RSD treatment of employees and luxury compensation

As member of the Bar in good standing and an officer of the court, I stand by my public testimony as a member in good standing of the Riverside Church at that institution’s Budget Meeting on Feb. 6, 2011 that, on information and belief, over 165 employees have been terminated from employment at Riverside since 2007, primarily without just cause.

As I testified at that meeting, a number of these individuals have contacted me in my legal capacity reporting the following disturbing pattern:
1. After years (sometimes decades) of highly regarded work,
2. they suddenly received unfounded, scathing employment reviews,
3. they were told they could not make these reviews public due to legal privilege,
4. they were told that if they filed any grievance or in any way contested the reviews, they would lose severance and unemployment benefits,
5. they were terminated or pressured to resign, and
6. their termination “agreement” letters included gag clauses with substantial fiscal penalty provisions if they revealed this information.

It is my personal and legal opinion that these practices are a type of “violence” cited in Rev. Phelps’ sermon of Feb. 6, 2011. Among other things, these acts of social injustice violate the mission of the Riverside Church.

This pattern of treatment of employees is common in large for-profit corporations, often espoused by in-house employment attorneys. Economic pressure, particularly during an historic recession, is an effective means of silencing wrongfully terminated employees. Corporate attorneys know that such economic pressure does not rise to the level of legal “duress” making such conduct difficult to contest in courts of law. The tactic uses a paper-trail to generate a false appearance that terminations are based on good cause, i.e. that the terminated employees are to blame for losing their jobs.

The claim that employment reviews are privileged, and that the employee cannot reveal their contents, misstates the legal privilege. Legal privileges serve to protect individuals. Most are not bilateral in nature. If you speak to a lawyer, clergy member, or doctor, those professionals are bound not to disclose your private communications without your permission. The privilege protects you, not them. You, the person protected by the privilege, always have the right to reveal those communications to whomever you choose. You retain the right to retain or waive the privilege. Similarly, any privilege regarding an employment review serves to protect the employee from the employer’s dissemination of information that could be embarrassing to the employee. Thus, while the employer cannot discuss the review, the employee always has the right to reveal the information. Misstating the privilege by telling employees they cannot discuss the review due to privilege is a way to keep mistreated employees silent using inaccurate legal information, and the implied threat that, if the employee reveals the information, s/he may face legal sanctions by the employer.

The “choice” between being laid-off with unemployment benefits, possible severance and COBRA health insurance coverage, and the loss of all economic benefits if the employee contests or publicizes unfair reviews or termination uses the massive inequity between an employee and a large corporation to pressure employees to submit to abusive corporate demands and remain silent about their mistreatment. While unions can protect employees from these types of abuse, many employees, like those at Riverside, do not enjoy union protections that can insulate against this power imbalance and expose employers’ abuse of employees.

Corporate legal strategies exploit this power differential, and employees’ understandable fears of loss of income and difficulties finding new employment in the worst job market in a century. Employees who are unprotected by union membership can scarce afford the threat of litigation against a large corporation that is well funded and well-lawyered. The corporate Goliath can easily abuse, discard, and silence these unarmed Davids. False paper trails and gag clauses with Draconian fiscal penalties for disclosure prevent those entrusted with decision-making from learning about abusive employment practices. In Riverside’s case, these democratic governing bodies are the Council and the congregation. The practices terminated employees have reported to me mirror those used in places like Enron, Arthur Anderson, and Abu Graib. It is the same old story. Secrecy protects abusive, immoral conduct. But in the end, the truth will out. Matt 5:15.

Since I do not have permission from each terminated individual to publicly reveal their names, and given that revelation of their names/departments could trigger legal action against them by the church under the contractual gag orders in their termination “agreements,” I proffer of the truth of my testimony and its valid evidentiary basis with a list of their initials, each of which represents a unique person. I suggest that Council members thoroughly review the records of every employee who has left the church, and interview each such employee after first providing them with written and legally binding assurance that their disclosures in these investigations will not result in legal retaliation against them by the church.

On information and belief, the following individuals have been terminated or pressured to resign from the Riverside Church since 2007:

1. A.D.
2. A.L.
3. A.M.
4. B.S.
5. C.C.
6. C.G.
7. D.V.
8. E.S.
9. E.M.
10. E.W.
11. F.G.
12. J.L.
13. J.V.
14. J.R.
15. K.Z.
16. P.Z.
17. P.F.
18. R.B.
19. R.F.
20. M.G.
21. R.M.
22. R.J.
23. S.M.
24. S.C.
25. T.W.
26. T.R.
27. T.W.
28. T.R.
29. T.B.
30. W.J.
31. W.W.
32. A.M.
33. B.G.
34. D.B.
35. D.E.
36. D.G.
37. E.H.
38. F.L.
39. G.T.
40. I.S.
41. J.I.
42. K.D.
43. M.H.
44. M.J.
45. M.T.
46. N.M.
47. O.G.
48. R.M.
49. T.S.
50. K.S.
51. P.M.
52. L.A.
53. B.H.
54. A.H.
55. R.R.
56. J.T
57. H.H.
58. D.K.
59. J.T.
60. N.R.
61. A.A.
62. D.W.
63. A.G.
64. L.B.
65. P.D.
66. J.A.
67. Q.P.
68. M.B.
69. J.H.
70. L.R.
71. L.P.
72. A.R.
73. A.K.
74. B.N.
75. C.F.
76. C.A.
77. D.H.
78. D.S.
79. D.B.
80. E.E.
81. E.O.
82. E.M.
83. E.P.
84. F.E.
85. F.N.
86. F.W.
87. G.V.
88. J.F.
89. J.M.
90. J.M.
91. K.L.
92. K.F.
93. K.H.
94. L.M.
95. L.D.
96. L.A.
97. L.H.
98. L.N.
99. L.R.
100. M.B.
101. M.K.
102. M.M.
103. R.C.
104. R.S.
105. R.R.
106. S.H.
107. S.H.
108. S.S.
109. S.C.
110. S.G.
111. S.J.
112. S.L.
113. S.S.
114. T.W.
115. B.C.
116. C.D.
117. D.F.
118. D.S.
119. D.P.
120. K.M.
121. E.H.
122. J.G.
123. J.W.
124. J.B.
125. K.W.
126. N.S.
127. P.C.
128. P.L.
129. R.V.
130. R.N.
131. S.L.
132. Z.C.
133. C.J.
134. C.S.
135. E.G.
136. F.A.
137. G.S.
138. H.C.
139. J.F.
140. K.M.
141. K.S.
142. M.M.
143. M.W.
144. S.J.
145. T.T.
146. G.W.
147. M.S.
148. R.M.
149. S.C.
150. J.M.
151. E.H.
152. K.G.
153. J.S.
154. C.C.
155. G.G.
156. N.L.
157. S.B.
158. B.B.
159. K.L.
160. L.N.
161. F.N.
162. H.H.
163. J.C.
164. D.S.
165. L.M.
166. R.L.
167. R.M.
168. B.C.

Other questions aside, this surprisingly high employee turnover over a short period of time begs the question of how it came to be that so many employees were suddenly deemed terminable for “good cause.” I suggest that Council members ought to review the percentage of employee turnover going back for the past three or four decades. Well-managed institutions have low turnover rates and these rates remain steady over time. A sudden spike in employee turnover is often a sign, not of employee incompetence, but of managerial malfeasance, just as the sudden spike in paper shredding was the evidence that proved Arthur Anderson’s wrongdoing in the Enron affair.

As regards my testimony at the budget meeting that a number of employees are being paid salary packages that place them among the wealthiest human beings on the planet, those numbers were contested by several church members on the basis of raw salary numbers. As I pointed out to them, I referred to salary packages (total compensation packages), not raw salaries. Once health benefits, travel benefits, housing benefits, school tuition waivers, pensions, loans, donations to corporations that pay external salaries to employees of the church, and other benefits are included, I stand by my representation. Total compensation includes both salary and the value of all other benefits. Non-salary benefits generally add at least 25% to the salary number. For many corporate top-earners, non-salary benefits are hundreds of percents higher than the raw salaries themselves. Additionally, since clergy housing allowances are untaxed, a fair comparison of compensation packages must compare the net (post tax) value of the total compensation package, thereby revealing the substantial net value of untaxed housing income.

Using these metrics, I stand by my claim that a number of employees are Riverside are being provided with compensation that places them among the wealthiest humans on earth. I further stand by my belief that no one “needs” a compensation package of over $100,000 (top 0.66% of the wealthiest humans on earth), let alone over $200,000 (top 0.01%).

To put the Riverside compensation packages in context: The median household income in New York City in 2008 was $51,000; in 2009 it decreased to $47,000. In 2009, 3 million New York City residents lived in poverty, where poverty is defined as a three-family household earning less than $18,000 per year. In 2010, New York City’s poverty rate approached 21.3% of our residents. Most New Yorkers spend 50% of their earnings on housing, so their non-housing pre-tax median income is $23,500 per year. Many New Yorkers lack health insurance, pension benefits, tuition benefits, travel benefits, employer-funded loans, and the myriad other benefits offered to select employees of the Riverside Church.

I do not believe that there is a valid theological basis for placing a handful of employees among the wealthiest 1% (let along 0.66% or 0.01%) of humans while their neighbors literally go hungry. Spending is action. Riverside now spends over $1,000,000 on its finance department, which she has cut all forms of actual ministry budgeting.

Keeping compensation packages secret from the Council and congregations under a claim of privacy is not a normative practice among Christian denominations. This practice serves to protect those who are compensated luxuriously while keeping the congregation and Council in the dark about how money is actually spent. Without knowing the details of the entire budget, including the total compensation packages for all employees earning more than double the current New York City median, and money spent on actual ministries, neither the Council nor the congregants can participate meaningfully in this democracy.

I stand by my testimony that Riverside’s treatment of her employees and luxury compensation for a select few reflects the values of a capitalist corporation, not a house of God. The pattern of secrecy that pervades all of this is not consistent with Christ’s teaching or His ministry. Matt 21:12; Luke 16:13.

"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words
and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people."
--Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail

Jennifer Hoult, Esq.
riversidechurchnycdiscussionblog.blogspot.com