QUESTIONS ABOUT DSC'S 2019 BUDGET
The separatist Diocese of South Carolina has published its proposed 2019 budget which it will present to the annual meeting of the diocese on March 15-16. The gathering will be at St. James's Episcopal Church, on James Island, Charleston. St James's is one of the 29 parishes the state supreme court said remains under Episcopal Church control. As we all know, the breakaway diocese has refused to recognize the state supreme court decision and to return the properties. The 2019 budget is available online here .
I would attend the meeting at St. James's but I am not allowed to do so. They say they welcome visitors but this is not true. One has to be a member of a church in the diocese in order to register to attend. Outsiders are not welcome, unsurprisingly.
The 2019 budget reveals serious financial problems in the diocese. The money source for the diocese is the 14,000+ communicants in its 54 local churches. They give the dollars that keep the local churches and the diocese running. The clergy, administrators, and staff are all paid from the money donated by the people in the pews. The people are paying a double set of lawyers, one for the parishes and one for the diocese. If there is any outside money coming into the diocese, we do not know about it. If there is any, it is kept hidden.
Since the people are paying for this experiment, they have every right to ask questions and demand answers about how their money is being spent. Since I will not be at the meeting, I have made up a list of questions the delegates of the convention should ask of the authorities on the dais before they vote to approve this budget.
1 --- The Deficit (p. 1).
In 2017 the deficit was $280,144. In 2018 it was $495,289. This is a total deficit in two years of $775,433. This means the diocese spent much more than it took in at this time. Presumably the problem was unexpected legal costs.
How was the payment of the deficit covered?
Did the diocese borrow money to cover the deficit? If not, how did it pay the difference? If so, from whom did the diocese borrow the money and what are the terms of principal and interest?
Where in the budget is the coverage of the deficit listed?
Since the deficits are a pattern, we may expect more deficit spending in 2019. How is the diocese preparing to address this ongoing problem?
2 --- Income for legal expenses (p. 2).
No income for legal expenses was listed in the 2017 and 2018 budgets. In the 2019 budget, between the Initial Request and the First Draft, $543,000 appeared as income.
What was the source of the $543,000?
If internal in the diocese, which individuals and churches gave this money and what were the sums?
If external to the diocese, what or who gave the money, in what amounts, and for what reasons?
Why were there funds in 2019 but not in the earlier years?
3 --- Changes in programs.
Many programs traditional in the budget have been reduced or eliminated, as the social programs on page 9. Yet money to lawyers and administrators remains strong.
What is the mission of the diocese?
How is the top-heavy trend in the budget affecting the mission of the diocese?
4 --- Support for the Anglican Church in North America (p. 15).
DSC budgets include large and growing donations to ACNA: $185,640 in 2017; $196,848 in 2018; and $197,800 in 2019. This is four times as much as DSC ever paid to the Episcopal Church.
How is the sum to ACNA determined?
What is DSC getting in return for its contributions?
How has ACNA improved the life of the DSC?
5 --- Legal expenses (p. 18).
Costs for lawyers and legal fees have skyrocketed: $147,024 in 2016; $298,044 in 2017 ($50,000 budgeted); $969,186 in 2018 ($200,000 budgeted). 2019 budget: $788,520. This is over $2m in legal costs just since 2016.
How was the figure for 2019 determined since it could only be an estimate?
Since the budgeted amounts and the actual costs in the last two years varied greatly, why would not the same be true in 2019?
Exactly where is this money going? To whom? What amounts?
It is clear that the trend in the DSC budget over the years is away from religion and toward support of lawyers and administrators. This calls into question the nature of this institution and the purpose of this religious body.
A realistic figure of total DSC payments for legal costs in $6-8m. People have a right to know exactly how their money was spent and is being spent. Moreover, they have a right to know why this expensive litigation gained so little. DSC lost 29 of the 36 parishes in question. It is about to lose the entity of the diocese. DSC lost in the state supreme court; and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take the case. The DSC administrators have spent a fortune of their people's money with very little to show for it.
This raises the question of where DSC should go from here. If DSC loses possession of the 29 parishes, which is a certainty, and loses the entity of the diocese, which is almost certain, what is the point of continuing to spend the people's money on futile but expensive litigation? DSC can appeal, but what's the point? The appeals are bound to fail. More money down the drain. Is not it time to pull the plug on this failing venture? It has not turned out at all the way the diocesan authorities told the people it would. They misinformed and misled the people.
The ordinary people in DSC would be wise to start exerting some common sense control over how their money is being spent. If they do not, the diocesan administrators are going to continue doing the same thing, padding their pockets and paying high-priced lawyers who will keep collecting fees for the litigation until the cows come home. It is not in the lawyers' interest to end the litigation.
The people have the power of the purse. The diocesan administrators and the lawyers are their paid hands. It is time for the people paying the bills to start asking some hard questions of the people who made some notoriously bad choices. If DSC wants to be a viable diocese after all this is over, now is the time to start planning for it. At the rate it is going, this misadventure is only sinking every more into debt.
How was the payment of the deficit covered?
Did the diocese borrow money to cover the deficit? If not, how did it pay the difference? If so, from whom did the diocese borrow the money and what are the terms of principal and interest?
Where in the budget is the coverage of the deficit listed?
Since the deficits are a pattern, we may expect more deficit spending in 2019. How is the diocese preparing to address this ongoing problem?
2 --- Income for legal expenses (p. 2).
No income for legal expenses was listed in the 2017 and 2018 budgets. In the 2019 budget, between the Initial Request and the First Draft, $543,000 appeared as income.
What was the source of the $543,000?
If internal in the diocese, which individuals and churches gave this money and what were the sums?
If external to the diocese, what or who gave the money, in what amounts, and for what reasons?
Why were there funds in 2019 but not in the earlier years?
3 --- Changes in programs.
Many programs traditional in the budget have been reduced or eliminated, as the social programs on page 9. Yet money to lawyers and administrators remains strong.
What is the mission of the diocese?
How is the top-heavy trend in the budget affecting the mission of the diocese?
4 --- Support for the Anglican Church in North America (p. 15).
DSC budgets include large and growing donations to ACNA: $185,640 in 2017; $196,848 in 2018; and $197,800 in 2019. This is four times as much as DSC ever paid to the Episcopal Church.
How is the sum to ACNA determined?
What is DSC getting in return for its contributions?
How has ACNA improved the life of the DSC?
5 --- Legal expenses (p. 18).
Costs for lawyers and legal fees have skyrocketed: $147,024 in 2016; $298,044 in 2017 ($50,000 budgeted); $969,186 in 2018 ($200,000 budgeted). 2019 budget: $788,520. This is over $2m in legal costs just since 2016.
How was the figure for 2019 determined since it could only be an estimate?
Since the budgeted amounts and the actual costs in the last two years varied greatly, why would not the same be true in 2019?
Exactly where is this money going? To whom? What amounts?
It is clear that the trend in the DSC budget over the years is away from religion and toward support of lawyers and administrators. This calls into question the nature of this institution and the purpose of this religious body.
A realistic figure of total DSC payments for legal costs in $6-8m. People have a right to know exactly how their money was spent and is being spent. Moreover, they have a right to know why this expensive litigation gained so little. DSC lost 29 of the 36 parishes in question. It is about to lose the entity of the diocese. DSC lost in the state supreme court; and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take the case. The DSC administrators have spent a fortune of their people's money with very little to show for it.
This raises the question of where DSC should go from here. If DSC loses possession of the 29 parishes, which is a certainty, and loses the entity of the diocese, which is almost certain, what is the point of continuing to spend the people's money on futile but expensive litigation? DSC can appeal, but what's the point? The appeals are bound to fail. More money down the drain. Is not it time to pull the plug on this failing venture? It has not turned out at all the way the diocesan authorities told the people it would. They misinformed and misled the people.
The ordinary people in DSC would be wise to start exerting some common sense control over how their money is being spent. If they do not, the diocesan administrators are going to continue doing the same thing, padding their pockets and paying high-priced lawyers who will keep collecting fees for the litigation until the cows come home. It is not in the lawyers' interest to end the litigation.
The people have the power of the purse. The diocesan administrators and the lawyers are their paid hands. It is time for the people paying the bills to start asking some hard questions of the people who made some notoriously bad choices. If DSC wants to be a viable diocese after all this is over, now is the time to start planning for it. At the rate it is going, this misadventure is only sinking every more into debt.
