questions about actual financial practices are dismissed by simply pointing to those guidelines. The truth is, once the policy is created, then the real work begins: insuring that it is followed.
The OCA's sexual misconduct policy is certainly a prime example of the large gap that can occur between setting guidelines and enforcing them. Initially, Pokrov reported the examples of noncompliance that we uncovered. However, it soon became clear that there was no one who had the authority who had the will to enforce the policy, and no one who had the will who had the authority. The sexual misconduct policy is simply words on paper.
Accordingly, in your efforts to develop "best practices," don't forget step two: enforcement. If you can't develop a viable plan for that, you might as well not waste volunteer effort on developing a policy.
Melanie Jula Sakoda
The OCA's sexual misconduct policy is certainly a prime example of the large gap that can occur between setting guidelines and enforcing them. Initially, Pokrov reported the examples of noncompliance that we uncovered. However, it soon became clear that there was no one who had the authority who had the will to enforce the policy, and no one who had the will who had the authority. The sexual misconduct policy is simply words on paper.
Accordingly, in your efforts to develop "best practices," don't forget step two: enforcement. If you can't develop a viable plan for that, you might as well not waste volunteer effort on developing a policy.
Melanie Jula Sakoda
One of the most effective means of transparency utilized by the Antiochian Archdiocese is the publishing of response to appeals by parish. This allows the parish to validate their contribution was received, and allows the donors to see the accountability for the gifts made.
Even small individual dontations are published. Sometimes they list the donor as "anonymous" -- perfectly acceptable.
Sdn. John Martin
Martin D. Watt, CPA (Inactive)
Even small individual dontations are published. Sometimes they list the donor as "anonymous" -- perfectly acceptable.
Sdn. John Martin
Martin D. Watt, CPA (Inactive)
#18
Marty Watt
on
2006-08-08 08:03
Dear Daniel - thanks for your comments and the time and effort that you've put into them. I'll try to respond to them in order and as frankly as I can.
1. Budgets - Yes the budget should be proposed by the administration and then accepted, modiifed or rejected by the MC. That's it. Remedies in case the decisions of the MC are ignored are entirely another issue. Hopefully in the Church this can be accomplished by mutual persuasion, respect and love. This is a subject for reasonable discussion between the MC and the Holy Synod (who has power of appointment upon recommendation by the MC according to the Statute).
2. Broken governance due to clergy lack of independence - I've asked separately in this comments section for responses by clergy and ask again right now on this question. I have never felt any lack of independence personally but understand that others may not feel the same.
3. Timelieness. The frequency of financial reporting is the responsibility of the MC and may vary according to the financial issues facing the church. Yes, absence of such "timely" reports is unacceptable and extremely frustrating.
4. Remedies - please see 1. above.
5. AAC - financial governance is a responsibility of the MC. However, the MC should give a report to the AAC demonstrating its performance in this regard, in my opinion.
6. Phase-in period. Agree that a transition is necessary. people need to have these processes become second-nature so that after a while they are a matter of course. The work will be uncomfortable certainly at the beginning but that is to be expected. We do need to encourage and support people who are really trying.
7. Communication. I could not agree more that more communication on programs, finances, effectiveness, etc is needed. Such guidance is in the BPs for not only the MC but also the people at large. We just have to do it. But that requires people, volunteers, time and, as you've mentioned, money. How much? - I really do not know and no one will know until the process is started.
8. MC/ Holy Synod relationship - This is a critical question. I think that the MC needs to be confident that it is fulfilling its governance responsibilities first. (If that is true today, then great. I have not heard that however.) Then the MC would be in a position to engage in a serious and reasonable discussion with the Holy Synod. The foundation of this discussion will not be processes or practices and any other "system" -- but rather a relationship of humble and spiritual love between people who love the church - bishops, clergy and laity. Thus I don't believe that we can address this issue through any document on paper -- it needs to be written upon hearts of flesh.
Thanks for your comments again. I had a Financial Analyst job such as yours in my early career and I know how frustrating not having the numbers and the proper analysis must be for you. It is for me as well.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
1. Budgets - Yes the budget should be proposed by the administration and then accepted, modiifed or rejected by the MC. That's it. Remedies in case the decisions of the MC are ignored are entirely another issue. Hopefully in the Church this can be accomplished by mutual persuasion, respect and love. This is a subject for reasonable discussion between the MC and the Holy Synod (who has power of appointment upon recommendation by the MC according to the Statute).
2. Broken governance due to clergy lack of independence - I've asked separately in this comments section for responses by clergy and ask again right now on this question. I have never felt any lack of independence personally but understand that others may not feel the same.
3. Timelieness. The frequency of financial reporting is the responsibility of the MC and may vary according to the financial issues facing the church. Yes, absence of such "timely" reports is unacceptable and extremely frustrating.
4. Remedies - please see 1. above.
5. AAC - financial governance is a responsibility of the MC. However, the MC should give a report to the AAC demonstrating its performance in this regard, in my opinion.
6. Phase-in period. Agree that a transition is necessary. people need to have these processes become second-nature so that after a while they are a matter of course. The work will be uncomfortable certainly at the beginning but that is to be expected. We do need to encourage and support people who are really trying.
7. Communication. I could not agree more that more communication on programs, finances, effectiveness, etc is needed. Such guidance is in the BPs for not only the MC but also the people at large. We just have to do it. But that requires people, volunteers, time and, as you've mentioned, money. How much? - I really do not know and no one will know until the process is started.
8. MC/ Holy Synod relationship - This is a critical question. I think that the MC needs to be confident that it is fulfilling its governance responsibilities first. (If that is true today, then great. I have not heard that however.) Then the MC would be in a position to engage in a serious and reasonable discussion with the Holy Synod. The foundation of this discussion will not be processes or practices and any other "system" -- but rather a relationship of humble and spiritual love between people who love the church - bishops, clergy and laity. Thus I don't believe that we can address this issue through any document on paper -- it needs to be written upon hearts of flesh.
Thanks for your comments again. I had a Financial Analyst job such as yours in my early career and I know how frustrating not having the numbers and the proper analysis must be for you. It is for me as well.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
#19
Protodeacon Peter Danilchick
on
2006-08-08 08:16
Dear Matt - thanks for your comment. I had not really thought of this before. You may be completely right that clergy are not independent but I hope not. I hope that priests/ deacons take their vocations seriously and are willing to "take up their cross" and do the right thing regardless of pressure from "higher-ups". But you do make a reasonable point despite my wishing that it were not so.
I would like to invite clergy reading this message to offer their comments on whether or not they feel they can be "independent."
Thanks again.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
I would like to invite clergy reading this message to offer their comments on whether or not they feel they can be "independent."
Thanks again.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
#20
Protodeacon Peter Danilchick
on
2006-08-08 08:20
Dear Fr Ted - thanks for your response. I don't speak for the OCA. I have no official capacity. But the Best Practices and the various policy documents in the reflection link have been adopted by the MC as working documents and will be further discussed and hopefully endorsed following review and any necessary modification at the September 2006 MC meeting. I am glad that you see accountability and mutual respect as being necessary.
On your specific comments,
1. The Best Practices were put together based upon the best thinking of numerous nonprofit coordinating organizations, state regulating bodies, CPA Institute, etc. The area of accounting controls is covered in the BPs and certainly would insist upon nonprofit GAAP being followed. That being said, appropriate followup would be necessary by the MC to ensure that these were in fact being implemented and complied with; hence, the need of annual certification and Representation Letter by the administration.
Any CPA volunteers out there who could help the administration implement these accounting policies/ practices/ software?
2. No debate on the need for job descriptions and proper personnel policies - that's a given in any well-run organization. Any human resources volunteers out there who could help the administration to do this?
Thanks again.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
On your specific comments,
1. The Best Practices were put together based upon the best thinking of numerous nonprofit coordinating organizations, state regulating bodies, CPA Institute, etc. The area of accounting controls is covered in the BPs and certainly would insist upon nonprofit GAAP being followed. That being said, appropriate followup would be necessary by the MC to ensure that these were in fact being implemented and complied with; hence, the need of annual certification and Representation Letter by the administration.
Any CPA volunteers out there who could help the administration implement these accounting policies/ practices/ software?
2. No debate on the need for job descriptions and proper personnel policies - that's a given in any well-run organization. Any human resources volunteers out there who could help the administration to do this?
Thanks again.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
#21
Protodeacon Peter Danilchick
on
2006-08-08 08:42
Dear Melanie - thanks for your comment and caution. Yes you are right that policies and practices are useless if they are not properly implemented and enforced. My former employer had a zero-tolerance policy regarding ethics policy violations. The words used are "violations of this policy will be met with disciplinary action, up to and including termination." They were very serious about this and anyone who stepped out of the ethical line (with the many policies on ethics, conflict of interest, harassment, anti-trust, et al) was indeed disciplined and many were terminated. In fact, the greatest degree of enforcement appeared to be at the higher levels - with executives being scrutinized very closely... and any terminations resulting in a very large financial penalty to them. These actions naturally led to a culture of "ethical compliance" from the day that a new employee began work until retirement.
The best enforcement policy is to enforce the policy. That means people need to be involved. And the people need to be strong and dedicated to the good of the organization and "let the chips fall where they may" regardless of who is involved.
This is an area that the MC needs to be very very clear about. The MC needs to review carefully the annual representation and compliance letters, results of audits, internal investigations by the Auditing committee, and any whistleblower reports, and be diligent about appropriate resolution.
Thanks again for your concern.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
The best enforcement policy is to enforce the policy. That means people need to be involved. And the people need to be strong and dedicated to the good of the organization and "let the chips fall where they may" regardless of who is involved.
This is an area that the MC needs to be very very clear about. The MC needs to review carefully the annual representation and compliance letters, results of audits, internal investigations by the Auditing committee, and any whistleblower reports, and be diligent about appropriate resolution.
Thanks again for your concern.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
#22
Protodeacon Peter Danilchick
on
2006-08-08 09:11
Dear Father Deacon: As one of the CPA's who regularly contributes to this forum, I will, as time permits, respond directly to you with my comments about Best Practices.
I recently undertook to re-read every single one of the documents and reflections posted on this forum. One of the earliest ones, way back in December, 2005, from Cyril, particularly stood out. A quote from it follows:
""...with all due humility, Syosset's response to this matter is not how innocent people act.""
How can it be good that what little information the faithful have learned in this matter is through the "side door"? We need open, honest answers to all our questions, not in 2010, but now.
I recently undertook to re-read every single one of the documents and reflections posted on this forum. One of the earliest ones, way back in December, 2005, from Cyril, particularly stood out. A quote from it follows:
""...with all due humility, Syosset's response to this matter is not how innocent people act.""
How can it be good that what little information the faithful have learned in this matter is through the "side door"? We need open, honest answers to all our questions, not in 2010, but now.
#23
Michael Strelka, CPA
on
2006-08-08 09:24
Can we inaugurate this new era of "Welcome Change" with a bit of information on the status of the $1.7 million dollar loan which was to close early in August? Will someone who is in the know offer a one or two sentence update as to where this loan currently stands on 08 August 2006. Is it dead, still in process, stalled, or is the loan closed? It shouldn't take but a few seconds on someones keyboard in Syosset to provide this information. This would be a much appreciated step in our march toward transparency.
"Patience is counseled while we wallow in ignorance"
"Patience is counseled while we wallow in ignorance"
#24
Andrew Wakuluk
on
2006-08-08 11:02
August 8, 2006
Brothers and Sisters:
While I applaud Protodeacon Peter's proposal and solicitation of feedback regarding standards, he's missing the point. THE FINANCIAL AND MORAL SCANDAL IN THE OCA, AND THE BEHAVIOR THAT GAVE RISE TO IT, DID NOT OCCUR BECAUSE NO LAWS, CANONS, OR GUIDELINES EXISTED REGARDING THE FINANCIAL BEHAVIOR OF THE CHURCH, A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION.
Federal and state laws spell out how to incorporate, financial reporting requirements, fiduciary duties, the obligations of agency, financial behavior of non-profits, etc. The canons, i.e. the Statutes of the OCA, as well as other canon law, spell out the organization of the Church and what individuals or bodies have what authority and responsibilities. "Best Practices" in accounting are something that even kids in a high school accounting courses are required to know.
The problems in the OCA did not result from a "lack of rules," but from lawless behavior exhibited by the past two metropolitans, as well as certain other members of the upper administration. All the laws, canons, and guidelines in the world will do absolutely no good if the leaders of this Church will not follow the laws, canons, and guidelines that have always existed, and if there is no way--legally and canonically, either to compel them to act legally or to remove them for their lawlessness.
Brothers and Sisters:
While I applaud Protodeacon Peter's proposal and solicitation of feedback regarding standards, he's missing the point. THE FINANCIAL AND MORAL SCANDAL IN THE OCA, AND THE BEHAVIOR THAT GAVE RISE TO IT, DID NOT OCCUR BECAUSE NO LAWS, CANONS, OR GUIDELINES EXISTED REGARDING THE FINANCIAL BEHAVIOR OF THE CHURCH, A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION.
Federal and state laws spell out how to incorporate, financial reporting requirements, fiduciary duties, the obligations of agency, financial behavior of non-profits, etc. The canons, i.e. the Statutes of the OCA, as well as other canon law, spell out the organization of the Church and what individuals or bodies have what authority and responsibilities. "Best Practices" in accounting are something that even kids in a high school accounting courses are required to know.
The problems in the OCA did not result from a "lack of rules," but from lawless behavior exhibited by the past two metropolitans, as well as certain other members of the upper administration. All the laws, canons, and guidelines in the world will do absolutely no good if the leaders of this Church will not follow the laws, canons, and guidelines that have always existed, and if there is no way--legally and canonically, either to compel them to act legally or to remove them for their lawlessness.
#25
Gregory Grant
on
2006-08-08 11:47
With all due respect, I think the most recent letter asking that money be sent to IOCC, and not Syosset, should set the standard for all future appeals (assuming the OCA survives this mess). This most recent letter from Metropolitan HERMAN correctly addresses the need to appeal. The money should go directly to the causes, with the OCA acting as an encourager. The suggestion of posting numbers hardly works. There is too much distrust, now. Those days are over, at least for a long, long time. On what basis should the faithful trust that the real numbers are posted???
Metropolitan HERMAN took an appropriate step in this last "appeal" letter. We should continue on that path. Perhaps, Dn. Peter, we could follow Dn. John's advice someday in the future, but I would stress "perhaps" and "future." For now, you'd just be setting yourself up for continued distrust by others. Stick with encouraging money to go directly to the sources (such as IOCC and the seminaries).
Besides, if I may, I think many will continue to starve the OCA financially (or at least current OCA administration and Synod) until honest and open repentance occurs. I can't prove this, of course, but I suspect it's already happening on a large scale. Going back to asking for appeal money will not help the situation. Trust me.
Metropolitan HERMAN took an appropriate step in this last "appeal" letter. We should continue on that path. Perhaps, Dn. Peter, we could follow Dn. John's advice someday in the future, but I would stress "perhaps" and "future." For now, you'd just be setting yourself up for continued distrust by others. Stick with encouraging money to go directly to the sources (such as IOCC and the seminaries).
Besides, if I may, I think many will continue to starve the OCA financially (or at least current OCA administration and Synod) until honest and open repentance occurs. I can't prove this, of course, but I suspect it's already happening on a large scale. Going back to asking for appeal money will not help the situation. Trust me.
#26
Fr. Oliver Herbel
on
2006-08-08 13:39
Dear Gregory - thank you for your comments. For the record, you will not find any statement or implication in my writings that, before the BPs were developed, "no canons, laws, guidelines.. existed for financial behavior in the OCA". It's obvious that they were available in the places (and more) that you mentioned - who could or would dispute that? In any event, there was seen the need (not by me) for development (or better, compilation) of a set of guidelines for financial accountability. There is nothing new here, nothing creative, merely a set of guidelines gathered together in one place - readily available to everyone in a position of responsibility - so that no one can say "I didn't know that." Is that "missing the point"? I guess it depends on what point you want to make.
BTW, financial "accountability" is quite a different concept from financial "accounting". The former has people as its subject while the latter has numbers.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
BTW, financial "accountability" is quite a different concept from financial "accounting". The former has people as its subject while the latter has numbers.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
#27
Protodeacon Peter Danilchick
on
2006-08-08 14:18
Dear Protodeacon Peter,
I want to thank you for engaging in fruitful correspondence. Thank God that you have taken the initiative to connect with the members of the Church concerning her welfare. Your willingness and ability to talk with people is going to have a tremendous impact, more than we know.
I would like to express one thought concerning the comments made below.
Subdeacon Martin said:
3. In order to properly describe the responsibilities involved, there must be a clear delineation between issues of faith and morals, which is the exclusive domain of the heirarchy, and issues of administration and management which are the responsibility of the MC.
And Protodeacon Peter's response:
3 & 4. These are issues already dealt with in the Statute but are worthy of reasonable discussion by reasonable people.
I understand and agree with what Marty is saying. But lets consider the following for a moment.
My thought: The Antiochian's find no impediments to have a layperson as chancellor of the Archdiocese. The Holy Synod of the OCA appoints the Chancellor, Secretary, Treasurer, and other officials upon recommendation by the Metropolitan Council. OCA Statutes do not require that these positions be held exclusively by ordained clerics. The Metropolitan Council can conceivably recommend only laypersons for these positions, if it so chooses. Pending clear job descriptions for these positions, I don't see such appointments being problematic. In light of this possible senario, I would like to offer for consideration a restatement of item #3
While there are unique functions and vocations relative to the hierarchy (I'm refering to all ordained) and the members of the MC not ordained, everyone is personally responsible for exercising faith and morals as administrators and managers. I strongly feel we need to avoid the job delineations which lead us into clergy vs. laity. Our faith and morals must be fully intergrated into our administration and management of affairs without the sense of detachment or threat between clergy and laity.
Furthermore, what is exclusive to the ordained clergy does not seperate them from us but rather unite them to us. In light of the Best Practice policies, I think future job descriptions for chancery staff and MC members should use language which unites us, and draws lines of interdependance among the various vocations and responsibilities envolving ordained and non ordained persons.
Once again, thank you.
In Christ, John Lickwar
I want to thank you for engaging in fruitful correspondence. Thank God that you have taken the initiative to connect with the members of the Church concerning her welfare. Your willingness and ability to talk with people is going to have a tremendous impact, more than we know.
I would like to express one thought concerning the comments made below.
Subdeacon Martin said:
3. In order to properly describe the responsibilities involved, there must be a clear delineation between issues of faith and morals, which is the exclusive domain of the heirarchy, and issues of administration and management which are the responsibility of the MC.
And Protodeacon Peter's response:
3 & 4. These are issues already dealt with in the Statute but are worthy of reasonable discussion by reasonable people.
I understand and agree with what Marty is saying. But lets consider the following for a moment.
My thought: The Antiochian's find no impediments to have a layperson as chancellor of the Archdiocese. The Holy Synod of the OCA appoints the Chancellor, Secretary, Treasurer, and other officials upon recommendation by the Metropolitan Council. OCA Statutes do not require that these positions be held exclusively by ordained clerics. The Metropolitan Council can conceivably recommend only laypersons for these positions, if it so chooses. Pending clear job descriptions for these positions, I don't see such appointments being problematic. In light of this possible senario, I would like to offer for consideration a restatement of item #3
While there are unique functions and vocations relative to the hierarchy (I'm refering to all ordained) and the members of the MC not ordained, everyone is personally responsible for exercising faith and morals as administrators and managers. I strongly feel we need to avoid the job delineations which lead us into clergy vs. laity. Our faith and morals must be fully intergrated into our administration and management of affairs without the sense of detachment or threat between clergy and laity.
Furthermore, what is exclusive to the ordained clergy does not seperate them from us but rather unite them to us. In light of the Best Practice policies, I think future job descriptions for chancery staff and MC members should use language which unites us, and draws lines of interdependance among the various vocations and responsibilities envolving ordained and non ordained persons.
Once again, thank you.
In Christ, John Lickwar
#28
Anonymous
on
2006-08-08 14:20
I have been reading through these discussions and must confess that I am probably the least qualified to make any comment. So if I may, I offer my comments as one of the faceless "faithful" with no corporate/mangerial/accounting experience. I began reading the "Best Practices" and was also unable to continue. What is happening, continuines to happen in the administration of our church's business is so completely contrary to "Best Practices," goodwill, or even common sense that it makes the document itself absurd. I am sorry to express the depth of my despair but here it is. I do not see any light at the end of the tunnel. I cringe at the thought of the loan. I want to support my local parish, BUT I do not want another dime of my money going to the central church. (I believe that that would mean changing jurisdictions?) I don't want Prokauer Rose to protect the corrupt. In the interest of justice, I want to see corruption exposed and the guilty punished--better in this life than is the next! I read the directives, the MC needs to do this, the MC needs to do that, but the Metropolitan holds all the power and calls all the shots. How is that going to change? All available evidence leads one to conclude he is NOT in favor of best practices but rather the same old business as usual. The MC is being led over the cliff blind-folded. Maybe that analogy is too benign. The unanswered questions coupled with the threat of legal liability makes me think they are blind-folded and then thrown from the cliff. I am sorry for the ranting, but maybe someone would like to know how betrayed the "little guy" feels in all of this. May God be merciful to us. May all of us repent of the sins, public or private, that belie our profession of faith.
#29
Juliana Dimich
on
2006-08-08 14:33
Priests have been disciplined for asking difficult questions. John Kozey was marginalized for asking difficult questions. Protodeacon Eric has been called "irresponsible" for asking difficult questions. The Metropolitan accuses people asking difficult questions on the Internet of advocating a "by the people for the people" ideology for the church, questioning their orthodoxy.
In organizations that take ethics guidelines seriously, enforcement is a 360 degree process --- managers, peers and subordinates each have a place in the process. Subordinates, especially, have to be allowed the freedom to make the audit committee aware of situatons that make them uncomfortable without suffering adverse comment. Little comfort is derived from the OCA's history on this point; especially when even simple requests for information are met with refusal in recent memory.
Fr. Peter's love for the Church is evident, and his desire to find a way for the OCA out from being "waist deep in the big muddy" is a function of that love. But even his efforts have gotten him tarred with a deliberate mis-spelling of his former employer as "Exxon/Enron." This history of attacks upon questioners and withholding of information would leave make even the least cynical of us somewhat incredulous.
If there is a desire to get on a better foot, one good start is for unqualified apologies (and "rehabilitation," if you will) to be issued by the OCA to the people who have raised questions. Another good thing would be for John Kozey to be reinstated as Chairman of the Audit Committee, with Fr. Eric Wheeler and Gregg Nescott as the other members. (Such an audit committee would be an instant credibility boost.)
Convening the AAC earlier rather than later would be a good step. No need for a fancy, expensive venue, a college during summer break would do nicely, as this should be a working, deliberative session.
It does seem that the engagement of Proskauer Rose by His Beatitude, acting alone, may well be ultra vires. A good way to partially cure that would be for the reports to be made to the Metropolitan Council, as opposed to the Metropolitan personally. A reinvigorated Metropolitan Council may be a good thing, but more important than that is a desire of the Metropolitan and the Holy Synod to take it seriously (rather than treat it as the unwanted detritus from when North America was the a single diocese).
In all of this, the thing that is most frustrating is that these things have to be said at all. (It's one reason I have not posted much of late.) All of this has the flavor of someone trying to convince Flat Earth adherents of the wrongness of their hypothesis. That such effort has to be done to institute procedures of an elementary nature generates concern.
In organizations that take ethics guidelines seriously, enforcement is a 360 degree process --- managers, peers and subordinates each have a place in the process. Subordinates, especially, have to be allowed the freedom to make the audit committee aware of situatons that make them uncomfortable without suffering adverse comment. Little comfort is derived from the OCA's history on this point; especially when even simple requests for information are met with refusal in recent memory.
Fr. Peter's love for the Church is evident, and his desire to find a way for the OCA out from being "waist deep in the big muddy" is a function of that love. But even his efforts have gotten him tarred with a deliberate mis-spelling of his former employer as "Exxon/Enron." This history of attacks upon questioners and withholding of information would leave make even the least cynical of us somewhat incredulous.
If there is a desire to get on a better foot, one good start is for unqualified apologies (and "rehabilitation," if you will) to be issued by the OCA to the people who have raised questions. Another good thing would be for John Kozey to be reinstated as Chairman of the Audit Committee, with Fr. Eric Wheeler and Gregg Nescott as the other members. (Such an audit committee would be an instant credibility boost.)
Convening the AAC earlier rather than later would be a good step. No need for a fancy, expensive venue, a college during summer break would do nicely, as this should be a working, deliberative session.
It does seem that the engagement of Proskauer Rose by His Beatitude, acting alone, may well be ultra vires. A good way to partially cure that would be for the reports to be made to the Metropolitan Council, as opposed to the Metropolitan personally. A reinvigorated Metropolitan Council may be a good thing, but more important than that is a desire of the Metropolitan and the Holy Synod to take it seriously (rather than treat it as the unwanted detritus from when North America was the a single diocese).
In all of this, the thing that is most frustrating is that these things have to be said at all. (It's one reason I have not posted much of late.) All of this has the flavor of someone trying to convince Flat Earth adherents of the wrongness of their hypothesis. That such effort has to be done to institute procedures of an elementary nature generates concern.
#30
Edmund Unneland
on
2006-08-08 14:52
Deacon Peter,
If you will, please, can you give us a status report on the implementation of BP and whether the 2006 budget will be made public before the year is over?
Also, can you be more specific about an implementation timetable for BP? Clearly it isn't being met today.
Can you also provide greater definition for what is meant by timely reporting? Timely reporting to an administration that has failed to report for 5 years might be annual, but that is clearly insufficient ito the recent problems, imo.
I believe your answers an BP glossed over any specific details. The church should not get a blank check on some of these details or they will probably fault on the lesser side.
This is a critical issue. Credibility restoration isn't done with an annual audit, and annual audits aren't timely enough. Why?
If I decide the OCA needs to prove itself with 3 periods of meeting BP, and timeliness is defined as annual, you will wait 3 years before I decide to contribute to any appeal. If the OCA meets BP and disclosure v. plan is reported for say 6 quarters, I might decide 6 quarters of meeting BP means the church is on track and worthy of receiving my appeals.
I believe the people are very giving, but they aren't dumb. Mismanagement today doesn't stop tomorrow.
Further, the last paragraph of your response to me was, well, a bit strange. Doesn't the church have a budget it can put in the OCA newsletter? Are they ashamed of it, or wasn't one done? I don't understand why the MC wouldn't get financial statements to help them make an informed decision on the loan. I believe it was appropriate for all the NO votes on the loan for this reason. At the same time, I want the church to succeed and borrow if it must.
Thanks, sorry, but I won't let you off the hook on a couple of these.
Eight months to produce a budget for the year 8 months gone; unacceptable by any measure.
When does BP go into force?
If you will, please, can you give us a status report on the implementation of BP and whether the 2006 budget will be made public before the year is over?
Also, can you be more specific about an implementation timetable for BP? Clearly it isn't being met today.
Can you also provide greater definition for what is meant by timely reporting? Timely reporting to an administration that has failed to report for 5 years might be annual, but that is clearly insufficient ito the recent problems, imo.
I believe your answers an BP glossed over any specific details. The church should not get a blank check on some of these details or they will probably fault on the lesser side.
This is a critical issue. Credibility restoration isn't done with an annual audit, and annual audits aren't timely enough. Why?
If I decide the OCA needs to prove itself with 3 periods of meeting BP, and timeliness is defined as annual, you will wait 3 years before I decide to contribute to any appeal. If the OCA meets BP and disclosure v. plan is reported for say 6 quarters, I might decide 6 quarters of meeting BP means the church is on track and worthy of receiving my appeals.
I believe the people are very giving, but they aren't dumb. Mismanagement today doesn't stop tomorrow.
Further, the last paragraph of your response to me was, well, a bit strange. Doesn't the church have a budget it can put in the OCA newsletter? Are they ashamed of it, or wasn't one done? I don't understand why the MC wouldn't get financial statements to help them make an informed decision on the loan. I believe it was appropriate for all the NO votes on the loan for this reason. At the same time, I want the church to succeed and borrow if it must.
Thanks, sorry, but I won't let you off the hook on a couple of these.
Eight months to produce a budget for the year 8 months gone; unacceptable by any measure.
When does BP go into force?
#31
Daniel E. Fall
on
2006-08-08 17:28
This comment by Gregory Grant certainly hits the nail on the head. I get the feeling that the Best Practice issue is just a lot of smoke. Address the real problem, OCA.
Thanks Gregory for your input.
Alex
Thanks Gregory for your input.
Alex
#32
Alex
on
2006-08-08 17:34
Some Comments and a Question:
When it comes to maintaining its health, the OCA has the bad habit of applying bandages when major surgery is required.
When in pain, one is thankful for even the smallest relief. So Best Practices and a Protodeacon open to discussion are certainly a “welcome change.” But compared to the major surgery that is now required, Best Practices is a band aid. Introduced into an infected body, the Best Practices pill will be devoured and spit out by those leaders who have preferred to live by the worst of practices. Major surgery is required to remove this infection.
Under our current leadership, we can write fail-safe procedures, but we can only have a dim hope that they’ll be followed. Our Primate is not leading us to a cure. He is being shoved -- kicking and screaming--to the hospital. The same is true for his fellow bishops, administrators and Metropolitan Council, every one of which has abdicated their responsibilities. Last year, they proclaimed the OCA healthy, even though they knew it was very sick. “Put away the scalpels and let the patient get back to work,” they proclaimed. Every one of them went along with the lie, and for this alone, they should have resigned long ago.
Ten months later, the obfuscation continues unabated. Good rules for good order already exist, but they are brushed away by our leaders. People asking for information are ignored or led through a maze. Several of our brethren remain silenced for offering the same advice for which the Church is now paying tens of thousands of dollars. Information about important steps toward healing is hidden. The hearts of our leaders are harder today than when this started, and the chances of finding softer hearts in the pool of successors is slight. And yet it is these same leaders who we allow to control the investigation into their own misbehavior. Those who have so willingly blessed the worst practices will now decide what the Best Practices should be.
So what is the source of the sickness and where must the surgery begin? We must face the reality that to its detriment, the OCA has never been organized along the lines of classical Orthodox conciliarity. Cut this out! We have failed the task of producing qualified leaders for ourselves. Cut this out! Our leaders were raised and nurtured in parishes where getting around the teaching and rules was a sport; where much of Church life was lived outside of submission to Christ. Is it any wonder that playing fast and loose with the Church’s ways became a leadership style? Cut this out! Such atrocious conditions still continue unchallenged in many parishes where our future leaders are observing and learning. Cut this out! Our leaders are being imposed on the Church, not elected by the Church. Cut this out! The secular notion that it is un-pastoral or un-Christian to correct another or expect accountability or respect for high standards has taken root among us. Cut this out! The only OCA departments that have full-time heads with full-time pay are concerned with generating money, not with charity, education, evangelization, communications or any such truly Christian necessities. Please, cut this out! This major surgery could get the OCA out of the ICU and instill some confidence that Best Practices would actually be practiced in the best ways.
None of this suggests that Best Practices is not needed. So along with gratitude for your efforts, and those of your team, dear Protodeacon Peter, I have one question to ask you: When Best Practices has been reviewed, edited and finally put in place, what specific provision will there be to deal with the leader who will arbitrarily say, "That's nice, but I choose to ignore it...for the good of the Church." When the clergy run for cover and the laymen just shake their heads, what will be the specific. built-in response that will prevent another trip to the emergency room?
Until the body is healed, I remain,
Baba Lou
When it comes to maintaining its health, the OCA has the bad habit of applying bandages when major surgery is required.
When in pain, one is thankful for even the smallest relief. So Best Practices and a Protodeacon open to discussion are certainly a “welcome change.” But compared to the major surgery that is now required, Best Practices is a band aid. Introduced into an infected body, the Best Practices pill will be devoured and spit out by those leaders who have preferred to live by the worst of practices. Major surgery is required to remove this infection.
Under our current leadership, we can write fail-safe procedures, but we can only have a dim hope that they’ll be followed. Our Primate is not leading us to a cure. He is being shoved -- kicking and screaming--to the hospital. The same is true for his fellow bishops, administrators and Metropolitan Council, every one of which has abdicated their responsibilities. Last year, they proclaimed the OCA healthy, even though they knew it was very sick. “Put away the scalpels and let the patient get back to work,” they proclaimed. Every one of them went along with the lie, and for this alone, they should have resigned long ago.
Ten months later, the obfuscation continues unabated. Good rules for good order already exist, but they are brushed away by our leaders. People asking for information are ignored or led through a maze. Several of our brethren remain silenced for offering the same advice for which the Church is now paying tens of thousands of dollars. Information about important steps toward healing is hidden. The hearts of our leaders are harder today than when this started, and the chances of finding softer hearts in the pool of successors is slight. And yet it is these same leaders who we allow to control the investigation into their own misbehavior. Those who have so willingly blessed the worst practices will now decide what the Best Practices should be.
So what is the source of the sickness and where must the surgery begin? We must face the reality that to its detriment, the OCA has never been organized along the lines of classical Orthodox conciliarity. Cut this out! We have failed the task of producing qualified leaders for ourselves. Cut this out! Our leaders were raised and nurtured in parishes where getting around the teaching and rules was a sport; where much of Church life was lived outside of submission to Christ. Is it any wonder that playing fast and loose with the Church’s ways became a leadership style? Cut this out! Such atrocious conditions still continue unchallenged in many parishes where our future leaders are observing and learning. Cut this out! Our leaders are being imposed on the Church, not elected by the Church. Cut this out! The secular notion that it is un-pastoral or un-Christian to correct another or expect accountability or respect for high standards has taken root among us. Cut this out! The only OCA departments that have full-time heads with full-time pay are concerned with generating money, not with charity, education, evangelization, communications or any such truly Christian necessities. Please, cut this out! This major surgery could get the OCA out of the ICU and instill some confidence that Best Practices would actually be practiced in the best ways.
None of this suggests that Best Practices is not needed. So along with gratitude for your efforts, and those of your team, dear Protodeacon Peter, I have one question to ask you: When Best Practices has been reviewed, edited and finally put in place, what specific provision will there be to deal with the leader who will arbitrarily say, "That's nice, but I choose to ignore it...for the good of the Church." When the clergy run for cover and the laymen just shake their heads, what will be the specific. built-in response that will prevent another trip to the emergency room?
Until the body is healed, I remain,
Baba Lou
#33
Baba Lou
on
2006-08-08 18:31
Dear Alex:
I don't think Protodeacon Peter's project is a smokescreen. Rather, he's accepted a part of the puzzle, and in some ways the more palatable part: building the future. Since that's his project, that's where his focus needs to be and I'm sure he's up to it and his heart is good. However, it's only part of the puzzle. He's the process guy, whereas a lot of us are equally or more concerned with personnel. Both are important to make things work for the OCA. Good people without good processes would be blind people in a dark basement at midnight feeling around for a black cat that isn't there. Good processes without good people to ensure they're followed would be...well...in my opinion, it's kind of what we have now. However, both are necessary.
Greg
I don't think Protodeacon Peter's project is a smokescreen. Rather, he's accepted a part of the puzzle, and in some ways the more palatable part: building the future. Since that's his project, that's where his focus needs to be and I'm sure he's up to it and his heart is good. However, it's only part of the puzzle. He's the process guy, whereas a lot of us are equally or more concerned with personnel. Both are important to make things work for the OCA. Good people without good processes would be blind people in a dark basement at midnight feeling around for a black cat that isn't there. Good processes without good people to ensure they're followed would be...well...in my opinion, it's kind of what we have now. However, both are necessary.
Greg
#34
Gregory Grant
on
2006-08-08 23:25
"Convening the AAC earlier rather than later would be a good step. No need for a fancy, expensive venue, a college during summer break would do nicely, as this should be a working, deliberative session."
My wife works for Stanford. She is involved in the hosting of summer conferences. The Dept of Religious Life would have to sponsor us though, and they want more info about us and our meeting. But it hasn't gone any further than her asking if they can accomodate us and them saying yes. The person or persons planning the next AAC can contact her at: ckarnes at stanford dot edu
My wife works for Stanford. She is involved in the hosting of summer conferences. The Dept of Religious Life would have to sponsor us though, and they want more info about us and our meeting. But it hasn't gone any further than her asking if they can accomodate us and them saying yes. The person or persons planning the next AAC can contact her at: ckarnes at stanford dot edu
#35
Matt Karnes
on
2006-08-09 00:28
I apologize for being blunt but much of this latest talk about Best Practices appears to be more smoke blowing. Nobody needs to discuss, plan, or meditate on further suggestions on how to implement Best Practices. We were told they were already in place and being followed immediately late last year. Sorry, but it hasn't been done and continues to not be done. The financial inflows and outflows, debts, status of various internal investigations and audits, results of this year's Appeals, official status on the loan, etc. etc. etc. remain hidden not just from the public at large, but apparently from the MC as well. OCA statutes are openly disregarded at will. Stop talking Best Practices and start doing Best Practices.
#36
Richard Mason
on
2006-08-09 06:17
Dear Daniel - thanks for the comments and "not letting me off the hook." Let me tell you first what I know and then what I don't know.
1. What I know: You'll recall the status of the BPs at the end of the June 2006 MC meeting as documented on the OCA website news: " A motion was passed by council members 'to adopt the presented draft practices/policy documents as and that they be implemented immediately. Further, the implementation of the draft document will be reviewed by the Metropolitan Council at its 2006 fall meeting, which will also examine, revise, and adopt the final documents.'”
The BP committee is presently working on two activities: (a) appropriate modifications of the BP working documents/ policies (e.g., inclusion of donor bill of rights) and (b) definition of needed administrative / accounting changes to implement the BPs. These include but are not limited to: job descriptions/ process mapping; financial reporting frequency and level of detail; approval authority matrix; documentation requirements; data access control; software/ hardware solutions, etc. (Note that the latter area refers to "definition of changes"; actually developing all these items is a huge amount of work.)
The results of the above two activities are to be presented to the MC at their end September 2006 meeting (with drafts for them to review sent to them ahead of time so that they are prepared to make decisions at the meeting). The MC will then decide to adopt, revise, or reject the BPs and Policies. In addition, they will review the implementation plan definition and decide whether to go ahead with that or not -- and hopefully have access to volunteers to actually carry out the work.
2. What I don't know: the status of the 2006 budget and the timelieness and frequency of financial reporting that is desired by the MC. On the latter, I would certainly recommend quarterly reporting.
I do note the MC statement on the OCA website which stated:"We are taking the necessary and difficult steps to have a balanced budget" and further the statement of the Acting Treasurer during the June MC meeting:"Assuming that the loan is finalized as anticipated and all funds as identified in the commitment letter are restored, disclosure of financial information available at that time—in conformity with 'Best Practices' and the most current federal legislation governing financial disclosure by religious and other not-for-profit organizations—will be made public." That's all I know.
3. A last note: the Metropolitan Council is representative of both the overall OCA (the AAC-elected members) and the Dioceses (one clergy, one laity). Why doesn't everyone who wants to see something positive happening at the upcoming September MC meeting send an e-mail to their Diocesan representatives and the AAC-elected members and let them know what you want them to do? I am sure they would welcome suggestions and especially words of encouragement and support. The e-mail addresses I think are available on either this or the OCA website.
4. Daniel - appreciate it if you'd kindly let me "off the hook". This is all I know.
Seriously, thanks for your concern and the time you took to offer your comments.
in Christ, Deacon Peter
1. What I know: You'll recall the status of the BPs at the end of the June 2006 MC meeting as documented on the OCA website news: " A motion was passed by council members 'to adopt the presented draft practices/policy documents as and that they be implemented immediately. Further, the implementation of the draft document will be reviewed by the Metropolitan Council at its 2006 fall meeting, which will also examine, revise, and adopt the final documents.'”
The BP committee is presently working on two activities: (a) appropriate modifications of the BP working documents/ policies (e.g., inclusion of donor bill of rights) and (b) definition of needed administrative / accounting changes to implement the BPs. These include but are not limited to: job descriptions/ process mapping; financial reporting frequency and level of detail; approval authority matrix; documentation requirements; data access control; software/ hardware solutions, etc. (Note that the latter area refers to "definition of changes"; actually developing all these items is a huge amount of work.)
The results of the above two activities are to be presented to the MC at their end September 2006 meeting (with drafts for them to review sent to them ahead of time so that they are prepared to make decisions at the meeting). The MC will then decide to adopt, revise, or reject the BPs and Policies. In addition, they will review the implementation plan definition and decide whether to go ahead with that or not -- and hopefully have access to volunteers to actually carry out the work.
2. What I don't know: the status of the 2006 budget and the timelieness and frequency of financial reporting that is desired by the MC. On the latter, I would certainly recommend quarterly reporting.
I do note the MC statement on the OCA website which stated:"We are taking the necessary and difficult steps to have a balanced budget" and further the statement of the Acting Treasurer during the June MC meeting:"Assuming that the loan is finalized as anticipated and all funds as identified in the commitment letter are restored, disclosure of financial information available at that time—in conformity with 'Best Practices' and the most current federal legislation governing financial disclosure by religious and other not-for-profit organizations—will be made public." That's all I know.
3. A last note: the Metropolitan Council is representative of both the overall OCA (the AAC-elected members) and the Dioceses (one clergy, one laity). Why doesn't everyone who wants to see something positive happening at the upcoming September MC meeting send an e-mail to their Diocesan representatives and the AAC-elected members and let them know what you want them to do? I am sure they would welcome suggestions and especially words of encouragement and support. The e-mail addresses I think are available on either this or the OCA website.
4. Daniel - appreciate it if you'd kindly let me "off the hook". This is all I know.
Seriously, thanks for your concern and the time you took to offer your comments.
in Christ, Deacon Peter
#37
Protodeacon Peter Danilchick
on
2006-08-09 07:14
Dear Richard - thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, you received the wrong impression late last year that best practices were already in place - they weren't. The process for adopting these practices was only initiated then - as reported on January 20, 2006 in the OCA website report on the Lesser Synod meeting: "His Beatitude has further initiated the process of adopting 'Best Practices' procedures in administration, and administrative practices established by other similar not-for-profit religious institutions, and the Lesser Synod fully endorsed these measures."
I don't smoke and I'm not in the habit of blowing smoke. However, I understand your frustration. Unfortunately, I don't have any good news for you other than there are people (count me as one of them) who are working hard to make things better. What I would ask you and others to do is - please don't kill our motivation. It's frankly hard enough to keep going as it is.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
I don't smoke and I'm not in the habit of blowing smoke. However, I understand your frustration. Unfortunately, I don't have any good news for you other than there are people (count me as one of them) who are working hard to make things better. What I would ask you and others to do is - please don't kill our motivation. It's frankly hard enough to keep going as it is.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
#38
Protodeacon Peter Danilchick
on
2006-08-09 07:29
Dear Baba Lou - this is an excellent question - thank you for it. I have been asked the same question by many people. Do I have an answer? Only a poor one and not one that people will like perhaps. I've started and stopped writing this "answer" a dozen times. I think that many of the reflections written by the clergy on this website give much greater insight that I can give. But here goes anyway...
I think that, before we get to the point which you describe, we all - bishops, clergy and laity - need to stand together before Christ on the Cross and remind ourselves of what we have been placed on this earth for. We need to be quiet before the Cross, and be open to our Lord as the Suffering Servant, the King of Glory and the One who said "when I am lifted up, I will draw all men to myself". We need to be His servants and one another's servants. We need to "maintain the unity of faith in the bond of peace" and to "speak the truth in love" as St Paul tells us. We need to lay the foundation for speaking openly and with mutual trust and respect and love so that we never get to the point which you have described. We need to pray for one another, to support and encourage one another.
We need to seek out and affirm the good, wherever and in whomever we see it. We need to expose the wrongs and the evil "works of darkness" wherever they lie. We need to do this together. We need to rebuild a spirit of holy community among the bishops, clergy and laity.
I do believe that, if we ever get to the point which you describe, the only thing for us to do is to throw ourselves totally on the mercy of our Lord. But I can well imagine that all He will show to us at that point is His Cross.
I apologize for this poor and inadequate answer but it's the best that I could do.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
I think that, before we get to the point which you describe, we all - bishops, clergy and laity - need to stand together before Christ on the Cross and remind ourselves of what we have been placed on this earth for. We need to be quiet before the Cross, and be open to our Lord as the Suffering Servant, the King of Glory and the One who said "when I am lifted up, I will draw all men to myself". We need to be His servants and one another's servants. We need to "maintain the unity of faith in the bond of peace" and to "speak the truth in love" as St Paul tells us. We need to lay the foundation for speaking openly and with mutual trust and respect and love so that we never get to the point which you have described. We need to pray for one another, to support and encourage one another.
We need to seek out and affirm the good, wherever and in whomever we see it. We need to expose the wrongs and the evil "works of darkness" wherever they lie. We need to do this together. We need to rebuild a spirit of holy community among the bishops, clergy and laity.
I do believe that, if we ever get to the point which you describe, the only thing for us to do is to throw ourselves totally on the mercy of our Lord. But I can well imagine that all He will show to us at that point is His Cross.
I apologize for this poor and inadequate answer but it's the best that I could do.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
#39
Anonymous
on
2006-08-09 08:15
Dear John - thank you for your comments and kind words. I completely agree with your restatement of point #3. For our readers' reference, following are links to Fr Alexander Schememann's articles on this subject:
http://www.schmemann.org/byhim/clergyandlaityinthechurch.html
http://www.schmemann.org/byhim/churchhierarchal.html
As Mark stated in the editorial on my reflection, "We are all in this together, and we will need all our wisdom to see our way out, together."
Thanks again.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
http://www.schmemann.org/byhim/clergyandlaityinthechurch.html
http://www.schmemann.org/byhim/churchhierarchal.html
As Mark stated in the editorial on my reflection, "We are all in this together, and we will need all our wisdom to see our way out, together."
Thanks again.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
#40
Protodeacon Peter Danilchick
on
2006-08-09 09:36
How about having it St. Tikhon's? It could be like a Memorial Day. Have the meeting in the pavillion. Lunch could be hot dogs and hamburgers sold by parishes like at Memorial Day. Bishops and ranking guests can stay in the dorm. Everybody else camps or gets a motel room on their own, or stays at home if they live close enough.
#41
Peter McElvein
on
2006-08-09 12:51
Dear Deacon Peter,
I have two words for you: thank you.
Remembering Pascha... John
I have two words for you: thank you.
Remembering Pascha... John
#42
John Czukkermann
on
2006-08-09 13:37
Thanks for the reply, Dcn. Peter. Here is the statement made by Metropolitant Herman and released on 11/17/2005:
“Today’s treasurer’s report included the fact that we presently face a significant indebtedness that cannot be ignored,” Metropolitan Herman continued. “This matter was also discussed at the recent meeting of the Holy Synod. In acknowledging that this issue must be addressed forthrightly and accountably and, with the full consensus and support of the Metropolitan Council, I have asked Father Paul Kucynda, as acting treasurer, to arrange for a full and complete independent audit of our financial records. Also, beginning January 1, 2006, the Chancery of The Orthodox Church in America will employ ‘Best Practices’ for non-profit organizations. I believe that this decision will serve us well in both the present and the future.”
It's very easy to see that many thought BP were to be implemented on Jan. 1st when that's exactly what was said.
Also, Fr. Paul Kucynda stated "Assuming that the loan is finalized as anticipated and all funds as identified in the commitment letter are restored, disclosure of financial information available at that time—in conformity with 'Best Practices' and the most current federal legislation governing financial disclosure by religious and other not-for-profit organizations—will be made public."
Given that the closing date of the loan has come and gone and no additional financial information has been disclosed, can you verify or deny a rumor that the loan has, in fact, been rejected?
It's honestly not the intention of anyone to kill your motivation, Deacon Peter. Someone's obviously given you a tough and perhaps thankless task. But as much as this is killing your motivation, it's killing the motivation of multitudes of faithful seeing that one thing is said during this time of crisis, it's not acted upon, and then either no communication or ambiguous communication is provided by our leadership. That's an extreme motivation killer, among other things.
“Today’s treasurer’s report included the fact that we presently face a significant indebtedness that cannot be ignored,” Metropolitan Herman continued. “This matter was also discussed at the recent meeting of the Holy Synod. In acknowledging that this issue must be addressed forthrightly and accountably and, with the full consensus and support of the Metropolitan Council, I have asked Father Paul Kucynda, as acting treasurer, to arrange for a full and complete independent audit of our financial records. Also, beginning January 1, 2006, the Chancery of The Orthodox Church in America will employ ‘Best Practices’ for non-profit organizations. I believe that this decision will serve us well in both the present and the future.”
It's very easy to see that many thought BP were to be implemented on Jan. 1st when that's exactly what was said.
Also, Fr. Paul Kucynda stated "Assuming that the loan is finalized as anticipated and all funds as identified in the commitment letter are restored, disclosure of financial information available at that time—in conformity with 'Best Practices' and the most current federal legislation governing financial disclosure by religious and other not-for-profit organizations—will be made public."
Given that the closing date of the loan has come and gone and no additional financial information has been disclosed, can you verify or deny a rumor that the loan has, in fact, been rejected?
It's honestly not the intention of anyone to kill your motivation, Deacon Peter. Someone's obviously given you a tough and perhaps thankless task. But as much as this is killing your motivation, it's killing the motivation of multitudes of faithful seeing that one thing is said during this time of crisis, it's not acted upon, and then either no communication or ambiguous communication is provided by our leadership. That's an extreme motivation killer, among other things.
#43
Richard Mason
on
2006-08-09 16:05
Deacon Peter,
Thanks a bunch for posting back and I will let you off the hook with your help and clarifications. Maybe I needed to be on the hook a bit more as apparently I've misread some things. You did mention communication hasn't been grand. I, as others, did not understand how...
"His Beatitude has further initiated the process of adopting 'Best Practices' procedures in administration, and administrative practices established by other similar not-for-profit religious institutions, and the Lesser Synod fully endorsed these measures."
... in January didn't equal 2006 budget disclosure and/or quarterly reporting through 8/8/06.
I've been involved in cleaning up financial messes, and it isn't easy to sort them out and it can take months.
I do know that the OCA could have released a 2006 operating budget already, net of extraordinary items. By not doing so, it really has weakened the credibility of the above statement. It has put clergy and laity and voting MC members in an awkward position of believing the administration wants secrecy and every day it doesn't happen the OCA will get further and deeper in the red as people wait for performance.
I must add that BP does not address all the issues. The relationship between governing bodies is clearly not correct. Somewhere between the Synod, the MC, and the administration; things really collapsed. If the termination of Fr. Kondratick was warranted, it wasn't done by the appropriate body and it is clear by the statements of many that it would not have happened. The governance didn't work if it was unwarranted. Talk about the devil and the deep blue sea. The other governance failure is that noone had a clue about the finances. The tradeoff is that now all of us must know.
BP doesn't address income sources and their accounting either. The church has been, shall I say, blockheaded about this for years. Get good numbers and establish good practices for accounting for fair share.
Another thing BP doesn't address is the seemingly uncalled for and shameful treatment of Deacon Wheeler. I, frankly, am missing the boat here. Why doesn't the OCA issue an apology to him and be done with it? I'm sure you won't go here, but really now. Alcoholics treat their disease by asking forgiveness from those they hurt. It is a required step in healing and restoration of credibility.
Another thing BP doesn't address(I believe) is discretionary accounts. This law passed by the Synod should be repealed immediately. These are ridiculous in the context of the current problems.
Again, thanks for your involvement. I'm sure you'll be in communication with the "powers that be". Make sure they understand that BP isn't the only issue. Let them know that accounting is almost always somewhat artful and that even audited financials aren't perfect financial statements, and that it is more important to report than to report perfectly.
Dan
Thanks a bunch for posting back and I will let you off the hook with your help and clarifications. Maybe I needed to be on the hook a bit more as apparently I've misread some things. You did mention communication hasn't been grand. I, as others, did not understand how...
"His Beatitude has further initiated the process of adopting 'Best Practices' procedures in administration, and administrative practices established by other similar not-for-profit religious institutions, and the Lesser Synod fully endorsed these measures."
... in January didn't equal 2006 budget disclosure and/or quarterly reporting through 8/8/06.
I've been involved in cleaning up financial messes, and it isn't easy to sort them out and it can take months.
I do know that the OCA could have released a 2006 operating budget already, net of extraordinary items. By not doing so, it really has weakened the credibility of the above statement. It has put clergy and laity and voting MC members in an awkward position of believing the administration wants secrecy and every day it doesn't happen the OCA will get further and deeper in the red as people wait for performance.
I must add that BP does not address all the issues. The relationship between governing bodies is clearly not correct. Somewhere between the Synod, the MC, and the administration; things really collapsed. If the termination of Fr. Kondratick was warranted, it wasn't done by the appropriate body and it is clear by the statements of many that it would not have happened. The governance didn't work if it was unwarranted. Talk about the devil and the deep blue sea. The other governance failure is that noone had a clue about the finances. The tradeoff is that now all of us must know.
BP doesn't address income sources and their accounting either. The church has been, shall I say, blockheaded about this for years. Get good numbers and establish good practices for accounting for fair share.
Another thing BP doesn't address is the seemingly uncalled for and shameful treatment of Deacon Wheeler. I, frankly, am missing the boat here. Why doesn't the OCA issue an apology to him and be done with it? I'm sure you won't go here, but really now. Alcoholics treat their disease by asking forgiveness from those they hurt. It is a required step in healing and restoration of credibility.
Another thing BP doesn't address(I believe) is discretionary accounts. This law passed by the Synod should be repealed immediately. These are ridiculous in the context of the current problems.
Again, thanks for your involvement. I'm sure you'll be in communication with the "powers that be". Make sure they understand that BP isn't the only issue. Let them know that accounting is almost always somewhat artful and that even audited financials aren't perfect financial statements, and that it is more important to report than to report perfectly.
Dan
#44
Daniel E. Fall
on
2006-08-09 16:21
Dear John,
Indeed He is Risen!
In Christ, Deacon Peter
Indeed He is Risen!
In Christ, Deacon Peter
#45
Protodeacon Peter Danilchick
on
2006-08-09 16:55
If I may, my point #3 regarding faith and morals was not to imply that faith and morals had no value in the execution or administration of the OCA -- far from it.
However, the content of faith are the purvue of the synod, not the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council is an administrative body. To use an extreme example, the Metropolitan Council should not participate in the decision to recognize a saint, or alter the typicon.
We must be careful in our effort to create accountability that we do not swing the pendulum so far the other way that we cause the Metropolitan Council (or any other council of laity) to impose their will in inappropriate areas.
We must anticipate the difficulty that will arise in the overlap of responsibility. The cost associated with the recent canonization of St. Raphael (pray for us, Holy Father!) might be an example of this. In the current financial straits, perhaps the MC would have an appropriate role in limiting the expense associated with such an event, without disturbing the event itself.
It is a balancing act we are asked to undertake, and we need to exercise great caution in our steps.
Sdn. John Martin
Martin D. Watt, CPA (Inactive)
However, the content of faith are the purvue of the synod, not the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council is an administrative body. To use an extreme example, the Metropolitan Council should not participate in the decision to recognize a saint, or alter the typicon.
We must be careful in our effort to create accountability that we do not swing the pendulum so far the other way that we cause the Metropolitan Council (or any other council of laity) to impose their will in inappropriate areas.
We must anticipate the difficulty that will arise in the overlap of responsibility. The cost associated with the recent canonization of St. Raphael (pray for us, Holy Father!) might be an example of this. In the current financial straits, perhaps the MC would have an appropriate role in limiting the expense associated with such an event, without disturbing the event itself.
It is a balancing act we are asked to undertake, and we need to exercise great caution in our steps.
Sdn. John Martin
Martin D. Watt, CPA (Inactive)
#46
Marty Watt
on
2006-08-10 09:34
Dear Dan - thanks again for the dialogue - it is quite helpful to me in clarifying all these issues in my own mind.
I'm going out on a limb right now -- and I can hear the saws sharpening (just kidding). But anyway .. I see a lot of frustration in the many comments that I have received and rightly so. (But I also hear enthusiasm for change, detailed constructive ideas, and support for and thanks to the people working on this area.) As you say, people are right to demand performance and if they don't see that performance they have a right and indeed a duty to speak up. That's our common responsibility as members of the Church. At the same time, to be fair, my understanding is that many things have been addressed and initiatives undertaken, not in the way that some would like and not to the degree that some would have wanted. Yet I think if you objectively and dispassionately look back some ten months ago and compare that to right now, progress has been made, at least that's my opinion. We need to keep up the work and we need to find people to help. I've had offers of assistance from some half-dozen individuals but I think there are many more than that number reading these words. "Anyone? Anyone?" At some point, we must all in some way transition to being part of the solution - some will do it by insisting on performance - that's good; others will do it by working to develop new systems and processes - that's good; others will actually volunteer their services as accountants, business people, lawyers, etc and that's good; others will volunteer to step forward into positions of leadership and that's very good. We're all in this together and we need to stay together. Is that naive? I hope not and yet I fear sometimes that it is. History will tell the tale.
On a less philosophical note, I had mentioned in the reflection that the Best Practices document "is only a starting point". Yes lots more needs to be expanded upon - that's why the actual title of the document is "Best Practice Principles" - since we recognized that we still have much to specify with more clarity and detail such as accounting systems, no off-balance-sheet accounts, etc. In this regard, I'd like to thank all the commentators to this reflection for giving the Team additional things to think about and to include (e.g., Donor Bill of Rights). We need to have more of this kind of dialogue, don't you think?
In Christ, Deacon Peter
I'm going out on a limb right now -- and I can hear the saws sharpening (just kidding). But anyway .. I see a lot of frustration in the many comments that I have received and rightly so. (But I also hear enthusiasm for change, detailed constructive ideas, and support for and thanks to the people working on this area.) As you say, people are right to demand performance and if they don't see that performance they have a right and indeed a duty to speak up. That's our common responsibility as members of the Church. At the same time, to be fair, my understanding is that many things have been addressed and initiatives undertaken, not in the way that some would like and not to the degree that some would have wanted. Yet I think if you objectively and dispassionately look back some ten months ago and compare that to right now, progress has been made, at least that's my opinion. We need to keep up the work and we need to find people to help. I've had offers of assistance from some half-dozen individuals but I think there are many more than that number reading these words. "Anyone? Anyone?" At some point, we must all in some way transition to being part of the solution - some will do it by insisting on performance - that's good; others will do it by working to develop new systems and processes - that's good; others will actually volunteer their services as accountants, business people, lawyers, etc and that's good; others will volunteer to step forward into positions of leadership and that's very good. We're all in this together and we need to stay together. Is that naive? I hope not and yet I fear sometimes that it is. History will tell the tale.
On a less philosophical note, I had mentioned in the reflection that the Best Practices document "is only a starting point". Yes lots more needs to be expanded upon - that's why the actual title of the document is "Best Practice Principles" - since we recognized that we still have much to specify with more clarity and detail such as accounting systems, no off-balance-sheet accounts, etc. In this regard, I'd like to thank all the commentators to this reflection for giving the Team additional things to think about and to include (e.g., Donor Bill of Rights). We need to have more of this kind of dialogue, don't you think?
In Christ, Deacon Peter
#47
Protodeacon Peter Danilchick
on
2006-08-10 09:47
Dear Richard: Thanks for your further exploration of the communication issue. All I know about the early-on comments made by the administration was that there was a lot of enthusiasm for getting the Best Practices in place and following them on a daily basis. To my knowledge, that enthusiasm continues today. However, I think that any reader of the Best Practices document (click on that link in the Reflection) will see that there's a lot there, a lot - and there's lot of work to do to realize them. It will take time -- and I'll say it again -- we need help.
I can't verify or deny any rumors about anything. I have no official capacity in the OCA. Sorry.
Richard - Thanks for your comments about motivation and communication. In the parish leadership workshops I conduct, I stress that one of the most important aspects of relationships in the church, no matter between whom - bishops, clergy, laity, parish councils, ladies' guild, etc etc - is "Communicate, communicate, communicate! Whatever it is, good news, bad news, or no news - communicate it!" I'll pass on your comments. Thank you for them.
in Christ, Deacon Peter
I can't verify or deny any rumors about anything. I have no official capacity in the OCA. Sorry.
Richard - Thanks for your comments about motivation and communication. In the parish leadership workshops I conduct, I stress that one of the most important aspects of relationships in the church, no matter between whom - bishops, clergy, laity, parish councils, ladies' guild, etc etc - is "Communicate, communicate, communicate! Whatever it is, good news, bad news, or no news - communicate it!" I'll pass on your comments. Thank you for them.
in Christ, Deacon Peter
#48
Protodeacon Peter Danilchick
on
2006-08-10 10:13
Dear Deacon Peter,
Unless the Metropolitan and others involved in the criminal handling of OCA assets and income come forward and apologize, with an apology to Deacon Wheeler included, I recommend that ALL funds be withheld from Syosset, Once income dries up there is the hope that change will be forthcoming. We, at least those of us who post here, are not concerned with Best Practices, we are concerned with the behavior of the hierarchs in charge. Plain honesty is needed. Thank you for letting those you are working for know what I am saying to you. I don't think they will listen. Money talks. Sincerely, Alice Carter, Holy Trinity Orthodox Cathdral, Boston.
Unless the Metropolitan and others involved in the criminal handling of OCA assets and income come forward and apologize, with an apology to Deacon Wheeler included, I recommend that ALL funds be withheld from Syosset, Once income dries up there is the hope that change will be forthcoming. We, at least those of us who post here, are not concerned with Best Practices, we are concerned with the behavior of the hierarchs in charge. Plain honesty is needed. Thank you for letting those you are working for know what I am saying to you. I don't think they will listen. Money talks. Sincerely, Alice Carter, Holy Trinity Orthodox Cathdral, Boston.
#49
Alice Carter
on
2006-08-11 07:22
Dear Readers,
An update on the call for volunteers: to date, eight offers of volunteer assistance have been received in the areas of general management, human resources and personnel policies, organizational practice, financial accounting systems, law and communications. These individuals have expressed the desire to help the church in our present troubled time to move forward into the future. Please pray for them and us.
The call for volunteers still stands. My thanks to all who have responded to the call for help and to those who will do so in the future, God willing.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
An update on the call for volunteers: to date, eight offers of volunteer assistance have been received in the areas of general management, human resources and personnel policies, organizational practice, financial accounting systems, law and communications. These individuals have expressed the desire to help the church in our present troubled time to move forward into the future. Please pray for them and us.
The call for volunteers still stands. My thanks to all who have responded to the call for help and to those who will do so in the future, God willing.
In Christ, Deacon Peter
#50
Protodeacon Peter Danilchick
on
2006-08-12 08:28
Although I understand the emotion behind this recommendation, I do not support the action. We as Orthodox Christians are called to give unconditionally of our first fruits to the Lord. This just-celebrated feast of the Transfiguration and its accompanying tradition of bringing fruit to the church to be blessed reminds us of this Christian responsibility. We are to give and give willingly and freely. We are to give because it has been given to us in the first place, and we are called to be temporary stewards of that which has been given us. Yes, we are to discern where we should place our God-given gifts, but this is still the Church. She is still doing the work of God. She still needs funds to operate in this world. Let us not starve God’s Church and incapacitate her beyond her current level of incapacitation due to errors already made, sins already committed. Let us not allow even more creditors to come pounding on our doors for just compensation for services rendered.
I am convinced at this time that no amount of financial pressure put on the Central Administration will change the flow of information. I don’t believe that holding back assessments at this time will provoke anyone who is in Syosset now or who has been there in the past to come forth and fall on one’s sword and admit to any wrongdoings. I think the Central Administration, the MC, and the Holy Synod see and hear loudly and clearly the cries of God’s children. And I think that there is a deliberate withholding of information on the advice of legal counsel – advice that is unfortunate but most probably necessary considering our litigious society. And yes, there is probably also some holding back of information to protect some of those who helped create this situation either willingly or unwillingly, knowingly or unknowingly.
I don’t think that it is time to abandon the concept of Best Practices, either. I envision the Best Practices concept as a roadmap, as a tool to refer to in order to invoke proper action, to show where authority and responsibility in the Church reside and to prompt those who are authorized and responsible to correct and proper action. Our statutes are fine, but they are skeletal when it comes to clearly defining who is responsible and authorized to do this or that task. I see Best Practices helping to clearly define roles and responsibilities, including those of the laity. I see it as a clarification of how the Church is to carry out the Gospel of Christ as an administrative body I also see it as a guide to helping the Church prevent wrong action, to help set up structures for regular monitoring for wrong action, and to indicate corrective remedies when they occur.
Yes, ultimately it comes down to honest, God-fearing, and upstanding people doing what is right. No document is going to solve all problems. Oftentimes though, it is necessary to close off paths to temptation that are too wide. It is necessary to create and implement strong and clear methods of accountability, checks and balances, in order to ensure proper stewardship of God’s Church and to head off wrongdoing. It is necessary to have guidelines to enforce corrective action and consequences in the proper manner and method. If it is too ambitious to expect these things of Best Practices, then let us rework our Church statutes to put all of this in the statutes themselves. :Let us as a Church crystallize what authority and responsibility the Metropolitan, the Holy Synod, the Metropolitan Council, and the laity actually have. Let us put teeth into the statutes or a related document of weight outlining the ways and means of dealing with abuses or misuses of these responsibilities. But let us work to ensure that we are doing all we can to prevent further damage to the Church. Let us not add to the harm already done to the Church by choking off funds which may help the Church out of this mess. Let us continue to loudly and clearly make our concerns known to those in Central Administration, for this is certainly within our competence and our responsibility. Let us above all be patient and prepared for that opportunity to show love, compassion, mercy, and forgiveness when the truth does emerge, as I am convinced that it eventually will.
I am convinced at this time that no amount of financial pressure put on the Central Administration will change the flow of information. I don’t believe that holding back assessments at this time will provoke anyone who is in Syosset now or who has been there in the past to come forth and fall on one’s sword and admit to any wrongdoings. I think the Central Administration, the MC, and the Holy Synod see and hear loudly and clearly the cries of God’s children. And I think that there is a deliberate withholding of information on the advice of legal counsel – advice that is unfortunate but most probably necessary considering our litigious society. And yes, there is probably also some holding back of information to protect some of those who helped create this situation either willingly or unwillingly, knowingly or unknowingly.
I don’t think that it is time to abandon the concept of Best Practices, either. I envision the Best Practices concept as a roadmap, as a tool to refer to in order to invoke proper action, to show where authority and responsibility in the Church reside and to prompt those who are authorized and responsible to correct and proper action. Our statutes are fine, but they are skeletal when it comes to clearly defining who is responsible and authorized to do this or that task. I see Best Practices helping to clearly define roles and responsibilities, including those of the laity. I see it as a clarification of how the Church is to carry out the Gospel of Christ as an administrative body I also see it as a guide to helping the Church prevent wrong action, to help set up structures for regular monitoring for wrong action, and to indicate corrective remedies when they occur.
Yes, ultimately it comes down to honest, God-fearing, and upstanding people doing what is right. No document is going to solve all problems. Oftentimes though, it is necessary to close off paths to temptation that are too wide. It is necessary to create and implement strong and clear methods of accountability, checks and balances, in order to ensure proper stewardship of God’s Church and to head off wrongdoing. It is necessary to have guidelines to enforce corrective action and consequences in the proper manner and method. If it is too ambitious to expect these things of Best Practices, then let us rework our Church statutes to put all of this in the statutes themselves. :Let us as a Church crystallize what authority and responsibility the Metropolitan, the Holy Synod, the Metropolitan Council, and the laity actually have. Let us put teeth into the statutes or a related document of weight outlining the ways and means of dealing with abuses or misuses of these responsibilities. But let us work to ensure that we are doing all we can to prevent further damage to the Church. Let us not add to the harm already done to the Church by choking off funds which may help the Church out of this mess. Let us continue to loudly and clearly make our concerns known to those in Central Administration, for this is certainly within our competence and our responsibility. Let us above all be patient and prepared for that opportunity to show love, compassion, mercy, and forgiveness when the truth does emerge, as I am convinced that it eventually will.
#51
Anonymous
on
2006-08-13 10:08
Dear PDN Peter,
Thanks for your efforts in constructing these documents. If I can be of any assistance to you, within the constraints of my time and talents, please feel free to contact me.
I have a question. Would it be fair to say that these standards apply only to members of the Metropolitan Council and the OCA Staff and that they do not apply to either the Metropolitan himself or the other members of the Holy Synod?
Thanks for your efforts in constructing these documents. If I can be of any assistance to you, within the constraints of my time and talents, please feel free to contact me.
I have a question. Would it be fair to say that these standards apply only to members of the Metropolitan Council and the OCA Staff and that they do not apply to either the Metropolitan himself or the other members of the Holy Synod?
#52
Mark Warns
on
2006-08-18 14:56
Dear Mark,
Thank you for your comments and your offer of help. If you could just contact me at I can followup with you further on that.
On your question, the standards would apply to the Metropolitan Council and the OCA staff as you note. That would indeed include the Metropolitan himself since he is a member of the Council and its Chairman.
Since financial governance is the province of the Metropolitan Council according to the Statute, the Holy Synod is not included in these standards. However, it would be appropriate for the Holy Synod to consider these standards and extract any that they would consider worthy for guidance in their own oversight responsibilities. I have not pursued this issue at all. If any readers think that this would be a good idea, then perhaps they might ask their own Diocesan Bishop to bring up this subject at the next Holy Synod meeting?
Thanks again for your response and offer to help. It is much appreciated!
In Christ, Deacon Peter
Thank you for your comments and your offer of help. If you could just contact me at I can followup with you further on that.
On your question, the standards would apply to the Metropolitan Council and the OCA staff as you note. That would indeed include the Metropolitan himself since he is a member of the Council and its Chairman.
Since financial governance is the province of the Metropolitan Council according to the Statute, the Holy Synod is not included in these standards. However, it would be appropriate for the Holy Synod to consider these standards and extract any that they would consider worthy for guidance in their own oversight responsibilities. I have not pursued this issue at all. If any readers think that this would be a good idea, then perhaps they might ask their own Diocesan Bishop to bring up this subject at the next Holy Synod meeting?
Thanks again for your response and offer to help. It is much appreciated!
In Christ, Deacon Peter
#53
Protodeacon Peter Danilchick
on
2006-08-18 18:28
Dear PDN Peter,
I'll definitely bring it up to Bishop Tikhon for inclusion in the agenda as you suggest, and I trust you will not forget me in your prayers.
The reason for my question about whether the Hierarchs are under these standards is my concern that some of our current problems are based on the natural deference shown by the members of the Metropolitan Council to the Metropolitan and, perhaps, to other Hierarchs. Although your proposed Best Practices thoroughly address the duties owed by the members of the Metropolitan Council, I don't recall seeing anything about the reciprocal duty owed by the Metropolitan to the MC to not allow this natural deference to him in the members of the MC to be abused. The result of abuse of deference is not just the unfortunate decision itself, but the residue of embarassment and regret in the members, and that's tough to cure.
I'll send a message to your personal address later tonight.
Mark Warns
I'll definitely bring it up to Bishop Tikhon for inclusion in the agenda as you suggest, and I trust you will not forget me in your prayers.
The reason for my question about whether the Hierarchs are under these standards is my concern that some of our current problems are based on the natural deference shown by the members of the Metropolitan Council to the Metropolitan and, perhaps, to other Hierarchs. Although your proposed Best Practices thoroughly address the duties owed by the members of the Metropolitan Council, I don't recall seeing anything about the reciprocal duty owed by the Metropolitan to the MC to not allow this natural deference to him in the members of the MC to be abused. The result of abuse of deference is not just the unfortunate decision itself, but the residue of embarassment and regret in the members, and that's tough to cure.
I'll send a message to your personal address later tonight.
Mark Warns
#54
Mark Warns
on
2006-08-21 21:05
The author does not allow comments to this entry
Calendar
|
May '13 | |||||
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||