Friday, November 3. 2006
The 2006 Charity Appeal
Your comments and thoughts about the Open Letter of Fr. Bobosh and his suggestions are welcome.
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Fr. Bobosh,
Your letter is right on point. Whether it is intentional or unintentional, the numbers just don't add up. According to the OCA's publish six month financial report, the OCA had excess revenue over expenses of $129,933. It kind of begs the question of why weren't the funds disbursed as you suggested if the OCA is actually running at a surplus - as they reported on their own web site.
I would like to make a couple of remarks about the financial report on the OCA web site. First, it is not in accordance with the Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (of which I am a member) as the web site states. These standards as they relate to not-for-profit organizations require that donations be classified into Unrestricted, Temporarily Restricted, and Unrestricted. If you read the report, you will notice that there are absolutely no such classifications. It is an important point, because if the revenues and expenses had been classified properly, the fact that the funds had brought in more than they spent or that they spent such a significant amount as administrative expenses would be clear to all.
Second, the title of the report itself, doesn't even make any sense. This report is an Excel spreadsheet that someone put together and I quite seriously doubt that any CPA would dare sign their name to such a report.
In the spirit of transparency, and this is an open request to the Metropolitan Council, why don't you simply scan the report with the name of the CPA firm that compiled this so-called six month report? If a CPA firm did , in fact, compile the report that is posted on the web site, why should it be such a horrible thing to post the actual compilation report from the CPA firm that went along with the actual financial statement? Second, what happened to the balance sheet? To give but a small portion of the financial information is akin to touching the tail of an elephant and thinking you understand the whole creature.
Fr. Bobosh, you are absolutely correct. I don't know why someone would give money blindly to an organization that can't seem to find even one competent financial person in all of New York to help them.
Speaking personally, I have no desire to bash the Holy Synod of the OCA or Metropolitan Council, but it just sickens me to read account after account of gross incompetence and watch day after day go by with no real change. I hope and pray that sanity will prevail.
Your letter is right on point. Whether it is intentional or unintentional, the numbers just don't add up. According to the OCA's publish six month financial report, the OCA had excess revenue over expenses of $129,933. It kind of begs the question of why weren't the funds disbursed as you suggested if the OCA is actually running at a surplus - as they reported on their own web site.
I would like to make a couple of remarks about the financial report on the OCA web site. First, it is not in accordance with the Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (of which I am a member) as the web site states. These standards as they relate to not-for-profit organizations require that donations be classified into Unrestricted, Temporarily Restricted, and Unrestricted. If you read the report, you will notice that there are absolutely no such classifications. It is an important point, because if the revenues and expenses had been classified properly, the fact that the funds had brought in more than they spent or that they spent such a significant amount as administrative expenses would be clear to all.
Second, the title of the report itself, doesn't even make any sense. This report is an Excel spreadsheet that someone put together and I quite seriously doubt that any CPA would dare sign their name to such a report.
In the spirit of transparency, and this is an open request to the Metropolitan Council, why don't you simply scan the report with the name of the CPA firm that compiled this so-called six month report? If a CPA firm did , in fact, compile the report that is posted on the web site, why should it be such a horrible thing to post the actual compilation report from the CPA firm that went along with the actual financial statement? Second, what happened to the balance sheet? To give but a small portion of the financial information is akin to touching the tail of an elephant and thinking you understand the whole creature.
Fr. Bobosh, you are absolutely correct. I don't know why someone would give money blindly to an organization that can't seem to find even one competent financial person in all of New York to help them.
Speaking personally, I have no desire to bash the Holy Synod of the OCA or Metropolitan Council, but it just sickens me to read account after account of gross incompetence and watch day after day go by with no real change. I hope and pray that sanity will prevail.
#1
Fr. Michael Tassos, CPA
on
2006-11-03 12:53
Excellent!
Axios! Dear Father.
Axios! Dear Father.
#2
Ed Unneland
on
2006-11-03 15:24
Father Ted 's letter brings home real issues of why and how we need to give support outside of our parishes and when we need to say no to false appeals.
The saddest year of my life was when the Mission's Appeal brouchure used a picture of my young child without my permission. Here was her mommy, locked out of the rectory and no medicine after her cancer operation. The priest raising her in the air to be baptized was dead and with him died the goodness of trust and accountability in appeals.
'Sorry Matushka, we have no funds to help you.' I saw this picture after I spent 4 months or so with no electricity and no car and finances. I saw it when a friend took me for help, because in Florida our social services are so few and very stretched, to a neighboring parish.
This discrepancy in funds is a sad reminder there is a good chance people in the time of my greatest need gave to these appeals and thought maybe they were helping me in some fashion because of my daughter's picture. But from Syosset and the Diocese of the South it never happened and no money ever came to me.
I am thankful there is some consiousness outside of these two administrative units of Syosset and the Diocese of the South. Perhaps it is this clearer thinking of Father Ted Bobosh that will reunite the church apart from the darkness of lies and more lies.
I cannot go back. I can go ahead and continue the charity as I see fit outside of the Diocese of the South and the national administration. I will try to use my talents gained from suffering to help others.
Please pray for and watch for news of the St. Paraskeva House Association. St. Paraskeva is the early Christian woman helping those left out of the system. Father Ted's choses for charitable giving mention widows but there is no current link up to help them. The other charitites mentioned send funds and services outside of the United States. My home will be used as a charitable base to serve those both at home and abroad working together, with less than a 10 per cent administative cost.
Matushka Carol
The saddest year of my life was when the Mission's Appeal brouchure used a picture of my young child without my permission. Here was her mommy, locked out of the rectory and no medicine after her cancer operation. The priest raising her in the air to be baptized was dead and with him died the goodness of trust and accountability in appeals.
'Sorry Matushka, we have no funds to help you.' I saw this picture after I spent 4 months or so with no electricity and no car and finances. I saw it when a friend took me for help, because in Florida our social services are so few and very stretched, to a neighboring parish.
This discrepancy in funds is a sad reminder there is a good chance people in the time of my greatest need gave to these appeals and thought maybe they were helping me in some fashion because of my daughter's picture. But from Syosset and the Diocese of the South it never happened and no money ever came to me.
I am thankful there is some consiousness outside of these two administrative units of Syosset and the Diocese of the South. Perhaps it is this clearer thinking of Father Ted Bobosh that will reunite the church apart from the darkness of lies and more lies.
I cannot go back. I can go ahead and continue the charity as I see fit outside of the Diocese of the South and the national administration. I will try to use my talents gained from suffering to help others.
Please pray for and watch for news of the St. Paraskeva House Association. St. Paraskeva is the early Christian woman helping those left out of the system. Father Ted's choses for charitable giving mention widows but there is no current link up to help them. The other charitites mentioned send funds and services outside of the United States. My home will be used as a charitable base to serve those both at home and abroad working together, with less than a 10 per cent administative cost.
Matushka Carol
#3
Matushka Carol
on
2006-11-03 16:57
You know the old saying "charity begins at home"? If Syosset can't figure out who to give the money to, for goodness sake, give the money to a food bank.
#4
Michael Strelka
on
2006-11-04 07:22
Very nice letter from Fr. Ted. Amen I agree 100%.
Continue the struggle for the faith.
OCA should stop the requests for donations.
They have to come clean and wash themselves in the truth and light.
What is very troubling is the fact that:
Statements issued by the Lesser Synod of Bishops of The Orthodox Church in America
Article posted: 9/22/2006 12:04 PM
“2. The review of the 2001-2005 Annual and Special Appeals is ongoing. However, from the initial findings, it has been concluded that there is no receipted documentation or verification for a large portion of those funds. No further information can be made available until that review is complete.
“3. Regarding the request by the Bishops for 2004 and 2005 audits, an audit for the year 2004 was undertaken as well as a preliminary review of the financial records for 2005. However, it has been concluded that, due to the lack of documentation, no audits for those years can be completed. Therefore, the Bishops have determined not to spend any more of the Church’s resources on these audits.”
Now reference the 2006 Charity Appeal Nov 2006 letter from Met. Herman. (FYI..you can go look at it at the OCA we site also.) The second page is a flyer entitled; "Help make a difference in the lives of those less fortunate!"
Look in the lower left hand corner : "Thank You for your support!" box.
It contains the results of the 2005 Appeal. How can this be so? If we read 2 & 3 above..there was "no receipted documentation or verification for a large portion of those funds."
How now is the Church able to produce the figures indicating the period of January 1 2005 -October 6 2006??? Have the records magically appeared for 2005 Charity Appeal?? Does there exist documentation for 2001- 2005??? Is the review completed??? Why do we not know the results??
Something is very, very wrong here. Spin masters and liars are at work here.
Look at this box very closely: "Thank You for your support!" Under Additional information:
All contributions received for the 2005 Charity Appeal were deposited in the Church’s Appeals account. At no time were any funds received for appeals since the beginning of November 2005, used for purposes other than that for which they were designated.
Continue the struggle for the faith.
OCA should stop the requests for donations.
They have to come clean and wash themselves in the truth and light.
What is very troubling is the fact that:
Statements issued by the Lesser Synod of Bishops of The Orthodox Church in America
Article posted: 9/22/2006 12:04 PM
“2. The review of the 2001-2005 Annual and Special Appeals is ongoing. However, from the initial findings, it has been concluded that there is no receipted documentation or verification for a large portion of those funds. No further information can be made available until that review is complete.
“3. Regarding the request by the Bishops for 2004 and 2005 audits, an audit for the year 2004 was undertaken as well as a preliminary review of the financial records for 2005. However, it has been concluded that, due to the lack of documentation, no audits for those years can be completed. Therefore, the Bishops have determined not to spend any more of the Church’s resources on these audits.”
Now reference the 2006 Charity Appeal Nov 2006 letter from Met. Herman. (FYI..you can go look at it at the OCA we site also.) The second page is a flyer entitled; "Help make a difference in the lives of those less fortunate!"
Look in the lower left hand corner : "Thank You for your support!" box.
It contains the results of the 2005 Appeal. How can this be so? If we read 2 & 3 above..there was "no receipted documentation or verification for a large portion of those funds."
How now is the Church able to produce the figures indicating the period of January 1 2005 -October 6 2006??? Have the records magically appeared for 2005 Charity Appeal?? Does there exist documentation for 2001- 2005??? Is the review completed??? Why do we not know the results??
Something is very, very wrong here. Spin masters and liars are at work here.
Look at this box very closely: "Thank You for your support!" Under Additional information:
All contributions received for the 2005 Charity Appeal were deposited in the Church’s Appeals account. At no time were any funds received for appeals since the beginning of November 2005, used for purposes other than that for which they were designated.
#5
Disappointed but not a dumb Deacon and faithful others
on
2006-11-04 10:23
While I live in Spring, Texas and am a member of St. Cyril of Jerusalem Orthodox Mision in the Diocese of the South, I only speak for myself. I whole heartedly support Fr. Ted's letter to the Metropolitan Council. I hope that the Metropolitan Council will adopt his suggestion.
John Lickwar
John Lickwar
#6
John Lickwar
on
2006-11-04 13:26
well put, Fr. Bobosh the statements that came out of Syosset last year, in light of the new $2 million dollar indebtedness and the repeated non-disclosure of the financial mechanations of the past decade, border on blasphemy......... had we the resources to throw upon the misdoings, witness the Greeks and RC's, we may never have had to hear about Fr. Bob's son, Mr. Rock, Arch. Peter's nurse, et al Galatians 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ,..........
#7
luke
on
2006-11-04 15:54
I'd first like to agree with Fr. Michael that the financial statement offered on the website of the OCA lacks completeness that would be expected of any well respected charity and ever more so of a charity that needs to re-earn any ounce of respect. It also was not a timely report, and a forecast would have been an essential management tool and that was not included.
To Fr. Ted's letter:
I must raise into question the math on Fr. Ted's letter. Not fully spending the 2005 appeal, but then appealing again in 2006 raises serious questions about the integrity and intent of the OCA [again]. With a charge such as this coming from a man as honorable as Fr. Ted Bobosh, I expect nothing less than a response from the OCA on this subject. The OCA in this case should be whom? The Synod? The Metropolitan Council? The administration? In my opinion, the administration needs to respond to this charge, but the MC also owes all of us a statement.
This issue clearly points to the governance problem facing the church. The MC continues to be powerless. If indeed the administration has botched on this, and the MC has to watch the administration's every move, what is the remedial action afforded to the MC? None. The remedies should be simple. The MC representative should report back to its member churches. In the absence of honesty about fund balances, the 2006 collection should be nothing. Case closed.
The absence of a response should continue us all on a track of delisting the OCA as a charity of choice. Further, this issue would be a first cause for the Diocesan leaders to consider escrowing accounts. Unfortunately, the language in the resolutions, I believe, is far too vague to consider this to be cause enough. For example, if the administration said it intends to distribute the money at some unforeseen future date, would this be satisfactory? Why not? To me, this would be a satisfactory response, but a poor one for sure.
To the cost of distributing the monies. 18% administrative costs seem high, but... If I had to give $100 in groceries away, it would cost me about $10 in gas as a volunteer. If you were paying me, it would cost a lot, lot more, probably about $50 for 2 hours, for a cost of 60%. I think the 10% is a reasonable number if you didn't pay me, however, if one were to make a plane trip to Guatemala that cost $250 to give a charity $1000, that would be 25%. So while the 18% is high and certainly worthy of criticism, it is within reasonableness as a one time cost, but perhaps not an ongoing cost target. Further, if you had to pay me, the 18% looks like a good target, and in truth, people need to be paid for their efforts [to eat], so unless I saw the full report, I don't feel that criticism is warranted on the 18%, though. In fact, expressing concern over the 18% really clouds the issue. If you had to pay someone two months salary and had out of pocket costs of 10% (like the gas above) on $75,000, this would be about 18%.
On Fr. Ted's second point, I firmly disagree. The OCA must restore itself to good standing with honor and truthfulness. "Living within its means" implies stagnation to me. Although the decisions made in the last 15 years may/may not necessarily reflect a growth plan, I don't believe the OCA should stop special collections. I don't think they deserve a penny on special collections today, so I find my own attitude objective. Living within its means should mean something like Fair Share not exceeding CPI on an annual basis. In fact, if someone put the dues figures on the website here for the past 15 years, and compared it to CPI, it would give us an objective baseline, rather than a subjective, potentially overly conservative opinion. I believe this point made by Fr. Ted also clouds the issue.
The issue is very serious. Removing the points that cloud the issue like administrative cost rates, and "living within its means", not spending the prior years collection and then calling for another collection is fraudulent behavior when not disclosed up front and this charge requires response.
The required behavior would be the OCA telling us prior to collection, i.e. "we have $45,000 in the current fund for charity appeal, but would like to reinforce the charity fund with the 2006 appeal". Anything less is unacceptable and downright fraudulent. How can this be done?
The OCA could have avoided this letter as an issue altogether if it had followed the request by Fr. Michael above and disclosed the balance of the 2005 charity fund appeal on a balance sheet [and included a statement of cash flows] for a complete set of financial information in the 2005 compilation report (not yet provided) and the June, 2006 compilation reports.
We are due a balance sheet people.
To Fr. Ted's letter:
I must raise into question the math on Fr. Ted's letter. Not fully spending the 2005 appeal, but then appealing again in 2006 raises serious questions about the integrity and intent of the OCA [again]. With a charge such as this coming from a man as honorable as Fr. Ted Bobosh, I expect nothing less than a response from the OCA on this subject. The OCA in this case should be whom? The Synod? The Metropolitan Council? The administration? In my opinion, the administration needs to respond to this charge, but the MC also owes all of us a statement.
This issue clearly points to the governance problem facing the church. The MC continues to be powerless. If indeed the administration has botched on this, and the MC has to watch the administration's every move, what is the remedial action afforded to the MC? None. The remedies should be simple. The MC representative should report back to its member churches. In the absence of honesty about fund balances, the 2006 collection should be nothing. Case closed.
The absence of a response should continue us all on a track of delisting the OCA as a charity of choice. Further, this issue would be a first cause for the Diocesan leaders to consider escrowing accounts. Unfortunately, the language in the resolutions, I believe, is far too vague to consider this to be cause enough. For example, if the administration said it intends to distribute the money at some unforeseen future date, would this be satisfactory? Why not? To me, this would be a satisfactory response, but a poor one for sure.
To the cost of distributing the monies. 18% administrative costs seem high, but... If I had to give $100 in groceries away, it would cost me about $10 in gas as a volunteer. If you were paying me, it would cost a lot, lot more, probably about $50 for 2 hours, for a cost of 60%. I think the 10% is a reasonable number if you didn't pay me, however, if one were to make a plane trip to Guatemala that cost $250 to give a charity $1000, that would be 25%. So while the 18% is high and certainly worthy of criticism, it is within reasonableness as a one time cost, but perhaps not an ongoing cost target. Further, if you had to pay me, the 18% looks like a good target, and in truth, people need to be paid for their efforts [to eat], so unless I saw the full report, I don't feel that criticism is warranted on the 18%, though. In fact, expressing concern over the 18% really clouds the issue. If you had to pay someone two months salary and had out of pocket costs of 10% (like the gas above) on $75,000, this would be about 18%.
On Fr. Ted's second point, I firmly disagree. The OCA must restore itself to good standing with honor and truthfulness. "Living within its means" implies stagnation to me. Although the decisions made in the last 15 years may/may not necessarily reflect a growth plan, I don't believe the OCA should stop special collections. I don't think they deserve a penny on special collections today, so I find my own attitude objective. Living within its means should mean something like Fair Share not exceeding CPI on an annual basis. In fact, if someone put the dues figures on the website here for the past 15 years, and compared it to CPI, it would give us an objective baseline, rather than a subjective, potentially overly conservative opinion. I believe this point made by Fr. Ted also clouds the issue.
The issue is very serious. Removing the points that cloud the issue like administrative cost rates, and "living within its means", not spending the prior years collection and then calling for another collection is fraudulent behavior when not disclosed up front and this charge requires response.
The required behavior would be the OCA telling us prior to collection, i.e. "we have $45,000 in the current fund for charity appeal, but would like to reinforce the charity fund with the 2006 appeal". Anything less is unacceptable and downright fraudulent. How can this be done?
The OCA could have avoided this letter as an issue altogether if it had followed the request by Fr. Michael above and disclosed the balance of the 2005 charity fund appeal on a balance sheet [and included a statement of cash flows] for a complete set of financial information in the 2005 compilation report (not yet provided) and the June, 2006 compilation reports.
We are due a balance sheet people.
#8
Daniel E. Fall
on
2006-11-05 19:56
Dear Father Ted,
Thanks for writing your thoughtful letter. I especially enjoyed your coverage of the general topic of raising funds by charitable appeals.
All the OCA appeals are directed toward the filling of needs which are either recurrent or the natural result of being a church. A costly appeal for the seminaries, the missions, other charities? Paying those bills is something churches just do, and there is no need for an expensive appeal. Those costs should simply be built into the budget.
Mark Warns
Thanks for writing your thoughtful letter. I especially enjoyed your coverage of the general topic of raising funds by charitable appeals.
All the OCA appeals are directed toward the filling of needs which are either recurrent or the natural result of being a church. A costly appeal for the seminaries, the missions, other charities? Paying those bills is something churches just do, and there is no need for an expensive appeal. Those costs should simply be built into the budget.
Mark Warns
#9
Mark Warns
on
2006-11-06 20:12
A web site for monitoring charities, www.give.org, states that no more than 35% of 'related funds' (there is an explanation about this including donations, legacies, etc.) should go for fund raising. However, it states that at least 65% should go for program activities--seems the OCA charity appeal falls far, far short of that!!
IOCC has administrative costs of 8% of its resources--just for a comparison. 92% goes for program activities.
When the local "Combined Charities" appeal is made at work every year, the listing of charities always includes percentage of administrative costs--while I didn't keep this year's booklet, I recall that most of the well-known groups have administrative costs well below 20%, and many, such as IOCC, less than 10%.
I guess I'll continue to give to IOCC, and ignore the OCA appeal again! It's sad that I feel I have to--but I'm sure Syosset doesn't care.
IOCC has administrative costs of 8% of its resources--just for a comparison. 92% goes for program activities.
When the local "Combined Charities" appeal is made at work every year, the listing of charities always includes percentage of administrative costs--while I didn't keep this year's booklet, I recall that most of the well-known groups have administrative costs well below 20%, and many, such as IOCC, less than 10%.
I guess I'll continue to give to IOCC, and ignore the OCA appeal again! It's sad that I feel I have to--but I'm sure Syosset doesn't care.
#10
Mark
on
2006-11-07 14:45
If we want to do away with special appeals for specific areas then we no doubt would need to be prepared to see our fair share giving to the OCA increase if we want them to address some of the needs which are before us. A case can be made for that approach. What special appeals etc. on parish, Diocese or national level seem to do is encourage additional giving; focus on certain areas; give persons the options of giving earmarked funds for projects in which they are especially interested. That said it would seem up to the people to decide which procedure best meets the needs that are before us.
#11
Archpriest William DuBovik
on
2006-11-08 12:21
Dear Father William,
Agreed. However, as it stands right now there is the disconnect noted by Father Ted between the the people soliciting the donations and the people distributing them. The people writing the solicitations talk in highly emotional terms about the unmet needs of our people and the dire human tragedies which may result from not giving. Meanwhile, the people doing the actual distibuting still have more than half the funds collected in the same drive last year available now. (Granted, this situation is way better than the previous years when the charitable contributions were taken as cash withdrawals by some insider.) Ending special appeals, at least until we get our house in order, would be a strong step, but it would in turn eliminate the phoniness noted by Father Ted.
Good point, Father William, about the need to increase contributions to the general fund to cover the money not raised in special appeals. I wonder if, in addition to what will likely be a larger Fair Share, we shouldn't be moving toward a single appeal with all expected needs covered under the same umbrella - call it the "Annual Orthodox Appeal". That way there would be a single administrative expense rather than the quarterly ones we have today. Has that idea already been tried?
Mark Warns
Agreed. However, as it stands right now there is the disconnect noted by Father Ted between the the people soliciting the donations and the people distributing them. The people writing the solicitations talk in highly emotional terms about the unmet needs of our people and the dire human tragedies which may result from not giving. Meanwhile, the people doing the actual distibuting still have more than half the funds collected in the same drive last year available now. (Granted, this situation is way better than the previous years when the charitable contributions were taken as cash withdrawals by some insider.) Ending special appeals, at least until we get our house in order, would be a strong step, but it would in turn eliminate the phoniness noted by Father Ted.
Good point, Father William, about the need to increase contributions to the general fund to cover the money not raised in special appeals. I wonder if, in addition to what will likely be a larger Fair Share, we shouldn't be moving toward a single appeal with all expected needs covered under the same umbrella - call it the "Annual Orthodox Appeal". That way there would be a single administrative expense rather than the quarterly ones we have today. Has that idea already been tried?
Mark Warns
#12
Mark Warns
on
2006-11-08 19:53
I don't think increasing the assessment would be neccessary at all, especially not immediately. The idea is to demonstrate a whole new way of doing business. Change the spending habits, eliminate some ways we were spending money and channel those monies into charity and mission, making these items budget priorities. With other cutbacks, this could easily be done. Let the seminaries do their own fund raising. Any money given to them from the OCA should be in the form of scholarships for OCA students. Make this part of the budget as well. There needs to be a re-evaluation of special collections - at what level should they be made (ex. - diocesan or central), and for what purposes. Real priorities should be funded in the budget. I honestly believe if the OCA met real needs in budgeted charity (widowed matushki, priests without medical insurance) or at seminary (scholarships), people in the OCA would willingly give to meet these real needs. This would be a way to restore trust while thinking seriously about what and about how often the central administration comes back to the parishes seeking funds.
#13
Fr. Ted Bobosh
on
2006-11-09 19:14
Yes, a single Orthodox Appeal to include assessments and funds that were regularly sought for charities, is an idea worth considering. I know in my parish there is usually a question or two about why if assessments are paid to the Diocese do we need say a special appeal or fund on the Diocesan level. Persons asking this think that one point of donating money should be inclusive and cover all things. The work would be in getting persons accustomed to higher giving in place of various special drives.
#14
Archpriest William DuBovik
on
2006-11-10 08:59
Dear Fr. Ted:
Congratulations on hitting several previously untouched nails squarely on their heads.
I would like to add another point, if I may. Article 5, Section 1 of the OCA Statute relating to the Metropolitan Council, states, in part, the following: Section 1 Organization:
"The Metropolitan Council is the permanent executive body of the Church Administration Which exists for the purpose of implementing the decisions of the All-American Council and continuing its work between sessions."
Further down, under Section 4, Competencies, Paragraph I charges them with providing for the establishment and maintenance of institutions of charity and education, as well as for publications for the propagation of the Orthodox Faith;
{The word Provoding is actually provides in the statute}
I believe that a completely-autonomous department of Charities should be formed to oversee all of the Church's charitable responsibilities.
It would be composed of a Director, a Treasurer, and a Comptroller, and would be responsible for initiating Charity
appeals, collecting all funds, and disbursing them accordingly, upon the approval of the Metropolitan, the MC, and the Holy Synod.
Also, the Director of Charities would report to the Metropolitan, the MC, the Holy Synod, and the AAC on all charitable activities, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, the charity funds could only be disbursed with the Approval of the Director to their benificiaries, and NO OTHER department head could abscond with these funds, because no one else would have access to them.
Do you think this sounds la good Idea? I suspect some would disagree. But it appears such measures are necessary, in order to safeguard charitable contributions in the future.
Please answer at your convenience,
Until this mess is corrected, I remain Yours In Christ,
Mark N. Sudia
Congratulations on hitting several previously untouched nails squarely on their heads.
I would like to add another point, if I may. Article 5, Section 1 of the OCA Statute relating to the Metropolitan Council, states, in part, the following: Section 1 Organization:
"The Metropolitan Council is the permanent executive body of the Church Administration Which exists for the purpose of implementing the decisions of the All-American Council and continuing its work between sessions."
Further down, under Section 4, Competencies, Paragraph I charges them with providing for the establishment and maintenance of institutions of charity and education, as well as for publications for the propagation of the Orthodox Faith;
{The word Provoding is actually provides in the statute}
I believe that a completely-autonomous department of Charities should be formed to oversee all of the Church's charitable responsibilities.
It would be composed of a Director, a Treasurer, and a Comptroller, and would be responsible for initiating Charity
appeals, collecting all funds, and disbursing them accordingly, upon the approval of the Metropolitan, the MC, and the Holy Synod.
Also, the Director of Charities would report to the Metropolitan, the MC, the Holy Synod, and the AAC on all charitable activities, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, the charity funds could only be disbursed with the Approval of the Director to their benificiaries, and NO OTHER department head could abscond with these funds, because no one else would have access to them.
Do you think this sounds la good Idea? I suspect some would disagree. But it appears such measures are necessary, in order to safeguard charitable contributions in the future.
Please answer at your convenience,
Until this mess is corrected, I remain Yours In Christ,
Mark N. Sudia
#15
Mark N. Sudia
on
2006-11-16 15:39
Mark,
I am not on the Metropolitan Council, so what I think of your idea doesn't matter. The MC needs to consider all kinds of ideas to come up with the wisest course of action. I am in particular advocating that the OCA not create any new positions or collections at the moment until its house is in complete order, and it learns to live within its means - and by this I refer to whatever money it receives through the assessment. This is major belt tightening. It probably would be the right time for the whole OCA to adopt some form of percentage giving from the dioceses/parishes as well. The argument against this has always been not enough money would come in. The time to implement this might be right now as monies are down anyway.
Best wishes.
I am not on the Metropolitan Council, so what I think of your idea doesn't matter. The MC needs to consider all kinds of ideas to come up with the wisest course of action. I am in particular advocating that the OCA not create any new positions or collections at the moment until its house is in complete order, and it learns to live within its means - and by this I refer to whatever money it receives through the assessment. This is major belt tightening. It probably would be the right time for the whole OCA to adopt some form of percentage giving from the dioceses/parishes as well. The argument against this has always been not enough money would come in. The time to implement this might be right now as monies are down anyway.
Best wishes.
#16
Fr. Ted Bobosh
on
2006-11-17 15:46
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 | ||