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.

------------------------------