Wednesday, December 13. 2006
New Direction For OCA
It seems when everybody rows together, the ship can move. Your comments and thoughts welcome on this Feast of St. Herman.
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
So, very simply, the allegations are true.
That took a while.
And now we have a group set up to pursue the allegations that is led by Bp. Job and that includes among its membership people who have shown real personal commitment to addressing these problems.
Perhaps we could have gotten here faster and with less pain along the way. But it seems to me that now we really are where we need to be to start building back trust.
The devil's in the details, and it's going to take a bit of time to see how certain key people are going to behave in light of this. But the stage has been set.
Just a comment on one part of the release:
> However, these abuses of Church trust
> were determined to be centered on and around one individual and were
> not found to be widespread among the employees of the Church.
Note that they didn't say "limited to" but rather "centered on" -- we don't need a witch hunt, but all of the people responsible for this must be removed, not only from the administration but, where applicable, from the priesthood.
And those who trusted and relied on this one person and the circle around him, thus enabling this to happen, need to carefully examine themselves and honestly accept responsibility for their failures in judgment. If they hope to regain trust from us, they will need to provide some indication that they have learned something and of how they personally will change moving forward. They need to honestly acknowledge what this crisis has revealed about their own limitations and confront (in the privacy of their own consciences) whether they are able to remediate these deficiencies sufficiently to continue in their positions going forward. Some may need to acknowledge failures of judgment sufficiently severe that they need to take full responsibility for the actions of others -- in other words, some folks who aren't the core wrongdoers, who have been 'cleared' by the investigation, should consider resigning.
Rebecca
That took a while.
And now we have a group set up to pursue the allegations that is led by Bp. Job and that includes among its membership people who have shown real personal commitment to addressing these problems.
Perhaps we could have gotten here faster and with less pain along the way. But it seems to me that now we really are where we need to be to start building back trust.
The devil's in the details, and it's going to take a bit of time to see how certain key people are going to behave in light of this. But the stage has been set.
Just a comment on one part of the release:
> However, these abuses of Church trust
> were determined to be centered on and around one individual and were
> not found to be widespread among the employees of the Church.
Note that they didn't say "limited to" but rather "centered on" -- we don't need a witch hunt, but all of the people responsible for this must be removed, not only from the administration but, where applicable, from the priesthood.
And those who trusted and relied on this one person and the circle around him, thus enabling this to happen, need to carefully examine themselves and honestly accept responsibility for their failures in judgment. If they hope to regain trust from us, they will need to provide some indication that they have learned something and of how they personally will change moving forward. They need to honestly acknowledge what this crisis has revealed about their own limitations and confront (in the privacy of their own consciences) whether they are able to remediate these deficiencies sufficiently to continue in their positions going forward. Some may need to acknowledge failures of judgment sufficiently severe that they need to take full responsibility for the actions of others -- in other words, some folks who aren't the core wrongdoers, who have been 'cleared' by the investigation, should consider resigning.
Rebecca
#1
Rebecca Matovic
on
2006-12-13 05:42
"... centered on and around one individual ...." So, who? And, let's next disclose whether "centered on and around" means that no others were involved, albeit not part of the "center." I.e., does "centered on and around" mean "limited to" (to echo RM's issue spotting above)? Who enabled this one individual? Who should have known but was negligent?? Who was willfully blind??? And, perhaps most important, how the h-e-double-toothpicks did our OCA's accounting firm either not pick up on this years ago, or not make a big hue and cry about it? Equally salient, is the answer to the question "What on earth was our OCA's general council doing, that she or he did not become aware of this pattern and practice of graft and corruption, or (worse) not do anything to stop it (assuming such person is not the "one individual")?????" Why pay for the protection of outside professoinals if they do not exhibit the competence or fortitude to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities?
Let's not be satisfied with "centered on and around" until we know exactly what the eminations are from that one individual. It seems extraordinary to believe that, even if the hub was one person, that there were no complicit spokes in this wheel conspiracy.
Let's not be satisfied with "centered on and around" until we know exactly what the eminations are from that one individual. It seems extraordinary to believe that, even if the hub was one person, that there were no complicit spokes in this wheel conspiracy.
#2
Anne A. Thema
on
2006-12-13 06:01
What wonderful news to start the day on! I am very confident that the supremely qualified and dedicated members of the newly appointed special committee will finish this work in the most satisfactory way. I believe that this may be truly a new beginning for the OCA. Alleluia!
#3
Marc Trolinger
on
2006-12-13 06:27
Glory to God someone reading the OCA website for information about the OCA would now know this. I must say I can't tell whether to laugh or cry at the juxtaposition of this OCA communications article on the scandal and the upbeat promo in beautiful green lettering for the 2006 Charity Appeal at the top of the page.
#4
Symeon Jekel
on
2006-12-13 07:10
Four things this festal day:
1) Thank you, thank you, thank you to Protodeacon Eric Wheeler. Without your courage and conscience, this would never have been brought to light.
2) Thank you, thank you, thank you to Archbishop Job. Without your willingness to be slandered first and vindicated only later, this may never have been healed.
3) Thanks you, thank you, thank you to Mark Stokoe. Without this website, we would still be in the throws of a horrible spiritual disease. Your website was the Xray machine that exposed the disease -- a modern day medical miracle.
4) We now await Met. Herman's admission of his own participation in this scandal.
Priest Christopher Wojcik
Clayton, Wisconsin
1) Thank you, thank you, thank you to Protodeacon Eric Wheeler. Without your courage and conscience, this would never have been brought to light.
2) Thank you, thank you, thank you to Archbishop Job. Without your willingness to be slandered first and vindicated only later, this may never have been healed.
3) Thanks you, thank you, thank you to Mark Stokoe. Without this website, we would still be in the throws of a horrible spiritual disease. Your website was the Xray machine that exposed the disease -- a modern day medical miracle.
4) We now await Met. Herman's admission of his own participation in this scandal.
Priest Christopher Wojcik
Clayton, Wisconsin
#5
Priest Christopher Wojcik
on
2006-12-13 07:34
Mark,
Same story different day. When will everyone involved get together and get everything out in the open. " one person " PLEASE !!
Same story different day. When will everyone involved get together and get everything out in the open. " one person " PLEASE !!
Seems hard to believe that millions can go missing by the actions of only one person without the active assistance or at least the culpable blind eye of others.
#7
Anonymous
on
2006-12-13 08:02
God is not like us; God did not think up the idea of scapegoats. Scapegoating is the easy way out and will mean only remission, not a cure. The spirit controlling both perpetrators and enablers must and will be exorcized, for this cleansing is the Lord's work. May our prayers increase for full self-examination and repentance for all who turned blind eyes, but who now stand in the light of truth and in the light of God's everlasting mercy which alone leads to healing. May God's will be done in mercy and truth. Shakepeare said the quality of mercy is not strained and justice alone brings not salvation. May we ponder and pray and listen to the Spirit and each obey according to his own conscience.
#8
Karen Jermyn
on
2006-12-13 08:34
Amen.
Right on Marc. I also think the individuals selected for the Special Church Commission were great choices.
On a final note, to those still asking who was responsible, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who the "one person" was. Just stop and think about it for a minute and you'll arrive at the right conclusion.
I'd like to thank everyone who participated in this historic meeting.
Now we can devote our energies to rectifying the wrongs and the building up of the Church.
Michael Geeza
Right on Marc. I also think the individuals selected for the Special Church Commission were great choices.
On a final note, to those still asking who was responsible, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who the "one person" was. Just stop and think about it for a minute and you'll arrive at the right conclusion.
I'd like to thank everyone who participated in this historic meeting.
Now we can devote our energies to rectifying the wrongs and the building up of the Church.
Michael Geeza
#9
Michael Geeza
on
2006-12-13 08:54
Call me a cynic but am I the only one who thinks that our Metropolitan appointed Abp. Job as Chairman to circumvent the potential withholding of funds by the Midwest diocese? I'm also concerned about the "... centered on and around one individual ...." statement. Does that absolve those clergy in authority over that "one individual" of their oversight responsibility. And what of their culpability in this scandal, is that now to be overlooked? Many questions have yet to be answered.
#10
Subdeacon Robert Aaron
on
2006-12-13 09:22
"O Venerable Father Herman of Alaska, pray unto God for us!"
#11
Fr. Gary J. Breton
on
2006-12-13 10:03
Yes, no, and no.
"Many questions have yet to be answered."
Isn't that what it says in the statement released by Syosset?
"Many questions have yet to be answered."
Isn't that what it says in the statement released by Syosset?
#12
Michael Strelka, CPA
on
2006-12-13 12:57
Interesting, "centered around one person", there is NO WAY on God's green earth that one person is responsible! Looks like Herman got the report he (we) paid for!!!
#13
Thomas Langley
on
2006-12-13 13:05
I pray that this all does not get laid on Fr. Bob's shoulders as the scapegoat.
He alone could not have done this, and admissions of giult are necessary before you can move forward.
However, the original question was answered...Yes! It was true, there was financial issues.
Hopefully this will put a fast end to the P*R investigation and report, the FBI Investigation, the penalty (punishment) phase and lead way to the new organization phase so growth and healing can take hold.
He alone could not have done this, and admissions of giult are necessary before you can move forward.
However, the original question was answered...Yes! It was true, there was financial issues.
Hopefully this will put a fast end to the P*R investigation and report, the FBI Investigation, the penalty (punishment) phase and lead way to the new organization phase so growth and healing can take hold.
#14
Bob H.
on
2006-12-13 13:13
I echo the many tiered thanks above by Fr. Christopher Wojcik. I am delighted about the naming of the special commission and its membership; isn't this what our Septuagint (of the OCA) requested almost a year ago?
Now a question: Usually when a commission is established for a finite and focused purpose, a timeline or deadline is given. Is there a date for the commission to conclude its work and make a report?
Terry C. Peet
Now a question: Usually when a commission is established for a finite and focused purpose, a timeline or deadline is given. Is there a date for the commission to conclude its work and make a report?
Terry C. Peet
#15
Terry C. Peet
on
2006-12-13 13:47
Mark:
Can you confirm that the reports by Proskauer and Rose and by Lambrides were only oral and that no written reports or summaries were passed out by either firm? Can you confirm that Bishop Dimitri of the South was not present for the two day joint meeting? Is there any way to confirm that Metropolitan Herman specifically requested an oral rather than a written presentation? and that the request for an oral presentation is an effort to keep a lid on the scandal?
The "center" of the scandal is now assigned to a parish in Florida. Will he be protected by his bishop and is his bishop's absence related to a desire to avoid any pressure from either the Holy Synod or the Metropolitan Council to reprimand or to punish Kondratick?
These questions are not meant to be rhetorical, though in reality they may end up being so.
Terry C. Peet
Can you confirm that the reports by Proskauer and Rose and by Lambrides were only oral and that no written reports or summaries were passed out by either firm? Can you confirm that Bishop Dimitri of the South was not present for the two day joint meeting? Is there any way to confirm that Metropolitan Herman specifically requested an oral rather than a written presentation? and that the request for an oral presentation is an effort to keep a lid on the scandal?
The "center" of the scandal is now assigned to a parish in Florida. Will he be protected by his bishop and is his bishop's absence related to a desire to avoid any pressure from either the Holy Synod or the Metropolitan Council to reprimand or to punish Kondratick?
These questions are not meant to be rhetorical, though in reality they may end up being so.
Terry C. Peet
#16
Terry C. Peet
on
2006-12-13 15:34
"However, these abuses of Church trust were determined to be centered on and around one individual and were not found to be widespread among the employees of the Church." This one person:
- circumvented financial controls since at least 1998
- made numerous, unsubstantiated, large cash withdrawals
- abused his personal credit card
- took undocumented trips and got reimbursed
- at least attempted to divert monies designated to charities
- failed to produce (or destroyed) Church appeals documentation
- personally used Church money over a number of years
- submitted fake reports
- payed for personal items with large amounts of Church money
No wonder the FBI was interested! This guy is a criminal mastermind, or at least boldly abused the naive trust placed in him by other-worldly clerics who were perhaps more gentle doves than wise serpents.
By laying all the misconduct at the feet of one person the OCA has gathered all of its remaining clutch of credibility eggs and put them in one last basket in front of someone who is likely to kick it. Good luck with that one.
There is enough evidence to make it stick, obviously, or they would not have gone out on the limb like this. The question is if there is also enough evidence to spread some of the blame around. Depending on how the "one person" is going to take it, this whole thing may sputter out with fixing blame and muttering that "oversight could have been better -- and, by golly, will be from now on." Maybe that is the best that ever could be hoped for.
- circumvented financial controls since at least 1998
- made numerous, unsubstantiated, large cash withdrawals
- abused his personal credit card
- took undocumented trips and got reimbursed
- at least attempted to divert monies designated to charities
- failed to produce (or destroyed) Church appeals documentation
- personally used Church money over a number of years
- submitted fake reports
- payed for personal items with large amounts of Church money
No wonder the FBI was interested! This guy is a criminal mastermind, or at least boldly abused the naive trust placed in him by other-worldly clerics who were perhaps more gentle doves than wise serpents.
By laying all the misconduct at the feet of one person the OCA has gathered all of its remaining clutch of credibility eggs and put them in one last basket in front of someone who is likely to kick it. Good luck with that one.
There is enough evidence to make it stick, obviously, or they would not have gone out on the limb like this. The question is if there is also enough evidence to spread some of the blame around. Depending on how the "one person" is going to take it, this whole thing may sputter out with fixing blame and muttering that "oversight could have been better -- and, by golly, will be from now on." Maybe that is the best that ever could be hoped for.
#17
interested observer
on
2006-12-13 16:01
I am sorry to throw a wet blanket on these revelations, but this comment is telling: "...[the improprieties] were determined to be centered on and around one individual and were not found to be widespread among the employees of the Church." YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING. That statement is a clear white wash... an attempt to make one individual the scapegoat for systemic corruption. NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOLKS. To not speak the truth now would be a real crime.
#18
Anon.
on
2006-12-13 16:55
"...centered around one person." Love that "lawyer-speak"!
While we are doing absorbing that slick evasion perhaps we should ask a long honored attorney's question: "Qui bono?" Who were the persons who benefited from the embezellment ? In contemporary slang, "Follow the money". Who took some, used some or looked the other way while others did.
For those who are worried about a "witch" hunt, think of it as a "which" hunt. Which heirarchs, clerics and laymen were complicit in the wrongdoing of the "one person" by their actions or inaction. Uncovering this information is essential to the process of full discovery. If left in the shadows of guesses and hunches, it will fester and spoil any future the OCA hopes to have.
While we are doing absorbing that slick evasion perhaps we should ask a long honored attorney's question: "Qui bono?" Who were the persons who benefited from the embezellment ? In contemporary slang, "Follow the money". Who took some, used some or looked the other way while others did.
For those who are worried about a "witch" hunt, think of it as a "which" hunt. Which heirarchs, clerics and laymen were complicit in the wrongdoing of the "one person" by their actions or inaction. Uncovering this information is essential to the process of full discovery. If left in the shadows of guesses and hunches, it will fester and spoil any future the OCA hopes to have.
#19
Jean Langley Sullivan
on
2006-12-13 18:02
Let us remember that the Accountants and PR are paid to represent the OCA. Hence, they will do whatever is necessary to unfocus attention on the OCA and its major players and refocus the spotlight on who/whatever is convenient. There is more to this story folks, so don't turn out the lights just yet.
Vicki Vykoff
Vicki Vykoff
#20
Vicki Vykoff
on
2006-12-13 18:37
I have to admit, at first blush it sounds as if Fr. Kondractik is being made a scapegoat.
I don't reach that conclusion, however. The internal control environment, the checks and balances that were to exist, were non-existent. The issue was raised by the Audit Committee in the 90s, and Protodeacon Wheeler, and the allegations were not believed by the Synod.
For me, failure to believe allegations is a much different scenario than commission of an illegal act. We learn many lessons in hindsight. Are the people who failed to pay attention to the report of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor guilty of the bombing?
Certainly they are guilty of bad judgment. Bad judgment is not criminal (thank God, or I would most certainly be in prison!).
The subjects of the FBI investigation may yet suffer consequences from their action or lack of action. We will have to render unto Ceasar that which belongs to him, and forgo the vigilante-ism. I see our role, and the role of the commission, to be one of putting in place controls and accountability and reporting, to ensure one individual can never again act in such a manner. It is not difficult to accomplish. I've provided that consultation for many organizations.
Our most important role (I've said from the beginning) is to forgive. Forgiveness will not divert consequences - forgiveness does not in my view encompass restoring trust. We don't forgive the drunk driver then provide him the bottle and the keys to the Caddy. We don't forgive the pedophile then put him with the children's church school class unsupervised. Yet forgiveness remains our most important role.
Was there a failure to oversee properly? Assuredly so. Was there collusion? That has yet to be proved. Collusion requires a positive intent. The leadership (including the MC) may have stuck their fingers in their ears and ignored the warnings, but that falls far short of collusion in my mind.
As we ask God each time we pray the prayer of our Lord, "Forgive us, as we forgive others."
Subdeacon John Martin
Martin D. Watt, CPA (Inactive)
I don't reach that conclusion, however. The internal control environment, the checks and balances that were to exist, were non-existent. The issue was raised by the Audit Committee in the 90s, and Protodeacon Wheeler, and the allegations were not believed by the Synod.
For me, failure to believe allegations is a much different scenario than commission of an illegal act. We learn many lessons in hindsight. Are the people who failed to pay attention to the report of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor guilty of the bombing?
Certainly they are guilty of bad judgment. Bad judgment is not criminal (thank God, or I would most certainly be in prison!).
The subjects of the FBI investigation may yet suffer consequences from their action or lack of action. We will have to render unto Ceasar that which belongs to him, and forgo the vigilante-ism. I see our role, and the role of the commission, to be one of putting in place controls and accountability and reporting, to ensure one individual can never again act in such a manner. It is not difficult to accomplish. I've provided that consultation for many organizations.
Our most important role (I've said from the beginning) is to forgive. Forgiveness will not divert consequences - forgiveness does not in my view encompass restoring trust. We don't forgive the drunk driver then provide him the bottle and the keys to the Caddy. We don't forgive the pedophile then put him with the children's church school class unsupervised. Yet forgiveness remains our most important role.
Was there a failure to oversee properly? Assuredly so. Was there collusion? That has yet to be proved. Collusion requires a positive intent. The leadership (including the MC) may have stuck their fingers in their ears and ignored the warnings, but that falls far short of collusion in my mind.
As we ask God each time we pray the prayer of our Lord, "Forgive us, as we forgive others."
Subdeacon John Martin
Martin D. Watt, CPA (Inactive)
#21
Marty Watt
on
2006-12-13 18:56
Qui bono........pleasant change to receive a small glimpse behind the smoke and mirrors to which we have heretofore been treated credit card abuse documentation, bank withdrawal slips.......would provide adequate reading to the average mystery novel afficionado will throwing Fr. Bob under the bus be enough of a side show to cover the past activities of two (maybe three) "retired" hierarchs? will a fourth hierarch throw in the towel in consequence of an amnesty? defense attornies would doubtless consider an amnesty a victory, especially were the fees generous enough
#22
luke
on
2006-12-13 19:34
As well as Met. Theodosius.
#23
Name withheld
on
2006-12-13 21:12
Kudos for Metropolitan Herman
I see the names of those on the Special Committee
How Lincolnesque !!
I see the names of those on the Special Committee
How Lincolnesque !!
#24
Don Motel
on
2006-12-13 23:12
Here we go again!
I am brought back to the Exxon Valdez accident in Alaska:
Captain Joe Hazelwood - nonetheless drunk, not in the wheelhouse, was found guilty of criminal negligence for the 3rd mate running the tanker [under his command] aground on Bligh Reef.
The courts followed the line of responsibility in that case, Hazelwood was jailed, fined and lost his job, hopefully the same justice will prevail here too.
Creative legal jargon aside - can we really be that dumb to believe that only one person or even two bear the brunt of this decades long scandal?
Let us not forget that ol Herman was around for all of this, in the position of responsibility for many of those years in one form or another! So was our rubber stamping Met Council and Synod, all of which ultimately bear ALL responsibilty on behalf of all and for all
How ironic - or is it? that this was all made manifest on the feast of St Herman, who with others brought Orthodoxy to this land.
Now we've been brought back to our meager beginnings, to start again, not by the glory of bishops, but rather in the humilty of simplicity and honesty; replanting the vineyard in the new land, a new year, truly doing God's work.
I am brought back to the Exxon Valdez accident in Alaska:
Captain Joe Hazelwood - nonetheless drunk, not in the wheelhouse, was found guilty of criminal negligence for the 3rd mate running the tanker [under his command] aground on Bligh Reef.
The courts followed the line of responsibility in that case, Hazelwood was jailed, fined and lost his job, hopefully the same justice will prevail here too.
Creative legal jargon aside - can we really be that dumb to believe that only one person or even two bear the brunt of this decades long scandal?
Let us not forget that ol Herman was around for all of this, in the position of responsibility for many of those years in one form or another! So was our rubber stamping Met Council and Synod, all of which ultimately bear ALL responsibilty on behalf of all and for all
How ironic - or is it? that this was all made manifest on the feast of St Herman, who with others brought Orthodoxy to this land.
Now we've been brought back to our meager beginnings, to start again, not by the glory of bishops, but rather in the humilty of simplicity and honesty; replanting the vineyard in the new land, a new year, truly doing God's work.
#25
Ted Panamarioff - Kodiak Alaska
on
2006-12-14 01:23
This is absolutely proposterous! PR is claiming that a lot of money was, misused/mismanaged/taken, over a lot of years. It is an absolute certainty that there are 2 signatures on every check that leaves the chancery, which can be signed by 4 different people, the Metropolitan, the chancellor, the Treasurer and the Comptroller. You mean to tell me that over all these years and all the money that was spent, this is the work of one person??? Very hard pill to swallow! Not to mention the fact that they just fired the comptroller, Steven Strikis, for incompetence!
No wonder why PR refused, not wouldnt, put the report in writing!! This whole investigation is a smoke screen!
No wonder why PR refused, not wouldnt, put the report in writing!! This whole investigation is a smoke screen!
#26
a concerned citizen
on
2006-12-14 05:27
Sorry John, but you are putting the cart before the horse! We don't even know yet what there is to forgive or whom we should forgive. In your case, I certainly believe your call for forgiveness is utterly sincere, but from others it seems more of a device to cover-up and divert attention so we can "all move on."
There is also the little matter of repentance--true repentance, not some generalized and vauge admission of guilt or responsibility. When I hear the real thing, I will be more than prepared to forgive.
KRT
There is also the little matter of repentance--true repentance, not some generalized and vauge admission of guilt or responsibility. When I hear the real thing, I will be more than prepared to forgive.
KRT
#27
Kenneth R. Tobin
on
2006-12-14 06:42
Here's a news article on this from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06348/746018-84.stm
#28
Prefer to remain anonymous
on
2006-12-14 08:16
Dear Thomas: It does not say that this person was solely responsible, just primarily responsible.
#29
Michael Strelka, CPA
on
2006-12-14 08:31
A pledge for honesty and truth in financial matters is a beginning. Taking to heart the deep seated sins the money has been used to cover over and disguise, makes for a real task. I pray the spirit of Phariseeism will NOT prevail. God help us all who have been entangled in this leachery.
Considering St. Herman was exiled, shunned and persecuted by the very members of the group accompanying him to Alaska, there is still the great need for ongoing deep listening and a prayerful spirit.
Glory to God for All things.
Matushka Carol
St. Paraskeva House Association
Considering St. Herman was exiled, shunned and persecuted by the very members of the group accompanying him to Alaska, there is still the great need for ongoing deep listening and a prayerful spirit.
Glory to God for All things.
Matushka Carol
St. Paraskeva House Association
#30
Anonymous
on
2006-12-14 08:53
I want to recommend that everyone print themselves a copy of Fr. Ted Bobosh's reflection titled: "A Way Forward" to study carefully and throroughly.
It proposes a well-reasoned, sensible, and doable course of action to move the OCA out of the fog of accusations and assumptions, many of which are still being ignored, and into the clear light of factual information: the who, what, when and how of what happened. Only the discovery and revelation of indisputable facts can provide a foundation for action to appropriately address past wrongdoing and begin to restore trust. To build on any other foundation is to build on sand.
It proposes a well-reasoned, sensible, and doable course of action to move the OCA out of the fog of accusations and assumptions, many of which are still being ignored, and into the clear light of factual information: the who, what, when and how of what happened. Only the discovery and revelation of indisputable facts can provide a foundation for action to appropriately address past wrongdoing and begin to restore trust. To build on any other foundation is to build on sand.
#31
Jean Langley Sullivan
on
2006-12-14 09:02
I would have to agree, this doesn't make any sense. What makes even less sense is $400,000 was spent on the investigation and only 8 people interviewed. Sounds like a railroad to me.( 8 interviewed: Herman, Kucynda, Oselinsky, Strikis, Wheeler, Job, zacchaus, and hubiak)
#32
Thomas Langley
on
2006-12-14 09:28
Bob H. are you for real??
"no admission of guilt" That's precisely the problem. Fr. Kondratick can't admit to any wrong doing.
After insisting that a court stenographer be present at their meeting with the PR reps, he refused to be sworn in.
He and his attorney had a hissy fit when asked the very first question regarding the ADM money in their meeting with PR, refused to answer it and the meeting was abruptly over.
MILLIONS of dollars are unaccounted for and yet he still can't admit to anything.
Any questions regarding ADM monies are shunned because the Holy Synod already closed that issue.
The Holy Synod was never informed how much money was involved and he still can't admit to anything.
Missinformation is continuously provided to the MC and he can't admit to anything.
A video tape exists from St. Catherine's Church in Moscow with him on it and allegedly damaging information contained within the contents and yet he can't admit to anything.
No wrong doing? PLEASE. What more evidence do you need Bob?
Stop it already with the doubt. You and other's are really embarrasing yourselves.
Michael Geeza
"no admission of guilt" That's precisely the problem. Fr. Kondratick can't admit to any wrong doing.
After insisting that a court stenographer be present at their meeting with the PR reps, he refused to be sworn in.
He and his attorney had a hissy fit when asked the very first question regarding the ADM money in their meeting with PR, refused to answer it and the meeting was abruptly over.
MILLIONS of dollars are unaccounted for and yet he still can't admit to anything.
Any questions regarding ADM monies are shunned because the Holy Synod already closed that issue.
The Holy Synod was never informed how much money was involved and he still can't admit to anything.
Missinformation is continuously provided to the MC and he can't admit to anything.
A video tape exists from St. Catherine's Church in Moscow with him on it and allegedly damaging information contained within the contents and yet he can't admit to anything.
No wrong doing? PLEASE. What more evidence do you need Bob?
Stop it already with the doubt. You and other's are really embarrasing yourselves.
Michael Geeza
#33
Michael Geeza
on
2006-12-14 10:04
PR's report was oral. Were there wide-ranging questions-and-answers? Was PR reporting to it's client: the "Church" in the bishops and MC, or was it providing information to interested parties with the consent of it's client, the Metropolitan. If the latter, they would not have to tell everything, and, indeed, could not if their client did not want them to. I would still like to know exactly who PR is representing.
By now this is clear to people, and perhaps someone on the MC could clear that up, at least. It is not an idle question.
Whichever it turns out to be, PR has every reason in the world to try to limit culpability to a single person. To pretend that PR has dug deep with the intention of following the leads wherever they lead and produce an independent report is naive, in my opinion. The more I think about it, the odder, more cunning, it seems to me have a law firm do this, whose lawyers are ethically bound to zealously represent the interersts of their clients. If a case can be made for the "lone gunman" theory, we'll call it, then that's the case they have to make.
What really bothers me is the way this looks. When the "nobody talks, everybody walks" defense falls through (because someone talked), the next default position is to compartmentalize the damage. It looks very "lawyerly" if you know what I mean. If it turns out that this latest announcement is factually flawed, any residual trust will vanish, and anyone associated with it is going to be tainted. It will be too late for qualifiers and additions. This is the position PR has staked out, and it will either prove workable or not.
So what happens when someone on the commission thinks: "You know, I don't think it was as simple as all that." That person will have to swallow his misgivings and adhere to the defense strategy, or here we go again, round two, maybe with bigger players.
A federal grand jury would get to the bottom of things, and if they are pointing the finger of blame at one person for the loss of milions, that is going to be hard for the friendly neighborhood Assistant U.S. Attorney to ignore. And there isn't a prosecutor alive who doesn't recognize the benefits of throwing in a conspiracy charge whenever possible.
I guess what we all have to ask ourselves is what will make us happy over this. We have an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, we have a guilty party, and we have new protections being built in to protect church finances from here on. Do we have a right to expect more? Would it be "good for baseball" to go further? At some point, we are going to be told that the commission has finished its investigation and everything's fine now, and we should move on.
Will we? Or will there be a lingering suspicion that we can't just pin everything on one bad apple and move on, that our OCA has a cracked foundation and we are going to have to roll our sleeves up and get dig it up and fix it.
By now this is clear to people, and perhaps someone on the MC could clear that up, at least. It is not an idle question.
Whichever it turns out to be, PR has every reason in the world to try to limit culpability to a single person. To pretend that PR has dug deep with the intention of following the leads wherever they lead and produce an independent report is naive, in my opinion. The more I think about it, the odder, more cunning, it seems to me have a law firm do this, whose lawyers are ethically bound to zealously represent the interersts of their clients. If a case can be made for the "lone gunman" theory, we'll call it, then that's the case they have to make.
What really bothers me is the way this looks. When the "nobody talks, everybody walks" defense falls through (because someone talked), the next default position is to compartmentalize the damage. It looks very "lawyerly" if you know what I mean. If it turns out that this latest announcement is factually flawed, any residual trust will vanish, and anyone associated with it is going to be tainted. It will be too late for qualifiers and additions. This is the position PR has staked out, and it will either prove workable or not.
So what happens when someone on the commission thinks: "You know, I don't think it was as simple as all that." That person will have to swallow his misgivings and adhere to the defense strategy, or here we go again, round two, maybe with bigger players.
A federal grand jury would get to the bottom of things, and if they are pointing the finger of blame at one person for the loss of milions, that is going to be hard for the friendly neighborhood Assistant U.S. Attorney to ignore. And there isn't a prosecutor alive who doesn't recognize the benefits of throwing in a conspiracy charge whenever possible.
I guess what we all have to ask ourselves is what will make us happy over this. We have an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, we have a guilty party, and we have new protections being built in to protect church finances from here on. Do we have a right to expect more? Would it be "good for baseball" to go further? At some point, we are going to be told that the commission has finished its investigation and everything's fine now, and we should move on.
Will we? Or will there be a lingering suspicion that we can't just pin everything on one bad apple and move on, that our OCA has a cracked foundation and we are going to have to roll our sleeves up and get dig it up and fix it.
#34
legal observer
on
2006-12-14 10:17
Are you confident that each and every check had two signatures? I would point out the two signature requirement is an internal, not a bank, requirement. Some organizations routinely have a signature stamp.
Checks in this day and age are cleared electronically, and the signatures are not reviewed by the bank.
Do I think others were involved? Indeed so. Were some complicit? Indeed. Do I think they will be brought to justice? Difficult question, and really, not my call (nor the call of the Church, in my view). At a minimum everyone in the financial administration, particularly the Treasurer and Comptroller, should not be allowed to participate in the administration of the OCA.
Subdeacon John Martin
Martin D. Watt, CPA (Inactive)
Checks in this day and age are cleared electronically, and the signatures are not reviewed by the bank.
Do I think others were involved? Indeed so. Were some complicit? Indeed. Do I think they will be brought to justice? Difficult question, and really, not my call (nor the call of the Church, in my view). At a minimum everyone in the financial administration, particularly the Treasurer and Comptroller, should not be allowed to participate in the administration of the OCA.
Subdeacon John Martin
Martin D. Watt, CPA (Inactive)
#35
Marty Watt
on
2006-12-14 11:44
Probably best to think of this as the end of the beginning, rather than as the beginning of the end.
#36
Ed Unneland
on
2006-12-14 12:34
Has anyone else received the 4-page, single-spaced letter from Bishop NIKOLAI on Russian Orthodox Diocese of Alaska letterhead, defending himself against "unfounded allegations" and inviting critics to contact him personally? It is dated December 8th. Mine came today, about an hour ago...
I found it very interesting that the letter was sent bulk mail from Brentwood, NY, permit #36, but with a personal return address in Anchorage... it certainly appears as if His Grace is using Syosset's imprint for (im)personal correspondence with former/potential donors; was this part of the central administration's fundraising/publicity budget, or did Alaska reimburse the chancery for printing and use of its permit? Are such uses even legal?
This type of self-centered and undignified missive is NOT what the OCA needs to begin rebuilding TRUST... It does not even matter if everything that His Grace writes is God-witnessed truth. The tone is so defensive as to be offensive, and prompted my husband to comment that "the bishop doth protest too much." The executive summary of the actual P/R investigation report, mailed to each and every member of the OCA, would have been a far better use of the time & materials!
Mark, could you please post His Grace's letter for all to enjoy?
I found it very interesting that the letter was sent bulk mail from Brentwood, NY, permit #36, but with a personal return address in Anchorage... it certainly appears as if His Grace is using Syosset's imprint for (im)personal correspondence with former/potential donors; was this part of the central administration's fundraising/publicity budget, or did Alaska reimburse the chancery for printing and use of its permit? Are such uses even legal?
This type of self-centered and undignified missive is NOT what the OCA needs to begin rebuilding TRUST... It does not even matter if everything that His Grace writes is God-witnessed truth. The tone is so defensive as to be offensive, and prompted my husband to comment that "the bishop doth protest too much." The executive summary of the actual P/R investigation report, mailed to each and every member of the OCA, would have been a far better use of the time & materials!
Mark, could you please post His Grace's letter for all to enjoy?
#37
A Parishioner in the Midwest
on
2006-12-14 13:08
While I'm sure this will not be the answer some will be looking for, IMHO it is now time to wait for the "commission" to do its work. Good people have been appointed to it and I think we can be certain that they will be diligent in their efforts. Now is not the time for a lynch-mob mentality.
In the meantime, again IMHO, we can expect that the central administration will operate under a more transparent and accountable framework.
The only item I was disapointed in was keeping the AAC in 2008. I think a council is doable in the fall of 2007.
In the meantime, again IMHO, we can expect that the central administration will operate under a more transparent and accountable framework.
The only item I was disapointed in was keeping the AAC in 2008. I think a council is doable in the fall of 2007.
#38
Michael Strelka, CPA
on
2006-12-14 13:58
Surely with the "new revelation", the church leaders will be anxious to investigate all corruption related to matters related.
May their persuits lead them to St. Tihkons School and Seminary Bookstore. A scrutinizing eye should evaluate all personel trips abroad, and goods brought back for resale. Verifying goods for resale going through the proper customs, and taxing process. A detailed accounting of the goods purchased, and coordinating inventory should seem appropriate.
This particular entity should have plenty of documentation for tax puposes going back several years.
I hate to even open up the new construction of the bookstore and the costs relating.
Also the reporting of taxable income for the staff, and management. This entity surely has a rich payroll after seeing the fortunate who have profited for their personal lifestyle. This is evident to those who drive by the school grounds.
I pray all is proper and well with this entity and those who staff it. If it is, may it be as prosperous in the future for those individuals, as it has been in the past.
God Bless the courageous men and women, who persued this task at hand.
May their persuits lead them to St. Tihkons School and Seminary Bookstore. A scrutinizing eye should evaluate all personel trips abroad, and goods brought back for resale. Verifying goods for resale going through the proper customs, and taxing process. A detailed accounting of the goods purchased, and coordinating inventory should seem appropriate.
This particular entity should have plenty of documentation for tax puposes going back several years.
I hate to even open up the new construction of the bookstore and the costs relating.
Also the reporting of taxable income for the staff, and management. This entity surely has a rich payroll after seeing the fortunate who have profited for their personal lifestyle. This is evident to those who drive by the school grounds.
I pray all is proper and well with this entity and those who staff it. If it is, may it be as prosperous in the future for those individuals, as it has been in the past.
God Bless the courageous men and women, who persued this task at hand.
#39
Christopher Martin
on
2006-12-14 15:04
The spirit of intended change for the better is a very good start. However, was there any discussion of calling an AAC in the summer of 2007? The OCA has a tremendous amount of creative energy that can be tapped here. The joint session seems to be only a beginning. Look how much finally was meaningfully discussed with the goal of a higher place for the OCA in mind.
The financial concerns are not our only concern. We must continue to build the church in many and various ways. Let us continue to re-build trust by allowing an AAC by the summer of 2007. This is not too soon to allow the laity, observers, and delegates to continue to share ideas to bring us where we need to be.
The gifts of the Holy Spirit are available to all. We have many gifted people in the OCA. I hope we can meet as a church entity to allow further creative thought and healing.
Patty Schellbach
The financial concerns are not our only concern. We must continue to build the church in many and various ways. Let us continue to re-build trust by allowing an AAC by the summer of 2007. This is not too soon to allow the laity, observers, and delegates to continue to share ideas to bring us where we need to be.
The gifts of the Holy Spirit are available to all. We have many gifted people in the OCA. I hope we can meet as a church entity to allow further creative thought and healing.
Patty Schellbach
#40
Patty Schellbach
on
2006-12-14 15:35
Obviously, +MH is taking the "hope this is enough, let's move on" strategy. That has been his strategy all along.
The problem is, though, that a "public" posting on the official OCA website is deliberately vague because anyone can read it. Nothing will be posted that makes the administration of the OCA look any worse than it already does.
Trust, though, is a very different thing. Ask yourself: How is trust rebuilt in a marriage after a spouse does something horrendous to break trust? What must be done if there is any hope of rebuilding trust? How long does it take?
At this point, I would sooner trust Jim Bakker or Jimmy Swaggart. At least they openly confessed and expressed remorse for their sins.
The problem is, though, that a "public" posting on the official OCA website is deliberately vague because anyone can read it. Nothing will be posted that makes the administration of the OCA look any worse than it already does.
Trust, though, is a very different thing. Ask yourself: How is trust rebuilt in a marriage after a spouse does something horrendous to break trust? What must be done if there is any hope of rebuilding trust? How long does it take?
At this point, I would sooner trust Jim Bakker or Jimmy Swaggart. At least they openly confessed and expressed remorse for their sins.
#41
Name withheld
on
2006-12-14 15:53
Since these annoucements were made I am still waiting patiently for the "plan" for the repayment of the loan that was replacing the pilfered amounts from the various accounts...or is Herman figuring the flock will repay the loan that repays the money of theirs that was pilfered?
When will the OCA announce sweeping staff changes, not positions? When will the heads roll and the new regime take over? Otherwise new stadium, same old dreary team.
When will the OCA announce sweeping staff changes, not positions? When will the heads roll and the new regime take over? Otherwise new stadium, same old dreary team.
#42
Anon...
on
2006-12-14 18:34
Christopher,
Regarding the imports, records by law must be retained for 5 years of all customs transactions done by a licensed customs broker on behalf of the importer. However, in the US tariff, many religious articles are not a dutiable commodity FREE rate in the duty column of HS 9810.0.00 which covers most things - aside from religious medallions/crosses/other symbols worn on the person that are HC 7117.90 and at a tariff of 3.7%
Plus the importer pays not duties, just a small (.125%) merchandise processing fee assesed on the imported (not retail) value of goods classified in the goods - And whatever brokerage fees the customs broker assesses (which is not governed by any law but by the market economy).
But, if the total value of the goods of a tariffable commodity are under $2000 for the entirity of the shipment it is an informal entry and only a $25 flat charge is assessed.
Long story shot? CBP & Census are so not going to go after St Tikhons shop unless it it part of a broader front-loading of charges by some other civil authority.
Regarding the imports, records by law must be retained for 5 years of all customs transactions done by a licensed customs broker on behalf of the importer. However, in the US tariff, many religious articles are not a dutiable commodity FREE rate in the duty column of HS 9810.0.00 which covers most things - aside from religious medallions/crosses/other symbols worn on the person that are HC 7117.90 and at a tariff of 3.7%
Plus the importer pays not duties, just a small (.125%) merchandise processing fee assesed on the imported (not retail) value of goods classified in the goods - And whatever brokerage fees the customs broker assesses (which is not governed by any law but by the market economy).
But, if the total value of the goods of a tariffable commodity are under $2000 for the entirity of the shipment it is an informal entry and only a $25 flat charge is assessed.
Long story shot? CBP & Census are so not going to go after St Tikhons shop unless it it part of a broader front-loading of charges by some other civil authority.
#43
Sniveling Underclerk
on
2006-12-14 21:06
Do we know if Dr. Skordinski is part of the Investigative Commission? In the first release (12/13), she is mentioned as a lay member, but then in the second release (12/14), the only lay member mentioned is Mr. Nescott.
As part of the administrative reorganization, I hope that His Beatitude's brother Bishops point out that proper oversight and reporting might be better handled if His Beatitude would live in his Diocese and closer to the "action."
(Editor's Note:
Dr. Skordinski is a member of the Commission, whose name was left out of the OCA press release by accident. That error has been corrected.)
As part of the administrative reorganization, I hope that His Beatitude's brother Bishops point out that proper oversight and reporting might be better handled if His Beatitude would live in his Diocese and closer to the "action."
(Editor's Note:
Dr. Skordinski is a member of the Commission, whose name was left out of the OCA press release by accident. That error has been corrected.)
#44
Christopher Eager
on
2006-12-14 23:10
Although it is possible to criticize many things which the Metropolitan Council did or didn't do in its recent historic meeting, I also think we should sit back and get a glimpse of the big picture and understand how much was really accomplished. The problems which were strangulating the OCA were not solely the activities of one man. The OCA had serious priority problems, personnel problems and policy problems. The MC did not offer some quick fix, but has offered some long term solutions to these many problems plaguing the OCA. Over the past year the OCA has been gripping with many different serious issues and struggling with not only how to solve problems but also with what the exact nature and extent of the problems are. What this historic meeting has left us with is nothing short of miraculous. They didn't limit themselves to blaming one man. They have adopted many needed changes in policy, priority, personnel, budget, direction. For those who say the OCA is too weak or too young or too incapable of being an autocephalous Church, I would say look at the problems we have just dealt with - and the solutions we have offered. We have faced our demons and our failures and our sins and have taken them on directly in battle. We have not done what many older Orthodox churches get accused of: denying problems exist, sweeping them under the rug, paying off the culprits so the scandal will be forgotten, ignoring the problem, fatalistically accepting corruption as a way of life, trumpeting hierarchicalism or clericalism as the cover for corruption. The OCA's MC has done what our American politicians cannot or will not do - deal with huge budget overspending. They have put in place a total reorganization of priorities and organizational structure. Those who were simply looking at this scandal as the corrupt actions of one man, were failing to grasp the depth and breadth and length of our problems. The MC has given the OCA a second chance to now live up to its autocephaly. They did it without relying on the emperor or government to solve the problem. They did it by making all the members to be the Body of Christ. This scandal was OUR problem, and the MC has made it possible for all of us - all the members of the Body of Christ - to be part of the solution. What needs to be done is not simply and only in the hands of the bishops. It is not only in the hands of Syosset or the MC itself. The solution offered is for all of us to step forward and actively be the Church, the Body of Christ, for all of us to take an active interest in the future of Orthodoxy in America.
#45
Fr. Ted Bobosh
on
2006-12-15 05:35
Dear Michael,
You seem to object to Fr. Bob's refusal to be sworn at the deposition. Apparently you are unfamiliar with Matthew 5:33-37, James 5:12, and Canon 29 of St. Basil the Great (cf. also Canon 10 of the same Saint). It is forbidden to Orthodox Christian to swear oaths, period. And in all legal jurisdictions in North America, provision is made for those who, for religious reasons, must affirm rather than swear. So in this matter, Fr. Bob simply obeyed the teachings of Holy Tradition. Why is that a problem for you? Qui nimis probat, nihil probat.
(And while we're on the subject of Latin tags, everybody, the phrase is "CUI bono," not "qui bono." The former is the dative of "quis", the latter a nominative. North American education has obviously gone to hell in a handcart since my day.)
And given the current climate of suspicion, distrust, etc., why does it seem unreasonable to you that Fr. Bob would insist on having his lawyer with him (as provided for in The Statute, Article XI,4,d, under "General Procedure") and an official written transcript of the deposition? A written record is simply a wise precaution to ensure accuracy of recall in the search for truth. And what precisely does that written record say about who pulled the plug on the deposition? Quite frankly, I am not prepared to accept anybody's "spin" on any of this without a good gander at notarised true copies of the original documents.
If the former Chancellor is guilty of actual wrong-doing (as opposed to exercising mistaken judgment), then in all justice he must answer for it at trial. In the Orthodox Church in America, the only statutory forum for such a trial is the Spiritual Court of the Ruling Hierarch under whose omophorion he currently is (Article XI,3); and the proper canonical order must be followed. Let the Holy Synod or the Metropolitan or whoever "present their accusations in writing to the Bishop of the Diocese of the accused" (Article XI,4,a) and let the process then take its course. Neither lynch-mob mentality nor closing a blind eye is acceptable...
...And neither is trying to short-circuit the statutory process by referring the case immediately to the Holy Synod. Article XI,3 specifically requires that "The Diocesan Court SHALL act as a court of first instance where the accused is a priest, a deacon, or a member of the laity." To do otherwise is lawless. (And to those who are so eager to see secular authority get involved, please consult 1 Corinthians 6:1-8, wherein the Apostle takes a pretty dim view of going to outside courts...as do Canon 6 of the 2nd Ecumenical Council; Canon 9 of the 4th Ecumenical Council; Canons 14,36,84 of the Council of Carthage; Canon 12 of the Council of Antioch, etc.)
The temptation is always to use the world’s tools to achieve godly ends, but it never works…not surprising, given who the prince of this world is (cf. Jn.12:31; 14:30; 16:11; James 1:20). So we can deal with this ungodly mess in a godly way, in obedience to Holy Tradition, and ultimately find healing. Or we can go for the world’s quick fix and invite judgment on ourselves. Which is going to be?
Igumen Philip (Speranza)
You seem to object to Fr. Bob's refusal to be sworn at the deposition. Apparently you are unfamiliar with Matthew 5:33-37, James 5:12, and Canon 29 of St. Basil the Great (cf. also Canon 10 of the same Saint). It is forbidden to Orthodox Christian to swear oaths, period. And in all legal jurisdictions in North America, provision is made for those who, for religious reasons, must affirm rather than swear. So in this matter, Fr. Bob simply obeyed the teachings of Holy Tradition. Why is that a problem for you? Qui nimis probat, nihil probat.
(And while we're on the subject of Latin tags, everybody, the phrase is "CUI bono," not "qui bono." The former is the dative of "quis", the latter a nominative. North American education has obviously gone to hell in a handcart since my day.)
And given the current climate of suspicion, distrust, etc., why does it seem unreasonable to you that Fr. Bob would insist on having his lawyer with him (as provided for in The Statute, Article XI,4,d, under "General Procedure") and an official written transcript of the deposition? A written record is simply a wise precaution to ensure accuracy of recall in the search for truth. And what precisely does that written record say about who pulled the plug on the deposition? Quite frankly, I am not prepared to accept anybody's "spin" on any of this without a good gander at notarised true copies of the original documents.
If the former Chancellor is guilty of actual wrong-doing (as opposed to exercising mistaken judgment), then in all justice he must answer for it at trial. In the Orthodox Church in America, the only statutory forum for such a trial is the Spiritual Court of the Ruling Hierarch under whose omophorion he currently is (Article XI,3); and the proper canonical order must be followed. Let the Holy Synod or the Metropolitan or whoever "present their accusations in writing to the Bishop of the Diocese of the accused" (Article XI,4,a) and let the process then take its course. Neither lynch-mob mentality nor closing a blind eye is acceptable...
...And neither is trying to short-circuit the statutory process by referring the case immediately to the Holy Synod. Article XI,3 specifically requires that "The Diocesan Court SHALL act as a court of first instance where the accused is a priest, a deacon, or a member of the laity." To do otherwise is lawless. (And to those who are so eager to see secular authority get involved, please consult 1 Corinthians 6:1-8, wherein the Apostle takes a pretty dim view of going to outside courts...as do Canon 6 of the 2nd Ecumenical Council; Canon 9 of the 4th Ecumenical Council; Canons 14,36,84 of the Council of Carthage; Canon 12 of the Council of Antioch, etc.)
The temptation is always to use the world’s tools to achieve godly ends, but it never works…not surprising, given who the prince of this world is (cf. Jn.12:31; 14:30; 16:11; James 1:20). So we can deal with this ungodly mess in a godly way, in obedience to Holy Tradition, and ultimately find healing. Or we can go for the world’s quick fix and invite judgment on ourselves. Which is going to be?
Igumen Philip (Speranza)
#46
Anonymous
on
2006-12-15 06:13
After reading all of the comments on this page, why is everyone jumping to the conclusion that the "one person" is Fr Bob? It seems more logical to me that the "one person" is the hierarch responsible for everything at the time -- Met Theodosius. Certainly, he was aware of what Fr Bob and company were doing. And, as has been intimated in many posts and letters, he was busy doing his own "deals", etc.
Of course, I am assuming that the report of the Law Firm was on the up-and-up and was not just another "smoke screen" thrown up to protect the culprits by laying all of the blame at the feet of one person who is no longer associated with Syosset. If that is the purpose of this -- then everyone is right, both in believing that the "one person" is Fr Bob and that the situation is not getting better but worse.
Repentance, anyone?
Of course, I am assuming that the report of the Law Firm was on the up-and-up and was not just another "smoke screen" thrown up to protect the culprits by laying all of the blame at the feet of one person who is no longer associated with Syosset. If that is the purpose of this -- then everyone is right, both in believing that the "one person" is Fr Bob and that the situation is not getting better but worse.
Repentance, anyone?
#47
Anonymous
on
2006-12-15 08:18
This joint meeting accomplished all that could we should expected. Rebuilding trust amongst the OCA faithful in the Synod, Syosset Administration and the Metropolitan Council means building a track record. For some it will take several years to build the record. For others, it will take longer. For some the track record will never be built. They have had their fill.
From this day forward, "best practices," sound budgets, adherence to OCA statures, good audits, an in-depth investigation into the crisis by the new investigative committee and clear communications with the OCA faithful needs to describe how the Synod, Syosset Administration and the Metropolitan Council conduct their affairs. Otherwise, a good track record will never exist.
From this day forward, "best practices," sound budgets, adherence to OCA statures, good audits, an in-depth investigation into the crisis by the new investigative committee and clear communications with the OCA faithful needs to describe how the Synod, Syosset Administration and the Metropolitan Council conduct their affairs. Otherwise, a good track record will never exist.
#48
Sam Osman
on
2006-12-15 09:10
In Missouri and Kansas, farmers get rid of bad weeds by spraying insecticide on the weeds. The OCA isn't getting rid of the weeds, we are sowing a new crop over the weeds, that will become, infected weeds. Lets get rid of the weeds first, then plant the new seeds.
If anyone thinks that Father Bob, is the only one involved is laughable. Father Bob has several copies of the tape in question, otherwise M H, would have canned him not transferred him. These tapes are not being dicussed, because higher ups will be implicated. String this out for a couple of years,they will get their pensions and the weeds will still grow.
I read the article in the Pittsburgh paper and this article says the OCA has 400,000 members. Are we still day dreaming?
Steve Babish
St. James, Brother of the Lord
Kansas City, MO
If anyone thinks that Father Bob, is the only one involved is laughable. Father Bob has several copies of the tape in question, otherwise M H, would have canned him not transferred him. These tapes are not being dicussed, because higher ups will be implicated. String this out for a couple of years,they will get their pensions and the weeds will still grow.
I read the article in the Pittsburgh paper and this article says the OCA has 400,000 members. Are we still day dreaming?
Steve Babish
St. James, Brother of the Lord
Kansas City, MO
It was stated in the Pittsburgh newspaper article that a report of the Investigative Coomission will be given to the church next year. That is vague. Can we find out an approximate month next year and what church means?
#50
Karen Jermyn
on
2006-12-15 10:41
The changes in the central administration are welcome indeed and indicate that Metropolitan Herman is serious in his efforts to set right the mistakes of the past. While the Metropolitan may have been complicit in past mistakes and even slow to recognize the need for change, I truly believe he means to set our ship aright and make that effort his lasting legacy and gift to the church.
The changes accepted by the Synod and MC include, I believe, a transition officer to smooth the way for the new structure and its new occupants.
Concerning the position of chancellor, it is the only one that appears to require a priest who will serve as priest of priests. A pre-eminent job requirement should be a least five years of pastoral experience either as a parish priest or military chaplain. This prerequisite is necessary to ground the new chancellor in understanding the stresses and strains of pastoral work. In going back to a posting of mine in January 2006, I urged a term limit for the chancellor’s position (but not the others), perhaps somewhere between four to six years, after which the chancellor would be rotated out to a parish assignment and allow new blood in and avoid or reduce the pitfalls, all too human and natural, of becoming too comfortable in the job and prone to bending the rules.
I would encourage the OCA central administration to publish more details of OCA Organizational Task Force’s report. None of it appears to be confidential including pay scales and PDs (position descriptions). Publication would only help rebuild trust and give increase hope. Some may nitpick at the fine points, but not because of the lack of transparency.
The changes accepted by the Synod and MC include, I believe, a transition officer to smooth the way for the new structure and its new occupants.
Concerning the position of chancellor, it is the only one that appears to require a priest who will serve as priest of priests. A pre-eminent job requirement should be a least five years of pastoral experience either as a parish priest or military chaplain. This prerequisite is necessary to ground the new chancellor in understanding the stresses and strains of pastoral work. In going back to a posting of mine in January 2006, I urged a term limit for the chancellor’s position (but not the others), perhaps somewhere between four to six years, after which the chancellor would be rotated out to a parish assignment and allow new blood in and avoid or reduce the pitfalls, all too human and natural, of becoming too comfortable in the job and prone to bending the rules.
I would encourage the OCA central administration to publish more details of OCA Organizational Task Force’s report. None of it appears to be confidential including pay scales and PDs (position descriptions). Publication would only help rebuild trust and give increase hope. Some may nitpick at the fine points, but not because of the lack of transparency.
#51
Terry C. Peet
on
2006-12-15 12:57
Very well said Steve! Let's hope that Met. Herman's actions are honorable without an ulterior motive. Honorable as a step forward while acknowledging that the whole truth has yet to be revealed.
The 400,000 figure may not be far from the truth .... if you go by "baptismal records". The important statistical question is "How many of these "baptized" OCA members attend church ... once a year ... three times ... twelve times .... at least 52 times a year?" and "How many of these "members" give ... 1% ... 2% ... 5% ... at least 10% of their gross income to the Church?" This is where the numbers really begin to wane!
The 400,000 figure may not be far from the truth .... if you go by "baptismal records". The important statistical question is "How many of these "baptized" OCA members attend church ... once a year ... three times ... twelve times .... at least 52 times a year?" and "How many of these "members" give ... 1% ... 2% ... 5% ... at least 10% of their gross income to the Church?" This is where the numbers really begin to wane!
#52
John D. Sheposh
on
2006-12-15 20:04
Some unanswered questions:
(1) What procedures did PR follow to ensure that there was no conflict of interest? When they say that the misconduct was "centered on" on individual, does that mean that they found no evidence that anyone else did anything wrong?
(2) If misconduct was centered on one individual, why couldn't the Administration figure out who that individual was years ago when Deacon Wheeler blew the whistle? Why did the Adminstration protect and promote this individual for years while the scandal festered?
(3) If the misconduct centers on Fr. Kondratick, why is he still employed in the OCA?
(4) If the evidence shows that misconduct centers on Fr. Kondratick, what legal action will the Metropolitan Council take against him for restitution? Somehow I think the only way we will ever hear the other side of the story is if the Metropolitan Council sues to recover the missing funds. Even if it is impossible to recover the missing millions, it might be possible to find something more important: a more complete picture of the truth.
(5) Will the new commission have access to all of PR's findings?
(1) What procedures did PR follow to ensure that there was no conflict of interest? When they say that the misconduct was "centered on" on individual, does that mean that they found no evidence that anyone else did anything wrong?
(2) If misconduct was centered on one individual, why couldn't the Administration figure out who that individual was years ago when Deacon Wheeler blew the whistle? Why did the Adminstration protect and promote this individual for years while the scandal festered?
(3) If the misconduct centers on Fr. Kondratick, why is he still employed in the OCA?
(4) If the evidence shows that misconduct centers on Fr. Kondratick, what legal action will the Metropolitan Council take against him for restitution? Somehow I think the only way we will ever hear the other side of the story is if the Metropolitan Council sues to recover the missing funds. Even if it is impossible to recover the missing millions, it might be possible to find something more important: a more complete picture of the truth.
(5) Will the new commission have access to all of PR's findings?
#53
Robert Vasilios Wachter
on
2006-12-15 21:10
That's hitting the nail right on the head Kenneth!
Over the months I noticed that many of the clergy (and some of their wives) on this site piously request that we sweep the allegations under the rug and move on. Such spiritual naiveness is only found in cults!
Over the months I noticed that many of the clergy (and some of their wives) on this site piously request that we sweep the allegations under the rug and move on. Such spiritual naiveness is only found in cults!
#54
Withheld by request
on
2006-12-15 22:01
Cui bono not qui bono...right. Thanks for the correction. The question remains. Who benefited? All that money went somewhere.
#55
Jean Langley Sullivan
on
2006-12-16 06:54
Sweeping changes??? Seriously?
Am I the only one who read the OCA.org website and thought publicity stunt? This looks like a blatant attempt at lets have a meeting and release a "stern" press release, and maybe the flock will believe us.
Seriously folks, calls for the administration to resign must be listened to. They continue to layer the attempts at "makings things right" without looking at themselves.
A few posts back Theodosius was mentioned to be the problem...wasn't Herman one of his right hand men? Does that not make him guilty by association too?
"I walk through the valley of death and smell the rotting OCA hierarchy and their tumultuous lies they spread on a daily basis that was the ruin of what was once the leader in Orthodoxy in America."
God help them.
Am I the only one who read the OCA.org website and thought publicity stunt? This looks like a blatant attempt at lets have a meeting and release a "stern" press release, and maybe the flock will believe us.
Seriously folks, calls for the administration to resign must be listened to. They continue to layer the attempts at "makings things right" without looking at themselves.
A few posts back Theodosius was mentioned to be the problem...wasn't Herman one of his right hand men? Does that not make him guilty by association too?
"I walk through the valley of death and smell the rotting OCA hierarchy and their tumultuous lies they spread on a daily basis that was the ruin of what was once the leader in Orthodoxy in America."
God help them.
#56
Anon.
on
2006-12-16 07:59
I disagree with this comment on one point - I'm not sure the Chancellor is "priest of priests". As I understand it, the chancellor acts to implement decisions of the Metropolitan. The more important question that is as yet unasked concerns the authority of the Metropolitan himself. Then, and only then, can we determine the duties, responsibilities and qualifications necessary for a Chancellor.
An example might be the Alaska Lands issue ... can the Metropolitan act unilaterally? The diocesean bishop? The Synod of Bishops? The MC? Will we have a strong central administration (as the US government is) or a more decentralized decision-making authority (modeling the government of Canada)?
To my mind, it will require the Holy Synod to draft the duties and responsibilities of the Metropolitan, and for the AAC to discuss, revise and confirm such proposal (say the "Amen" as it were).
Subdeacon John Martin
Martin D. Watt, CPA (Inactive)
An example might be the Alaska Lands issue ... can the Metropolitan act unilaterally? The diocesean bishop? The Synod of Bishops? The MC? Will we have a strong central administration (as the US government is) or a more decentralized decision-making authority (modeling the government of Canada)?
To my mind, it will require the Holy Synod to draft the duties and responsibilities of the Metropolitan, and for the AAC to discuss, revise and confirm such proposal (say the "Amen" as it were).
Subdeacon John Martin
Martin D. Watt, CPA (Inactive)
#57
Marty Watt
on
2006-12-16 08:52
Let's be clear. The report is confirming that the funds were stolen. RECIEPT OF STOLEN PROPERTY IS A CRIME. Granted, there is a burden of proof. When funds cross state lines, each US state has a different burden of proof on whether the person receiving those funds knew they were stolen. Our response needs to be resolute. If you committed a crime, we will/should forgive you, but that does not negate the civil penalties of your actions. We have an ordered society specifically because we hold wrongdoers accountable. It is not appropriate to simply forgive and slap wrists in this matter.
#58
Anon.
on
2006-12-16 10:06
Lets consider another part of this larger issue:
what if some in our synod have lost monastic humility, or maybe never had it. What if the evil one has successfully made inroads into one or more of our bishops? Then what?
Also lets consider reality; that if a person - caught up in his/her own ego and vanity were to be suddenly caught or exposed what would they do? Would they not attempt to place blame on someone or something other themselves?
Consider history; when a dictator or monarch, leader or other person was finally caught in the act or put on trial for his/her crimes did anyone of them ever admit any fault or responsibility? Think Reagan, Nixon, Bush, Milosovitch, Martha Stewart, Enron clan just to name a few
I believe if honesty and humility were not the cornerstones of their lives there is no reconciliation by giving them the option that honest humble persons are judged by.
Can we ever really believe that if the ultimate heresy [lying, deception, evasion, wrongdoing, misappropriation of funds, etc] was committed by so called religious leaders that these same people after all of this would now become humble, honest or worthy of the same respect they already betrayed?
Is this not the same "lines" that all the deposed leaders [above named] used in defense of their actions?
Were any of those people able to fully redeem themselves?
What do we gain by sweeping this scandal under the carpet and let time pass as well as let these same people continue their evil reign? If we do so are we too part of the problem? Are we too bowing to Satan's will?
what if some in our synod have lost monastic humility, or maybe never had it. What if the evil one has successfully made inroads into one or more of our bishops? Then what?
Also lets consider reality; that if a person - caught up in his/her own ego and vanity were to be suddenly caught or exposed what would they do? Would they not attempt to place blame on someone or something other themselves?
Consider history; when a dictator or monarch, leader or other person was finally caught in the act or put on trial for his/her crimes did anyone of them ever admit any fault or responsibility? Think Reagan, Nixon, Bush, Milosovitch, Martha Stewart, Enron clan just to name a few
I believe if honesty and humility were not the cornerstones of their lives there is no reconciliation by giving them the option that honest humble persons are judged by.
Can we ever really believe that if the ultimate heresy [lying, deception, evasion, wrongdoing, misappropriation of funds, etc] was committed by so called religious leaders that these same people after all of this would now become humble, honest or worthy of the same respect they already betrayed?
Is this not the same "lines" that all the deposed leaders [above named] used in defense of their actions?
Were any of those people able to fully redeem themselves?
What do we gain by sweeping this scandal under the carpet and let time pass as well as let these same people continue their evil reign? If we do so are we too part of the problem? Are we too bowing to Satan's will?
#59
Ted Panamarioff
on
2006-12-16 14:18
How valid is a report that cannot be written but only given orally?
How valid is an investigation which only interviewed 7 or 8 people?
How valid is an investigation that had as its order to the PR law firm to "build a firewall around the Metropolitan?"
How valid is an investigation which spent a total of 34 MINUTES interviewing Fr. Kondratick?
How valid is an investigation when the PR lawyers walked out of the interview with Fr. Kondratick after only 34 minutes even when Fr. Kondratick's lawyer pleaded with them to return and ask the hours of questions and hear the answers that could have been given by Fr. Kondratick? In the parlance of lawyers who prejudge a deposition and walk out at their first opportunity, indeed the PR lawyers "blew up the interview" with Fr. Kondratick at their first chance.
How valid is an investigation which spent a total of 55 MINUTES interviewing Met. Herman, an interview punctuated with outbursts of laughter? How serious could those questions have been?
How valid is an investigation that did not interview dozens of current and former employees of the OCA chancery? And why were they not interviewed? Perhaps because they were perceived to be Kondratick supporters? Or maybe because their answer would not so easily build that firewall.
How valid is an investigation that only interviewed (except for one) people who had already made it clear that they blamed Fr. Kondratick for the OCA "scandal?"
How valid is an investigation at getting to the truth when the Holy Synod invited Fr. Kondratick to speak with them last spring only to be uninvited by Met. Herman? And when Fr. Kondratick was uninvited by Bishop Seraphim, he was told to say, "it would be awkward for him to speak to the Synod. Awkward for who, Fr. Kondratick or Met. Herman? Why was Fr. Kondratick prevented from speaking with the MC directly? Who prevented him from speaking?
I am sorry to interrupt everyone's victory lap, but what was presented to the MC was at best a thinly veiled attempt to blame everything on one man who has yet to be given the opportunity to defend himself against these allegations. We all must be prepared for when he does remove the seals of confidentiality and tell all he knows not only about the OCA finances but the motives behind the many who have portrayed him as the focus of all things bad in the OCA. Indeed, as many have said on this website, "the people have a right to know the truth."
The investigation will be exposed for what it is, a $300,000 + (and the lawyer's costs are still coming in) firewall snow job the purpose of which was not to get at any truth but protect Met. Herman. The word firewall is not my invention, it is the very word used by Fr. Paul Kucynda to two senior clergy of the OCA less than two weeks after the PR firm was hired by Met. Herman. It was uttered within the same conversation that Herman "had to do something so that he was not seen as incompetent." Fr. Kucynda went on to say that "this (PR) law firm was recommended and hired because they have experience in protecting organizations, and of course, Met. Herman wants to protect the Church." Protect the Church or himself?
And how do I know all of this? Well, maybe I was one of the people who was never interviewed by PR. And why was I not interviewed? Because my answers would not have built their firewall. And why also the many others not interviewed who could have helped all of us better see the whole picture?
Maybe an AAC in 2008, or better yet, 2007 in the pavilion at St. Tikhon's (right in the shadow of Met. Herman’s house that the OCA pays the rent on so that he can live outside his diocese and not in Syosset) would be the perfect venue for Fr. Kondratick to tell all he knows and why things were done the way they were done and who gave the permission for decisions to be made. Let all the names be named. Let all the players in this saga come forth and try and counter what Fr. Kondratick would say. But wait, how can he defend himself when there is no written report for him to refute? How will this oral report given to the MC be shared with him so that he can defend himself? Or, maybe he won't even be given that chance? It has not been important up to this point, why should it be now?
But, of course we all know that won't happen because those in charge now are not interested in the whole truth, just enough truth to be able to say that their allegations are true! Just enough truth to say that one man, and only one man is to blame. How expedient that one man should die for the many, how convenient.
How valid is an investigation which only interviewed 7 or 8 people?
How valid is an investigation that had as its order to the PR law firm to "build a firewall around the Metropolitan?"
How valid is an investigation which spent a total of 34 MINUTES interviewing Fr. Kondratick?
How valid is an investigation when the PR lawyers walked out of the interview with Fr. Kondratick after only 34 minutes even when Fr. Kondratick's lawyer pleaded with them to return and ask the hours of questions and hear the answers that could have been given by Fr. Kondratick? In the parlance of lawyers who prejudge a deposition and walk out at their first opportunity, indeed the PR lawyers "blew up the interview" with Fr. Kondratick at their first chance.
How valid is an investigation which spent a total of 55 MINUTES interviewing Met. Herman, an interview punctuated with outbursts of laughter? How serious could those questions have been?
How valid is an investigation that did not interview dozens of current and former employees of the OCA chancery? And why were they not interviewed? Perhaps because they were perceived to be Kondratick supporters? Or maybe because their answer would not so easily build that firewall.
How valid is an investigation that only interviewed (except for one) people who had already made it clear that they blamed Fr. Kondratick for the OCA "scandal?"
How valid is an investigation at getting to the truth when the Holy Synod invited Fr. Kondratick to speak with them last spring only to be uninvited by Met. Herman? And when Fr. Kondratick was uninvited by Bishop Seraphim, he was told to say, "it would be awkward for him to speak to the Synod. Awkward for who, Fr. Kondratick or Met. Herman? Why was Fr. Kondratick prevented from speaking with the MC directly? Who prevented him from speaking?
I am sorry to interrupt everyone's victory lap, but what was presented to the MC was at best a thinly veiled attempt to blame everything on one man who has yet to be given the opportunity to defend himself against these allegations. We all must be prepared for when he does remove the seals of confidentiality and tell all he knows not only about the OCA finances but the motives behind the many who have portrayed him as the focus of all things bad in the OCA. Indeed, as many have said on this website, "the people have a right to know the truth."
The investigation will be exposed for what it is, a $300,000 + (and the lawyer's costs are still coming in) firewall snow job the purpose of which was not to get at any truth but protect Met. Herman. The word firewall is not my invention, it is the very word used by Fr. Paul Kucynda to two senior clergy of the OCA less than two weeks after the PR firm was hired by Met. Herman. It was uttered within the same conversation that Herman "had to do something so that he was not seen as incompetent." Fr. Kucynda went on to say that "this (PR) law firm was recommended and hired because they have experience in protecting organizations, and of course, Met. Herman wants to protect the Church." Protect the Church or himself?
And how do I know all of this? Well, maybe I was one of the people who was never interviewed by PR. And why was I not interviewed? Because my answers would not have built their firewall. And why also the many others not interviewed who could have helped all of us better see the whole picture?
Maybe an AAC in 2008, or better yet, 2007 in the pavilion at St. Tikhon's (right in the shadow of Met. Herman’s house that the OCA pays the rent on so that he can live outside his diocese and not in Syosset) would be the perfect venue for Fr. Kondratick to tell all he knows and why things were done the way they were done and who gave the permission for decisions to be made. Let all the names be named. Let all the players in this saga come forth and try and counter what Fr. Kondratick would say. But wait, how can he defend himself when there is no written report for him to refute? How will this oral report given to the MC be shared with him so that he can defend himself? Or, maybe he won't even be given that chance? It has not been important up to this point, why should it be now?
But, of course we all know that won't happen because those in charge now are not interested in the whole truth, just enough truth to be able to say that their allegations are true! Just enough truth to say that one man, and only one man is to blame. How expedient that one man should die for the many, how convenient.
#60
Name Witheld for now
on
2006-12-16 14:55
Iagree with you totally. It's apparent they are trying to hang this on one person,Theodosius, and now that he is ill, they will now ask us to forgive him. However, his accomplices, will ask to be exonerated, and some will say they should be forgiven.
This saga will never end, and the merry-go- around will keep rolling. Like I have stated before the mumbo-jumbo will still come out of NY. The old cliche, garbage in garbage out.
This saga will never end, and the merry-go- around will keep rolling. Like I have stated before the mumbo-jumbo will still come out of NY. The old cliche, garbage in garbage out.
Our sins have made us blind to the Gospel and to truth.
It will only be through the school of repentance that we learn to do better. This is why I was moved to tears when Archbishop Job stated in the interview for OCANEWS.org, his need to know so he would make an appropriate repentance.
A day can not go by without us praying to continue the new school of repentance that has brought us together.
'Prepare ye the way of the Lord. Make straight in the desert a highway for our God.' Isaiah 40:3.
Our work needs to straighten out so the highways being built
do go to God. There are growing numbers of diversions, financially and thieves in one respect or another to hold us up on this path.
True repentance will come when we stop shielding and covering the circumstances by which repeated sins occur.
O Lord, let us behold your light and come forth out of darkness and iniquities. O Gracius Lord, be merciful to us and take from us the blindness and inability to see our sins. Implant Your LAW on us. Open our hearts to your Holy Gospel so we can do what is right and just to love and grow in peace. Amen.
Matushka Carol
St. Paraskeva House Association
It will only be through the school of repentance that we learn to do better. This is why I was moved to tears when Archbishop Job stated in the interview for OCANEWS.org, his need to know so he would make an appropriate repentance.
A day can not go by without us praying to continue the new school of repentance that has brought us together.
'Prepare ye the way of the Lord. Make straight in the desert a highway for our God.' Isaiah 40:3.
Our work needs to straighten out so the highways being built
do go to God. There are growing numbers of diversions, financially and thieves in one respect or another to hold us up on this path.
True repentance will come when we stop shielding and covering the circumstances by which repeated sins occur.
O Lord, let us behold your light and come forth out of darkness and iniquities. O Gracius Lord, be merciful to us and take from us the blindness and inability to see our sins. Implant Your LAW on us. Open our hearts to your Holy Gospel so we can do what is right and just to love and grow in peace. Amen.
Matushka Carol
St. Paraskeva House Association
#62
Matsuhka Carol
on
2006-12-16 19:08
My goodness! On what basis are you grouping President Nixon, Reagaon or Bush, Martha Stewart or even the Enron executives ("clan"), with Milosovich???? Even President Nixon! Shame!
#63
Anonymous
on
2006-12-17 00:38
How valid is an investigation which......? These questions shed no new light on our current situation, but attempt only to cast aspersions on the process, and perhaps on those who have spoken "publicly" (or as much as has been said aloud or been allowed to say). The questions in the posting are largely meaningless because we can't know the validity of such things as we can only evaluate them by what is known. And so far what is known tends to support the allegations and to give credence to the actions taken by the Metropolitan and the Metropolitan Council. If the writer of this posting wants a fair hearing, then say give us some hard evidence or facts to make us believe that the explanation which is emerging is not in fact correct. We live in an age in which the scientific method predominates in our thinking. So if you have reason to believe the current theory explaining what happened in the OCA is not correct, then present your evidence, I think you will get a good hearing. There are a lot of people in the OCA today who have been demanding to know the truth. You say there is "no written report for Fr. Kondratick to refute." Yet plenty has been written and presented on the Internet - many opportunities for Fr. Bob to tell his side of the story, to stop the suffering of the OCA by being honest and forthright about what he knows. That is of course if it is the OCA that you are trying to help, rather than trying to reduce our situation to a personal blame game aimed at discrediting and destroying individuals rather than revealing the truth and helping to strengthen the OCA. There are many who want to know exactly what happened and have been begging for the whole story to be told. As has been said before, silence cannot make the deaf to hear,nor the dumb to speak. If you have information about the scandal that will help us know the truth which sets us free, then by all means say it. But if all you have to offer is a criticism of the process, but no news facts that were previously left uncovered, then you have nothing to bring to the table.
#64
Fr. Ted Bobosh
on
2006-12-17 05:53
"How valid is an investigation that had as its order to the PR law firm to "build a firewall around the Metropolitan?""
This is the very problem, you see. People seem to the think that you hire a law firm to conduct an investigation to get to bottom of something. Lawyers are advocates hired to advance the position of their client.
I don't know if the "firewall" quote and the rest in this post is accurate or not. My "professional hunch" is that it is, but time will tell. If someone asked me to conduct a legal investigation of themselves, I would scratch my head. If someone asked me to build a firewall, I would nod my head, roll up my sleeves and build a firewall (to the extent that were possible within the Rules of Professional Responsibility). Especially if they gave me a quarter million dollars. Because that's what lawyers do.
People, with all due respect, all concerned are already painted into a corner. The (dubious) PR findings have been publically released officially. The commission can confirm them, refute them or punt. It does not take a lot of imagination to play out the results of each scenario, and none of them are going to be edifying, unless the PR investigation is, in fact, shown to be beyond question.
This is an unfortunate result of denial, delay and the official adoption of what must be assumed an advocate report as some sort of impartial investigation as a vaccination against subsequent claims.
This is the very problem, you see. People seem to the think that you hire a law firm to conduct an investigation to get to bottom of something. Lawyers are advocates hired to advance the position of their client.
I don't know if the "firewall" quote and the rest in this post is accurate or not. My "professional hunch" is that it is, but time will tell. If someone asked me to conduct a legal investigation of themselves, I would scratch my head. If someone asked me to build a firewall, I would nod my head, roll up my sleeves and build a firewall (to the extent that were possible within the Rules of Professional Responsibility). Especially if they gave me a quarter million dollars. Because that's what lawyers do.
People, with all due respect, all concerned are already painted into a corner. The (dubious) PR findings have been publically released officially. The commission can confirm them, refute them or punt. It does not take a lot of imagination to play out the results of each scenario, and none of them are going to be edifying, unless the PR investigation is, in fact, shown to be beyond question.
This is an unfortunate result of denial, delay and the official adoption of what must be assumed an advocate report as some sort of impartial investigation as a vaccination against subsequent claims.
#65
legal observer
on
2006-12-17 07:50
"When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest and finds none. The he says 'I will return to my house from which I came.' And when he comes he finds it empty, swept and put in order. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of than man is worse than the first. So shall it also be with this wicked generation."
---Jesus (Matthew: 12:43-45)
---Jesus (Matthew: 12:43-45)
#66
Anonymous
on
2006-12-17 08:20
To think that one man is solely responsible for financial misconduct for many years is a flat falsehood.
As an accountant, my perspective is that anyone reading financial statements and auditor's reports with an ounce of humility would have seen these problems for the last 6 or 7 years.
Our leadership may have stepped up to the plate today, but where have they been since 1999? In absentia? Have they been whitewashed by something? If so, speak.
Like the Valdez, our captain is ultimately responsible. If he has taken actions to stop the problems, it only alleviates the pain.
The question is can we forgive him or is it easier to ask him go.
We need to hear more from Metropolitan Herman on his role in the mess. If he was foolish, let him say it.
Leaders can be so disappointing.
As an accountant, my perspective is that anyone reading financial statements and auditor's reports with an ounce of humility would have seen these problems for the last 6 or 7 years.
Our leadership may have stepped up to the plate today, but where have they been since 1999? In absentia? Have they been whitewashed by something? If so, speak.
Like the Valdez, our captain is ultimately responsible. If he has taken actions to stop the problems, it only alleviates the pain.
The question is can we forgive him or is it easier to ask him go.
We need to hear more from Metropolitan Herman on his role in the mess. If he was foolish, let him say it.
Leaders can be so disappointing.
#67
Daniel E. Fall
on
2006-12-17 08:52
Ulterior motive? You mean like create a smokescreen to sidestep the fiscal heat that the Midwest and New England Dioceses (et al.) were applying? Sorry, the clergy and laymembers of these dioceses are too discerning to be fooled by an action like that! I'm certain that the Metropolitian is sincere in his intentions and that the whole truth is forthcoming.
#68
Anonymous
on
2006-12-17 11:26
only on simple human failings, poor leadership, you know;
LYING, DECEPTION, BLAMING OTHERS, NON ACCOUNTABILITY
Thats all!
LYING, DECEPTION, BLAMING OTHERS, NON ACCOUNTABILITY
Thats all!
#69
Ted Panamarioff
on
2006-12-17 11:37
Fr. Igumen,
It also states in Scripture to "render unto Cesar what is Cesar's and to God what is God's".
In addition, I have every confidence that Fr. Kondratick paid no attention whatsoever to Cannon Law, but rather what his attorney advised when refusing to take an oath of truth.
By the way, isn't it standard procedure to take an oath of truthfulness while in the presence of a court stenogropher?
And let's not forget that it was he who requested that one be present. I find it extremely hard to believe that he was unaware he would be asked to take an oath of truthfulness, don't you?
Respectfully,
Michael
It also states in Scripture to "render unto Cesar what is Cesar's and to God what is God's".
In addition, I have every confidence that Fr. Kondratick paid no attention whatsoever to Cannon Law, but rather what his attorney advised when refusing to take an oath of truth.
By the way, isn't it standard procedure to take an oath of truthfulness while in the presence of a court stenogropher?
And let's not forget that it was he who requested that one be present. I find it extremely hard to believe that he was unaware he would be asked to take an oath of truthfulness, don't you?
Respectfully,
Michael
#70
Michael Geeza
on
2006-12-17 14:33
Dear Fr. Ted: I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. The process is absolutely important. If I perform a shoddy financial audit, put my imprimatur on a clean opinion, and then the company goes bankrupt, wouldn't you say the process is important?
Something is rotten in Denmark here. PR spends all this time (not to mention all that money) and every single employee in Syosset (plus some very key former employees and officers) wasn't interviewed? I'm sorry, but something is very, very wrong.
Something is rotten in Denmark here. PR spends all this time (not to mention all that money) and every single employee in Syosset (plus some very key former employees and officers) wasn't interviewed? I'm sorry, but something is very, very wrong.
#71
Michael Strelka, CPA
on
2006-12-17 15:07
Now that the last shred of scandal denying has been vaporized by the PR Report, the blame game has begun in earnest on this thread. On one side are the supporters/retainers of Fr. Kondratick, while on the other are the defenders of Metropolitan Herman and the Syosset bureaucracy. Somewhere in limbo, without any visible support, is former Metropolitan Theodosius for whom I still retain a modicum of sympathy, although he clearly can not escape blame and responsibility for what happened on his watch.
These are the three individuals at the top of the food chain, or if you prefer, the heirarchical pyramid. Oh yes, there is the Synod and the MC, but they long ago became "eunuchs for Christ." Hopefully, and possibly, that is no longer the case. Real power and responsibility was exercised in varying degrees and roles by the clerics mentioned above.
So who takes the fall? The PR Report apparently is going to finger Fr. Kondratick, and possibly Metropolitan Theodosius as well. Perhaps that is as it should be, but it is up to the special commission to ensure that responsibility is justly apportioned and that the full truth of what happened is revealed to all. I have the utmost faith that the outstanding persons appointed to this commission will faithfully carry out this charge. Nothing less than the fate of the OCA is at stake.
Finally, a word on accountability and responsibility. Some posts on this website have expressed fear and loathing of what they call a "witch hunt" mentality. My concern, which I think is shared by most on this site, is with the behavior and actions that have directly damaged and affected the Church and were committed in their official capacities. Whatever personal sins, failings or weaknesses these men may be guilty of are between them and their consciences, confessors and God.
KRT
These are the three individuals at the top of the food chain, or if you prefer, the heirarchical pyramid. Oh yes, there is the Synod and the MC, but they long ago became "eunuchs for Christ." Hopefully, and possibly, that is no longer the case. Real power and responsibility was exercised in varying degrees and roles by the clerics mentioned above.
So who takes the fall? The PR Report apparently is going to finger Fr. Kondratick, and possibly Metropolitan Theodosius as well. Perhaps that is as it should be, but it is up to the special commission to ensure that responsibility is justly apportioned and that the full truth of what happened is revealed to all. I have the utmost faith that the outstanding persons appointed to this commission will faithfully carry out this charge. Nothing less than the fate of the OCA is at stake.
Finally, a word on accountability and responsibility. Some posts on this website have expressed fear and loathing of what they call a "witch hunt" mentality. My concern, which I think is shared by most on this site, is with the behavior and actions that have directly damaged and affected the Church and were committed in their official capacities. Whatever personal sins, failings or weaknesses these men may be guilty of are between them and their consciences, confessors and God.
KRT
#72
Kenneth R. Tobin
on
2006-12-17 15:41
Fr. Ted,
You have invested a great deal of yourself, personally, in this saga, and I totally understand your reply to the questions I posed. Yet, the reason for the post IS to get to the truth. Not the truth prosecuted on this website, nor the truth as delivered by the former Treasurer of the OCA, nor the truth in oral form of the law firm hired by Met. Herman. Rather, the whole truth and you can never get to the whole truth unless you are willing to accept the premise that those now in charge were not and are not interested in the truth. They are interested in "putting this behind us" and doing whatever they can to erase the memory of the Kondratick era - even to the point of wiping out any semblance of the church structure that we knew for almost 30 years of the OCA. A truly Soviet attempt to rewrite history and hang the failures of the system on a convenient villain.
Here is another piece of background information which should have been shared earlier. The PR law firm was hired at the suggestion of those associated with SVS, who hired the same law firm to protect the seminary when a teacher was charged with an inappropriate relationship with a student. Their job was to protect the seminary. They did an excellent job and their record advanced them to be hired to do the same for its latest client with the charge to "build a firewall around the Metropolitan."
The firewall statement is true and should call into question every conclusion that was made by the PR firm and presented to the MC. I feel sorry for all the MC members and especially those SET UP by Met. Herman to carry on the investigation. They will have to decide if they wish to go down the path given to them by Fr. Kucynda and Met. Herman, or, do the right thing and question seriously every aspect of the oral report. If they accept as fact what they heard, then we will be in for a very very long and painful process.
The truth in this matter is a very intricate web of lives intersecting over many years. It is not a neat oral report, nor an investigation that failed to take the time to interview the former CPA firm of the OCA nor the Church auditors, nor the members of the Administrative Committee of the OCA in the years in question. And, please note, that very Administrative Committee has now been abolished.
There is much more that must be revealed if getting to the truth is the goal. Fr. Ted, are you and everyone else interested in that truth ready to do the heavy lifting necessary? I hope you are because it will take place, one way or another.
Name Witheld For Now.
You have invested a great deal of yourself, personally, in this saga, and I totally understand your reply to the questions I posed. Yet, the reason for the post IS to get to the truth. Not the truth prosecuted on this website, nor the truth as delivered by the former Treasurer of the OCA, nor the truth in oral form of the law firm hired by Met. Herman. Rather, the whole truth and you can never get to the whole truth unless you are willing to accept the premise that those now in charge were not and are not interested in the truth. They are interested in "putting this behind us" and doing whatever they can to erase the memory of the Kondratick era - even to the point of wiping out any semblance of the church structure that we knew for almost 30 years of the OCA. A truly Soviet attempt to rewrite history and hang the failures of the system on a convenient villain.
Here is another piece of background information which should have been shared earlier. The PR law firm was hired at the suggestion of those associated with SVS, who hired the same law firm to protect the seminary when a teacher was charged with an inappropriate relationship with a student. Their job was to protect the seminary. They did an excellent job and their record advanced them to be hired to do the same for its latest client with the charge to "build a firewall around the Metropolitan."
The firewall statement is true and should call into question every conclusion that was made by the PR firm and presented to the MC. I feel sorry for all the MC members and especially those SET UP by Met. Herman to carry on the investigation. They will have to decide if they wish to go down the path given to them by Fr. Kucynda and Met. Herman, or, do the right thing and question seriously every aspect of the oral report. If they accept as fact what they heard, then we will be in for a very very long and painful process.
The truth in this matter is a very intricate web of lives intersecting over many years. It is not a neat oral report, nor an investigation that failed to take the time to interview the former CPA firm of the OCA nor the Church auditors, nor the members of the Administrative Committee of the OCA in the years in question. And, please note, that very Administrative Committee has now been abolished.
There is much more that must be revealed if getting to the truth is the goal. Fr. Ted, are you and everyone else interested in that truth ready to do the heavy lifting necessary? I hope you are because it will take place, one way or another.
Name Witheld For Now.
#73
Anonymous
on
2006-12-17 17:15
Remember God is not mocked, and He will judge. If you're worried about guilty parties "getting away with it", then you are worrying about the wrong thing in my opinion.
I don't recall any of the Apostles or the Lord Himself teaching that there are cases where it is acceptible for us not to forgive because it wouldn't suit us. Someone please correct me (chapter and verse) if I am wrong.
Let the secular courts do what they must do. Any clergy who is guilty of the allegations, had he been a hub or a spoke, must be horribly tormented by demons to do such things. Yes, such things are nasty deeds!
Yet who are we to withhold forgiveness? If the Lord can forgive the Wise Thief, then anyone who might be guilty has until his last breath to repent and be forgiven, no?
Rdr. Alexander
I don't recall any of the Apostles or the Lord Himself teaching that there are cases where it is acceptible for us not to forgive because it wouldn't suit us. Someone please correct me (chapter and verse) if I am wrong.
Let the secular courts do what they must do. Any clergy who is guilty of the allegations, had he been a hub or a spoke, must be horribly tormented by demons to do such things. Yes, such things are nasty deeds!
Yet who are we to withhold forgiveness? If the Lord can forgive the Wise Thief, then anyone who might be guilty has until his last breath to repent and be forgiven, no?
Rdr. Alexander
#74
Rdr. Alexander Langley
on
2006-12-17 19:02
Well, speak the truth and stop hiding your identity. You seem to be privy to important information. Fr. Kondratick is entitled to his due and is clearly not the only culprit. But you will find it very hard to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear!
KRT
KRT
#75
Kenneth R. Tobin
on
2006-12-17 19:25
Dear Friends –
Please allow me to interpolate a few responses into Michael Geeza’s apparently well meant but very seriously misinformed statements here. My comments will appear in bold-face type, if the MS Word program is compatible.
Bob H. are you for real??
"no admission of guilt" That's precisely the problem. Fr. Kondratick can't admit to any wrong doing.
Mr Geeza hasn’t the faintest idea of what Fr Robert Kondratick can admit or not, since FrRK has NEVER expressed himself publicly, never having offered to do so nor having been given the opportunity.
After insisting that a court stenographer be present at their meeting with the PR reps, he refused to be sworn in.
FrRK and his attorney very kindly took MY advice in this matter, which was not only to have his own attorney present – since he was being interviewed by attorneys – but also to ask for a permanent record of the meeting, whether by audio or video recording, or by a court stenographer.
Proskauer/Rose balked at these rather obvious and reasonable requests, and agreed to them only reluctantly. Their attorneys met with FrRK and his attorney only after some considerable negotiating.
When finally they met for the first time, the stenographer asked whether or not FrRK should be sworn in, and Proskauer/Rose’s Sarah Gold said it wouldn’t be necessary since this was a ‘very informal meeting’. I was told this in a private face-to-face meeting by both FrRK and his attorney, who is an honorable man.
He and his attorney had a hissy fit...
Actually, it was Sarah Gold and her assistant who had a conniption and stormed out of BOTH meetings to which FrRK and his attorney came.
...when asked the very first question regarding the ADM money in their meeting with PR, refused to answer it and the meeting was abruptly over.
As I have it from FrRK’s attorney, this is simply untrue, although that’s what Sarah Gold told Met. Herman and the Met. Council. She lied.
The truth of the matter is that the ADM money was committed to Met. Theodosius by Dwayne Andreas with no restrictions, and MetT had complete control over those millions, which he deposited to and disbursed from his discretionary fund. No one but MetT had the authority to use that money, and it was far beyond FrRK’s authority to control. As a result, when FrRK mentioned to Sarah Gold that MetT’s discretionary fund wasn’t the sort of thing he could speak to, she – wrongly -- interpreted that as intransigence on his part.
MILLIONS of dollars are unaccounted for and yet he still can't admit to anything.
Asked and answered.
Any questions regarding ADM monies are shunned because the Holy Synod already closed that issue.
As it happened, not only was FrRK not in control of the ADM money, neither were the bishops. The Holy Synod had no choice but to declare the matter closed, since MetT had long since disbursed all the resources of his discretionary fund and was not required by ADM or anyone else to justify his expenditures from that account. In retrospect, most of us can reasonably think that this lack of accountability was a bad idea, but that wasn’t MetT’s fault, and FrRK cannot in any way be held responsible for that money.
The Holy Synod was never informed how much money was involved and he still can't admit to anything.
Asked and answered.
Missinformation is continuously provided to the MC and he can't admit to anything.
Such misinformation as was provided the Met. Council was provided them by Met. Herman, who has consistently given the Holy Synod one version of things and the Met. Council another, playing both sides against the middle. That particular strategy wasn’t really circumvented in the recent joint sessions of both bodies.
A video tape exists from St. Catherine's Church in Moscow with him on it and allegedly damaging information contained within the contents and yet he can't admit to anything.
No wrong doing? PLEASE. What more evidence do you need Bob?
Stop it already with the doubt. You and other's are really embarrasing yourselves.
Michael Geeza
It’s Mr Geeza who ought to ‘stop it already’ with his mantra of ‘he can't admit to anything’. That tape was made surreptitiously by Fr Zacchaeus Wood in Moscow, and FrRK isn’t the only one recorded on FrZW’s extravagant, paranoid, manipulative and hardly justifiable security system. As it is, FrRK asked FrZW if all the money sent to Moscow had been delivered to Beslan; FrRK would have offered to take it there personally had it not. FrZW said that it had already been sent there in full. That’s all there is on the tape. End of story.
It appears to me that Mr Geeza and everyone who supports Fr Paul Kucynda’s spin of the facts are the ones embarrassing themselves.
Peace and blessings to all as we continue this holy fast.
Monk James
Please allow me to interpolate a few responses into Michael Geeza’s apparently well meant but very seriously misinformed statements here. My comments will appear in bold-face type, if the MS Word program is compatible.
Bob H. are you for real??
"no admission of guilt" That's precisely the problem. Fr. Kondratick can't admit to any wrong doing.
Mr Geeza hasn’t the faintest idea of what Fr Robert Kondratick can admit or not, since FrRK has NEVER expressed himself publicly, never having offered to do so nor having been given the opportunity.
After insisting that a court stenographer be present at their meeting with the PR reps, he refused to be sworn in.
FrRK and his attorney very kindly took MY advice in this matter, which was not only to have his own attorney present – since he was being interviewed by attorneys – but also to ask for a permanent record of the meeting, whether by audio or video recording, or by a court stenographer.
Proskauer/Rose balked at these rather obvious and reasonable requests, and agreed to them only reluctantly. Their attorneys met with FrRK and his attorney only after some considerable negotiating.
When finally they met for the first time, the stenographer asked whether or not FrRK should be sworn in, and Proskauer/Rose’s Sarah Gold said it wouldn’t be necessary since this was a ‘very informal meeting’. I was told this in a private face-to-face meeting by both FrRK and his attorney, who is an honorable man.
He and his attorney had a hissy fit...
Actually, it was Sarah Gold and her assistant who had a conniption and stormed out of BOTH meetings to which FrRK and his attorney came.
...when asked the very first question regarding the ADM money in their meeting with PR, refused to answer it and the meeting was abruptly over.
As I have it from FrRK’s attorney, this is simply untrue, although that’s what Sarah Gold told Met. Herman and the Met. Council. She lied.
The truth of the matter is that the ADM money was committed to Met. Theodosius by Dwayne Andreas with no restrictions, and MetT had complete control over those millions, which he deposited to and disbursed from his discretionary fund. No one but MetT had the authority to use that money, and it was far beyond FrRK’s authority to control. As a result, when FrRK mentioned to Sarah Gold that MetT’s discretionary fund wasn’t the sort of thing he could speak to, she – wrongly -- interpreted that as intransigence on his part.
MILLIONS of dollars are unaccounted for and yet he still can't admit to anything.
Asked and answered.
Any questions regarding ADM monies are shunned because the Holy Synod already closed that issue.
As it happened, not only was FrRK not in control of the ADM money, neither were the bishops. The Holy Synod had no choice but to declare the matter closed, since MetT had long since disbursed all the resources of his discretionary fund and was not required by ADM or anyone else to justify his expenditures from that account. In retrospect, most of us can reasonably think that this lack of accountability was a bad idea, but that wasn’t MetT’s fault, and FrRK cannot in any way be held responsible for that money.
The Holy Synod was never informed how much money was involved and he still can't admit to anything.
Asked and answered.
Missinformation is continuously provided to the MC and he can't admit to anything.
Such misinformation as was provided the Met. Council was provided them by Met. Herman, who has consistently given the Holy Synod one version of things and the Met. Council another, playing both sides against the middle. That particular strategy wasn’t really circumvented in the recent joint sessions of both bodies.
A video tape exists from St. Catherine's Church in Moscow with him on it and allegedly damaging information contained within the contents and yet he can't admit to anything.
No wrong doing? PLEASE. What more evidence do you need Bob?
Stop it already with the doubt. You and other's are really embarrasing yourselves.
Michael Geeza
It’s Mr Geeza who ought to ‘stop it already’ with his mantra of ‘he can't admit to anything’. That tape was made surreptitiously by Fr Zacchaeus Wood in Moscow, and FrRK isn’t the only one recorded on FrZW’s extravagant, paranoid, manipulative and hardly justifiable security system. As it is, FrRK asked FrZW if all the money sent to Moscow had been delivered to Beslan; FrRK would have offered to take it there personally had it not. FrZW said that it had already been sent there in full. That’s all there is on the tape. End of story.
It appears to me that Mr Geeza and everyone who supports Fr Paul Kucynda’s spin of the facts are the ones embarrassing themselves.
Peace and blessings to all as we continue this holy fast.
Monk James
#76
Monk James
on
2006-12-17 20:09
As already stated, much depends on exactly what PR was hired to do. You can read on their web page some of what they engage in:
http://www.proskauer.com/practice_areas/areas/066
Whether their "investigation" was "fair" or "comprehensive" all depends on what they were hired to do. It doesn't seem like their "discovery" process (if that is what they engaged in) would have been for the purpose of prosecuting anyone. So discussion of a "fair" investigation has to be "fair to whom?" To the membership of the OCA? To the various individuals involved in the scandal at Syosset?) To say they didn't interview "enough" people or that the interviews weren't "long enough" are based on assumptions we are making about what they were hired to do (or that we hope they were hired to do). A few quotes that stand out to me as I read their web page:
"Proskauer's criminal defense, securities enforcement and corporate investigations practice group serves the needs of clients which are the subject of ever-increasing governmental investigative intrusions into the daily activities of businesses and individuals. .... Severe enforcement consequences exist where the line separating civil and regulatory infractions from criminal offenses is frequently blurred. And when this vague line of demarcation is coupled with a broader application of the concepts of "willful blindness" and "reckless disregard," the present enforcement climate transfers to clients the burden of demonstrating compliance, rather than requiring the government to prove culpability."
"... they have frequently been successful in persuading prosecutors to refrain from bringing criminal charges."
"For Proskauer, keeping clients' potential criminal matters out of the limelight -- avoiding the harsh glare of publicity -- is of paramount concern. Working quietly and behind the scenes where appropriate, our criminal defense attorneys have negotiated immunity and non-prosecution agreements."
" When handling internal investigations, our attorneys are mindful of the potential collateral consequences associated with the matters under investigation, earning the trust of those persons whose conduct is under scrutiny while ethically preserving the legal interests of both the organization and the individual, preserving the attorney-client privilege, shielding the investigative results from inappropriate disclosure, and balancing corporate cooperation with government authorities against the need to protect an organization's legal interests."
"Proskauer's criminal defense contingent counsels businesses and individuals as to those courses of conduct that may be pursued to avoid culpability."
http://www.proskauer.com/practice_areas/areas/066
Whether their "investigation" was "fair" or "comprehensive" all depends on what they were hired to do. It doesn't seem like their "discovery" process (if that is what they engaged in) would have been for the purpose of prosecuting anyone. So discussion of a "fair" investigation has to be "fair to whom?" To the membership of the OCA? To the various individuals involved in the scandal at Syosset?) To say they didn't interview "enough" people or that the interviews weren't "long enough" are based on assumptions we are making about what they were hired to do (or that we hope they were hired to do). A few quotes that stand out to me as I read their web page:
"Proskauer's criminal defense, securities enforcement and corporate investigations practice group serves the needs of clients which are the subject of ever-increasing governmental investigative intrusions into the daily activities of businesses and individuals. .... Severe enforcement consequences exist where the line separating civil and regulatory infractions from criminal offenses is frequently blurred. And when this vague line of demarcation is coupled with a broader application of the concepts of "willful blindness" and "reckless disregard," the present enforcement climate transfers to clients the burden of demonstrating compliance, rather than requiring the government to prove culpability."
"... they have frequently been successful in persuading prosecutors to refrain from bringing criminal charges."
"For Proskauer, keeping clients' potential criminal matters out of the limelight -- avoiding the harsh glare of publicity -- is of paramount concern. Working quietly and behind the scenes where appropriate, our criminal defense attorneys have negotiated immunity and non-prosecution agreements."
" When handling internal investigations, our attorneys are mindful of the potential collateral consequences associated with the matters under investigation, earning the trust of those persons whose conduct is under scrutiny while ethically preserving the legal interests of both the organization and the individual, preserving the attorney-client privilege, shielding the investigative results from inappropriate disclosure, and balancing corporate cooperation with government authorities against the need to protect an organization's legal interests."
"Proskauer's criminal defense contingent counsels businesses and individuals as to those courses of conduct that may be pursued to avoid culpability."
#77
Fr. Ted Bobosh
on
2006-12-17 20:35
Herman escapes any wrongdoing? Are we now officially recognizing him as Metropolitan Houdini?
Incredible folks, but a man who deceives cannot be my spiritual leader, he's the example set for our kids....don't become like that man...he deceives people.
Incredible folks, but a man who deceives cannot be my spiritual leader, he's the example set for our kids....don't become like that man...he deceives people.
#78
Anon.
on
2006-12-18 07:34
One really wonders to what conceivable audience the defenders of RSK are playing at this point.
RM
RM
#79
Rebecca Matovic
on
2006-12-18 08:53
Dear Michael,
I refer you again to the Scriptures and the Canons previously cited. It is NOT permitted to Orthodox Christians to swear an oath, no matter what the secular world's standard procedures may be. Indeed, in some instances the Sacred Canons call for someone swearing an oath to be excommunicated. And again, Caesar recognises that fact in every legal jurisdiction in North America by making provision for people to affirm rather than swear. But even if the State refused to make allowance, still "we ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29 NKJV). OK???
Fondly,
Igumen Philip
I refer you again to the Scriptures and the Canons previously cited. It is NOT permitted to Orthodox Christians to swear an oath, no matter what the secular world's standard procedures may be. Indeed, in some instances the Sacred Canons call for someone swearing an oath to be excommunicated. And again, Caesar recognises that fact in every legal jurisdiction in North America by making provision for people to affirm rather than swear. But even if the State refused to make allowance, still "we ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29 NKJV). OK???
Fondly,
Igumen Philip
#80
Igumen Philip (Speranza)
on
2006-12-18 12:04
I don't know if one can rent out one's bulk mail function as a nonprofit but the letter expressly states a donation was given to ensure this could not be construed as an expense to the OCA or the diocese.
#81
Symeon Jekel
on
2006-12-18 12:41
Sounds like the perfect firm to BUILD THAT FIREWALL!
#82
Anonymous
on
2006-12-18 15:40
Since Kucynda put together the people on all these committes and councils for the "reorganization" of the church, wouldn't it be appropriate that he gave up his parrish and served full time as Treasurer and Secretary (current titles)? It seems to me that these are slated for full time positions, how can he possibly handle the duties of not one but two offices and his parrish all at the same time?
#83
Pearl Boback
on
2006-12-18 17:31
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 | ||