This was in the comments section of a story about the Washington National Cathedral hosting the installation of the Presiding Bishop of the homosexual Metropolitan Community Church:
The National Den of Iniquity is in the news again! I wonder who’ll do the installing? Griswold, Swing, Spong, Sauls, Adams…..?
-It appears from this comment that our bishop is being lumped in with a select group of liberal bishops. Sauls is in this list undoubtedly for his persecution of traditionalist clergy in his diocese. I would guess that Bp. Adams is included because of his crusade against Fr. David Bollinger.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Saturday, October 22, 2005
From The Living Church
Legal Proceedings Explained to Central New York Clergy
10/21/2005
The Oct. 11-13 clergy conference in the Diocese of Central New York included an extensive presentation on ecclesiastical legal proceedings by the bishop against one of his rectors.
The Rev. David G. Bollinger, rector of St. Paul’s Church, Owego, has been inhibited and accused by the Rt. Rev. Gladstone B. Adams III of financial malfeasance. Those charges were made after Fr. Bollinger forwarded to the diocese a sexual misconduct complaint against a former rector of St. Paul’s. That priest remains a licensed member in good standing and canonically resident in the diocese. Prior to the start of the conference, Bishop Adams notified the clergy that he had allotted two hours on the opening day of the clergy conference for standing committee members to “update” clergy on the ecclesiastical proceedings against Fr. Bollinger who was not allowed to be present.
At one point shortly after the conference began, Bishop Adams was notified that a member of the clergy was using a tape recorder. The priest said the tape was being made for a colleague (not Fr. Bollinger) who could not be present, but Bishop Adams and others insisted that the priest stop and surrender the tape. After an angry exchange, the priest eventually removed the cassette from the machine and threw it in the direction of Bishop Adams. Later it was announced that the priest had left the meeting before its conclusion.
During the update on ecclesiastical proceedings, Bishop Adams said in response to a question that the diocese had concluded there was insufficient evidence upon which to pursue sexual misconduct charges against the former rector of St. Paul’s. Little else was said about the misconduct allegation. The majority of the discussion, which began with a presentation by the chair of the diocesan review committee, the Rev. Kathryn Eden, focused on the ecclesiastical proceedings against Fr. Bollinger. She told the clergy that another church attorney, James E. Sparks, had been retained last January by the diocese to investigate the malfeasance complaint against Fr. Bollinger, and that until the review committee received Mr. Sparks’ summary report it was unlikely there would be any change in the current situation.
Several clergy expressed doubts during question time about conducting the “update” without allowing the accused to be present and others questioned whether Fr. Bollinger was being treated fairly in general by the process as explained. In response to one question, diocesan chancellor Paul J. Curtin gave an extended response urging the clergy not to believe everything they read, to trust the process and keep an open mind.
To find more news, feature articles, and commentary not available online, we invite you to subscribe to The Living Church magazine.
10/21/2005
The Oct. 11-13 clergy conference in the Diocese of Central New York included an extensive presentation on ecclesiastical legal proceedings by the bishop against one of his rectors.
The Rev. David G. Bollinger, rector of St. Paul’s Church, Owego, has been inhibited and accused by the Rt. Rev. Gladstone B. Adams III of financial malfeasance. Those charges were made after Fr. Bollinger forwarded to the diocese a sexual misconduct complaint against a former rector of St. Paul’s. That priest remains a licensed member in good standing and canonically resident in the diocese. Prior to the start of the conference, Bishop Adams notified the clergy that he had allotted two hours on the opening day of the clergy conference for standing committee members to “update” clergy on the ecclesiastical proceedings against Fr. Bollinger who was not allowed to be present.
At one point shortly after the conference began, Bishop Adams was notified that a member of the clergy was using a tape recorder. The priest said the tape was being made for a colleague (not Fr. Bollinger) who could not be present, but Bishop Adams and others insisted that the priest stop and surrender the tape. After an angry exchange, the priest eventually removed the cassette from the machine and threw it in the direction of Bishop Adams. Later it was announced that the priest had left the meeting before its conclusion.
During the update on ecclesiastical proceedings, Bishop Adams said in response to a question that the diocese had concluded there was insufficient evidence upon which to pursue sexual misconduct charges against the former rector of St. Paul’s. Little else was said about the misconduct allegation. The majority of the discussion, which began with a presentation by the chair of the diocesan review committee, the Rev. Kathryn Eden, focused on the ecclesiastical proceedings against Fr. Bollinger. She told the clergy that another church attorney, James E. Sparks, had been retained last January by the diocese to investigate the malfeasance complaint against Fr. Bollinger, and that until the review committee received Mr. Sparks’ summary report it was unlikely there would be any change in the current situation.
Several clergy expressed doubts during question time about conducting the “update” without allowing the accused to be present and others questioned whether Fr. Bollinger was being treated fairly in general by the process as explained. In response to one question, diocesan chancellor Paul J. Curtin gave an extended response urging the clergy not to believe everything they read, to trust the process and keep an open mind.
To find more news, feature articles, and commentary not available online, we invite you to subscribe to The Living Church magazine.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
The Kangaroo Court Continues
From The Living Church:
Inhibition Upheld in Central New York
10/17/2005
http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=3D1396
The standing committee of the Diocese of Central New York has sustained the
extension of the temporary inhibition against the Rev. David G. Bollinger,
rector of St. Paul=92s Church, Owego, following a hearing on Sept. 29. The
inhibition issued by the Rt. Rev. Gladstone B. Adams III, Bishop of Central
New York, charges among other things possible criminal misuse by Fr.
Bollinger "and others" of church funds. Auditing costs to the diocese have
been estimated at as high as $50,000.
Also involved in the case are charges that a former rector of St. Paul's
molested boys, one of whom has signed an affidavit witnessed by Fr.
Bollinger and another priest. The diocese has taken no action on the sex
charges and the alleged abuser remains a priest in good standing. The
vestry minutes of his tenure at St. Paul's are missing from the parish
archives, according to Fr. Bollinger.
Seven of the eight review committee members met for 45 minutes with Fr.
Bollinger and his lawyer, David Gouldin. Bishop Adams was not present. A
priest observer was ejected before the proceeding began. The standing
committee found that grounds for the inhibition have "not changed to any
material extent." According to Mr. Gouldin, the bishop was obligated to
present new material if the inhibition was to be extended. None was said.
Mr. Gouldin said he and Fr. Bollinger were unprepared to present a defense,
having received prior communication that the hearing would not be a trial.
"At this most recent hearing, when we got the impression that you might be
changing the ground rules, we requested an adjournment and opportunity to
be heard if you were now prepared to listen to evidence," Mr. Gouldin wrote
in an Oct. 11 letter to the Rev. Kathryn Eden, chair of the diocesan review
committee. "We also asked that the letter from the leadership at St. Paul's
Church which you received be considered as part of the evidence."
Bishop Adams scheduled two hours on the opening day of an Oct. 11-13 clergy
conference for standing committee members to "update" clergy on the
ecclesiastical proceedings. The bishop previously directed Fr. Bollinger,
under the terms of his inhibition, not to attend any clergy functions such
as the clergy conference or district clergy meetings. Diocesan chancellor
Paul J. Curtin was expected to lead the discussion of the case.
Prior to the clergy conference, Mr. Gouldin e-mailed every member of the
Central New York clericus a copy of his letter to the chair of the diocesan
review committee, pleading with them to "find the courage to tell the
bishop you are troubled about his position and the path he and his
chancellor have chosen to follow."
In a letter to Fr. Bollinger, Bishop Adams sought to assure him that he was
receiving a fair trial. "As to due process, I have sought the assistance of
bishops who have gone through such proceedings before as well as people
from the office at 815 who deal regularly with such actions in order to
make sure that we in fact are following due process," he said.
In other developments, the vestry of St. Paul's, whose letter to the review
committee indicated unanimous support for Fr. Bollinger, was again rejected
at the Sept. 29 hearing, has called for a rally of area churches Oct. 23 to
support their rector.
To find more news, feature articles, and commentary not available online,
we invite you to subscribe to The Living Church magazine.
Inhibition Upheld in Central New York
10/17/2005
http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=3D1396
The standing committee of the Diocese of Central New York has sustained the
extension of the temporary inhibition against the Rev. David G. Bollinger,
rector of St. Paul=92s Church, Owego, following a hearing on Sept. 29. The
inhibition issued by the Rt. Rev. Gladstone B. Adams III, Bishop of Central
New York, charges among other things possible criminal misuse by Fr.
Bollinger "and others" of church funds. Auditing costs to the diocese have
been estimated at as high as $50,000.
Also involved in the case are charges that a former rector of St. Paul's
molested boys, one of whom has signed an affidavit witnessed by Fr.
Bollinger and another priest. The diocese has taken no action on the sex
charges and the alleged abuser remains a priest in good standing. The
vestry minutes of his tenure at St. Paul's are missing from the parish
archives, according to Fr. Bollinger.
Seven of the eight review committee members met for 45 minutes with Fr.
Bollinger and his lawyer, David Gouldin. Bishop Adams was not present. A
priest observer was ejected before the proceeding began. The standing
committee found that grounds for the inhibition have "not changed to any
material extent." According to Mr. Gouldin, the bishop was obligated to
present new material if the inhibition was to be extended. None was said.
Mr. Gouldin said he and Fr. Bollinger were unprepared to present a defense,
having received prior communication that the hearing would not be a trial.
"At this most recent hearing, when we got the impression that you might be
changing the ground rules, we requested an adjournment and opportunity to
be heard if you were now prepared to listen to evidence," Mr. Gouldin wrote
in an Oct. 11 letter to the Rev. Kathryn Eden, chair of the diocesan review
committee. "We also asked that the letter from the leadership at St. Paul's
Church which you received be considered as part of the evidence."
Bishop Adams scheduled two hours on the opening day of an Oct. 11-13 clergy
conference for standing committee members to "update" clergy on the
ecclesiastical proceedings. The bishop previously directed Fr. Bollinger,
under the terms of his inhibition, not to attend any clergy functions such
as the clergy conference or district clergy meetings. Diocesan chancellor
Paul J. Curtin was expected to lead the discussion of the case.
Prior to the clergy conference, Mr. Gouldin e-mailed every member of the
Central New York clericus a copy of his letter to the chair of the diocesan
review committee, pleading with them to "find the courage to tell the
bishop you are troubled about his position and the path he and his
chancellor have chosen to follow."
In a letter to Fr. Bollinger, Bishop Adams sought to assure him that he was
receiving a fair trial. "As to due process, I have sought the assistance of
bishops who have gone through such proceedings before as well as people
from the office at 815 who deal regularly with such actions in order to
make sure that we in fact are following due process," he said.
In other developments, the vestry of St. Paul's, whose letter to the review
committee indicated unanimous support for Fr. Bollinger, was again rejected
at the Sept. 29 hearing, has called for a rally of area churches Oct. 23 to
support their rector.
To find more news, feature articles, and commentary not available online,
we invite you to subscribe to The Living Church magazine.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Atty Drell on Pittsburgh Settlement
I am posting this to DCNY because it mentions our bishop:
Analysis of the Diocese of Pittburgh/Calvary Church Lawsuit Settlement
by Brad Drell
Here is my analysis of this document:
The First Paragraph says that property will continue to be held by the
Diocese, even if some or a majority of parishes leave the Episcopal
Church. What they seem to be missing is what if the Diocese leaves the
Episcopal Church...the Diocese would appear to keep the property. Hmm.
That is much different from: "Otherwise put, this means that in the
event that some congregations leave ECUSA, the remaining congregations
(however few in number) would be the ones entitled to use of both real
property, e.g. Calvary Camp, and personal Diocesan property, e.g.
endowment funds." In my analysis of the Calvary newsletter, I thought
this statement was suspect. It is. They must be missing the handwriting
on the wall about the whole Diocese voting to disaffiliate with ECUSA if
it comes down to that. But, oh well.
The second paragraph just says everyone agreed to mediate before going
to court if Calvary or any other church that wants to leave the Diocese
of Pittsburgh. Not a big deal. It is all window dressing, because the
process is voluntary, litigation is available.
Paragraph 3 lets Calvary withdraw from the ACN. No big loss.
Paragraph 4 changes nothing. As I noted earlier, "The resolution had no
effect vis-a-vis the Dennis Canon anyway, so this was a gimme."
Paragraph 5 - the liberals actually read the resolution on ecclesial
matters, and finally agreed that it only related to ecclesial matters.
Hoorah for reading.
Paragraph 6 - The Diocese got $50,000, out of what I believe was
$200,000. I wonder if Calvary will send the $150,000 to ECUSA?
Paragraph 7 - No one admits they've done anything wrong - typical
settlement stuff.
Paragraph 8 - Calvary still wants to sue the Diocese for Attorneys fees.
So much for "reconciliation" from the liberal side. So much for the
biblical prohibition on suing other Christians.
If only Drew Smith and Skip Adams were as nice as Bob Duncan...but, that
is the problem. Folks that follow Jesus have a hard time being as mean
as those that persecute them. A big victory for the liberals? Hardly,
and its long term impact will only benefit conservatives.
Mr. Drell is an orthodox Episcopal layman and attorney in the Diocese of
Louisiana.You can view Mr. Drell's blog here:
http://descant.classicalanglican.net/?p=846
END
Analysis of the Diocese of Pittburgh/Calvary Church Lawsuit Settlement
by Brad Drell
Here is my analysis of this document:
The First Paragraph says that property will continue to be held by the
Diocese, even if some or a majority of parishes leave the Episcopal
Church. What they seem to be missing is what if the Diocese leaves the
Episcopal Church...the Diocese would appear to keep the property. Hmm.
That is much different from: "Otherwise put, this means that in the
event that some congregations leave ECUSA, the remaining congregations
(however few in number) would be the ones entitled to use of both real
property, e.g. Calvary Camp, and personal Diocesan property, e.g.
endowment funds." In my analysis of the Calvary newsletter, I thought
this statement was suspect. It is. They must be missing the handwriting
on the wall about the whole Diocese voting to disaffiliate with ECUSA if
it comes down to that. But, oh well.
The second paragraph just says everyone agreed to mediate before going
to court if Calvary or any other church that wants to leave the Diocese
of Pittsburgh. Not a big deal. It is all window dressing, because the
process is voluntary, litigation is available.
Paragraph 3 lets Calvary withdraw from the ACN. No big loss.
Paragraph 4 changes nothing. As I noted earlier, "The resolution had no
effect vis-a-vis the Dennis Canon anyway, so this was a gimme."
Paragraph 5 - the liberals actually read the resolution on ecclesial
matters, and finally agreed that it only related to ecclesial matters.
Hoorah for reading.
Paragraph 6 - The Diocese got $50,000, out of what I believe was
$200,000. I wonder if Calvary will send the $150,000 to ECUSA?
Paragraph 7 - No one admits they've done anything wrong - typical
settlement stuff.
Paragraph 8 - Calvary still wants to sue the Diocese for Attorneys fees.
So much for "reconciliation" from the liberal side. So much for the
biblical prohibition on suing other Christians.
If only Drew Smith and Skip Adams were as nice as Bob Duncan...but, that
is the problem. Folks that follow Jesus have a hard time being as mean
as those that persecute them. A big victory for the liberals? Hardly,
and its long term impact will only benefit conservatives.
Mr. Drell is an orthodox Episcopal layman and attorney in the Diocese of
Louisiana.You can view Mr. Drell's blog here:
http://descant.classicalanglican.net/?p=846
END
Monday, October 10, 2005
From VirtueOnline
PRIEST WHO MADE SEXUAL ABUSE CHARGE IS INHIBITED BY CENTRAL NY BISHOP
Diocese is in chaos and starved for money, say reports
By David W. Virtue
http://www.virtueonline.org
SYRACUSE, NY (10/10/2005)--The Bishop of Central New York, Gladstone "Skip" Adams III has inhibited Fr. David Bollinger, priest for 20 years at St. Paul's, Owego, NY for supposed financial irregularities allegedly in order to shut the priest up after he had a dispute with the bishop at last year's diocesan convention following allegations of a sex abuse scandal, which the priest says Adams is trying to cover up.
Bollinger named Fr. Ralph Johnson as the unmarried priest for his alleged pedophile activities at St. Paul's parish in the 1970s and says that the inhibition, recently extended for a second term of three months, was also because of the cover-up of the Diocesan Controller's invasion of his private savings account.
"I believe I have been inhibited as a punishment for trying to seek the truth about Johnson's alleged pedophile activities when I received an affidavit from one of 16 victims of my parish charging the former parish priest with sexual abuse."
Bollinger sent the signed complaint to the bishop and pastoral response team. As a result of doing this, and because he blew the whistle on the former parish priest, the bishop turned on Bollinger and inhibited him and then accused him of misusing his Discretionary Fund, he says.
VirtueOnline contacted Fr. Johnson, now retired and living in Gibson, PA and asked him the following questions:
VIRTUEONLINE: "Fr. Johnson you have been identified as the priest at St. Paul's in Owego, NY who sexually abused some 16 boys in the 70s. Is that true?"
JOHNSON: "Not that I know of."
VIRTUEONLINE: A woman has stepped forward with evidence that you had a joint bank account with her son to cover up your sexual behavior? Is that true?
JOHNSON: "No way".
VIRTUEONLINE: "Fr. Bollinger, the current priest at the parish alleges that he has been inhibited because he exposed information about you to Bishop Gladstone "Skip" Adams? Why would the bishop go after him and not you?"
JOHNSON: "I don't know anything about this. Good luck with this." Johnson then hung up.
VirtueOnline then wrote and e-mailed Bishop Adams and asked him the following questions:
Dear Bishop Adams,
It has come to my attention that you have inhibited the Rev. David Bollinger rector of St. Paul's in Owego, NY.
I would like your answers to the following questions.
1. Fr. Bollinger's central charge is that he had received an affidavit from one of 16 victims of his parish charging the Rev. Ralph Johnson, a former parish priest with sexual abuse. Bollinger sent the signed complaint to you and a pastoral response team. As a result of doing this, and because he blew the whistle on the former parish priest you have turned on Bollinger and claims you have inhibited him and then accused him of misusing his discretionary Fund. Is this true?
2. You have demanded that Fr. Bollinger receive psychiatric care. Why? What is the basis for this that necessitates such action?
3. You have said that Fr. Bollinger had criminally misused his Discretionary Fund. What is the basis for that charge?
4. Fr. Bollinger believes these are manufactured charges because he pressed you to fulfill your responsibilities to investigate the sexual misconduct issues in his parish and to be honest about what occurred between him and the diocesan controller? Is this true?
5. Fr. Bollinger charged that you manufactured a sham audit to discredit him and his parish? True or false?
Adams did not respond to a phone call and an e-mail for comment from VirtueOnline.
PRIOR to his being inhibited Bollinger was the Dean of the Ithaca-Courtland District for 12 years. He is listed in the 2003 Diocesan Journal as the Dean of this District. He also sits on the ecclesiastical court of the diocese. His father the Rev. Charles Bollinger was a priest for over 40 years in Seneca Falls, NY.
Kelly Bollinger is the former Mayor of Owego. She is presently the Executive Director of the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Center in Owego and they have three daughters aged 24, 21 and 18.
VIRTUEONLINE INTERVIEWED the Rev. David Bollinger, 51, rector, St. Paul's Church in Owego, N.Y. and asked him a series of questions about his situation with the bishop.
VIRTUEONLINE: Fr. Bollinger you have been inhibited by your bishop Skip Adams not once, but extended for a second time. Why?
BOLLINGER: I believe I have been inhibited as a punishment for trying to seek the truth about the pedophile activities in my parish in the 1970s by a Fr. Ralph Johnson and also the cover-up of the Diocesan Controller's invasion of my private savings account.
VIRTUEONLINE: What is the connection between the sexual molestation/pedophile charges and the possible criminal misuse of your discretionary account?
BOLLINGER: The charge that I had criminally misused my Discretionary Fund is a manufactured charge because I pressed the bishop to fulfill his responsibilities to investigate the sexual misconduct issues in my parish and to be honest about what occurred between him and the diocesan controller. The bishop manufactured a sham audit to discredit me and my parish. I am being scapegoated and the full weight of these charges has descended on me.
VIRTUEONLINE: How big was your parish before this scandal and how big is it now?
BOLLINGER: At full strength we were 425 parishioners, and now we are significantly lower than that, perhaps 175. On an average Sunday we would get 125 individuals and now it is down in the 60s and 70s.
VIRTUEONLINE: Has your situation got anything to do with the current moral climate of the Episcopal Church and the Robinson consecration?
BOLLINGER: No. I would consider myself a moderate. Through this interim period and through being inhibited and being on sabbatical I have been worshipping with my family at St. Andrew's in Vestal, an orthodox parish NY and a Baptist Church in Owego, as well.
VIRTUEONLINE: How did Bishop Adams vote for the consecration of V. Gene Robinson?
BOLLINGER: The bishop voted for the consecration of Robinson.
VIRTUEONLINE: Tell us about your discretionary fund account and why do you see this as a smokescreen issue? What triggered that to the bishop?
BOLLINGER: In January the bishop issued a pastoral direction. It was written by his office staff (see letter that follows). The day after I was given that pastoral direction the bishop held a meeting at a Holiday Inn in Liverpool, NY. All of the diocesan clergy were required to attend.
VIRTUEONLINE: Were you invited?
BOLLINGER: I was not allowed, nor were any representatives of St. Paul's, Owego invited. At that meeting, the bishop proclaimed that there had been financial wrong doing by me and that my wife was the treasurer of the parish and that there would be an investigation.
VIRTUEONLINE: Is that true?
BOLLINGER: My wife has never been the treasurer of the parish. She has never signed a check or had signatory power. What the financial audit issue did for the bishop was to raise a smokescreen for his inept handling of the pedophile issue and a further attempt to cover up Gael Sopchak, the diocesan controller's invasion of my personal savings account.
VIRTUEONLINE: How did she get into your account?
BOLLINGER: The controller Gael Sopchak followed a sequence of prompts to get to our savings account and then she put in her own pass code and changed our personal pass code. She boasted about it in front of my wardens. They swore a signed affidavit to that effect. All of this occurred on December 1, 2004. That evening I called her saying I could not gain access to my personal account. She told me what she had changed them too and then I was able to regain access.
VIRTUEONLINE: What did you do?
BOLLINGER: I called my attorney the next morning and told him what had happened. This led me to a place where I am now, where I have been inhibited and possibly putting me on the road to deposition.
VIRTUEONLINE: Where does your vestry stand on all this?
BOLLINGER: They totally support me. The vestry wrote a letter in total support of me.
VIRTUEONLINE: Has the bishop asked to see your discretionary account?
BOLLINGER: I willingly handed over all of my checks and bank statements and any other information I had to the auditor in complete disclosure of everything. I fully cooperated with the bishop and his staff.
VIRTUEONLINE: What happened then?
BOLLINGER: The diocese came back with wild conjectures about misuse of my discretionary fund, including the misuse of funds to resettle a refugee family which is referenced in the vestry letter. The vestry exonerated me because they know that all of that money was used properly.
VIRTUEONLINE: How many people have accused the former priest of your parish with sexual misconduct?
BOLLINGER: Some 16 men. Then they were boys now they are men in the early 40s. They came forward with their stories of being sexually molested by this priest.
VIRTUEONLINE: Why is the bishop protecting him?
BOLLINGER: Nobody knows.
VIRTUEONLINE. Why have none come forward?
BOLLINGER: I cannot make a comment on this at this time.
VIRTUEONLINE: What did he do?
BOLLINGER: He took young men down to a cabin in Pennsylvania where the sexual activity took place.
VIRTUEONLINE: Why has no one gone to the police and charged this priest with sexual misconduct?
BOLLINGER: This is long past any statute of limitations for criminal charges. But the other truth is that this has to do with a lot of evil, and I have no idea why the bishop is covering for this man, but I am paying the price.
VIRTUEONLINE: What legal action has the bishop taken?
BOLLINGER: None that I know of.
VIRTUEONLINE: What other ecclesiastical action has he taken?
BOLLINGER: Only against me. The first was the pastoral direction, because it did not conform to Title IV. This was written by his image consultant, his secretary, and also the woman who broke into my account. He then inhibited me.
VIRTUEONLINE: Have you sought reconciliation with your bishop?
BOLLINGER: On Holy Tuesday I went to the cathedral and reaffirmed my ordination vows and my obedience to my bishop and I ate lunch with him and told him I wanted to reconcile with him. He said no. On another meeting with my attorney he told him I must resign my position at the church and go for an extended psychological evaluation, and submit myself to further scrutiny regarding my financial stuff at the church. But the bishop made it clear he wants no reconciliation and he wants me gone. We have tried three times to reconcile but the bishop wants nothing to do with it.
VIRTUEONLINE: What are your plans?
BOLLINGER: My plans are too remain a faithful Christian and protect my family. I will go through the process of appealing my inhibition and I will face whatever canonical process comes next.
VIRTUEONLINE: Did you ever approach the bishop with a victim of sexual abuse?
BOLLINGER: I presented one of the victims mother to the bishop. She had kept in a safe deposit box information that the pedophile had had a joint back account with her son. The account was signed by the priest. The bishop did nothing with it. In December 2004 she wrote another letter asking for further investigation of the pedophile activity against her son and again the bishop did nothing.
VIRTUEONLINE: Do you have documentation of your charges?
BOLLINGER: We have documentation of everything.
VIRTUEONLINE: I gather the bishop hired a Public Relations firm?
BOLLINGER: He hired Peter Kapcio, a member of Eric Mower Associates, a major New York Public Relations firm. Adams calls him his "image consultant." He is a crisis manager and spin doctor, and the bishop hired him to spin my situation. I am convinced that Kapcio orchestrated the Holiday Inn meeting which for most clergy was a disaster for the bishop. He lost a great deal of credibility. It was a kangaroo court. Sopchak got up and protested her innocence and I was not allowed to be present to defend myself.
VirtueOnline spoke with one of Fr. Bollinger's attorney's, Raymond Dague in Syracuse, NY, and asked him about the situation with Fr. Bollinger.
VIRTUEONLINE: Mr. Dague what evidence do you have of Fr. Bollinger's state of mind?
DAGUE: There is not a shred of evidence that Fr. Bollinger has any psychiatric problems. This is a trumped up suggestion by the bishop that Fr. Bollinger must get psychiatric treatment. The bishop is bolstering a non-existent case against this priest.
VIRTUEONLINE: What legal action do you think you will be taking?
DAGUE: I cannot comment on the specifics of our legal strategy, but you can be sure that we will not be inactive in this matter.
VirtueOnline was told that Fr. Bollinger has been the rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Owego, NY for 20 years. He is loved and respected by his congregation and vestry and the bishop acted against him at a time when Fr. Bollinger and his wife Kelly faced medical problems with their second daughter who has thyroid cancer.
DIOCESE IN CHAOS
The Diocese of Central New York is starved for money and in chaos, says a source in the diocese. The bishop has in the last year lost and not replaced two full-time clergy canons and the full-time lay communications director. Bishop Adams' Canon for Formation and Leadership, the Rev. Paul Kowalewski (who formerly held the title of "Canon Visionary" until the bishop changed his title after it became the butt of jokes all over the church) left at the end of September 2005 for a parish in Los Angeles.
The Rev. Heather Cook was hired last winter, but laid off last summer after she relocated from her parish in Pennsylvania to Syracuse. Christopher Boyle, the communications director, was laid off over the summer. As a result the Diocesan website is stale with people listed on the directory (such as Heather Cook) who has been laid off, and Kowaleski's assistant is still listed as such, even though Kowalewski is gone.
The latest version of the diocesan quarterly newspaper, THE MESSENGER, which is posted on the web is from Easter, and the fall issue has not been published now that the communications director is gone. The annual Journal of the diocese with the statistics, the canons, the clergy directory and other information was last published in the spring of 2004 for the fall 2003 convention.
CONFERENCE CENTER TORN DOWN
Bishop Adams tore down the Thornfield Conference Center because the "vision committee" determined that it had no future and was expensive to run and maintain. Many parishes are not paying or are underpaying their mandatory diocesan assessment and the bishop used his column in the last issue of the Messenger (which came out over the summer but is still not posted online) calling on parishes to pay their assessments.
Said a parish priest, "You don't do this if only one or two parishes are a bit delinquent."
A recent visit to the former Thornfield Conference Center is rather eerie. The grass is up to your knees with no buildings where a dozen buildings once stood. The only man-made structure left are the crumbling parking lots, driveways and sidewalks going nowhere.
INCOME OFF
Word on the street is that the income is off about $200,000 on a $2.3 million budget with about half of the budget coming from endowments and half from the parishes, but with no reports being published it is hard to tell. A source told VirtueOnline that in the last year the bishop dropped a reputed $45,000 into Eric Mower Associates, a New York Public Relations firm to help him with the Fr. Bollinger problem, and another $45,000 on an accounting firm for the expensive forensic audit of Fr. Bollinger's parish. It should be noted that these numbers cannot be confirmed in the absence of financial reports.
LEGAL FEES
Outside legal fees are also a big ticket item, VirtueOnline was told. "The bishop has hired two attorneys in the Syracuse area to conduct investigations. The first investigation was by an independent Church Attorney last winter of Gael Sopchak, the full-time lay administrator with the bishop's office, who was tape recorded trying to break into Fr. Bollinger's personal retirement account. The bishop has refused to say what this investigation cost, and refuses to release the report of the Church Attorney with the exception of a single paragraph. The bishop refuses to fire Mrs. Sopchak even though few clergy in the diocese will trust her," said a source close to the diocese," said a source.
The second investigation is the one by yet a different Church Attorney of Fr. Bollinger. "Presumably that bill is not in yet, but lawyers are not cheap, and an already strapped diocesan budget can ill afford all of this. They have yet to appoint any Church Attorney to investigate the priest who allegedly molested little boys some years ago when he was a former rector of Fr. Bollinger's parish."
HARASSMENT
The bishop has used his underlings to harass his clergy and people, VirtueOnline was told. Last summer the bishop's chancellor, Paul Curtin, asked the New York attorney general to investigate Fr. Bollinger. The bishop's administrator, Gael Sopchak, broke into Fr. Bollinger's private financial accounts, Bollinger claims. The bishop's Canon for Formation and Leadership Paul Kowalewski tried to get Raymond Dague, the parish chancellor of St. Andrew's in Syracuse, excommunicated for publishing an essay critical of Marcus Borg's visit to the diocesan clergy. Imagine a bishop blowing in his clergy to the authorities. What will come next? Who would ever trust clergy who do this to those in their flock?
PRESENTMENT
There is talk of a Presentment against Bishop Adams for his mismanagement of the diocese. "He is approaching a convention in November with what must be anything but the expectation of good things. Even the liberals don't like him now because of the Bollinger inhibition. He controls his clergy through fear that they may be next. Even the female clergywoman who is the head of Integrity of Central New York has written Adams a highly critical letter telling him that he is not running the diocese very well and that the Bollinger inhibition is wrong. We do not agree with her sexual politics, but she is on the mark here," said another source who asked not to be named.
END
Diocese is in chaos and starved for money, say reports
By David W. Virtue
http://www.virtueonline.org
SYRACUSE, NY (10/10/2005)--The Bishop of Central New York, Gladstone "Skip" Adams III has inhibited Fr. David Bollinger, priest for 20 years at St. Paul's, Owego, NY for supposed financial irregularities allegedly in order to shut the priest up after he had a dispute with the bishop at last year's diocesan convention following allegations of a sex abuse scandal, which the priest says Adams is trying to cover up.
Bollinger named Fr. Ralph Johnson as the unmarried priest for his alleged pedophile activities at St. Paul's parish in the 1970s and says that the inhibition, recently extended for a second term of three months, was also because of the cover-up of the Diocesan Controller's invasion of his private savings account.
"I believe I have been inhibited as a punishment for trying to seek the truth about Johnson's alleged pedophile activities when I received an affidavit from one of 16 victims of my parish charging the former parish priest with sexual abuse."
Bollinger sent the signed complaint to the bishop and pastoral response team. As a result of doing this, and because he blew the whistle on the former parish priest, the bishop turned on Bollinger and inhibited him and then accused him of misusing his Discretionary Fund, he says.
VirtueOnline contacted Fr. Johnson, now retired and living in Gibson, PA and asked him the following questions:
VIRTUEONLINE: "Fr. Johnson you have been identified as the priest at St. Paul's in Owego, NY who sexually abused some 16 boys in the 70s. Is that true?"
JOHNSON: "Not that I know of."
VIRTUEONLINE: A woman has stepped forward with evidence that you had a joint bank account with her son to cover up your sexual behavior? Is that true?
JOHNSON: "No way".
VIRTUEONLINE: "Fr. Bollinger, the current priest at the parish alleges that he has been inhibited because he exposed information about you to Bishop Gladstone "Skip" Adams? Why would the bishop go after him and not you?"
JOHNSON: "I don't know anything about this. Good luck with this." Johnson then hung up.
VirtueOnline then wrote and e-mailed Bishop Adams and asked him the following questions:
Dear Bishop Adams,
It has come to my attention that you have inhibited the Rev. David Bollinger rector of St. Paul's in Owego, NY.
I would like your answers to the following questions.
1. Fr. Bollinger's central charge is that he had received an affidavit from one of 16 victims of his parish charging the Rev. Ralph Johnson, a former parish priest with sexual abuse. Bollinger sent the signed complaint to you and a pastoral response team. As a result of doing this, and because he blew the whistle on the former parish priest you have turned on Bollinger and claims you have inhibited him and then accused him of misusing his discretionary Fund. Is this true?
2. You have demanded that Fr. Bollinger receive psychiatric care. Why? What is the basis for this that necessitates such action?
3. You have said that Fr. Bollinger had criminally misused his Discretionary Fund. What is the basis for that charge?
4. Fr. Bollinger believes these are manufactured charges because he pressed you to fulfill your responsibilities to investigate the sexual misconduct issues in his parish and to be honest about what occurred between him and the diocesan controller? Is this true?
5. Fr. Bollinger charged that you manufactured a sham audit to discredit him and his parish? True or false?
Adams did not respond to a phone call and an e-mail for comment from VirtueOnline.
PRIOR to his being inhibited Bollinger was the Dean of the Ithaca-Courtland District for 12 years. He is listed in the 2003 Diocesan Journal as the Dean of this District. He also sits on the ecclesiastical court of the diocese. His father the Rev. Charles Bollinger was a priest for over 40 years in Seneca Falls, NY.
Kelly Bollinger is the former Mayor of Owego. She is presently the Executive Director of the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Center in Owego and they have three daughters aged 24, 21 and 18.
VIRTUEONLINE INTERVIEWED the Rev. David Bollinger, 51, rector, St. Paul's Church in Owego, N.Y. and asked him a series of questions about his situation with the bishop.
VIRTUEONLINE: Fr. Bollinger you have been inhibited by your bishop Skip Adams not once, but extended for a second time. Why?
BOLLINGER: I believe I have been inhibited as a punishment for trying to seek the truth about the pedophile activities in my parish in the 1970s by a Fr. Ralph Johnson and also the cover-up of the Diocesan Controller's invasion of my private savings account.
VIRTUEONLINE: What is the connection between the sexual molestation/pedophile charges and the possible criminal misuse of your discretionary account?
BOLLINGER: The charge that I had criminally misused my Discretionary Fund is a manufactured charge because I pressed the bishop to fulfill his responsibilities to investigate the sexual misconduct issues in my parish and to be honest about what occurred between him and the diocesan controller. The bishop manufactured a sham audit to discredit me and my parish. I am being scapegoated and the full weight of these charges has descended on me.
VIRTUEONLINE: How big was your parish before this scandal and how big is it now?
BOLLINGER: At full strength we were 425 parishioners, and now we are significantly lower than that, perhaps 175. On an average Sunday we would get 125 individuals and now it is down in the 60s and 70s.
VIRTUEONLINE: Has your situation got anything to do with the current moral climate of the Episcopal Church and the Robinson consecration?
BOLLINGER: No. I would consider myself a moderate. Through this interim period and through being inhibited and being on sabbatical I have been worshipping with my family at St. Andrew's in Vestal, an orthodox parish NY and a Baptist Church in Owego, as well.
VIRTUEONLINE: How did Bishop Adams vote for the consecration of V. Gene Robinson?
BOLLINGER: The bishop voted for the consecration of Robinson.
VIRTUEONLINE: Tell us about your discretionary fund account and why do you see this as a smokescreen issue? What triggered that to the bishop?
BOLLINGER: In January the bishop issued a pastoral direction. It was written by his office staff (see letter that follows). The day after I was given that pastoral direction the bishop held a meeting at a Holiday Inn in Liverpool, NY. All of the diocesan clergy were required to attend.
VIRTUEONLINE: Were you invited?
BOLLINGER: I was not allowed, nor were any representatives of St. Paul's, Owego invited. At that meeting, the bishop proclaimed that there had been financial wrong doing by me and that my wife was the treasurer of the parish and that there would be an investigation.
VIRTUEONLINE: Is that true?
BOLLINGER: My wife has never been the treasurer of the parish. She has never signed a check or had signatory power. What the financial audit issue did for the bishop was to raise a smokescreen for his inept handling of the pedophile issue and a further attempt to cover up Gael Sopchak, the diocesan controller's invasion of my personal savings account.
VIRTUEONLINE: How did she get into your account?
BOLLINGER: The controller Gael Sopchak followed a sequence of prompts to get to our savings account and then she put in her own pass code and changed our personal pass code. She boasted about it in front of my wardens. They swore a signed affidavit to that effect. All of this occurred on December 1, 2004. That evening I called her saying I could not gain access to my personal account. She told me what she had changed them too and then I was able to regain access.
VIRTUEONLINE: What did you do?
BOLLINGER: I called my attorney the next morning and told him what had happened. This led me to a place where I am now, where I have been inhibited and possibly putting me on the road to deposition.
VIRTUEONLINE: Where does your vestry stand on all this?
BOLLINGER: They totally support me. The vestry wrote a letter in total support of me.
VIRTUEONLINE: Has the bishop asked to see your discretionary account?
BOLLINGER: I willingly handed over all of my checks and bank statements and any other information I had to the auditor in complete disclosure of everything. I fully cooperated with the bishop and his staff.
VIRTUEONLINE: What happened then?
BOLLINGER: The diocese came back with wild conjectures about misuse of my discretionary fund, including the misuse of funds to resettle a refugee family which is referenced in the vestry letter. The vestry exonerated me because they know that all of that money was used properly.
VIRTUEONLINE: How many people have accused the former priest of your parish with sexual misconduct?
BOLLINGER: Some 16 men. Then they were boys now they are men in the early 40s. They came forward with their stories of being sexually molested by this priest.
VIRTUEONLINE: Why is the bishop protecting him?
BOLLINGER: Nobody knows.
VIRTUEONLINE. Why have none come forward?
BOLLINGER: I cannot make a comment on this at this time.
VIRTUEONLINE: What did he do?
BOLLINGER: He took young men down to a cabin in Pennsylvania where the sexual activity took place.
VIRTUEONLINE: Why has no one gone to the police and charged this priest with sexual misconduct?
BOLLINGER: This is long past any statute of limitations for criminal charges. But the other truth is that this has to do with a lot of evil, and I have no idea why the bishop is covering for this man, but I am paying the price.
VIRTUEONLINE: What legal action has the bishop taken?
BOLLINGER: None that I know of.
VIRTUEONLINE: What other ecclesiastical action has he taken?
BOLLINGER: Only against me. The first was the pastoral direction, because it did not conform to Title IV. This was written by his image consultant, his secretary, and also the woman who broke into my account. He then inhibited me.
VIRTUEONLINE: Have you sought reconciliation with your bishop?
BOLLINGER: On Holy Tuesday I went to the cathedral and reaffirmed my ordination vows and my obedience to my bishop and I ate lunch with him and told him I wanted to reconcile with him. He said no. On another meeting with my attorney he told him I must resign my position at the church and go for an extended psychological evaluation, and submit myself to further scrutiny regarding my financial stuff at the church. But the bishop made it clear he wants no reconciliation and he wants me gone. We have tried three times to reconcile but the bishop wants nothing to do with it.
VIRTUEONLINE: What are your plans?
BOLLINGER: My plans are too remain a faithful Christian and protect my family. I will go through the process of appealing my inhibition and I will face whatever canonical process comes next.
VIRTUEONLINE: Did you ever approach the bishop with a victim of sexual abuse?
BOLLINGER: I presented one of the victims mother to the bishop. She had kept in a safe deposit box information that the pedophile had had a joint back account with her son. The account was signed by the priest. The bishop did nothing with it. In December 2004 she wrote another letter asking for further investigation of the pedophile activity against her son and again the bishop did nothing.
VIRTUEONLINE: Do you have documentation of your charges?
BOLLINGER: We have documentation of everything.
VIRTUEONLINE: I gather the bishop hired a Public Relations firm?
BOLLINGER: He hired Peter Kapcio, a member of Eric Mower Associates, a major New York Public Relations firm. Adams calls him his "image consultant." He is a crisis manager and spin doctor, and the bishop hired him to spin my situation. I am convinced that Kapcio orchestrated the Holiday Inn meeting which for most clergy was a disaster for the bishop. He lost a great deal of credibility. It was a kangaroo court. Sopchak got up and protested her innocence and I was not allowed to be present to defend myself.
VirtueOnline spoke with one of Fr. Bollinger's attorney's, Raymond Dague in Syracuse, NY, and asked him about the situation with Fr. Bollinger.
VIRTUEONLINE: Mr. Dague what evidence do you have of Fr. Bollinger's state of mind?
DAGUE: There is not a shred of evidence that Fr. Bollinger has any psychiatric problems. This is a trumped up suggestion by the bishop that Fr. Bollinger must get psychiatric treatment. The bishop is bolstering a non-existent case against this priest.
VIRTUEONLINE: What legal action do you think you will be taking?
DAGUE: I cannot comment on the specifics of our legal strategy, but you can be sure that we will not be inactive in this matter.
VirtueOnline was told that Fr. Bollinger has been the rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Owego, NY for 20 years. He is loved and respected by his congregation and vestry and the bishop acted against him at a time when Fr. Bollinger and his wife Kelly faced medical problems with their second daughter who has thyroid cancer.
DIOCESE IN CHAOS
The Diocese of Central New York is starved for money and in chaos, says a source in the diocese. The bishop has in the last year lost and not replaced two full-time clergy canons and the full-time lay communications director. Bishop Adams' Canon for Formation and Leadership, the Rev. Paul Kowalewski (who formerly held the title of "Canon Visionary" until the bishop changed his title after it became the butt of jokes all over the church) left at the end of September 2005 for a parish in Los Angeles.
The Rev. Heather Cook was hired last winter, but laid off last summer after she relocated from her parish in Pennsylvania to Syracuse. Christopher Boyle, the communications director, was laid off over the summer. As a result the Diocesan website is stale with people listed on the directory (such as Heather Cook) who has been laid off, and Kowaleski's assistant is still listed as such, even though Kowalewski is gone.
The latest version of the diocesan quarterly newspaper, THE MESSENGER, which is posted on the web is from Easter, and the fall issue has not been published now that the communications director is gone. The annual Journal of the diocese with the statistics, the canons, the clergy directory and other information was last published in the spring of 2004 for the fall 2003 convention.
CONFERENCE CENTER TORN DOWN
Bishop Adams tore down the Thornfield Conference Center because the "vision committee" determined that it had no future and was expensive to run and maintain. Many parishes are not paying or are underpaying their mandatory diocesan assessment and the bishop used his column in the last issue of the Messenger (which came out over the summer but is still not posted online) calling on parishes to pay their assessments.
Said a parish priest, "You don't do this if only one or two parishes are a bit delinquent."
A recent visit to the former Thornfield Conference Center is rather eerie. The grass is up to your knees with no buildings where a dozen buildings once stood. The only man-made structure left are the crumbling parking lots, driveways and sidewalks going nowhere.
INCOME OFF
Word on the street is that the income is off about $200,000 on a $2.3 million budget with about half of the budget coming from endowments and half from the parishes, but with no reports being published it is hard to tell. A source told VirtueOnline that in the last year the bishop dropped a reputed $45,000 into Eric Mower Associates, a New York Public Relations firm to help him with the Fr. Bollinger problem, and another $45,000 on an accounting firm for the expensive forensic audit of Fr. Bollinger's parish. It should be noted that these numbers cannot be confirmed in the absence of financial reports.
LEGAL FEES
Outside legal fees are also a big ticket item, VirtueOnline was told. "The bishop has hired two attorneys in the Syracuse area to conduct investigations. The first investigation was by an independent Church Attorney last winter of Gael Sopchak, the full-time lay administrator with the bishop's office, who was tape recorded trying to break into Fr. Bollinger's personal retirement account. The bishop has refused to say what this investigation cost, and refuses to release the report of the Church Attorney with the exception of a single paragraph. The bishop refuses to fire Mrs. Sopchak even though few clergy in the diocese will trust her," said a source close to the diocese," said a source.
The second investigation is the one by yet a different Church Attorney of Fr. Bollinger. "Presumably that bill is not in yet, but lawyers are not cheap, and an already strapped diocesan budget can ill afford all of this. They have yet to appoint any Church Attorney to investigate the priest who allegedly molested little boys some years ago when he was a former rector of Fr. Bollinger's parish."
HARASSMENT
The bishop has used his underlings to harass his clergy and people, VirtueOnline was told. Last summer the bishop's chancellor, Paul Curtin, asked the New York attorney general to investigate Fr. Bollinger. The bishop's administrator, Gael Sopchak, broke into Fr. Bollinger's private financial accounts, Bollinger claims. The bishop's Canon for Formation and Leadership Paul Kowalewski tried to get Raymond Dague, the parish chancellor of St. Andrew's in Syracuse, excommunicated for publishing an essay critical of Marcus Borg's visit to the diocesan clergy. Imagine a bishop blowing in his clergy to the authorities. What will come next? Who would ever trust clergy who do this to those in their flock?
PRESENTMENT
There is talk of a Presentment against Bishop Adams for his mismanagement of the diocese. "He is approaching a convention in November with what must be anything but the expectation of good things. Even the liberals don't like him now because of the Bollinger inhibition. He controls his clergy through fear that they may be next. Even the female clergywoman who is the head of Integrity of Central New York has written Adams a highly critical letter telling him that he is not running the diocese very well and that the Bollinger inhibition is wrong. We do not agree with her sexual politics, but she is on the mark here," said another source who asked not to be named.
END
Extension of Inhibition
The Diocese of Central New York
September 29, 2005
In the Matter of:
A Hearing by the Diocesan Review Committee
On the Extension of the Temporary
Inhibition of the Rev. David G. Bollinger
Following a hearing held on September 29, 2005 at 3:00pm at 990 Seventh North Street, Liverpool, New York, such hearing being convened at the time pursuant to an agreement between the Committee of Review and Rev. Bollinger and his counsel, and after hearing the Rev. David Bollinger together with his counsel, David M. Gouldin, Esq., the Standing Committee of this Diocese, sitting as the Diocesan Review Committee under Canon IV.(2)(d), seven of the eight members being present, and having reviewed a letter to Rev. Bollinger, dated May 31, 2005 from the Rt. Rev. Gladstone B. Adams, III, and the notice of Temporary Inhibition of that date and the notice of Extension of Temporary Inhibition dated August 22, 2005, and following the deliberations of the committee, it is hereby unanimously
FOUND that the Temporary Inhibition was originally issued on the grounds that, if proven as alleged, constitute “sufficient facts” as the term is used in Canon IV.(2)(b) and which, if proven as alleged, more than adequately reach the canonical level of materiality as that term is used in Canon IV.14.5 and it is
FOUND that since that time neither the Bishop of this Diocese or the Rev. David Bollinger has presented any statement of facts indicating that any substantial grounds for the Temporary Inhibition have changed to any material extent in the time between the issuance of the Temporary Inhibition and the issuance of the Extension, it is hereby
CONCLUDED that the Extension of the Termporary is sustained as issued, as continuing to be sufficient good cause as presented by the Bishop.
The Diocesan Review Committee
The Rev. David Andrews, Jr. Ms. Rebecca Livengood
The Rev. Kathryn Eden The Very Rev G. Thomas Luck (absent)
Mr. Dale Johnson The Very Rev Noreen Shriner
Mr. Brian Kessler Ms. Lucia Whisenand
(signed by The Rev. Kathryn Eden+)
The Rev. Kathryn Eden
Chair
Cc: The Rt. Rev. Gladstone B. Adams, III, Bishop
Mr. Paul J. Curtin, Jr., Esq., Chancellor
Mr. James E. Sparkes, Esq., Church Attorney
Mr. David M. Gouldin, Esq.
The Rev. David Bollinger
Members of the Diocesan Review Committee
September 29, 2005
In the Matter of:
A Hearing by the Diocesan Review Committee
On the Extension of the Temporary
Inhibition of the Rev. David G. Bollinger
Following a hearing held on September 29, 2005 at 3:00pm at 990 Seventh North Street, Liverpool, New York, such hearing being convened at the time pursuant to an agreement between the Committee of Review and Rev. Bollinger and his counsel, and after hearing the Rev. David Bollinger together with his counsel, David M. Gouldin, Esq., the Standing Committee of this Diocese, sitting as the Diocesan Review Committee under Canon IV.(2)(d), seven of the eight members being present, and having reviewed a letter to Rev. Bollinger, dated May 31, 2005 from the Rt. Rev. Gladstone B. Adams, III, and the notice of Temporary Inhibition of that date and the notice of Extension of Temporary Inhibition dated August 22, 2005, and following the deliberations of the committee, it is hereby unanimously
FOUND that the Temporary Inhibition was originally issued on the grounds that, if proven as alleged, constitute “sufficient facts” as the term is used in Canon IV.(2)(b) and which, if proven as alleged, more than adequately reach the canonical level of materiality as that term is used in Canon IV.14.5 and it is
FOUND that since that time neither the Bishop of this Diocese or the Rev. David Bollinger has presented any statement of facts indicating that any substantial grounds for the Temporary Inhibition have changed to any material extent in the time between the issuance of the Temporary Inhibition and the issuance of the Extension, it is hereby
CONCLUDED that the Extension of the Termporary is sustained as issued, as continuing to be sufficient good cause as presented by the Bishop.
The Diocesan Review Committee
The Rev. David Andrews, Jr. Ms. Rebecca Livengood
The Rev. Kathryn Eden The Very Rev G. Thomas Luck (absent)
Mr. Dale Johnson The Very Rev Noreen Shriner
Mr. Brian Kessler Ms. Lucia Whisenand
(signed by The Rev. Kathryn Eden+)
The Rev. Kathryn Eden
Chair
Cc: The Rt. Rev. Gladstone B. Adams, III, Bishop
Mr. Paul J. Curtin, Jr., Esq., Chancellor
Mr. James E. Sparkes, Esq., Church Attorney
Mr. David M. Gouldin, Esq.
The Rev. David Bollinger
Members of the Diocesan Review Committee
Lawyer to Chair of DCNY Standing Committee
October 10, 2005
The Rev. Kathryn Eden
Chair, Diocesan Review Committee
310 Montgomery Street, Suite 200
Syracuse, NY 13202-2093
Dear Rev. Eden:
I am in receipt of your letter notifying me of the “decision” of the Diocesan Review Committee sustaining the extension of the Inhibition extended by Bishop Adams in his letter of August 22, 2005. Your letter does not articulate what evidence the Committee did or did not consider in reaching its decision. At the original hearing pertaining to the Temporary Inhibition, you and the Committee pointedly indicated you were not prepared to hear evidence and did not wish to have us argue the facts as outlined in the Inhibition, but were only interested in having us discuss the issue of whether or not the Inhibition, if accepted as true, stated sufficient facts to justify the Inhibition.
Your decision with respect to the original Inhibition expressly stated that “the Temporary Inhibition is modified to the extent that in the event the Temporary Inhibition is to be extended beyond its stated terms, such extension shall be based on an updated restatement of the grounds under Canon IV.1(2)(a).” No such “updated restatement of the grounds” was provided.
As we told you at the Diocesan Review Committee meeting on September 29, 2005, the only thing which we received from the Bishop relating to the extension was the terse letter dated August 22, 2005. At this most recent hearing, when we got the impression that you might be changing the ground rules, we requested an adjournment and opportunity to be heard if you were now prepared to listen to evidence, We also asked that the letter from the leadership at St. Paul’s Church which you received be
considered as part of the evidence.
I presume from your decision of September 29, 2005 that you have denied our request to be heard on the merits and you have not considered as part of the record the letter which was forwarded to you by the St. Paul’s Church Wardens and Vestry speaking to the allegations contained in the Bishop’s original outline of his basis for the Inhibition.
You indicate in the last paragraph of your letter that “sufficient good cause” had been presented by the Bishop. In fact, nothing was presented by the Bishop as far as Father Bollinger and I knew. I would appreciate if you could identify for us anything which you considered which represented a basis for good cause with respect to the extension. The original Inhibition, standing by itself, would not provide such good
The Rev. Kathryn Eden
October 10, 2005
Page 2
cause or satisfy your previously stated requirement for an extension. Moreover, Bishop Adams did not in his August 22, 2005 communication indicate that he had good cause for the extension or what he was basing the extension on. Your Committee is in place as part of the Canonical check and balance process designed to prevent abuses by a Bishop under these circumstances. It appears that you viewed your role as that of a “rubber stamp.”
I will look forward to hearing from you in response to these inquiries at your earliest opportunity.
Very truly yours,
LEVENE, GOULDIN & THOMPSON, LLP
By: David M. Gouldin
DMG/cam
cc: c/o Church of the Resurrection
120 West Fifth Street
Oswego, NY 13126
Paul J. Curtin, Jr., Esq.
bcc: Rev. David Bollinger
Raymond J. Dague, Esq.
The Rev. Kathryn Eden
Chair, Diocesan Review Committee
310 Montgomery Street, Suite 200
Syracuse, NY 13202-2093
Dear Rev. Eden:
I am in receipt of your letter notifying me of the “decision” of the Diocesan Review Committee sustaining the extension of the Inhibition extended by Bishop Adams in his letter of August 22, 2005. Your letter does not articulate what evidence the Committee did or did not consider in reaching its decision. At the original hearing pertaining to the Temporary Inhibition, you and the Committee pointedly indicated you were not prepared to hear evidence and did not wish to have us argue the facts as outlined in the Inhibition, but were only interested in having us discuss the issue of whether or not the Inhibition, if accepted as true, stated sufficient facts to justify the Inhibition.
Your decision with respect to the original Inhibition expressly stated that “the Temporary Inhibition is modified to the extent that in the event the Temporary Inhibition is to be extended beyond its stated terms, such extension shall be based on an updated restatement of the grounds under Canon IV.1(2)(a).” No such “updated restatement of the grounds” was provided.
As we told you at the Diocesan Review Committee meeting on September 29, 2005, the only thing which we received from the Bishop relating to the extension was the terse letter dated August 22, 2005. At this most recent hearing, when we got the impression that you might be changing the ground rules, we requested an adjournment and opportunity to be heard if you were now prepared to listen to evidence, We also asked that the letter from the leadership at St. Paul’s Church which you received be
considered as part of the evidence.
I presume from your decision of September 29, 2005 that you have denied our request to be heard on the merits and you have not considered as part of the record the letter which was forwarded to you by the St. Paul’s Church Wardens and Vestry speaking to the allegations contained in the Bishop’s original outline of his basis for the Inhibition.
You indicate in the last paragraph of your letter that “sufficient good cause” had been presented by the Bishop. In fact, nothing was presented by the Bishop as far as Father Bollinger and I knew. I would appreciate if you could identify for us anything which you considered which represented a basis for good cause with respect to the extension. The original Inhibition, standing by itself, would not provide such good
The Rev. Kathryn Eden
October 10, 2005
Page 2
cause or satisfy your previously stated requirement for an extension. Moreover, Bishop Adams did not in his August 22, 2005 communication indicate that he had good cause for the extension or what he was basing the extension on. Your Committee is in place as part of the Canonical check and balance process designed to prevent abuses by a Bishop under these circumstances. It appears that you viewed your role as that of a “rubber stamp.”
I will look forward to hearing from you in response to these inquiries at your earliest opportunity.
Very truly yours,
LEVENE, GOULDIN & THOMPSON, LLP
By: David M. Gouldin
DMG/cam
cc: c/o Church of the Resurrection
120 West Fifth Street
Oswego, NY 13126
Paul J. Curtin, Jr., Esq.
bcc: Rev. David Bollinger
Raymond J. Dague, Esq.
From the Bishop of Central NY
Dear David:
I hope this letter finds you well. I have not received any recent news about Elizabeth but she and your family continue to be held in my daily prayer.
It had been my fervent hope that the current difficulties would have been put to rest long before now and it is with a heavy heart that I write you this letter as I know what I am about to say will feel like punishment. I wish it were not so. Yet, I am duty-bound to adhere to the canonical process which has been put in place and, therefore, must address limitations which are called for in the Temporary Inhibition.
As you know, the language of the Temporary Inhibition includes the following statement:
You are hereby Temporarily Inhibited from the execution and performance of any and all actions and offices, sacramental or functional, associated with your ordination as a priest of this Church.
This language clearly prohibits your attendance at next week’s Clergy Conference. It also pertains to attendance at upcoming clergy gatherings including District Clericus meetings and any other clergy meetings which may be held while the Temporary Inhibition is in place. Your absence from these gatherings is required until the Temporary Inhibition is lifted and/or the investigation and canonical process is brought to its conclusion. I am, therefore, returning your registration fee for the clergy conference.
Since the Diocesan Convention is an open meeting, you may choose to attend the Convention as a guest, but you will not be given voice or vote. You will, of course, need to send in the appropriate registration form and accompanying fee.
It has come to my attention that the Rev. Tony Seel has nominated you for a seat on the Standing Committee. This nomination will not be placed on the ballot for Convention as it is not valid since serving as a member of the Standing Committee would constitute “the performance of… actions and offices… associated with your ordination as a priest of this Church.” Therefore, until the Temporary Inhibition is lifted and/or the investigation is complete and the canonical process brought to its conclusion, you may not run for or hold a seat on the Standing Committee, or any other committee or commission of the Church. I will contact Tony to let him know that we cannot accept his nomination and it would be advisable for you to let others know of this limitation. Should anyone nominate you from the floor of Convention, it would necessitate the Chancellor's reading of the Temporary Inhibition into the formal record of the proceedings. I trust neither of us would want the Temporary Inhibition to be a permanent record in the Diocesan Journal.
It is my daily prayer that Christ's reconciling grace will help heal our deep divide in the weeks and months to come.
Faithfully in Christ,
Gladstone B. Adams III
Bishop
I hope this letter finds you well. I have not received any recent news about Elizabeth but she and your family continue to be held in my daily prayer.
It had been my fervent hope that the current difficulties would have been put to rest long before now and it is with a heavy heart that I write you this letter as I know what I am about to say will feel like punishment. I wish it were not so. Yet, I am duty-bound to adhere to the canonical process which has been put in place and, therefore, must address limitations which are called for in the Temporary Inhibition.
As you know, the language of the Temporary Inhibition includes the following statement:
You are hereby Temporarily Inhibited from the execution and performance of any and all actions and offices, sacramental or functional, associated with your ordination as a priest of this Church.
This language clearly prohibits your attendance at next week’s Clergy Conference. It also pertains to attendance at upcoming clergy gatherings including District Clericus meetings and any other clergy meetings which may be held while the Temporary Inhibition is in place. Your absence from these gatherings is required until the Temporary Inhibition is lifted and/or the investigation and canonical process is brought to its conclusion. I am, therefore, returning your registration fee for the clergy conference.
Since the Diocesan Convention is an open meeting, you may choose to attend the Convention as a guest, but you will not be given voice or vote. You will, of course, need to send in the appropriate registration form and accompanying fee.
It has come to my attention that the Rev. Tony Seel has nominated you for a seat on the Standing Committee. This nomination will not be placed on the ballot for Convention as it is not valid since serving as a member of the Standing Committee would constitute “the performance of… actions and offices… associated with your ordination as a priest of this Church.” Therefore, until the Temporary Inhibition is lifted and/or the investigation is complete and the canonical process brought to its conclusion, you may not run for or hold a seat on the Standing Committee, or any other committee or commission of the Church. I will contact Tony to let him know that we cannot accept his nomination and it would be advisable for you to let others know of this limitation. Should anyone nominate you from the floor of Convention, it would necessitate the Chancellor's reading of the Temporary Inhibition into the formal record of the proceedings. I trust neither of us would want the Temporary Inhibition to be a permanent record in the Diocesan Journal.
It is my daily prayer that Christ's reconciling grace will help heal our deep divide in the weeks and months to come.
Faithfully in Christ,
Gladstone B. Adams III
Bishop
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Awaiting Good News
As the clergy of the Diocese of Central NY prepare for a Clergy Conference this week, there is an expectation that good news for Fr. David Bollinger will be forthcoming soon. That good news will not come from the Diocese of Central NY. In the agenda that was sent out ahead of the conference, the situation with Fr. Bollinger and St. Paul's, Owego was given as a discussion item. I would expect more claptrap at the Clergy Conference based on the consulting work of Peter Kapcio of the public relations firm Eric Mawer and Associates. I don't know how long the Diocese of Central NY can put up with the persecution of a priest being wrongfully charged by the bishop and standing committee, but maybe there isn't a soul in the diocese who cares. Thus far, the diocesan power structure has exonerated the comptroller of identity theft, despite the evidence produced by Fidelity Investments and the Church Pension Fund. The diocese did not allow Fr. Bollinger and his attorney to refute the charges prior to the first inhibition, and then violated their own procedures in extending the inhibition. I'm sure that this will not be the story told at Clergy Conference. All the while, we in the diocese are told that we should trust the fairmindedness of the diocese!
Friday, October 07, 2005
A Comment from TitusOneNine
From a member of the St. Paul's, Owego vestry on the posting of the Bishop's Memo (you will find the Bishop's Memo below). ed.
It is entirely true that gentlemen do not read other people’s mail, let alone publish it. Gentlemen also do not leave their wives and children in order to pursue the pleasures of Sodom with other men. A promise means something to a gentleman. Gentlemen keep their word, as this Bishop has not—he told the Vestry we could testify before the Standing Committee, and did not let us do so. Gentlemen value their honor almost above all else. A gentleman discovered in a dishonorable action will, if he cannot make amends, have the decency to withdraw from society until he can. His good name is not a fraud visited on the public, propped up by image consultants and public relations men—it is the man himself, right down to the core.
A gentleman holding a high public position discovered in a vile scheme to dispossess another man of his good name by fraud and secrecy will have the decency to resign his post.
If a gentleman held the position of Bishop of the Diocese of Central New York, why, none of this would be necessary. So why bring up the standards of gentlemen in the case of Bishop Adams?
The point of publishing documents which, in the normal course of things, would have remained private, is that this is not the normal course of things. There is no way to obtain justice for Father Bollinger in the Diocese of Central New York, were Skip allowed to proceed in the privacy and secrecy to which he is evidently accustomed.
The case of Gladstone B. Adams and others clearly demonstrates that the structure of the Episcopal polity has always assumed a certain high moral caliber among the Church leadership. Absent fidelity to the cardinal moral virtues, the structure cannot prevent abuses which would not be tolerated in the secular polity. There is no guarantee of separation of powers: the functions of prosecutor, judge and jury are all combined in the person of Bishop Adams.
Here and there, the Bishop speaks of “independent” investigations. What makes them independent? Merely the say-so of the Bishop. An “independent” investigator exonerated Gael Sopchak of assuming Father Bollinger’s identity and getting into his private retirement account. By what process of evidence-gathering and reasoning did this person reach his or her conclusion. If we knew this, we might form the impression that there was, indeed, some independence. (unlikely, given the transcripts of her conversations with a bank officer) But the Bishop refuses to release the report of this so-called investigation.
Given the vulnerability of this structure to the non-gentlemen who now occupy some of its highest posts, it is now necessary to appeal to places where obtaining justice is more likely, and where truth is more likely to have a hearing. What a scandal!
Chris Peterson
Owego, NY
It is entirely true that gentlemen do not read other people’s mail, let alone publish it. Gentlemen also do not leave their wives and children in order to pursue the pleasures of Sodom with other men. A promise means something to a gentleman. Gentlemen keep their word, as this Bishop has not—he told the Vestry we could testify before the Standing Committee, and did not let us do so. Gentlemen value their honor almost above all else. A gentleman discovered in a dishonorable action will, if he cannot make amends, have the decency to withdraw from society until he can. His good name is not a fraud visited on the public, propped up by image consultants and public relations men—it is the man himself, right down to the core.
A gentleman holding a high public position discovered in a vile scheme to dispossess another man of his good name by fraud and secrecy will have the decency to resign his post.
If a gentleman held the position of Bishop of the Diocese of Central New York, why, none of this would be necessary. So why bring up the standards of gentlemen in the case of Bishop Adams?
The point of publishing documents which, in the normal course of things, would have remained private, is that this is not the normal course of things. There is no way to obtain justice for Father Bollinger in the Diocese of Central New York, were Skip allowed to proceed in the privacy and secrecy to which he is evidently accustomed.
The case of Gladstone B. Adams and others clearly demonstrates that the structure of the Episcopal polity has always assumed a certain high moral caliber among the Church leadership. Absent fidelity to the cardinal moral virtues, the structure cannot prevent abuses which would not be tolerated in the secular polity. There is no guarantee of separation of powers: the functions of prosecutor, judge and jury are all combined in the person of Bishop Adams.
Here and there, the Bishop speaks of “independent” investigations. What makes them independent? Merely the say-so of the Bishop. An “independent” investigator exonerated Gael Sopchak of assuming Father Bollinger’s identity and getting into his private retirement account. By what process of evidence-gathering and reasoning did this person reach his or her conclusion. If we knew this, we might form the impression that there was, indeed, some independence. (unlikely, given the transcripts of her conversations with a bank officer) But the Bishop refuses to release the report of this so-called investigation.
Given the vulnerability of this structure to the non-gentlemen who now occupy some of its highest posts, it is now necessary to appeal to places where obtaining justice is more likely, and where truth is more likely to have a hearing. What a scandal!
Chris Peterson
Owego, NY
The Storyline of the Bollinger Affair
From another priest in the Diocese of Central NY:
Here is my own summary of the situation:
1. Fr. David Bollinger’s predecessor at St. Paul’s Owego allegedly sexually abused at least one child, maybe more.
2. The matter came to Fr. B’s attention three years ago and he brought it to the bishop’s attention’
3. Allegedly unsatisfied with the diocesan response Fr. Bollinger sought outside help and this made the issue more public than it had been.
4. Apparently, this publicity stirred up trouble for Fr.B both with the parish and the diocese. In the parish those who did not want to harm the former rector began to contact the diocese and complain. The diocese in turn allegedly warned Fr. Bollinger to discontinue his involvement in the matter.
5. The situation escalated and bishop Adams paid a visit, held a parish meeting, and allegedly discredited the accusations against the former rector and denigrated the accuser.
6. At the same time an investigation was launched by the diocese into Fr. Bollinger’s personal retirement accounts and discretionary spending. This investigation apparently came at the behest of those parishioners mentioned above who remained friendly with the former rector and alleged abuser.
7. In the process of this investigation the diocesan controller, Gael S. (mentioned in the letter above), allegedly posed as someone else in order to gain access to Fr. Bollingers accounts. This was caught on tape by the financial institution and handed over to Fr. B’s attourney.
8. The diocese found “irregularities” in Fr. B’s discretionary spending. A finding which the vestry of the parish in question rejects for reasons stated here:
http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=1331
9. The diocese realized it has a problem and begins to strategize:
http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=1333
10. Fr. Bollinger is inhibited.
11. The thing starts to spin out of control…here we are
Here is my own summary of the situation:
1. Fr. David Bollinger’s predecessor at St. Paul’s Owego allegedly sexually abused at least one child, maybe more.
2. The matter came to Fr. B’s attention three years ago and he brought it to the bishop’s attention’
3. Allegedly unsatisfied with the diocesan response Fr. Bollinger sought outside help and this made the issue more public than it had been.
4. Apparently, this publicity stirred up trouble for Fr.B both with the parish and the diocese. In the parish those who did not want to harm the former rector began to contact the diocese and complain. The diocese in turn allegedly warned Fr. Bollinger to discontinue his involvement in the matter.
5. The situation escalated and bishop Adams paid a visit, held a parish meeting, and allegedly discredited the accusations against the former rector and denigrated the accuser.
6. At the same time an investigation was launched by the diocese into Fr. Bollinger’s personal retirement accounts and discretionary spending. This investigation apparently came at the behest of those parishioners mentioned above who remained friendly with the former rector and alleged abuser.
7. In the process of this investigation the diocesan controller, Gael S. (mentioned in the letter above), allegedly posed as someone else in order to gain access to Fr. Bollingers accounts. This was caught on tape by the financial institution and handed over to Fr. B’s attourney.
8. The diocese found “irregularities” in Fr. B’s discretionary spending. A finding which the vestry of the parish in question rejects for reasons stated here:
http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=1331
9. The diocese realized it has a problem and begins to strategize:
http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=1333
10. Fr. Bollinger is inhibited.
11. The thing starts to spin out of control…here we are
Thursday, October 06, 2005
From VirtueOnline
IN THE DIOCESE OF CENTRAL NEW YORK, Bishop Gladstone B. (Skip) Adams has
extended the inhibition against the Rev. David Bollinger. You can read
what the vestry of his church, St. Paul's, Owego has to say about that.
It's a hard-hitting attack on the bishop that he won't soon forget.
Interestingly, the Standing Committee was not permitted to read the
vestry's letter because "it might taint their view of the situation,"
said a source. Of course it would. Heaven forbid they should learn the
truth. Keep them ignorant, keep them blind, then the bishop can
manipulate them.
LETTER FROM ST. PAUL'S VESTRY:
September 8, 2005
To the Members of the Standing Committee:
We are writing you concerning our rector Fr. David G. Bollinger who has
been temporarily inhibited for 90 days by the Bishop for the reasons set
forth in the Bishop's letter to Fr. Bollinger of May 31, 2005. On
September 8, 2005, Fr. Bollinger had a hearing before the Standing
Committee, in its capacity as the Diocesan Review Committee, to
challenge the extension of the temporary inhibition for an additional 90
days. We also understand that any presentment under Canon IV.3.15-17
must originate from you by majority vote.
We write you for three reasons, asking you to refuse an extension of the
temporary inhibition pursuant to Canon IV.1.2(d) and to vote not to
issue a presentment pursuant to Canon IV.3.18.
First, as you know, our rector, and not the parish, is the subject of
the temporary inhibition and its extension. The bishop met with us on
May 22, 2005 in an attempt to work out the differences between our
priest and our parish on one side, and the diocese on the other. At that
time, he invited us to participate in the process of addressing the
concerns raised by both the Breiten and forensic audits. We were told
that we would have the opportunity to be heard on this, but to date,
nobody from the diocese has solicited our input.
There is a second reason why we are writing you. The temporary
inhibition against Fr. Bollinger since May 31, 2005, has exacerbated any
problems we had before that time. Fr. Bollinger was and continues to be
well liked and respected by many in the parish. The inhibition with its
prohibition on his having any contact with us is itself causing great
distress among us, as is the uncertainty of his being reinstated.
Pastorally we feel we have been cut adrift by the diocese, and we take
this opportunity to tell you of the great problem which these temporary
inhibitions have caused for our parish. For example, our regular Sunday
attendance was around 125 before this began and now is closer to about
70. This temporary inhibition is having a highly detrimental effect on
the morale and finances of our parish, and we need you to know this.
Thirdly, we write you for the very practical reason that many of the
charges which the Bishop raised against our rector are things of which
we have direct and personal knowledge. We are first hand witnesses who
can speak with directly concerning these charges of misconduct by our
rector. We know what happened concerning many of the things which you
allege against our rector. We were there when the events occurred, if in
fact they did occur. Indeed it is hard to imagine how the diocese can
proceed on these charges without our input. It is impossible for the
diocese to reach an informed conclusion about those matters without
consulting with us and asking what happened.
The inhibition involves the forensic audit of our books and the
questions which you have raised concerning our internal finances. As to
the actual charges brought against Fr. Bollinger, the Bishop in
paragraph I of his May 31, 2005 letter leads off with canon IV.1.1(a)
which makes a priest subject to inhibition or presentment for a "crime"*
(*this quote and others are taken directly from the May 31, 2005 letter
of inhibition) and sets forth four subparagraphs purporting to show
criminal behavior by Fr. Bollinger "and possibly others." Subparagraphs
1 and 2 speak of tax fraud, which we take to mean Fr. Bollinger "and
possibly others" are accused of taking money from the rector's
discretionary fund, the Rowe monies, and pocketing it without reporting
the income to the IRS and New York State Tax Commission.
To understand this and the other allegations it is important to
understand how we managed the rector's discretionary fund at our parish
and the monies in the bequest created by the will of St. Paul's
parishioner Mabel G. Rowe.
The rector's discretionary fund by canon law is supposed to be funded by
the undesignated offerings in the collection plate which is collected
one Sunday per month in accordance with Canon III.9.5(b)(6).
The other monies which the bishop is apparently referring to in
paragraph I (1) and (2) of his letter was not the canonical rector's
discretionary fund, but instead was the fund resulting from the bequest
of St. Paul's parishioner Mabel G. Rowe. Some of the confusion
concerning the use of the Discretionary fund comes from the fact that in
recent years, the canon discretionary fund and the Rowe Rectors fund
were combined. The Canon III.9.5(b)(6) discretionary fund never had
anywhere near the dollar amounts to which reference is made in the
letter, so the bishop must be referring to the Rowe monies. This latter
fund was not in any way restricted; it was set up by the will and hence
is governed only by the legal restrictions of the Estates, Powers and
Trusts Law of the State of New York, and subject to the direction of the
surrogate court of Tioga County under the terms of Miss Rowe's will.
Since those monies were given to the rector of the church upon the
settlement of the Rowe estate, those monies are not restricted. Even
Addendum 2 of the Breiten audit acknowledges that the will does not
restrict those monies. Apparently however the bishop wants to take the
position that these monies are restricted, and then suggests that
informal accounting for these monies is tantamount to stealing and tax
fraud.
With respect to the Rowe monies, since they came from outside of the
church, we were unaware that we needed to exercise the same sort of
fiduciary oversight of this fund, since it is up to the recipient of the
funds of a bequest from an estate to account to the surrogate court for
them if they are restricted. Because they are not restricted by the will
of Miss Rowe, it would appear that the monies can "be used at the
discretion of the Rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Church," to quote the
language in paragraph 9(b) of the will. That same phrase appears in the
"Declaration of Intention" signed by Fr. Bollinger, the wardens of the
church, and Bishop Adams updated March 11, 2002. The will by its own
terms does not even require that those monies be held in any sort of
trust. There is no crime or other legal obligation for the vestry to
exercise fiduciary oversight of this money, nor is there any legal
obligation of the rector to account for how the money is spent. That
said, Fr. Bollinger was usually forthright and open with us as to how
the monies were being spent, but these things were generally not
recorded in vestry minutes.
In short, the bishop's words that there "may be criminal wrongdoing by
[Fr. Bollinger] and possibly others" and allegations of "possible" tax
fraud will not stand up to serious scrutiny.
The same can be said of the "unexplained and unsubstantiated handling of
more than $22,000" in paragraph I(2) of the bishop's letter. Those
monies were given to the Rectors Discretionary Fund, and we know
personally that they were spent for a refugee family that was being
helped by the parish. The monies were all spent for the refugee family
which was the intended purpose. There was no "possible tax fraud" here.
Subparagraph (3) in a general way accuses Fr. Bollinger of "possible
violations of various state and federal statutes forbidding personal use
of Church funds." Without more specifics in this accusation we cannot
answer the bishop's charge, except to say that if he is referring to the
same conduct alleged in subparagraphs (1) and (2), we have already
addressed that. If you have more details concerning this charge, please
get them to us so that we can address them.
Subparagraph (4) is especially troubling to us because in addition to
alleging "apparent failure" by the rector, it also accuses us as the
wardens and vestry of failure "to exercise mandated fiduciary
responsibility by not ensuring proper practices were used in managing
endowments and/or bequests." Why misconduct is being attributed to us in
a subparagraph accusing our rector of criminal behavior is baffling, to
say the least. This is after all a document accusing him of misconduct
not us, but apparently the bishop is painting his allegations of
criminal conduct with a wide brush. Are we being accused of tax fraud by
the bishop? Are we the unnamed "possibly others" which the bishop
accuses of "criminal wrongdoing" in the main body of paragraph I in his
May 31, 2005 letter to Fr. Bollinger? As vaguely stated as subparagraph
(4) it makes it impossible for us to frame any response to this
allegation of "criminal wrongdoing" by us. These are very serious
allegations, and we see no criminal acts either by ourselves or Fr.
Bollinger. If you feel that this subparagraph is correct, we deserve a
further clarification of these specific criminal offenses.
Paragraph II of the bishop's letter accuses Fr. Bollinger under Canon
IV.1.1(b) of "immorality."
What sort of "collusion" did we engage in? It is not enough to suggest
that our rector is acting immorally, but we are colluding with him in
this?! This is libel and slander! Does the bishop have inside knowledge
of secret meetings where we and the rector got together and colluded to
take funds for personal uses? We unequivocally deny this slanderous
allegation, and ask that it be withdrawn. It is one thing to lack
documentation for transactions and quite another to take money for
personal gain.
Paragraph III of the bishop's letter accuses Fr. Bollinger under Canon
IV.1.1(e) of violating various ECUSA canons. Subparagraph (1) accuses
him of violating Canon III.1.5 of the canons in taking money from his
discretionary fund for personal use. Canon III.1.5 is the general canon
which specifies all of the various things which a rector should do in a
parish. We have read that canon and to our knowledge Fr. Bollinger has
faithfully done those things. Only Canon III.1.5(b)(6) within that
general section addresses the rector's canonical discretionary fund. As
we have said previously, Fr. Bollinger to our knowledge used these
monies "to such pious and charitable uses as the Rector shall
determine." The canon does not enumerate the things for which the money
can be applied. We recently we got a brochure from the diocese for a
clergy diocesan conference on October 9, 2005 at the Summer Hill Country
Inn in Sherburne, New York which contained the notation that "Bishop
Adams believes that it is appropriate to use discretionary funds to pay
spouse costs for this retreat." We believe that Fr. Bollinger's
canonical discretionary fund monies were similarly applied. We see no
Canon III.1.5 violation by our priest.
Subparagraph (2) accuses Fr. Bollinger of violating Canon I.7. This is a
very odd charge against him. This provision of the canons is directed
toward the parish, and does not even mention the rector. We as a vestry
have taken our responsibility seriously to see that proper business
methods are used. The New York Religious Corporations Law and the canons
charge the vestry and not the rector with the duty of managing the
parish finances. It is unclear to us how it would even be possible for
our rector to violate a canon which enjoins a duty on us and not upon
him.
Subparagraph (3) accuses Fr. Bollinger of violating Canon I.14.2 of the
canons. This brief canon, consistent with Article 3 of the New York
Religious Corporation Law, says that "the churchwardens and vestrymen so
elected and their successors in office, together with the rector, when
there is one, shall form a vestry and shall be the trustees of such
church or congregation." Religious Corporations Law =A741(7), second
unnumbered paragraph. We have always acted as a vestry in conjunction
with our rector. We as a vestry have always functioned to manage the
affairs of the parish. The rector never set his own salary. The rector
never had check signing authority for any of the general funds of the
church. Only our treasurers have had that authority. Fr. Bollinger
pursuant to canon law and the New York statutes exercised signing
authority over only his discretionary fund and the extra-canonical
monies of the Rowe bequest. Paragraph IV of the bishop's letter accuses
Fr. Bollinger under Canon IV.1.1(h) of violating his ordination vows. We
can clearly speak to subparagraphs (3) and (4). These are non-issues.
Paragraph V of the bishop's letter accuses Fr. Bollinger under Canon
IV.1.1(j) of conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy. The first two
subparagraphs are a repeat of the financial misconduct charges which we
have already addressed. Subparagraph (3) accuses our rector of
"allegedly bullying several parish staff members into resigning." This
is not so. In fact, with the exception of the Treasurer position, each
of our parish staff has been with us for over 5 years. The treasurers
have either retired, resigned or been dismissed with cause. Subparagraph
(4) accuses him of "striking out at treasurers, auditors and diocesan
staff persons engaged in lawful activity requested by the vestry of St.
Paul's, possibly to conceal your own misdeeds." The use of the term
"striking out" is misleading and inflammatory. Disagreements did occur
with an inept, incompetent treasurer, not "striking out". We would
welcome the opportunity to speak to the specifics. As you know, there is
no dispute about the fact that the diocesan comptroller called Fr.
Bollinger's private retirement account to access his personal
information. She was tape recorded by the account's recording system as
she did this. Gael Sopchak, was not asked by us to enter Fr. Bollinger's
retirement account. She was asked by the wardens to deal with the
managers of that retirement account to resolve another financial mistake
made by the treasurer. As to Subparagraph (5), refusing to cooperate
with the Diocesan Sexual Misconduct Response Team, we are unaware of any
such failure or refusal to cooperate. All we saw was Fr. Bollinger's
attempt to maintain confidentiality of an alleged victim of sexual
misconduct The alleged victim was given diocesan contact information to
use at his discretion if he wished to pursue it. The alleged victim was
grateful for Fr. Bollinger's pastoral care.
While we appreciate that this is a long letter setting forth our reasons
why we are opposing the extension of the temporary inhibition and
opposing a presentment against Fr. Bollinger, it is required because we
have been ignored in the process of discipline against him, and it has
been necessary to summarize our entire reasons for opposing the actions
of the bishop against our priest. If for whatever reason you feel that
you need to either extend the temporary inhibition under Canon IV.1.2(d)
or to issue a presentment under Canon IV.3.15-17, we ask that you afford
us the opportunity to be heard in person.
Cc: Bishop Skip Adams
Recipients of the Notice of Inhibition
Parishioners of St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Owego, NY
Yours in Christ,
Members of the Vestry of St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Owego:
Laura Coppens, Warden.
Patricia Ellis, Warden.
Harold Bartz.
Lois Bingley.
Alice Botts.
Linda Brisson.
Michael Medovich.
John C. Peterson.
Vera Lin Richards.
Bernadette Toombs.
------------------------------
extended the inhibition against the Rev. David Bollinger. You can read
what the vestry of his church, St. Paul's, Owego has to say about that.
It's a hard-hitting attack on the bishop that he won't soon forget.
Interestingly, the Standing Committee was not permitted to read the
vestry's letter because "it might taint their view of the situation,"
said a source. Of course it would. Heaven forbid they should learn the
truth. Keep them ignorant, keep them blind, then the bishop can
manipulate them.
LETTER FROM ST. PAUL'S VESTRY:
September 8, 2005
To the Members of the Standing Committee:
We are writing you concerning our rector Fr. David G. Bollinger who has
been temporarily inhibited for 90 days by the Bishop for the reasons set
forth in the Bishop's letter to Fr. Bollinger of May 31, 2005. On
September 8, 2005, Fr. Bollinger had a hearing before the Standing
Committee, in its capacity as the Diocesan Review Committee, to
challenge the extension of the temporary inhibition for an additional 90
days. We also understand that any presentment under Canon IV.3.15-17
must originate from you by majority vote.
We write you for three reasons, asking you to refuse an extension of the
temporary inhibition pursuant to Canon IV.1.2(d) and to vote not to
issue a presentment pursuant to Canon IV.3.18.
First, as you know, our rector, and not the parish, is the subject of
the temporary inhibition and its extension. The bishop met with us on
May 22, 2005 in an attempt to work out the differences between our
priest and our parish on one side, and the diocese on the other. At that
time, he invited us to participate in the process of addressing the
concerns raised by both the Breiten and forensic audits. We were told
that we would have the opportunity to be heard on this, but to date,
nobody from the diocese has solicited our input.
There is a second reason why we are writing you. The temporary
inhibition against Fr. Bollinger since May 31, 2005, has exacerbated any
problems we had before that time. Fr. Bollinger was and continues to be
well liked and respected by many in the parish. The inhibition with its
prohibition on his having any contact with us is itself causing great
distress among us, as is the uncertainty of his being reinstated.
Pastorally we feel we have been cut adrift by the diocese, and we take
this opportunity to tell you of the great problem which these temporary
inhibitions have caused for our parish. For example, our regular Sunday
attendance was around 125 before this began and now is closer to about
70. This temporary inhibition is having a highly detrimental effect on
the morale and finances of our parish, and we need you to know this.
Thirdly, we write you for the very practical reason that many of the
charges which the Bishop raised against our rector are things of which
we have direct and personal knowledge. We are first hand witnesses who
can speak with directly concerning these charges of misconduct by our
rector. We know what happened concerning many of the things which you
allege against our rector. We were there when the events occurred, if in
fact they did occur. Indeed it is hard to imagine how the diocese can
proceed on these charges without our input. It is impossible for the
diocese to reach an informed conclusion about those matters without
consulting with us and asking what happened.
The inhibition involves the forensic audit of our books and the
questions which you have raised concerning our internal finances. As to
the actual charges brought against Fr. Bollinger, the Bishop in
paragraph I of his May 31, 2005 letter leads off with canon IV.1.1(a)
which makes a priest subject to inhibition or presentment for a "crime"*
(*this quote and others are taken directly from the May 31, 2005 letter
of inhibition) and sets forth four subparagraphs purporting to show
criminal behavior by Fr. Bollinger "and possibly others." Subparagraphs
1 and 2 speak of tax fraud, which we take to mean Fr. Bollinger "and
possibly others" are accused of taking money from the rector's
discretionary fund, the Rowe monies, and pocketing it without reporting
the income to the IRS and New York State Tax Commission.
To understand this and the other allegations it is important to
understand how we managed the rector's discretionary fund at our parish
and the monies in the bequest created by the will of St. Paul's
parishioner Mabel G. Rowe.
The rector's discretionary fund by canon law is supposed to be funded by
the undesignated offerings in the collection plate which is collected
one Sunday per month in accordance with Canon III.9.5(b)(6).
The other monies which the bishop is apparently referring to in
paragraph I (1) and (2) of his letter was not the canonical rector's
discretionary fund, but instead was the fund resulting from the bequest
of St. Paul's parishioner Mabel G. Rowe. Some of the confusion
concerning the use of the Discretionary fund comes from the fact that in
recent years, the canon discretionary fund and the Rowe Rectors fund
were combined. The Canon III.9.5(b)(6) discretionary fund never had
anywhere near the dollar amounts to which reference is made in the
letter, so the bishop must be referring to the Rowe monies. This latter
fund was not in any way restricted; it was set up by the will and hence
is governed only by the legal restrictions of the Estates, Powers and
Trusts Law of the State of New York, and subject to the direction of the
surrogate court of Tioga County under the terms of Miss Rowe's will.
Since those monies were given to the rector of the church upon the
settlement of the Rowe estate, those monies are not restricted. Even
Addendum 2 of the Breiten audit acknowledges that the will does not
restrict those monies. Apparently however the bishop wants to take the
position that these monies are restricted, and then suggests that
informal accounting for these monies is tantamount to stealing and tax
fraud.
With respect to the Rowe monies, since they came from outside of the
church, we were unaware that we needed to exercise the same sort of
fiduciary oversight of this fund, since it is up to the recipient of the
funds of a bequest from an estate to account to the surrogate court for
them if they are restricted. Because they are not restricted by the will
of Miss Rowe, it would appear that the monies can "be used at the
discretion of the Rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Church," to quote the
language in paragraph 9(b) of the will. That same phrase appears in the
"Declaration of Intention" signed by Fr. Bollinger, the wardens of the
church, and Bishop Adams updated March 11, 2002. The will by its own
terms does not even require that those monies be held in any sort of
trust. There is no crime or other legal obligation for the vestry to
exercise fiduciary oversight of this money, nor is there any legal
obligation of the rector to account for how the money is spent. That
said, Fr. Bollinger was usually forthright and open with us as to how
the monies were being spent, but these things were generally not
recorded in vestry minutes.
In short, the bishop's words that there "may be criminal wrongdoing by
[Fr. Bollinger] and possibly others" and allegations of "possible" tax
fraud will not stand up to serious scrutiny.
The same can be said of the "unexplained and unsubstantiated handling of
more than $22,000" in paragraph I(2) of the bishop's letter. Those
monies were given to the Rectors Discretionary Fund, and we know
personally that they were spent for a refugee family that was being
helped by the parish. The monies were all spent for the refugee family
which was the intended purpose. There was no "possible tax fraud" here.
Subparagraph (3) in a general way accuses Fr. Bollinger of "possible
violations of various state and federal statutes forbidding personal use
of Church funds." Without more specifics in this accusation we cannot
answer the bishop's charge, except to say that if he is referring to the
same conduct alleged in subparagraphs (1) and (2), we have already
addressed that. If you have more details concerning this charge, please
get them to us so that we can address them.
Subparagraph (4) is especially troubling to us because in addition to
alleging "apparent failure" by the rector, it also accuses us as the
wardens and vestry of failure "to exercise mandated fiduciary
responsibility by not ensuring proper practices were used in managing
endowments and/or bequests." Why misconduct is being attributed to us in
a subparagraph accusing our rector of criminal behavior is baffling, to
say the least. This is after all a document accusing him of misconduct
not us, but apparently the bishop is painting his allegations of
criminal conduct with a wide brush. Are we being accused of tax fraud by
the bishop? Are we the unnamed "possibly others" which the bishop
accuses of "criminal wrongdoing" in the main body of paragraph I in his
May 31, 2005 letter to Fr. Bollinger? As vaguely stated as subparagraph
(4) it makes it impossible for us to frame any response to this
allegation of "criminal wrongdoing" by us. These are very serious
allegations, and we see no criminal acts either by ourselves or Fr.
Bollinger. If you feel that this subparagraph is correct, we deserve a
further clarification of these specific criminal offenses.
Paragraph II of the bishop's letter accuses Fr. Bollinger under Canon
IV.1.1(b) of "immorality."
What sort of "collusion" did we engage in? It is not enough to suggest
that our rector is acting immorally, but we are colluding with him in
this?! This is libel and slander! Does the bishop have inside knowledge
of secret meetings where we and the rector got together and colluded to
take funds for personal uses? We unequivocally deny this slanderous
allegation, and ask that it be withdrawn. It is one thing to lack
documentation for transactions and quite another to take money for
personal gain.
Paragraph III of the bishop's letter accuses Fr. Bollinger under Canon
IV.1.1(e) of violating various ECUSA canons. Subparagraph (1) accuses
him of violating Canon III.1.5 of the canons in taking money from his
discretionary fund for personal use. Canon III.1.5 is the general canon
which specifies all of the various things which a rector should do in a
parish. We have read that canon and to our knowledge Fr. Bollinger has
faithfully done those things. Only Canon III.1.5(b)(6) within that
general section addresses the rector's canonical discretionary fund. As
we have said previously, Fr. Bollinger to our knowledge used these
monies "to such pious and charitable uses as the Rector shall
determine." The canon does not enumerate the things for which the money
can be applied. We recently we got a brochure from the diocese for a
clergy diocesan conference on October 9, 2005 at the Summer Hill Country
Inn in Sherburne, New York which contained the notation that "Bishop
Adams believes that it is appropriate to use discretionary funds to pay
spouse costs for this retreat." We believe that Fr. Bollinger's
canonical discretionary fund monies were similarly applied. We see no
Canon III.1.5 violation by our priest.
Subparagraph (2) accuses Fr. Bollinger of violating Canon I.7. This is a
very odd charge against him. This provision of the canons is directed
toward the parish, and does not even mention the rector. We as a vestry
have taken our responsibility seriously to see that proper business
methods are used. The New York Religious Corporations Law and the canons
charge the vestry and not the rector with the duty of managing the
parish finances. It is unclear to us how it would even be possible for
our rector to violate a canon which enjoins a duty on us and not upon
him.
Subparagraph (3) accuses Fr. Bollinger of violating Canon I.14.2 of the
canons. This brief canon, consistent with Article 3 of the New York
Religious Corporation Law, says that "the churchwardens and vestrymen so
elected and their successors in office, together with the rector, when
there is one, shall form a vestry and shall be the trustees of such
church or congregation." Religious Corporations Law =A741(7), second
unnumbered paragraph. We have always acted as a vestry in conjunction
with our rector. We as a vestry have always functioned to manage the
affairs of the parish. The rector never set his own salary. The rector
never had check signing authority for any of the general funds of the
church. Only our treasurers have had that authority. Fr. Bollinger
pursuant to canon law and the New York statutes exercised signing
authority over only his discretionary fund and the extra-canonical
monies of the Rowe bequest. Paragraph IV of the bishop's letter accuses
Fr. Bollinger under Canon IV.1.1(h) of violating his ordination vows. We
can clearly speak to subparagraphs (3) and (4). These are non-issues.
Paragraph V of the bishop's letter accuses Fr. Bollinger under Canon
IV.1.1(j) of conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy. The first two
subparagraphs are a repeat of the financial misconduct charges which we
have already addressed. Subparagraph (3) accuses our rector of
"allegedly bullying several parish staff members into resigning." This
is not so. In fact, with the exception of the Treasurer position, each
of our parish staff has been with us for over 5 years. The treasurers
have either retired, resigned or been dismissed with cause. Subparagraph
(4) accuses him of "striking out at treasurers, auditors and diocesan
staff persons engaged in lawful activity requested by the vestry of St.
Paul's, possibly to conceal your own misdeeds." The use of the term
"striking out" is misleading and inflammatory. Disagreements did occur
with an inept, incompetent treasurer, not "striking out". We would
welcome the opportunity to speak to the specifics. As you know, there is
no dispute about the fact that the diocesan comptroller called Fr.
Bollinger's private retirement account to access his personal
information. She was tape recorded by the account's recording system as
she did this. Gael Sopchak, was not asked by us to enter Fr. Bollinger's
retirement account. She was asked by the wardens to deal with the
managers of that retirement account to resolve another financial mistake
made by the treasurer. As to Subparagraph (5), refusing to cooperate
with the Diocesan Sexual Misconduct Response Team, we are unaware of any
such failure or refusal to cooperate. All we saw was Fr. Bollinger's
attempt to maintain confidentiality of an alleged victim of sexual
misconduct The alleged victim was given diocesan contact information to
use at his discretion if he wished to pursue it. The alleged victim was
grateful for Fr. Bollinger's pastoral care.
While we appreciate that this is a long letter setting forth our reasons
why we are opposing the extension of the temporary inhibition and
opposing a presentment against Fr. Bollinger, it is required because we
have been ignored in the process of discipline against him, and it has
been necessary to summarize our entire reasons for opposing the actions
of the bishop against our priest. If for whatever reason you feel that
you need to either extend the temporary inhibition under Canon IV.1.2(d)
or to issue a presentment under Canon IV.3.15-17, we ask that you afford
us the opportunity to be heard in person.
Cc: Bishop Skip Adams
Recipients of the Notice of Inhibition
Parishioners of St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Owego, NY
Yours in Christ,
Members of the Vestry of St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Owego:
Laura Coppens, Warden.
Patricia Ellis, Warden.
Harold Bartz.
Lois Bingley.
Alice Botts.
Linda Brisson.
Michael Medovich.
John C. Peterson.
Vera Lin Richards.
Bernadette Toombs.
------------------------------
From The Living Church website
Vestry Disputes Diocesan Charges Against Rector
09/16/2005
With a background that includes accusations of identity theft by a diocesan employee and sexual misconduct by a former rector, the vestry of St. Paul’s Church, Owego, N.Y., has sent a letter to every congregation in the Diocese of Central New York, defending its rector, the Rev. David Bollinger, against charges of criminal misconduct made by the Rt. Rev. Gladstone “Skip” Adams III, Bishop of Central New York.
On May 31, the diocese served Fr. Bollinger with a 90-day notice of inhibition, informing him that he was being brought up on charges under Canon IV.1.1(a), which states that a priest may be subject to inhibition or presentment for a “crime.”
The inhibition accused Fr. Bollinger of “possible violations of various state and federal statutes forbidding personal use of Church funds.” There “may be criminal wrongdoing by [Fr. Bollinger] and possibly others,” the letter noted, for defrauding the Internal Revenue Service by not reporting income defalcated from the rector’s discretionary funds and a trust fund. Fr. Bollinger was further charged with violating a number of canons of the diocese and the General Convention of the Episcopal Church.
The vestry submitted its concerns to the standing committee for consideration at the Sept. 8 meeting. The standing committee declined to receive the communiqué out of concerns that it might prejudice the proceedings. The vestry subsequently distributed the letter to every congregation in the diocese, and charged Bishop Adams with bad faith, claiming he had promised on May 22 that the parish would be given an opportunity to be heard.
Pastoral Directive
More than three years ago, an alleged victim of sexual abuse told Fr. Bollinger that a previous rector at St. Paul’s had “molested me when I was age 12” during a visit to a cabin owned by the priest and located in another state. On Jan. 12 of this year, the alleged victim reappeared at St. Paul’s and executed a sworn affidavit, witnessed by Fr. Bollinger and a second priest of the diocese Fr. Bollinger reported the incident to the diocese and was ordered not to speak to anyone about it in a “pastoral admonition” issued by Bishop Adams on Jan. 19.
In an interview with the Syracuse Post-Standard published that same day, Bishop Adams said he was gathering the clergy on Jan. 19 to “offer facts and attempt to clear up any rumor or unsubstantiated allegations that are being spread around the diocese” about a case of sexual misconduct. He told the newspaper that he had given an unnamed priest a “pastoral direction” but noted it had been “issued for the well-being of the priest and the well-being of the parish.”
Bishop Adams also told the Post-Standard the diocese was investigating an unrelated allegation of financial misconduct, and he again raised the specter of financial misconduct. Fr. Bollinger was not permitted to attend the mandatory clericus meeting, and during it Bishop Adams said Fr. Bollinger was no longer trustworthy and needed psychiatric evaluation, according to one participant who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Alleged Identity Theft
The clergy meeting occurred shortly after a Jan. 3 letter was sent to the diocesan chancellor by a lawyer retained by Fr. Bollinger. In the letter, the lawyer accused the diocesan controller of “improper and illegal conduct” and said he was in possession of records which “clearly indicate” that the controller “employed identity theft” to obtain access to the Bollingers’ financial data held at Fidelity Services and the Church Pension Fund. The letter asked the diocese to investigate. If the allegations proved true the lawyer said the controller should be admonished and the Bollingers should receive a written apology.
As of Sept. 16, Bishop Adams had not returned a message seeking comment.
09/16/2005
With a background that includes accusations of identity theft by a diocesan employee and sexual misconduct by a former rector, the vestry of St. Paul’s Church, Owego, N.Y., has sent a letter to every congregation in the Diocese of Central New York, defending its rector, the Rev. David Bollinger, against charges of criminal misconduct made by the Rt. Rev. Gladstone “Skip” Adams III, Bishop of Central New York.
On May 31, the diocese served Fr. Bollinger with a 90-day notice of inhibition, informing him that he was being brought up on charges under Canon IV.1.1(a), which states that a priest may be subject to inhibition or presentment for a “crime.”
The inhibition accused Fr. Bollinger of “possible violations of various state and federal statutes forbidding personal use of Church funds.” There “may be criminal wrongdoing by [Fr. Bollinger] and possibly others,” the letter noted, for defrauding the Internal Revenue Service by not reporting income defalcated from the rector’s discretionary funds and a trust fund. Fr. Bollinger was further charged with violating a number of canons of the diocese and the General Convention of the Episcopal Church.
The vestry submitted its concerns to the standing committee for consideration at the Sept. 8 meeting. The standing committee declined to receive the communiqué out of concerns that it might prejudice the proceedings. The vestry subsequently distributed the letter to every congregation in the diocese, and charged Bishop Adams with bad faith, claiming he had promised on May 22 that the parish would be given an opportunity to be heard.
Pastoral Directive
More than three years ago, an alleged victim of sexual abuse told Fr. Bollinger that a previous rector at St. Paul’s had “molested me when I was age 12” during a visit to a cabin owned by the priest and located in another state. On Jan. 12 of this year, the alleged victim reappeared at St. Paul’s and executed a sworn affidavit, witnessed by Fr. Bollinger and a second priest of the diocese Fr. Bollinger reported the incident to the diocese and was ordered not to speak to anyone about it in a “pastoral admonition” issued by Bishop Adams on Jan. 19.
In an interview with the Syracuse Post-Standard published that same day, Bishop Adams said he was gathering the clergy on Jan. 19 to “offer facts and attempt to clear up any rumor or unsubstantiated allegations that are being spread around the diocese” about a case of sexual misconduct. He told the newspaper that he had given an unnamed priest a “pastoral direction” but noted it had been “issued for the well-being of the priest and the well-being of the parish.”
Bishop Adams also told the Post-Standard the diocese was investigating an unrelated allegation of financial misconduct, and he again raised the specter of financial misconduct. Fr. Bollinger was not permitted to attend the mandatory clericus meeting, and during it Bishop Adams said Fr. Bollinger was no longer trustworthy and needed psychiatric evaluation, according to one participant who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Alleged Identity Theft
The clergy meeting occurred shortly after a Jan. 3 letter was sent to the diocesan chancellor by a lawyer retained by Fr. Bollinger. In the letter, the lawyer accused the diocesan controller of “improper and illegal conduct” and said he was in possession of records which “clearly indicate” that the controller “employed identity theft” to obtain access to the Bollingers’ financial data held at Fidelity Services and the Church Pension Fund. The letter asked the diocese to investigate. If the allegations proved true the lawyer said the controller should be admonished and the Bollingers should receive a written apology.
As of Sept. 16, Bishop Adams had not returned a message seeking comment.
From The Living Church:website
Rector: Bishop Suppressing Sexual Misconduct Investigation
09/16/2005
It has been more than three years since an unexpected visitor told the Rev. David Bollinger that a former rector at St. Paul’s Church in Owego, N.Y. “molested” him when the man was 12 years old during an unsupervised overnight trip. Since then Fr. Bollinger says others have come forward with similar complaints. The accused continues to be licensed as a non-parochial member in good standing of the Diocese of Central New York.
On May 31, the diocese served Fr. Bollinger with a 90-day notice of inhibition, charging him with possible criminal misuse of his discretionary fund. The inhibition was extended for another 90 days following a meeting of the standing committee on Sept. 8.
“This has been the summer from hell for me and my family,” Fr. Bollinger said. “My wife and I have borne the brunt of this madness. Every morning we strategize how we are going to get through the day.”
Fr. Bollinger denies misuse of any Church funds. “I have always operated above board and with the full knowledge and agreement of the vestry,” he said. “I have used that fund for much good in this community.”
The vestry at St. Paul’s unanimously agrees and distributed a letter to every congregation in the diocese, every bishop in the Episcopal Church and everyone else who received the notice of inhibition after the standing committee, citing concerns that it might prejudice its proceedings, refused to receive it for their meeting.
Immediately after learning of the sexual misconduct allegation in 2002, Fr. Bollinger reported to the diocese and the parish that an allegation of misconduct had been made against a former rector. Fr. Bollinger said 16 others came forward after the announcement claiming either to have been victimized themselves, propositioned or an eye witness to misconduct. The controversy began to affect attendance at St. Paul’s as supporters and alleged victims traded accusations. According to Fr. Bollinger, it was four months before the bishop, the Rt. Rev. Gladstone “Skip” Adams III, agreed to come to the parish and address the issue. When he did, Fr. Bollinger said, Bishop Adams “denigrated” the victim, claiming the person was never a member of the parish and that “‘people like this are always looking for money’.” Bishop Adams declined to be interviewed for this report.
No Active Investigation
According to Fr. Bollinger, early last November during a meeting with the vestry at St. Paul’s, Bishop Adams said that Fr. Bollinger had been scapegoated and he promised to bring healing to the congregation. Assuming that the alleged victim would finally be able to confront the accused, Fr. Bollinger said he and others from St. Paul’s were dismayed after the co-chair of the Diocesan Pastoral Response Team reported, during the Nov. 19-20 convention, that there were no active misconduct investigations. Immediately after that person completed the presentation, Fr. Bollinger said convention delegates from St. Paul’s and Trinity Church in Binghamton (where the priest had also served) confronted the speaker and demanded to know why their complaints were not being investigated. Bishop Adams intervened, according to Fr. Bollinger and said there was no diocesan investigation because Fr. Bollinger had not cooperated fully.
Later that same month, the diocesan controller obtained access to the Bollingers’ financial accounts at the Church Pension Fund and Fidelity Services without permission, according to a lawyer retained by Fr. Bollinger. In a Jan. 3 letter he wrote to the diocese, the lawyer said he was in possession of documents which indicate that the controller “employed identity theft to enter the account.” The Bollingers only learned they no longer had access to their financial records, according to the lawyer, after the controller boasted about the intrusion during a meeting with the vestry of St. Paul’s. The lawyer asked the diocese to investigate and if necessary apologize to the Bollingers and admonish the controller.
In early January the alleged victim again arrived unannounced at St. Paul’s and for his own protection, Fr. Bollinger said he asked another priest of the diocese and a notary public to witness a sworn affidavit. Someone, Fr. Bollinger denies it was him, circulated the document among the clergy.
Public Relations Consultant
Bishop Adams hired a public relations consultant from Eric Mower and Associates. A Jan. 12 memo to Bishop Adams from the consultant and other senior diocesan staff recommended an expression of “righteous indignation” that included discipline of Fr. Bollinger. “We believe it is absolutely critical that we keep a separation between the emergence of an alleged victim and David’s actions regarding [the controller], the memo states. “While a pastoral response to the alleged victim and the congregation is clearly in order, that has nothing to do with David. The actions against [the controller] and his subsequent communication with members of your college of clergy have everything to do with David.”
The diocese did undertake an investigation into the accusations made by Fr. Bollinger’s lawyer in the Jan. 3 letter. Bishop Adams has quoted from the ensuing report, according to Fr. Bollinger, but has never made it available. In a letter to Fr. Bollinger, Bishop Adams said Fr. Bollinger had “betrayed my trust and… openly engaged in personal attacks on both me and members of my staff.”
Fr. Bollinger was removed from his duties as regional dean and urged to undergo residential psychiatric evaluation after the affidavit circulated. A draft of the Jan. 19 “pastoral admonition” said he was “to have no contact or communication with any of the presbyters in the Diocese of Central New York regarding the alleged sexual abuse case involving [the accused]. This pastoral admonition applies to any and all alleged victims and their families who have or may come forth… Additionally, this admonition applies to all communications regarding the allegations you have made against my administrative officer.”
Fr. Bollinger said he is motivated by a desire to see justice for the alleged victims and is perplexed by the apparent lack of due process from the diocese. Last January the second of his three daughters was diagnosed with a rare form of thyroid cancer. She is receiving treatment at the University of Kentucky’s Markey Cancer Center. The legal bills and the family’s share of the medical costs have been a severe drain on family finances. “If the diocese is successful in deposing me, we will lose everything,” he said.
(The Rev.) George Conger and Steve Waring
09/16/2005
It has been more than three years since an unexpected visitor told the Rev. David Bollinger that a former rector at St. Paul’s Church in Owego, N.Y. “molested” him when the man was 12 years old during an unsupervised overnight trip. Since then Fr. Bollinger says others have come forward with similar complaints. The accused continues to be licensed as a non-parochial member in good standing of the Diocese of Central New York.
On May 31, the diocese served Fr. Bollinger with a 90-day notice of inhibition, charging him with possible criminal misuse of his discretionary fund. The inhibition was extended for another 90 days following a meeting of the standing committee on Sept. 8.
“This has been the summer from hell for me and my family,” Fr. Bollinger said. “My wife and I have borne the brunt of this madness. Every morning we strategize how we are going to get through the day.”
Fr. Bollinger denies misuse of any Church funds. “I have always operated above board and with the full knowledge and agreement of the vestry,” he said. “I have used that fund for much good in this community.”
The vestry at St. Paul’s unanimously agrees and distributed a letter to every congregation in the diocese, every bishop in the Episcopal Church and everyone else who received the notice of inhibition after the standing committee, citing concerns that it might prejudice its proceedings, refused to receive it for their meeting.
Immediately after learning of the sexual misconduct allegation in 2002, Fr. Bollinger reported to the diocese and the parish that an allegation of misconduct had been made against a former rector. Fr. Bollinger said 16 others came forward after the announcement claiming either to have been victimized themselves, propositioned or an eye witness to misconduct. The controversy began to affect attendance at St. Paul’s as supporters and alleged victims traded accusations. According to Fr. Bollinger, it was four months before the bishop, the Rt. Rev. Gladstone “Skip” Adams III, agreed to come to the parish and address the issue. When he did, Fr. Bollinger said, Bishop Adams “denigrated” the victim, claiming the person was never a member of the parish and that “‘people like this are always looking for money’.” Bishop Adams declined to be interviewed for this report.
No Active Investigation
According to Fr. Bollinger, early last November during a meeting with the vestry at St. Paul’s, Bishop Adams said that Fr. Bollinger had been scapegoated and he promised to bring healing to the congregation. Assuming that the alleged victim would finally be able to confront the accused, Fr. Bollinger said he and others from St. Paul’s were dismayed after the co-chair of the Diocesan Pastoral Response Team reported, during the Nov. 19-20 convention, that there were no active misconduct investigations. Immediately after that person completed the presentation, Fr. Bollinger said convention delegates from St. Paul’s and Trinity Church in Binghamton (where the priest had also served) confronted the speaker and demanded to know why their complaints were not being investigated. Bishop Adams intervened, according to Fr. Bollinger and said there was no diocesan investigation because Fr. Bollinger had not cooperated fully.
Later that same month, the diocesan controller obtained access to the Bollingers’ financial accounts at the Church Pension Fund and Fidelity Services without permission, according to a lawyer retained by Fr. Bollinger. In a Jan. 3 letter he wrote to the diocese, the lawyer said he was in possession of documents which indicate that the controller “employed identity theft to enter the account.” The Bollingers only learned they no longer had access to their financial records, according to the lawyer, after the controller boasted about the intrusion during a meeting with the vestry of St. Paul’s. The lawyer asked the diocese to investigate and if necessary apologize to the Bollingers and admonish the controller.
In early January the alleged victim again arrived unannounced at St. Paul’s and for his own protection, Fr. Bollinger said he asked another priest of the diocese and a notary public to witness a sworn affidavit. Someone, Fr. Bollinger denies it was him, circulated the document among the clergy.
Public Relations Consultant
Bishop Adams hired a public relations consultant from Eric Mower and Associates. A Jan. 12 memo to Bishop Adams from the consultant and other senior diocesan staff recommended an expression of “righteous indignation” that included discipline of Fr. Bollinger. “We believe it is absolutely critical that we keep a separation between the emergence of an alleged victim and David’s actions regarding [the controller], the memo states. “While a pastoral response to the alleged victim and the congregation is clearly in order, that has nothing to do with David. The actions against [the controller] and his subsequent communication with members of your college of clergy have everything to do with David.”
The diocese did undertake an investigation into the accusations made by Fr. Bollinger’s lawyer in the Jan. 3 letter. Bishop Adams has quoted from the ensuing report, according to Fr. Bollinger, but has never made it available. In a letter to Fr. Bollinger, Bishop Adams said Fr. Bollinger had “betrayed my trust and… openly engaged in personal attacks on both me and members of my staff.”
Fr. Bollinger was removed from his duties as regional dean and urged to undergo residential psychiatric evaluation after the affidavit circulated. A draft of the Jan. 19 “pastoral admonition” said he was “to have no contact or communication with any of the presbyters in the Diocese of Central New York regarding the alleged sexual abuse case involving [the accused]. This pastoral admonition applies to any and all alleged victims and their families who have or may come forth… Additionally, this admonition applies to all communications regarding the allegations you have made against my administrative officer.”
Fr. Bollinger said he is motivated by a desire to see justice for the alleged victims and is perplexed by the apparent lack of due process from the diocese. Last January the second of his three daughters was diagnosed with a rare form of thyroid cancer. She is receiving treatment at the University of Kentucky’s Markey Cancer Center. The legal bills and the family’s share of the medical costs have been a severe drain on family finances. “If the diocese is successful in deposing me, we will lose everything,” he said.
(The Rev.) George Conger and Steve Waring
The McDaniel Memo
This is from The Living Church website:
Inter Office Memo
09/16/2005
From: Kathleen McDaniel
To: B Adams
Cc: Gael Sopchak; Paul Kowalewski; Paul Curtin; pkapcio@eric.mower.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 10:40 PM
Subject: Suggested Next Steps
Skip –
After our meeting with Peter Kapcio and conversations with Paul Curtin, we (Gael, Paul K. and I) have discussed the following and want you to have this information to think about:
1. We believe the board retreat should be cancelled. In its place, we should call the Board together on Monday to specifically bring them up to speed on the current issues in Owego. As corporate directors they will need to be very firmly ‘in the loop.’ We are fairly confident that several of the members (John Shaffer, Tom Bloomer, John Chaffee) haven’t a clue as to what is going on with the various Owego issues and others (Christine Day, Ralph Osborne) only know David Bollinger’s side. It is vitally important to get everyone on the same page. We will not be able to deal with other issues as this topic will hijack anything productive we had planned.
2. It is still our belief that a letter from Paul C. should go out to the clergy this Friday. The letter should state:
a. righteous indignation over David’s action to publish a privileged and confidential lawyer-to-lawyer communication throughout the diocese;
b. allegations of criminal activity were irresponsible, liableless and baseless. Irregardless of this, an independent investigation into these allegations is taking place;
c. once resolution has been reached, you will communicate the findings of that investigation to the clergy.
Paul C. will bring a draft of this letter to our meeting on Friday for your review.
Please note that the purpose of this independent investigation is to respond directly to David’s attorney’s request for disciplinary action against a member of your staff. It was the decision of the Executive Committee that this investigation be handled independently by the church attorney. The results of this investigation should be available fairly quickly (hopefully within two weeks) at which time the conclusions will need to be communicated by you directly with the clergy.
3. We believe that we are past the point where an admonition to cease and desist is an effective step in dealing with David. Substantial damages have been done and you need to take stronger action to ensure this does not escalate any further. In order to accomplish this, we believe that a canonical inhibition needs to be administered so that a proper process can be followed without David’s interference. Reinstatement would be contingent on successful completion of:
a. A psychological/psychiatric evaluation (you may want to include other physical, spiritual, emotional evaluations as you deem appropriate);
b. the financial (fraud) audit;
c. an assurance that a pastoral relationship between you and David can be reestablished;
d. some formal process of healing and reconciliation within the congregation.
We believe that t is absolutely critical that we keep a separation between the emergence of an alleged victim and David’s actions regarding Gael. While a pastoral response to the alleged victim and the congregation is clearly in order, that has nothing to do with David. The actions against Gael and his subsequent communication with members of your college of clergy have everything to do with David.
We understand, of course, that ANY action against David will be viewed as punitive on your part by a number of clergy. We do not see any way for this to be a win-win situation. However, given David’s activities of the past month, it is highly unlikely that he can be trusted to behave appropriate—rationally—if he remains in the parish.
If you want Gael and me to communicate a change of plans with the Board we will do so immediately. Because Bill McNeiece will be unavailable most of Monday, we would like to contact him first to see if we can accommodate his schedule, if possible. If not, we will ask that the meeting begin at 1:30 p.m.—assuming that is okay with you.
Skip, none of us can begin to comprehend how incredibly difficult all this must be for you. We do hope you know that you are held in prayer by us and many, many others.
Kathleen
Inter Office Memo
09/16/2005
From: Kathleen McDaniel
To: B Adams
Cc: Gael Sopchak; Paul Kowalewski; Paul Curtin; pkapcio@eric.mower.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 10:40 PM
Subject: Suggested Next Steps
Skip –
After our meeting with Peter Kapcio and conversations with Paul Curtin, we (Gael, Paul K. and I) have discussed the following and want you to have this information to think about:
1. We believe the board retreat should be cancelled. In its place, we should call the Board together on Monday to specifically bring them up to speed on the current issues in Owego. As corporate directors they will need to be very firmly ‘in the loop.’ We are fairly confident that several of the members (John Shaffer, Tom Bloomer, John Chaffee) haven’t a clue as to what is going on with the various Owego issues and others (Christine Day, Ralph Osborne) only know David Bollinger’s side. It is vitally important to get everyone on the same page. We will not be able to deal with other issues as this topic will hijack anything productive we had planned.
2. It is still our belief that a letter from Paul C. should go out to the clergy this Friday. The letter should state:
a. righteous indignation over David’s action to publish a privileged and confidential lawyer-to-lawyer communication throughout the diocese;
b. allegations of criminal activity were irresponsible, liableless and baseless. Irregardless of this, an independent investigation into these allegations is taking place;
c. once resolution has been reached, you will communicate the findings of that investigation to the clergy.
Paul C. will bring a draft of this letter to our meeting on Friday for your review.
Please note that the purpose of this independent investigation is to respond directly to David’s attorney’s request for disciplinary action against a member of your staff. It was the decision of the Executive Committee that this investigation be handled independently by the church attorney. The results of this investigation should be available fairly quickly (hopefully within two weeks) at which time the conclusions will need to be communicated by you directly with the clergy.
3. We believe that we are past the point where an admonition to cease and desist is an effective step in dealing with David. Substantial damages have been done and you need to take stronger action to ensure this does not escalate any further. In order to accomplish this, we believe that a canonical inhibition needs to be administered so that a proper process can be followed without David’s interference. Reinstatement would be contingent on successful completion of:
a. A psychological/psychiatric evaluation (you may want to include other physical, spiritual, emotional evaluations as you deem appropriate);
b. the financial (fraud) audit;
c. an assurance that a pastoral relationship between you and David can be reestablished;
d. some formal process of healing and reconciliation within the congregation.
We believe that t is absolutely critical that we keep a separation between the emergence of an alleged victim and David’s actions regarding Gael. While a pastoral response to the alleged victim and the congregation is clearly in order, that has nothing to do with David. The actions against Gael and his subsequent communication with members of your college of clergy have everything to do with David.
We understand, of course, that ANY action against David will be viewed as punitive on your part by a number of clergy. We do not see any way for this to be a win-win situation. However, given David’s activities of the past month, it is highly unlikely that he can be trusted to behave appropriate—rationally—if he remains in the parish.
If you want Gael and me to communicate a change of plans with the Board we will do so immediately. Because Bill McNeiece will be unavailable most of Monday, we would like to contact him first to see if we can accommodate his schedule, if possible. If not, we will ask that the meeting begin at 1:30 p.m.—assuming that is okay with you.
Skip, none of us can begin to comprehend how incredibly difficult all this must be for you. We do hope you know that you are held in prayer by us and many, many others.
Kathleen
The following is a comment from TitusOneNine about the situation at St. Paul's, Owego
Susan Peterson Says:
September 17th, 2005 at 9:15 pm
My husband is a member of St. Paul’s and on the vestry. I attend St. Paul’s every Sunday (although I am a Roman Catholic and also attend a vigil mass on Saturday evening.) I know something, but not everything, about this situation.
While Fr. Bollinger’s theological bent is really irrelevant with respect to the injustice being done to him, I do want to say that his preaching has always been sound Christianity. He preached the Gospel and it was clear that he understood the creeds in the way the church has always understood them. He did say he agreed with the ordination of Robinson. I believe that this came from a desire not to have to condemn, from wanting to accept the self understanding of gay people, from knowing and respecting gay people as parishioners, friends, and family members. This may mean that he let his heart overrule his basic orthodoxy on this one issue, that he was less than completely consistent theologically. I know that he worked hard to give all parishioners including those who very much disagreed with the ordination of Robinson, a chance to express their views, and that he treated those who disagreed with him with respect. He has given some indication that he is in the process of working on rethinking this issue. All such rethinkings take time and prayer and I believe people should be allowed to take that time and not have to speak before they are ready.
In any case, even if he were a “liberal” he ought not to be slandered nor be deprived of his priesthood for no good reason.
The summary by Matt Kennedy, above, seems fairly accurate. The priest who has been accused by several men of having abused them as young teenagers was not Fr. Bollinger’s immedicate predecessor but the one before that. It is my understanding that Fr. Bollinger tried to do the right thing by the alleged victims, that he was unsatisfied with the bishop’s response, especially that the bishop took no action against the accused abuser, and that Fr. Bollinger, with some others, became angry at a diocesan convention when it was stated that there were no abuse issues in the diocese. I wasn’t there but I have heard people who were say that there was a public confrontation between Fr. Bolliner and the bishop over this.
It was shortly after that that this investigation into the financial affairs of the parish began. My husband assures me from his knowledge as a vestry member that Fr. Bollinger did nothing improper with parish money at any time, and nothing with any discretionary fund moneys which was not first run past the vestry. Explainations of some of the details are available in the letter the vestry wrote to answer the inhibition, which is at VirtueOnline (and maybe at the Living Church also?) I don’t think Bishop Adams actually believes himself that Fr. Bollinger misused any money, which makes what he is doing the more evil. If you are someone who thinks “where there is smoke, there’s fire,” ask yourself if your parish could stand up to a “forensic audit” (Which by the way, cost the diocese $45,000!)
It is possible that Fr. Bollinger became unwisely overangry when an employee of the diocese improperly accessed his retirement account. But wouldn’t you be angry? First this person called the bank and tried to get the information over the phone and was told she had no right to the information. Then she went on line, and used information she had (probably from diocesan personnel records) to answer the “forgot your password?” clue question, you know, like “What is your mother’s maiden name?” , and reset his password. In the context of an already tense conflicted situation, I think an angry response is understandable. I don’t think it is evidence of any psychiatric illness, as that memo implies. This strikes me as a sleezy tactic for discrediting someone.
Fr. Bollinger is a good priest. His devout celebrations of the Eucharist and his sermons had become an important part of my spiritual life, even though I belong to the RC parish up the street and was supposedly just there to worship with my husband. It boggles my mind that his priesthood could be taken from him. Essentially what he did was to refuse to accept a coverup of past sexual abuse in the diocese. Perhaps he ignored unspoken institutional rules about not embarrassing one’s boss, and conceivably a way existed to advocate for the victims without doing so-I don’t know, I am not any good at that sort of thing myself. A person who does this, maybe doesn’t get a promotion, maybe has a word spoken against him when he applies for a large wealthy parish…this sort of thing one expects even if it isn’t really right. But to take away his priesthood takes away his spiritual identity, his lifework, and his livlihood, and is just beyond what the church ought to accept.
I hope this situation won’t be ignored because it isn’t a theological dispute. It is still about right and wrong, truth and untruth. It also repeats the theme of the unjust and manipulative use of power which has been repeated over and over again in the conflicts which do have their origin in theological disputes.
Please pray for Fr. Bollinger and for St. Paul’s.
Susan Peterson
September 17th, 2005 at 9:15 pm
My husband is a member of St. Paul’s and on the vestry. I attend St. Paul’s every Sunday (although I am a Roman Catholic and also attend a vigil mass on Saturday evening.) I know something, but not everything, about this situation.
While Fr. Bollinger’s theological bent is really irrelevant with respect to the injustice being done to him, I do want to say that his preaching has always been sound Christianity. He preached the Gospel and it was clear that he understood the creeds in the way the church has always understood them. He did say he agreed with the ordination of Robinson. I believe that this came from a desire not to have to condemn, from wanting to accept the self understanding of gay people, from knowing and respecting gay people as parishioners, friends, and family members. This may mean that he let his heart overrule his basic orthodoxy on this one issue, that he was less than completely consistent theologically. I know that he worked hard to give all parishioners including those who very much disagreed with the ordination of Robinson, a chance to express their views, and that he treated those who disagreed with him with respect. He has given some indication that he is in the process of working on rethinking this issue. All such rethinkings take time and prayer and I believe people should be allowed to take that time and not have to speak before they are ready.
In any case, even if he were a “liberal” he ought not to be slandered nor be deprived of his priesthood for no good reason.
The summary by Matt Kennedy, above, seems fairly accurate. The priest who has been accused by several men of having abused them as young teenagers was not Fr. Bollinger’s immedicate predecessor but the one before that. It is my understanding that Fr. Bollinger tried to do the right thing by the alleged victims, that he was unsatisfied with the bishop’s response, especially that the bishop took no action against the accused abuser, and that Fr. Bollinger, with some others, became angry at a diocesan convention when it was stated that there were no abuse issues in the diocese. I wasn’t there but I have heard people who were say that there was a public confrontation between Fr. Bolliner and the bishop over this.
It was shortly after that that this investigation into the financial affairs of the parish began. My husband assures me from his knowledge as a vestry member that Fr. Bollinger did nothing improper with parish money at any time, and nothing with any discretionary fund moneys which was not first run past the vestry. Explainations of some of the details are available in the letter the vestry wrote to answer the inhibition, which is at VirtueOnline (and maybe at the Living Church also?) I don’t think Bishop Adams actually believes himself that Fr. Bollinger misused any money, which makes what he is doing the more evil. If you are someone who thinks “where there is smoke, there’s fire,” ask yourself if your parish could stand up to a “forensic audit” (Which by the way, cost the diocese $45,000!)
It is possible that Fr. Bollinger became unwisely overangry when an employee of the diocese improperly accessed his retirement account. But wouldn’t you be angry? First this person called the bank and tried to get the information over the phone and was told she had no right to the information. Then she went on line, and used information she had (probably from diocesan personnel records) to answer the “forgot your password?” clue question, you know, like “What is your mother’s maiden name?” , and reset his password. In the context of an already tense conflicted situation, I think an angry response is understandable. I don’t think it is evidence of any psychiatric illness, as that memo implies. This strikes me as a sleezy tactic for discrediting someone.
Fr. Bollinger is a good priest. His devout celebrations of the Eucharist and his sermons had become an important part of my spiritual life, even though I belong to the RC parish up the street and was supposedly just there to worship with my husband. It boggles my mind that his priesthood could be taken from him. Essentially what he did was to refuse to accept a coverup of past sexual abuse in the diocese. Perhaps he ignored unspoken institutional rules about not embarrassing one’s boss, and conceivably a way existed to advocate for the victims without doing so-I don’t know, I am not any good at that sort of thing myself. A person who does this, maybe doesn’t get a promotion, maybe has a word spoken against him when he applies for a large wealthy parish…this sort of thing one expects even if it isn’t really right. But to take away his priesthood takes away his spiritual identity, his lifework, and his livlihood, and is just beyond what the church ought to accept.
I hope this situation won’t be ignored because it isn’t a theological dispute. It is still about right and wrong, truth and untruth. It also repeats the theme of the unjust and manipulative use of power which has been repeated over and over again in the conflicts which do have their origin in theological disputes.
Please pray for Fr. Bollinger and for St. Paul’s.
Susan Peterson
A Vestry Letter from St. Paul's, Owego
September 8, 2005
To the Members of the Standing Committee:
We are writing you concerning our rector Fr. David G. Bollinger who has been temporarily inhibited for 90 days by the Bishop for the reasons set forth in the Bishop’s letter to Fr. Bollinger of May 31, 2005. On September 8, 2005, Fr. Bollinger has a hearing before the Standing Committee, in its capacity as the Diocesan Review Committee, to challenge the extension of the temporary inhibition for an additional 90 days. We also understand that any presentment under Canon IV.3.15-17 must originate from you by majority vote.
We write you for three reasons, asking you to refuse an extension of the temporary inhibition pursuant to Canon IV.1.2(d) and to vote not to issue a presentment pursuant to Canon IV.3.18.
First, as you know, our rector, and not the parish, is the subject of the temporary inhibition and its extension. The bishop met with us on May 22, 2005 in an attempt to work out the differences between our priest and our parish on one side, and the diocese on the other. At that time, he invited us to participate in the process of addressing the concerns raised by both the Breiten and forensic audits. We were told that we would have the opportunity to be heard on this, but to date, nobody from the diocese has solicited our input.
There is a second reason why we are writing you. The temporary inhibition against Fr. Bollinger since May 31, 2005, has exacerbated any problems we had before that time. Fr. Bollinger was and continues to be well liked and respected by many in the parish. The inhibition with its prohibition on his having any contact with us is itself causing great distress among us, as is the uncertainty of his being reinstated. Pastorally we feel we have been cut adrift by the diocese, and we take this opportunity to tell you of the great problem which these temporary inhibitions have caused for our parish. For example, our regular Sunday attendance was around 125 before this began and now is closer to about 70. This temporary inhibition is having a highly detrimental effect on the morale and finances of our parish, and we need you to know this.
Thirdly, we write you for the very practical reason that many of the charges which the Bishop raised against our rector are things of which we have direct and personal knowledge. We are first hand witnesses who can speak with directly concerning these charges of misconduct by our rector. We know what happened concerning many of the things which you allege against our rector. We were there when the events occurred, if in fact they did occur. Indeed it is hard to imagine how the diocese can proceed on these charges without our input. It is impossible for the diocese to reach an informed conclusion about those matters without consulting with us and asking what happened.
The inhibition involves the forensic audit of our books and the questions which you have raised concerning our internal finances. As to the actual charges brought against Fr. Bollinger, the Bishop in paragraph I of his May 31, 2005 letter leads off with canon IV.1.1(a) which makes a priest subject to inhibition or presentment for a “crime”* (*this quote and others are taken directly from the May 31, 2005 letter of inhibition)
and sets forth four subparagraphs purporting to show criminal behavior by Fr. Bollinger “and possibly others.” Subparagraphs 1 and 2 speak of tax fraud, which we take to mean Fr. Bollinger “and possibly others” are accused of taking money from the rector’s discretionary fund, the Rowe monies, and pocketing it without reporting the income to the IRS and New York State Tax Commission.
To understand this and the other allegations it is important to understand how we managed the rector’s discretionary fund at our parish and the monies in the bequest created by the will of St. Paul’s parishioner Mabel G. Rowe.
The rector’s discretionary fund by canon law is supposed to be funded by the undesignated offerings in the collection plate which is collected one Sunday per month in accordance with Canon III.9.5(b)(6).
The other monies which the bishop is apparently referring to in paragraph I (1) and (2) of his letter was not the canonical rector’s discretionary fund, but instead was the fund resulting from the bequest of St. Paul’s parishioner Mabel G. Rowe. Some of the confusion concerning the use of the Discretionary fund comes from the fact that in recent years, the canon discretionary fund and the Rowe Rectors fund were combined. The Canon III.9.5(b)(6) discretionary fund never had anywhere near the dollar amounts to which reference is made in the letter, so the bishop must be referring to the Rowe monies. This latter fund was not in any way restricted; it was set up by the will and hence is governed only by the legal restrictions of the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law of the State of New York, and subject to the direction of the surrogate court of Tioga County under the terms of Miss Rowe’s will. Since those monies were given to the rector of the church upon the settlement of the Rowe estate, those monies are not restricted. Even Addendum 2 of the Breiten audit acknowledges that the will does not restrict those monies. Apparently however the bishop wants to take the position that these monies are restricted, and then suggests that informal accounting for these monies is tantamount to stealing and tax fraud.
With respect to the Rowe monies, since they came from outside of the church, we were unaware that we needed to exercise the same sort of fiduciary oversight of this fund, since it is up to the recipient of the funds of a bequest from an estate to account to the surrogate court for them if they are restricted. Because they are not restricted by the will of Miss Rowe, it would appear that the monies can “be used at the discretion of the Rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church,” to quote the language in paragraph 9(b) of the will. That same phrase appears in the “Declaration of Intention” signed by Fr. Bollinger, the wardens of the church, and Bishop Adams updated March 11, 2002. The will by its own terms does not even require that those monies be held in any sort of trust. There is no crime or other legal obligation for the vestry to exercise fiduciary oversight of this money, nor is there any legal obligation of the rector to account for how the money is spent. That said, Fr. Bollinger was forthright and open with us as to how the monies were being spent, but these things were generally not recorded in vestry minutes.
In short, the bishop’s words that there “may be criminal wrongdoing by [Fr. Bollinger] and possibly others” and allegations of “possible” tax fraud will not stand up to serious scrutiny.
The same can be said of the “unexplained and unsubstantiated handling of more than $22,000” in paragraph I(2) of the bishop’s letter. Those monies were given to the Rectors Discretionary Fund, and we know personally that they were spent for a refugee family that was being helped by the parish. The monies were all spent for the refugee family which was the intended purpose. There was no “possible tax fraud” here.
Subparagraph (3) in a general way accuses Fr. Bollinger of “possible violations of various state and federal statutes forbidding personal use of Church funds.” Without more specifics in this accusation we cannot answer the bishop’s charge, except to say that if he is referring to the same conduct alleged in subparagraphs (1) and (2), we have already addressed that. If you have more details concerning this charge, please get them to us so that we can address them.
Subparagraph (4) is especially troubling to us because in addition to alleging “apparent failure” by the rector, it also accuses us as the wardens and vestry of failure “to exercise mandated fiduciary responsibility by not ensuring proper practices were used in managing endowments and/or bequests.” Why misconduct is being attributed to us in a subparagraph accusing our rector of criminal behavior is baffling, to say the least. This is after all a document accusing him of misconduct not us, but apparently the bishop is painting his allegations of criminal conduct with a wide brush. Are we being accused of tax fraud by the bishop? Are we the unnamed “possibly others” which the bishop accuses of “criminal wrongdoing” in the main body of paragraph I in his May 31, 2005 letter to Fr. Bollinger? As vaguely stated as subparagraph (4) it makes it impossible for us to frame any response to this allegation of “criminal wrongdoing” by us. These are very serious allegations, and we see no criminal acts either by ourselves or Fr. Bollinger. If you feel that this subparagraph is correct, we deserve a further clarification of these specific criminal offenses.
Paragraph II of the bishop’s letter accuses Fr. Bollinger under Canon IV.1.1(b) of “immorality.”
What sort of “collusion” did we engage in? It is not enough to suggest that our rector is acting immorally, but we are colluding with him in this?! This is libel and slander! Does the bishop have inside knowledge of secret meetings where we and the rector got together and colluded to take funds for personal uses? We unequivocally deny this slanderous allegation, and ask that it be withdrawn. It is one thing to lack documentation for transactions and quite another to take money for personal gain.
Paragraph III of the bishop’s letter accuses Fr. Bollinger under Canon IV.1.1(e) of violating various ECUSA canons. Subparagraph (1) accuses him of violating Canon III.1.5 of the canons in taking money from his discretionary fund for personal use. Canon III.1.5 is the general canon which specifies all of the various things which a rector should do in a parish. We have read that canon and to our knowledge Fr. Bollinger has faithfully done those things. Only Canon III.1.5(b)(6) within that general section addresses the rector’s canonical discretionary fund. As we have said previously, Fr. Bollinger to our knowledge used these monies “to such pious and charitable uses as the Rector shall determine.” The canon does not enumerate the things for which the money can be applied. We recently we got a brochure from the diocese for a clergy diocesan conference on October 9, 2005 at the Summer Hill Country Inn in Sherburne, New York which contained the notation that “Bishop Adams believes that it is appropriate to use discretionary funds to pay spouse costs for this retreat.” We believe that Fr. Bollinger’s canonical discretionary fund monies were similarly applied. We see no Canon III.1.5 violation by our priest.
Subparagraph (2) accuses Fr. Bollinger of violating Canon I.7. This is a very odd charge against him. This provision of the canons is directed toward the parish, and does not even mention the rector. We as a vestry have taken our responsibility seriously to see that proper business methods are used. The New York Religious Corporations Law and the canons charge the vestry and not the rector with the duty of managing the parish finances. It is unclear to us how it would even be possible for our rector to violate a canon which enjoins a duty on us and not upon him.
Subparagraph (3) accuses Fr. Bollinger of violating Canon I.14.2 of the canons. This brief canon, consistent with Article 3 of the New York Religious Corporation Law, says that “the churchwardens and vestrymen so elected and their successors in office, together with the rector, when there is one, shall form a vestry and shall be the trustees of such church or congregation.” Religious Corporations Law §41(7), second unnumbered paragraph. We have always acted as a vestry in conjunction with our rector. We as a vestry have always functioned to manage the affairs of the parish. The rector never set his own salary. The rector never had check signing authority for any of the general funds of the church. Only our treasurers have had that authority. Fr. Bollinger pursuant to canon law and the New York statutes exercised signing authority over only his discretionary fund and the extra-canonical monies of the Rowe bequest.
Paragraph IV of the bishop’s letter accuses Fr. Bollinger under Canon IV.1.1(h) of violating his ordination vows. We can clearly speak to subparagraphs (3) and (4). These are non-issues.
Paragraph V of the bishop’s letter accuses Fr. Bollinger under Canon IV.1.1(j) of conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy. The first two subparagraphs are a repeat of the financial misconduct charges which we have already addressed. Subparagraph (3) accuses our rector of “allegedly bullying several parish staff members into resigning.” This is not so. In fact, with the exception of the Treasurer position, each of our parish staff has been with us for over 5 years. The treasurers have either retired, resigned or been dismissed with cause. Subparagraph (4) accuses him of “striking out at treasurers, auditors and diocesan staff persons engaged in lawful activity requested by the vestry of St. Paul’s, possibly to conceal your own misdeeds.” The use of the term “striking out” is misleading and inflammatory. Disagreements did occur with an inept, incompetent treasurer, not “striking out”. We would welcome the opportunity to speak to the specifics. As you know, there is no dispute about the fact that the diocesan comptroller called Fr. Bollinger’s private retirement account to access his personal information. She was tape recorded by the account’s recording system as she did this. Gael Sopchak, was not asked by us to enter Fr. Bollinger’s retirement account. She was asked by the wardens to deal with the managers of that retirement account to resolve another financial mistake made by the treasurer. As to Subparagraph (5), refusing to cooperate with the Diocesan Sexual Misconduct Response Team, we are unaware of any such failure or refusal to cooperate. All we saw was Fr. Bollinger’s attempt to maintain confidentiality of an alleged victim of sexual misconduct The alleged victim was given diocesan contact information to use at his discretion if he wished to pursue it. The alleged victim was grateful for Fr. Bollinger’s pastoral care.
While we appreciate that this is a long letter setting forth our reasons why we are opposing the extension of the temporary inhibition and opposing a presentment against Fr. Bollinger, it is required because we have been ignored in the process of discipline against him, and it has been necessary to summarize our entire reasons for opposing the actions of the bishop against our priest. If for whatever reason you feel that you need to either extend the temporary inhibition under Canon IV.1.2(d) or to issue a presentment under Canon IV.3.15-17, we ask that you afford us the opportunity to be heard in person.
Cc: Bishop Skip Adams
Recipients of the Notice of Inhibition
Parishioners of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Owego, NY
Yours in Christ,
Members of the Vestry of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Owego
Laura Coppens, Warden
Patricia Ellis, Warden
Harold Bartz
Lois Bingley
Alice Botts
Linda Brisson
Michael Medovich
John C. Peterson
Vera Lin Richards
Bernadette Toombs
To the Members of the Standing Committee:
We are writing you concerning our rector Fr. David G. Bollinger who has been temporarily inhibited for 90 days by the Bishop for the reasons set forth in the Bishop’s letter to Fr. Bollinger of May 31, 2005. On September 8, 2005, Fr. Bollinger has a hearing before the Standing Committee, in its capacity as the Diocesan Review Committee, to challenge the extension of the temporary inhibition for an additional 90 days. We also understand that any presentment under Canon IV.3.15-17 must originate from you by majority vote.
We write you for three reasons, asking you to refuse an extension of the temporary inhibition pursuant to Canon IV.1.2(d) and to vote not to issue a presentment pursuant to Canon IV.3.18.
First, as you know, our rector, and not the parish, is the subject of the temporary inhibition and its extension. The bishop met with us on May 22, 2005 in an attempt to work out the differences between our priest and our parish on one side, and the diocese on the other. At that time, he invited us to participate in the process of addressing the concerns raised by both the Breiten and forensic audits. We were told that we would have the opportunity to be heard on this, but to date, nobody from the diocese has solicited our input.
There is a second reason why we are writing you. The temporary inhibition against Fr. Bollinger since May 31, 2005, has exacerbated any problems we had before that time. Fr. Bollinger was and continues to be well liked and respected by many in the parish. The inhibition with its prohibition on his having any contact with us is itself causing great distress among us, as is the uncertainty of his being reinstated. Pastorally we feel we have been cut adrift by the diocese, and we take this opportunity to tell you of the great problem which these temporary inhibitions have caused for our parish. For example, our regular Sunday attendance was around 125 before this began and now is closer to about 70. This temporary inhibition is having a highly detrimental effect on the morale and finances of our parish, and we need you to know this.
Thirdly, we write you for the very practical reason that many of the charges which the Bishop raised against our rector are things of which we have direct and personal knowledge. We are first hand witnesses who can speak with directly concerning these charges of misconduct by our rector. We know what happened concerning many of the things which you allege against our rector. We were there when the events occurred, if in fact they did occur. Indeed it is hard to imagine how the diocese can proceed on these charges without our input. It is impossible for the diocese to reach an informed conclusion about those matters without consulting with us and asking what happened.
The inhibition involves the forensic audit of our books and the questions which you have raised concerning our internal finances. As to the actual charges brought against Fr. Bollinger, the Bishop in paragraph I of his May 31, 2005 letter leads off with canon IV.1.1(a) which makes a priest subject to inhibition or presentment for a “crime”* (*this quote and others are taken directly from the May 31, 2005 letter of inhibition)
and sets forth four subparagraphs purporting to show criminal behavior by Fr. Bollinger “and possibly others.” Subparagraphs 1 and 2 speak of tax fraud, which we take to mean Fr. Bollinger “and possibly others” are accused of taking money from the rector’s discretionary fund, the Rowe monies, and pocketing it without reporting the income to the IRS and New York State Tax Commission.
To understand this and the other allegations it is important to understand how we managed the rector’s discretionary fund at our parish and the monies in the bequest created by the will of St. Paul’s parishioner Mabel G. Rowe.
The rector’s discretionary fund by canon law is supposed to be funded by the undesignated offerings in the collection plate which is collected one Sunday per month in accordance with Canon III.9.5(b)(6).
The other monies which the bishop is apparently referring to in paragraph I (1) and (2) of his letter was not the canonical rector’s discretionary fund, but instead was the fund resulting from the bequest of St. Paul’s parishioner Mabel G. Rowe. Some of the confusion concerning the use of the Discretionary fund comes from the fact that in recent years, the canon discretionary fund and the Rowe Rectors fund were combined. The Canon III.9.5(b)(6) discretionary fund never had anywhere near the dollar amounts to which reference is made in the letter, so the bishop must be referring to the Rowe monies. This latter fund was not in any way restricted; it was set up by the will and hence is governed only by the legal restrictions of the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law of the State of New York, and subject to the direction of the surrogate court of Tioga County under the terms of Miss Rowe’s will. Since those monies were given to the rector of the church upon the settlement of the Rowe estate, those monies are not restricted. Even Addendum 2 of the Breiten audit acknowledges that the will does not restrict those monies. Apparently however the bishop wants to take the position that these monies are restricted, and then suggests that informal accounting for these monies is tantamount to stealing and tax fraud.
With respect to the Rowe monies, since they came from outside of the church, we were unaware that we needed to exercise the same sort of fiduciary oversight of this fund, since it is up to the recipient of the funds of a bequest from an estate to account to the surrogate court for them if they are restricted. Because they are not restricted by the will of Miss Rowe, it would appear that the monies can “be used at the discretion of the Rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church,” to quote the language in paragraph 9(b) of the will. That same phrase appears in the “Declaration of Intention” signed by Fr. Bollinger, the wardens of the church, and Bishop Adams updated March 11, 2002. The will by its own terms does not even require that those monies be held in any sort of trust. There is no crime or other legal obligation for the vestry to exercise fiduciary oversight of this money, nor is there any legal obligation of the rector to account for how the money is spent. That said, Fr. Bollinger was forthright and open with us as to how the monies were being spent, but these things were generally not recorded in vestry minutes.
In short, the bishop’s words that there “may be criminal wrongdoing by [Fr. Bollinger] and possibly others” and allegations of “possible” tax fraud will not stand up to serious scrutiny.
The same can be said of the “unexplained and unsubstantiated handling of more than $22,000” in paragraph I(2) of the bishop’s letter. Those monies were given to the Rectors Discretionary Fund, and we know personally that they were spent for a refugee family that was being helped by the parish. The monies were all spent for the refugee family which was the intended purpose. There was no “possible tax fraud” here.
Subparagraph (3) in a general way accuses Fr. Bollinger of “possible violations of various state and federal statutes forbidding personal use of Church funds.” Without more specifics in this accusation we cannot answer the bishop’s charge, except to say that if he is referring to the same conduct alleged in subparagraphs (1) and (2), we have already addressed that. If you have more details concerning this charge, please get them to us so that we can address them.
Subparagraph (4) is especially troubling to us because in addition to alleging “apparent failure” by the rector, it also accuses us as the wardens and vestry of failure “to exercise mandated fiduciary responsibility by not ensuring proper practices were used in managing endowments and/or bequests.” Why misconduct is being attributed to us in a subparagraph accusing our rector of criminal behavior is baffling, to say the least. This is after all a document accusing him of misconduct not us, but apparently the bishop is painting his allegations of criminal conduct with a wide brush. Are we being accused of tax fraud by the bishop? Are we the unnamed “possibly others” which the bishop accuses of “criminal wrongdoing” in the main body of paragraph I in his May 31, 2005 letter to Fr. Bollinger? As vaguely stated as subparagraph (4) it makes it impossible for us to frame any response to this allegation of “criminal wrongdoing” by us. These are very serious allegations, and we see no criminal acts either by ourselves or Fr. Bollinger. If you feel that this subparagraph is correct, we deserve a further clarification of these specific criminal offenses.
Paragraph II of the bishop’s letter accuses Fr. Bollinger under Canon IV.1.1(b) of “immorality.”
What sort of “collusion” did we engage in? It is not enough to suggest that our rector is acting immorally, but we are colluding with him in this?! This is libel and slander! Does the bishop have inside knowledge of secret meetings where we and the rector got together and colluded to take funds for personal uses? We unequivocally deny this slanderous allegation, and ask that it be withdrawn. It is one thing to lack documentation for transactions and quite another to take money for personal gain.
Paragraph III of the bishop’s letter accuses Fr. Bollinger under Canon IV.1.1(e) of violating various ECUSA canons. Subparagraph (1) accuses him of violating Canon III.1.5 of the canons in taking money from his discretionary fund for personal use. Canon III.1.5 is the general canon which specifies all of the various things which a rector should do in a parish. We have read that canon and to our knowledge Fr. Bollinger has faithfully done those things. Only Canon III.1.5(b)(6) within that general section addresses the rector’s canonical discretionary fund. As we have said previously, Fr. Bollinger to our knowledge used these monies “to such pious and charitable uses as the Rector shall determine.” The canon does not enumerate the things for which the money can be applied. We recently we got a brochure from the diocese for a clergy diocesan conference on October 9, 2005 at the Summer Hill Country Inn in Sherburne, New York which contained the notation that “Bishop Adams believes that it is appropriate to use discretionary funds to pay spouse costs for this retreat.” We believe that Fr. Bollinger’s canonical discretionary fund monies were similarly applied. We see no Canon III.1.5 violation by our priest.
Subparagraph (2) accuses Fr. Bollinger of violating Canon I.7. This is a very odd charge against him. This provision of the canons is directed toward the parish, and does not even mention the rector. We as a vestry have taken our responsibility seriously to see that proper business methods are used. The New York Religious Corporations Law and the canons charge the vestry and not the rector with the duty of managing the parish finances. It is unclear to us how it would even be possible for our rector to violate a canon which enjoins a duty on us and not upon him.
Subparagraph (3) accuses Fr. Bollinger of violating Canon I.14.2 of the canons. This brief canon, consistent with Article 3 of the New York Religious Corporation Law, says that “the churchwardens and vestrymen so elected and their successors in office, together with the rector, when there is one, shall form a vestry and shall be the trustees of such church or congregation.” Religious Corporations Law §41(7), second unnumbered paragraph. We have always acted as a vestry in conjunction with our rector. We as a vestry have always functioned to manage the affairs of the parish. The rector never set his own salary. The rector never had check signing authority for any of the general funds of the church. Only our treasurers have had that authority. Fr. Bollinger pursuant to canon law and the New York statutes exercised signing authority over only his discretionary fund and the extra-canonical monies of the Rowe bequest.
Paragraph IV of the bishop’s letter accuses Fr. Bollinger under Canon IV.1.1(h) of violating his ordination vows. We can clearly speak to subparagraphs (3) and (4). These are non-issues.
Paragraph V of the bishop’s letter accuses Fr. Bollinger under Canon IV.1.1(j) of conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy. The first two subparagraphs are a repeat of the financial misconduct charges which we have already addressed. Subparagraph (3) accuses our rector of “allegedly bullying several parish staff members into resigning.” This is not so. In fact, with the exception of the Treasurer position, each of our parish staff has been with us for over 5 years. The treasurers have either retired, resigned or been dismissed with cause. Subparagraph (4) accuses him of “striking out at treasurers, auditors and diocesan staff persons engaged in lawful activity requested by the vestry of St. Paul’s, possibly to conceal your own misdeeds.” The use of the term “striking out” is misleading and inflammatory. Disagreements did occur with an inept, incompetent treasurer, not “striking out”. We would welcome the opportunity to speak to the specifics. As you know, there is no dispute about the fact that the diocesan comptroller called Fr. Bollinger’s private retirement account to access his personal information. She was tape recorded by the account’s recording system as she did this. Gael Sopchak, was not asked by us to enter Fr. Bollinger’s retirement account. She was asked by the wardens to deal with the managers of that retirement account to resolve another financial mistake made by the treasurer. As to Subparagraph (5), refusing to cooperate with the Diocesan Sexual Misconduct Response Team, we are unaware of any such failure or refusal to cooperate. All we saw was Fr. Bollinger’s attempt to maintain confidentiality of an alleged victim of sexual misconduct The alleged victim was given diocesan contact information to use at his discretion if he wished to pursue it. The alleged victim was grateful for Fr. Bollinger’s pastoral care.
While we appreciate that this is a long letter setting forth our reasons why we are opposing the extension of the temporary inhibition and opposing a presentment against Fr. Bollinger, it is required because we have been ignored in the process of discipline against him, and it has been necessary to summarize our entire reasons for opposing the actions of the bishop against our priest. If for whatever reason you feel that you need to either extend the temporary inhibition under Canon IV.1.2(d) or to issue a presentment under Canon IV.3.15-17, we ask that you afford us the opportunity to be heard in person.
Cc: Bishop Skip Adams
Recipients of the Notice of Inhibition
Parishioners of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Owego, NY
Yours in Christ,
Members of the Vestry of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Owego
Laura Coppens, Warden
Patricia Ellis, Warden
Harold Bartz
Lois Bingley
Alice Botts
Linda Brisson
Michael Medovich
John C. Peterson
Vera Lin Richards
Bernadette Toombs
A letter from the Bishop of Central NY
When the date of this letter is compared with the date of the McDaniel memo (1/12/05), one might draw the conclusion that the bishop was acting toward Fr. Bollinger in the manner directed by the counsel of Peter Kapcio of the p.r. firm Eric Mawer and Associates. You would think that gospel ethics and p.r. practice would not be in sinc, and you would be right. So, what is going on in the Diocese of Central NY? ed.
The Rt. Rev. Gladstone B. Adams III
The Diocese of Central New York
January 17,2005
The Rev. David G. Bollinger St. Paul's Church
117 Main Street
Owego, NY 13827
Dear David:
It has always been my desire to be open with you and available to you
throughout whatever difficulty you have dealt with at St. Paul's Church,
Owego. It has been a true disappointment to me that you have been
unreceptive to my attempts to be in communion with you, especially these
past few weeks.
David, I believe your actions in distributing privileged and
confidential lawyer-to-lawyer communications have been reckless and
irresponsible and were done with the intent to damage my relationship
with the college of clergy in this Diocese. I also believe your
communications have intentionally sought to damage the reputation,
integrity and good work of Mrs. Gael Sopchak. I feel you have betrayed
my trust and have openly engaged in personal attacks on both me and
members of my staff.
In my responsibility as Bishop not only to you, but also to the people
of St. Paul's, the diocesan clergy and employees, and in accordance with
Title IV of the Church Canons, I find it necessary to issue you a
Pastoral Direction. Therefore:
As a way of showing best care for you, I expect you to accept my offer
to complete psychological and psychiatric evaluations at a time and
facility that I designate. All related costs will be assumed by the Diocese.
You are to have no contact or communication with any of the clergy in
the Diocese of Central New York regarding the alleged sexual abuse case
involving [redacted] This applies to any and all alleged victims and
their families who have or may come forth
You are to immediately provide to the co-chairs of the Pastoral Response
Team, contact information of any alleged victims who have or may come to
your attention. This applies to any and all alleged victims and their
families who have or may come forth.
You are to have no contact or communication with any of the clergy in
the Diocese of Central New York regarding the allegations you have made
against my Administrative Officer, Gael Sopchak.
The Rev. David G. Bollinger January 17,2005
Page 2
You shall immediately surrender all financial records and account
information of 8t. Paul's Church, including records of your
discretionary fund, to an independent auditor of
my choosing. Furthermore, I require your full cooperation in the
completion of the the the audit. In addition, the vestry shall take
immediate action to remove your name as signatory on all parish
accounts, including the discretionary account.
You shall immediately submit a written resignation as a member of the
Diocesan Ecclesiastical Court.
Your failure to comply with any of these Directions shall result in
further and immediate canonical proceedings.
Furthermore, because the trust I had placed in you as District Dean has
been severely breached, I find it necessary to remove you from this
position of diocesan leadership, effective immediately.
Although the scope of this Pastoral Direction is intentionally
far-reaching, it does not preclude
you from continuing your ministry to provide sacramental and pastoral
care to the parishioners of St. Paul's Church. While it pains me to take
this action against you, I believe it is necessary for your wellbeing as
well as that of the parish and the Diocese. It is my fervent hope that
we can see our way through this difficulty together and begin to forge a
path to healing and forgiveness in the months to come.
Regardless of our substantial differences be assured of my continued
prayer for you, your family and the people of St. Paul's.
In Christ's name,
Gladstone B. Adams III Bishop
The Rev. David G. Bollinger
Date
GBA/kdm
Cc The Rev. Holly Eden
Mr. Paul J. Curtin, Jr. Wardens, St. Paul’s Church
The Rt. Rev. Gladstone B. Adams III
The Diocese of Central New York
January 17,2005
The Rev. David G. Bollinger St. Paul's Church
117 Main Street
Owego, NY 13827
Dear David:
It has always been my desire to be open with you and available to you
throughout whatever difficulty you have dealt with at St. Paul's Church,
Owego. It has been a true disappointment to me that you have been
unreceptive to my attempts to be in communion with you, especially these
past few weeks.
David, I believe your actions in distributing privileged and
confidential lawyer-to-lawyer communications have been reckless and
irresponsible and were done with the intent to damage my relationship
with the college of clergy in this Diocese. I also believe your
communications have intentionally sought to damage the reputation,
integrity and good work of Mrs. Gael Sopchak. I feel you have betrayed
my trust and have openly engaged in personal attacks on both me and
members of my staff.
In my responsibility as Bishop not only to you, but also to the people
of St. Paul's, the diocesan clergy and employees, and in accordance with
Title IV of the Church Canons, I find it necessary to issue you a
Pastoral Direction. Therefore:
As a way of showing best care for you, I expect you to accept my offer
to complete psychological and psychiatric evaluations at a time and
facility that I designate. All related costs will be assumed by the Diocese.
You are to have no contact or communication with any of the clergy in
the Diocese of Central New York regarding the alleged sexual abuse case
involving [redacted] This applies to any and all alleged victims and
their families who have or may come forth
You are to immediately provide to the co-chairs of the Pastoral Response
Team, contact information of any alleged victims who have or may come to
your attention. This applies to any and all alleged victims and their
families who have or may come forth.
You are to have no contact or communication with any of the clergy in
the Diocese of Central New York regarding the allegations you have made
against my Administrative Officer, Gael Sopchak.
The Rev. David G. Bollinger January 17,2005
Page 2
You shall immediately surrender all financial records and account
information of 8t. Paul's Church, including records of your
discretionary fund, to an independent auditor of
my choosing. Furthermore, I require your full cooperation in the
completion of the the the audit. In addition, the vestry shall take
immediate action to remove your name as signatory on all parish
accounts, including the discretionary account.
You shall immediately submit a written resignation as a member of the
Diocesan Ecclesiastical Court.
Your failure to comply with any of these Directions shall result in
further and immediate canonical proceedings.
Furthermore, because the trust I had placed in you as District Dean has
been severely breached, I find it necessary to remove you from this
position of diocesan leadership, effective immediately.
Although the scope of this Pastoral Direction is intentionally
far-reaching, it does not preclude
you from continuing your ministry to provide sacramental and pastoral
care to the parishioners of St. Paul's Church. While it pains me to take
this action against you, I believe it is necessary for your wellbeing as
well as that of the parish and the Diocese. It is my fervent hope that
we can see our way through this difficulty together and begin to forge a
path to healing and forgiveness in the months to come.
Regardless of our substantial differences be assured of my continued
prayer for you, your family and the people of St. Paul's.
In Christ's name,
Gladstone B. Adams III Bishop
The Rev. David G. Bollinger
Date
GBA/kdm
Cc The Rev. Holly Eden
Mr. Paul J. Curtin, Jr. Wardens, St. Paul’s Church
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)