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
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
Don Bickford's Comments at the 2-6-2011 Budget Meeting
Don Bickford gave me permission to post the comments he made at the Riverside Budget Meeting on Feb. 6, 2011. They were as follows:
I applaud the
progress made in the Finance Office in the past year.
initiative of Budget and Planning to clarify and document the donated funds in our portfolio.
public commitment of lay leadership to honor donor intent.
And I am confident of the sincere good intentions of all who have brought the process to this point.
However, I will vote NAY with respect to the resolution now under discussion.
I will state my reasons and if you agree, I hope you will also cast a NAY vote.
This resolution authorizes taking from the portfolio nearly $300,00 more than the amount that the longstanding spending rule would permit.
This fact is not made clear to the congregation in the budget documents you have been given; nor was it explicitly explained at the forums held in the fall.
Combining the three separate resolutions into one and failing to provide the spending rule calculation sheet as had been our practice for more than 20 years has further clouded the situation.
The proposed budget claims to have sustainability as its goal; regrettably, this budget continues Riverside’s longstanding habit of spending beyond its means and is most definitely not sustainable.
The materials provided and presented have inappropriately combined operational and capital spending to assert progress towards the sustainability goal. It is in the nature of capital spending to fluctuate from year to year and what is important is the long term average. The previous Church Council concurred with recommendations from Budget and Planning to treat $4 million as that average capital amount; That 2011 happens to be a lower than average year for capital spending ought not to be deemed progress.
This budget eliminates or reduces certain positions and programs important to the membership; while this is necessary, insufficient educational efforts to win over support from the effected constituencies has taken place. A major part of that failure of responsibility falls with senior staff, a group which has offered no reduction in its own compensation as part of a sharing the pain strategy.
For all these reasons I will vote NAY and hope you join me.
I applaud the
progress made in the Finance Office in the past year.
initiative of Budget and Planning to clarify and document the donated funds in our portfolio.
public commitment of lay leadership to honor donor intent.
And I am confident of the sincere good intentions of all who have brought the process to this point.
However, I will vote NAY with respect to the resolution now under discussion.
I will state my reasons and if you agree, I hope you will also cast a NAY vote.
This resolution authorizes taking from the portfolio nearly $300,00 more than the amount that the longstanding spending rule would permit.
This fact is not made clear to the congregation in the budget documents you have been given; nor was it explicitly explained at the forums held in the fall.
Combining the three separate resolutions into one and failing to provide the spending rule calculation sheet as had been our practice for more than 20 years has further clouded the situation.
The proposed budget claims to have sustainability as its goal; regrettably, this budget continues Riverside’s longstanding habit of spending beyond its means and is most definitely not sustainable.
The materials provided and presented have inappropriately combined operational and capital spending to assert progress towards the sustainability goal. It is in the nature of capital spending to fluctuate from year to year and what is important is the long term average. The previous Church Council concurred with recommendations from Budget and Planning to treat $4 million as that average capital amount; That 2011 happens to be a lower than average year for capital spending ought not to be deemed progress.
This budget eliminates or reduces certain positions and programs important to the membership; while this is necessary, insufficient educational efforts to win over support from the effected constituencies has taken place. A major part of that failure of responsibility falls with senior staff, a group which has offered no reduction in its own compensation as part of a sharing the pain strategy.
For all these reasons I will vote NAY and hope you join me.
Monday, December 6, 2010
TRC proposed budget December 2010
December 6, 2010
The Riverside Church Council, Worship Commission, and Clergy
The Riverside Church
New York, NY 10027
Dear brothers and sisters,
The Riverside Church proudly calls herself a “social justice” church. Sadly, her spending tells another story.
Congregants have been purposely kept uninformed that nearly two dozen people employed by The Riverside Church now earn six-figure salaries, and that many lower-earning employees have quietly been let go in the past two years without acknowledgement or mention. While raises have been given to the higher-earning employees, all ministry budgets have been cut.
The numbers are pretty simple.
The median household income in New York City in 2008 was $51,000; in 2009 it dropped to $47,000. New Yorkers spend, on average, 50% of their earnings on housing. So the non-housing portion of the median household is $23,500 per year.
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, it appears New York City’s poverty rate has approached 21.3% of our population.
Since Riverside boasts being an “international” church, I’ll put the figures in an international context. An employee earning $100,000 per year is in the top 0.66% of the wealthiest humans on the planet. An employee earning $200,000 per year is in the top 0.01% globally. A small cadre of Riverside employees are being paid church salaries that place them among 0.66-0.01% wealthiest humans on earth. These numbers do not include clergy housing allowances, which are not taxed. Needless to say, most New Yorkers are not given untaxed housing funds to pay for their housing.
The congregation doesn’t have this information, but is asked to vote on a budget that is squarely based on this spending pattern. Our pulpit resounds with sermons discussing “need” and “greed.” But our spending is to be based on a Wall Street financier or “keeping-up-with-the-wealthy-parish-downtown” model. How is this in keeping with our mission of social justice? How is it Christian?
The newly proposed budget demands $1.2 million for finance and communications, while cutting all forms of ministry budgets. Information from several church departments suggests that a few individuals are unilaterally making budgetary decisions without informing the Council, let alone the congregation, of the details and ramifications of those choices. Such conduct is undemocratic and may violate New York corporate law. Furthermore, it exposes every member of the church’s governing body to personal liability for corporate malfeasance. Those governing the church have joint and several responsibilities to know the full details of the institution’s spending, including salaries and job descriptions, and to ensure that it the institution’s money is spent in furtherance of her religious and corporate mission.
Last January I told Council President Jean Schmidt that, legally and morally, every dollar the church spends must be evaluated by one question: Is this spending in keeping with/furtherance of our mission? That is the legal and moral standard we must meet.
So the ugly question looms: How can The Riverside Church claim to be a social justice church if she lives by capitalist greed rather than Christian ministry?
While the people who live in Harlem, New York City, the U.S.A., and the rest of the globe face the devastation of the greatest economic depression since the 1920’s, those making governing decisions at Riverside are placing a small number of people among the wealthiest in the world, while contributing to the economic despair of our local economy with stealth lay-offs and ministry cuts. None of this is being reported to the congregation, or possibly even to the members of the Council, under the guise of privacy concerns. (As a non-profit corporation full financial disclosure is required by law. It is easy to protect privacy by deleting names associated with salary figures, but salaries must be disclosed for governing officers to make fiscally responsible decisions and meet their legal obligations of fiduciary duty.)
For Riverside to minister in keeping with her social justice mission, no one “needs” a luxury salary. No one “needs” to earn hundreds of times the median income of other New Yorkers. No one earning over $100,000 “needs” a housing allowance. Ghandi lived in a mut hut. Bill Coffin lived in a small apartment. No one “needs” the Lord to buy them a Mercedes-Benz. If the only employees Riverside is attracting are those who demand luxury salaries, then we are attracting the wrong candidates for our mission.
Social justice begins with our example inside the church. Our acts speak louder than our words. Our spending is a strong, public act. And right now, our acts are not acts of social justice.
Before voting on the proposed budget, I urge every voting member of the congregation to demand a full and accurate accounting of all salaries (with names deleted) for every department, along with the hours each individual works for the church, and a full accounting of other benefits, flagging those benefits that are untaxed, as well as a list of the positions that have been cut, their salaries and job duties. Members should consider the percentage of the budget that goes to building maintenance, salaries, finance, and actual ministries. Members should consider expenditures for technology and consultants, and whether these costs duplicate salaried positions and are in fact necessary.
Once this information is provided, I urge every voting member to consider whether each dollar of the budget of the Riverside Church is an act of social justice. And then vote on the proposed budget accordingly.
As for myself, I will continue to donate $1.00 per year to the church until her spending is consistent with her mission. I did not join Riverside to pay to make a few people ultra-wealthy. I joined to minister to those in need. Thus, I continue to donate directly to those in need through the food pantry, clothing ministries, and other charities that actually minister to those in true need.
And for the record, I plan to vote against the proposed budget because it violates our legal and religious mission, and is antithetical to Christ’s ministry and teaching.
Jennifer Hoult, Esq.
Member, The Riverside Church
The Riverside Church Council, Worship Commission, and Clergy
The Riverside Church
New York, NY 10027
Dear brothers and sisters,
The Riverside Church proudly calls herself a “social justice” church. Sadly, her spending tells another story.
Congregants have been purposely kept uninformed that nearly two dozen people employed by The Riverside Church now earn six-figure salaries, and that many lower-earning employees have quietly been let go in the past two years without acknowledgement or mention. While raises have been given to the higher-earning employees, all ministry budgets have been cut.
The numbers are pretty simple.
The median household income in New York City in 2008 was $51,000; in 2009 it dropped to $47,000. New Yorkers spend, on average, 50% of their earnings on housing. So the non-housing portion of the median household is $23,500 per year.
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, it appears New York City’s poverty rate has approached 21.3% of our population.
Since Riverside boasts being an “international” church, I’ll put the figures in an international context. An employee earning $100,000 per year is in the top 0.66% of the wealthiest humans on the planet. An employee earning $200,000 per year is in the top 0.01% globally. A small cadre of Riverside employees are being paid church salaries that place them among 0.66-0.01% wealthiest humans on earth. These numbers do not include clergy housing allowances, which are not taxed. Needless to say, most New Yorkers are not given untaxed housing funds to pay for their housing.
The congregation doesn’t have this information, but is asked to vote on a budget that is squarely based on this spending pattern. Our pulpit resounds with sermons discussing “need” and “greed.” But our spending is to be based on a Wall Street financier or “keeping-up-with-the-wealthy-parish-downtown” model. How is this in keeping with our mission of social justice? How is it Christian?
The newly proposed budget demands $1.2 million for finance and communications, while cutting all forms of ministry budgets. Information from several church departments suggests that a few individuals are unilaterally making budgetary decisions without informing the Council, let alone the congregation, of the details and ramifications of those choices. Such conduct is undemocratic and may violate New York corporate law. Furthermore, it exposes every member of the church’s governing body to personal liability for corporate malfeasance. Those governing the church have joint and several responsibilities to know the full details of the institution’s spending, including salaries and job descriptions, and to ensure that it the institution’s money is spent in furtherance of her religious and corporate mission.
Last January I told Council President Jean Schmidt that, legally and morally, every dollar the church spends must be evaluated by one question: Is this spending in keeping with/furtherance of our mission? That is the legal and moral standard we must meet.
So the ugly question looms: How can The Riverside Church claim to be a social justice church if she lives by capitalist greed rather than Christian ministry?
While the people who live in Harlem, New York City, the U.S.A., and the rest of the globe face the devastation of the greatest economic depression since the 1920’s, those making governing decisions at Riverside are placing a small number of people among the wealthiest in the world, while contributing to the economic despair of our local economy with stealth lay-offs and ministry cuts. None of this is being reported to the congregation, or possibly even to the members of the Council, under the guise of privacy concerns. (As a non-profit corporation full financial disclosure is required by law. It is easy to protect privacy by deleting names associated with salary figures, but salaries must be disclosed for governing officers to make fiscally responsible decisions and meet their legal obligations of fiduciary duty.)
For Riverside to minister in keeping with her social justice mission, no one “needs” a luxury salary. No one “needs” to earn hundreds of times the median income of other New Yorkers. No one earning over $100,000 “needs” a housing allowance. Ghandi lived in a mut hut. Bill Coffin lived in a small apartment. No one “needs” the Lord to buy them a Mercedes-Benz. If the only employees Riverside is attracting are those who demand luxury salaries, then we are attracting the wrong candidates for our mission.
Social justice begins with our example inside the church. Our acts speak louder than our words. Our spending is a strong, public act. And right now, our acts are not acts of social justice.
Before voting on the proposed budget, I urge every voting member of the congregation to demand a full and accurate accounting of all salaries (with names deleted) for every department, along with the hours each individual works for the church, and a full accounting of other benefits, flagging those benefits that are untaxed, as well as a list of the positions that have been cut, their salaries and job duties. Members should consider the percentage of the budget that goes to building maintenance, salaries, finance, and actual ministries. Members should consider expenditures for technology and consultants, and whether these costs duplicate salaried positions and are in fact necessary.
Once this information is provided, I urge every voting member to consider whether each dollar of the budget of the Riverside Church is an act of social justice. And then vote on the proposed budget accordingly.
As for myself, I will continue to donate $1.00 per year to the church until her spending is consistent with her mission. I did not join Riverside to pay to make a few people ultra-wealthy. I joined to minister to those in need. Thus, I continue to donate directly to those in need through the food pantry, clothing ministries, and other charities that actually minister to those in true need.
And for the record, I plan to vote against the proposed budget because it violates our legal and religious mission, and is antithetical to Christ’s ministry and teaching.
Jennifer Hoult, Esq.
Member, The Riverside Church
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Attempts to silence dissent within Riverside Church
A small group of members have proposed an amendment to the corporate by-laws of Riverside Church that will create a means of ex-communicating members who exercise their legal rights as members of this religious non-profit corporation.
Riverside was founded as a progressive church. Many of us joined because we believe that "progressive" means diverse views are welcome. Many of us who work in social and legal activism for progressive and liberal causes of social justice have fought long battles to protect the rights of all citizens to exercise their legal rights. Traditionally excommunication is the realm of the Catholic Church, not the American Baptist or UCC churches.
Needless to say, if this amendment were adopted, it will mark a huge theological and legal change in the governance and values of this institution, moving her in a direction that is neither just nor progressive.
Riverside was founded as a progressive church. Many of us joined because we believe that "progressive" means diverse views are welcome. Many of us who work in social and legal activism for progressive and liberal causes of social justice have fought long battles to protect the rights of all citizens to exercise their legal rights. Traditionally excommunication is the realm of the Catholic Church, not the American Baptist or UCC churches.
Needless to say, if this amendment were adopted, it will mark a huge theological and legal change in the governance and values of this institution, moving her in a direction that is neither just nor progressive.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Riverside: New Directions/Fiscal Management
Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 10:49 am
Subject: Letter to the RSD Church Council re: next steps
Dear Council members,
On May 25, 2009 I met with Jean Schmidt informally to talk about Riverside. Over the course of a long conversation, Jean asked me about my recommendations for next steps for the church. Given the recent announcements that the Council is exploring appropriate next steps, I am writing to reiterate the core suggestions I made to Jean back in May.
As I told Jean, the most fundamental issue I see is that there is a lack of understanding and focus about our mission. Having worked for various for-profit and non-profit corporations, I have observed that no organization can run well unless a) the mission is clearly articulated and b) the leadership is clear about what the mission means. Once those two things are clear, every leadership decision can be measured against a clear standard. In Riverside's case, our mission is elegantly stated focusing on "inter-racial, inter-denominational, and international worship" and "social justice ministry."
In the past year, it has become evident that despite the elegant simplicity of this mission statement, there is a lack of consensus and understanding about what it means. All leadership and action must flow from the mission. So the most important step I suggested to Jean is that the Council should explore (using whatever documentation exists since the creation of the corporation) the meaning of the mission. All meaningful leadership decisions will be clear when this is understood.
For example, "inter" means "between, among, reciprocal, carried on between, shared by two or more, etc." Understanding what this prefix means leads to clear leadership directions for everything including our theology, worship style, music, social justice efforts, and fiscal expenditures. For example, if "inter-denominational" means inclusive and shared worship among all denominations, then this places clear limits on the denominational affiliations and theological views of those we hire to lead us as clergy. While our worship can and must include and welcome people of all denominations, we cannot legally effectuate our mission if we hire clergy whose theological views preclude or place any limits on true "inter-denominational" theology. For example, since Riverside has led the vanguard in welcoming openly gay members and clergy, we cannot fulfill our mission by hiring clergy whose denominational affiliations prohibit them from sanctifying gay unions. We can welcome them to worship with us, because our theological umbrella is without limits, but we cannot use our money to hire them to lead us, because narrower theologies conflict with our inter-denominational mission.
Similarly, "inter-racial" means inclusive and equal between people of all races and ethnicities. We cannot fulfill our mission if we use our money, choose worship styles, or hire clergy who cannot honor all forms of worship, honor all people as individuals, and include all people equally as children of God. We can welcome all individuals with narrower views in our community, but we cannot limit the effectuation of our mission by hiring people with narrow views of worship and judgments about people based on the color of their skin because, as I wrote Billy Jones and this Council in August 2008, such leadership violates our mission and conflicts with God's scriptures and Christ's ministry and teaching.
Even decisions about spending flow naturally from a clear understanding of mission. We have a beautiful edifice. But it is fantastically expensive to maintain. The Council has dipped into and diminished our endowment for many years now, and this threatens the continued fiscal stability of the church. Understanding our social justice mission includes making the decision of whether our ministry should spend for social justice, or building maintenance. As one who loves our edifice, it would indeed be painful and sad to leave it. However, our mission is for social justice. Our spending, from how much we spend for heat, air conditioning, oil, and repointing, must flow directly from our mission. If a clear understanding of our mission leads to the decision that fulfillment of our mission requires abandoning our edifice, then we will be effectuating our mission. The decisions for every aspect of spending flow from the mission. And make no mistake, gorgeous as she is, our building is not God's home. God is without limits, and this building is a mere transitory reflection of a tiny part of His Glory.
Choosing social justice projects must similarly flow from an understanding of our "inter-racial, inter-denominational, and inter-national" mission. It is clear that we must fund and act to minister to people of all races, in all faith traditions, in all nations. There is dire need of many types all around us, and around the globe. Decisions about how to focus our efforts and spend our money must in each case be determined in accordance with our mission. We cannot focus only on one type of justice for one demographic of people in one geographical location. We are called to minister to all in need. And that need is truly overwhelming.
We also need to be clear about our legal and denominational affiliations. Certainly, it is not necessary that we only hire members of the ABC or UCC. But it is legally mandated that we only hire people whose training, denominational affiliations, and theologies fully embrace the theological embracing of our two affiliations, and our extremely widely-encompassing theological mission.
These are only a few examples, but from my own professional experience, I truly believe that if the Council focuses effort on understanding the mission, then the appropriate directions for spending, worship style, hiring, music, social justice ministries, and all other leadership decisions will be appropriately framed by the simple question, "Do this choice fulfill or violate our mission?" It really is that simple.
Finally, it has come to my attention that there have been efforts to stop fundraising efforts for Project People, a non-profit affiliated with Riverside that serves needy children in South Africa. Ministry to needy children anywhere in the world is clearly part of our social justice and inter-racial mission, and was a core part of Christ's ministry. Efforts to stop anyone from raising money to help those in genuine need are an affront to God's teaching, Christ's ministry, and Riverside's mission. In the past year, there has been a lot of bullying and silencing from the pulpit and the Council. We have descended to a level of leadership where a few loud school-yard type bullies silence and threaten important social justice actions and ministries. We need to stop allowing bullies to run the playground. We need leadership. And, as Bob preached on August 9, that leadership does not come from any of us, or from our edifice. It comes from Christ. The Council must take steps to make it clear that every effort to help those in real need by anyone who is a member of or visitor to our church is something we applaud, welcome, and encourage. Make no mistake: Anyone who works to stop ministry to those in need is working against our mission and against Christ's teaching. It is that simple. This Council must speak loudly and quickly on this matter. We cannot tolerate efforts to stop Christ's ministry to those in need. There is no time to placate bullies. The need around us is too dire.
I am familiar with the burdens and challenges of leadership. I hope that these suggestions may provide helpful directions for your important work in reinvigorating our mission, our reputation, and our effectiveness in Christ's ministry to those in true need.
With love and prayer for the effectuation of our mission and God's promise for all human souls,
Jennifer Hoult, J.D.
--------------
I was contacted by an attendee at Don Bickford’s Capital Portion Subcommittee of the Budget and Planning Committee on August 28, 2009. Cambridge Assoc. advised that meeting that Riverside should not be drawing more than $6,700,000 a year from the endowment. It appears that the past year’s budget withdrew $6,275,000 in excess of their recommendation.
The numbers reported were as follows:
12,975,000 actually withdrawn for Capital and Operating Budgets
- 6,700,000 Cambridge Associates’ recommended prudent annual endowment withdrawal
$6,275,000 amount drawn in excess of Cambridge Associates’ recommendation
Note that back in May 2009, prior to a substantial decline in the market value of the endowment, in a written report to the Riverside Church, Cambridge Assoc. wrote:
"Riverside should redefine the purpose of the endowment to best fit the needs of the Church and thus, clarify the current spending rule. Based on the current asset allocation of the portfolio, the portfolio is expected to generate an average annual real return of 5.3% over the long-term. As a rule, total spending should be set below this percentage in order to preserve and grow the base of the endowment. Total spending for 2009 (based on operational and capital needs) is estimated to be approximately 11.3% of the endowment value."
The Cambridge Associates report stated:
"At the current projected spending level, the Church risks eroding the endowment by approximately 42% in 3 years and completely liquidating the endowment in less than 10 years."
Subject: Letter to the RSD Church Council re: next steps
Dear Council members,
On May 25, 2009 I met with Jean Schmidt informally to talk about Riverside. Over the course of a long conversation, Jean asked me about my recommendations for next steps for the church. Given the recent announcements that the Council is exploring appropriate next steps, I am writing to reiterate the core suggestions I made to Jean back in May.
As I told Jean, the most fundamental issue I see is that there is a lack of understanding and focus about our mission. Having worked for various for-profit and non-profit corporations, I have observed that no organization can run well unless a) the mission is clearly articulated and b) the leadership is clear about what the mission means. Once those two things are clear, every leadership decision can be measured against a clear standard. In Riverside's case, our mission is elegantly stated focusing on "inter-racial, inter-denominational, and international worship" and "social justice ministry."
In the past year, it has become evident that despite the elegant simplicity of this mission statement, there is a lack of consensus and understanding about what it means. All leadership and action must flow from the mission. So the most important step I suggested to Jean is that the Council should explore (using whatever documentation exists since the creation of the corporation) the meaning of the mission. All meaningful leadership decisions will be clear when this is understood.
For example, "inter" means "between, among, reciprocal, carried on between, shared by two or more, etc." Understanding what this prefix means leads to clear leadership directions for everything including our theology, worship style, music, social justice efforts, and fiscal expenditures. For example, if "inter-denominational" means inclusive and shared worship among all denominations, then this places clear limits on the denominational affiliations and theological views of those we hire to lead us as clergy. While our worship can and must include and welcome people of all denominations, we cannot legally effectuate our mission if we hire clergy whose theological views preclude or place any limits on true "inter-denominational" theology. For example, since Riverside has led the vanguard in welcoming openly gay members and clergy, we cannot fulfill our mission by hiring clergy whose denominational affiliations prohibit them from sanctifying gay unions. We can welcome them to worship with us, because our theological umbrella is without limits, but we cannot use our money to hire them to lead us, because narrower theologies conflict with our inter-denominational mission.
Similarly, "inter-racial" means inclusive and equal between people of all races and ethnicities. We cannot fulfill our mission if we use our money, choose worship styles, or hire clergy who cannot honor all forms of worship, honor all people as individuals, and include all people equally as children of God. We can welcome all individuals with narrower views in our community, but we cannot limit the effectuation of our mission by hiring people with narrow views of worship and judgments about people based on the color of their skin because, as I wrote Billy Jones and this Council in August 2008, such leadership violates our mission and conflicts with God's scriptures and Christ's ministry and teaching.
Even decisions about spending flow naturally from a clear understanding of mission. We have a beautiful edifice. But it is fantastically expensive to maintain. The Council has dipped into and diminished our endowment for many years now, and this threatens the continued fiscal stability of the church. Understanding our social justice mission includes making the decision of whether our ministry should spend for social justice, or building maintenance. As one who loves our edifice, it would indeed be painful and sad to leave it. However, our mission is for social justice. Our spending, from how much we spend for heat, air conditioning, oil, and repointing, must flow directly from our mission. If a clear understanding of our mission leads to the decision that fulfillment of our mission requires abandoning our edifice, then we will be effectuating our mission. The decisions for every aspect of spending flow from the mission. And make no mistake, gorgeous as she is, our building is not God's home. God is without limits, and this building is a mere transitory reflection of a tiny part of His Glory.
Choosing social justice projects must similarly flow from an understanding of our "inter-racial, inter-denominational, and inter-national" mission. It is clear that we must fund and act to minister to people of all races, in all faith traditions, in all nations. There is dire need of many types all around us, and around the globe. Decisions about how to focus our efforts and spend our money must in each case be determined in accordance with our mission. We cannot focus only on one type of justice for one demographic of people in one geographical location. We are called to minister to all in need. And that need is truly overwhelming.
We also need to be clear about our legal and denominational affiliations. Certainly, it is not necessary that we only hire members of the ABC or UCC. But it is legally mandated that we only hire people whose training, denominational affiliations, and theologies fully embrace the theological embracing of our two affiliations, and our extremely widely-encompassing theological mission.
These are only a few examples, but from my own professional experience, I truly believe that if the Council focuses effort on understanding the mission, then the appropriate directions for spending, worship style, hiring, music, social justice ministries, and all other leadership decisions will be appropriately framed by the simple question, "Do this choice fulfill or violate our mission?" It really is that simple.
Finally, it has come to my attention that there have been efforts to stop fundraising efforts for Project People, a non-profit affiliated with Riverside that serves needy children in South Africa. Ministry to needy children anywhere in the world is clearly part of our social justice and inter-racial mission, and was a core part of Christ's ministry. Efforts to stop anyone from raising money to help those in genuine need are an affront to God's teaching, Christ's ministry, and Riverside's mission. In the past year, there has been a lot of bullying and silencing from the pulpit and the Council. We have descended to a level of leadership where a few loud school-yard type bullies silence and threaten important social justice actions and ministries. We need to stop allowing bullies to run the playground. We need leadership. And, as Bob preached on August 9, that leadership does not come from any of us, or from our edifice. It comes from Christ. The Council must take steps to make it clear that every effort to help those in real need by anyone who is a member of or visitor to our church is something we applaud, welcome, and encourage. Make no mistake: Anyone who works to stop ministry to those in need is working against our mission and against Christ's teaching. It is that simple. This Council must speak loudly and quickly on this matter. We cannot tolerate efforts to stop Christ's ministry to those in need. There is no time to placate bullies. The need around us is too dire.
I am familiar with the burdens and challenges of leadership. I hope that these suggestions may provide helpful directions for your important work in reinvigorating our mission, our reputation, and our effectiveness in Christ's ministry to those in true need.
With love and prayer for the effectuation of our mission and God's promise for all human souls,
Jennifer Hoult, J.D.
--------------
I was contacted by an attendee at Don Bickford’s Capital Portion Subcommittee of the Budget and Planning Committee on August 28, 2009. Cambridge Assoc. advised that meeting that Riverside should not be drawing more than $6,700,000 a year from the endowment. It appears that the past year’s budget withdrew $6,275,000 in excess of their recommendation.
The numbers reported were as follows:
12,975,000 actually withdrawn for Capital and Operating Budgets
- 6,700,000 Cambridge Associates’ recommended prudent annual endowment withdrawal
$6,275,000 amount drawn in excess of Cambridge Associates’ recommendation
Note that back in May 2009, prior to a substantial decline in the market value of the endowment, in a written report to the Riverside Church, Cambridge Assoc. wrote:
"Riverside should redefine the purpose of the endowment to best fit the needs of the Church and thus, clarify the current spending rule. Based on the current asset allocation of the portfolio, the portfolio is expected to generate an average annual real return of 5.3% over the long-term. As a rule, total spending should be set below this percentage in order to preserve and grow the base of the endowment. Total spending for 2009 (based on operational and capital needs) is estimated to be approximately 11.3% of the endowment value."
The Cambridge Associates report stated:
"At the current projected spending level, the Church risks eroding the endowment by approximately 42% in 3 years and completely liquidating the endowment in less than 10 years."
Monday, August 24, 2009
RSD Council voted to give Dr Braxton a $282,000 parting gift
On Sunday, August 23, 2009, the Chairwoman of the Riverside Church Council announced that the Council voted to give Dr. Braxton a parting gift valued at over $282,000. This sum includes 5 months' salary ($104,165), payment for 5 months of health benefits ($11,900), payment for 5 months of pension based on his denominational formula ($16,667), and the assumption of his personal contractual housing debt of $149,500.
The Council Chairwoman acknowledged that this sum was not contractually required by Dr. Braxton's employment contract with Riverside. As most workers know, it is extremely uncommon to receive payment of any sort when a person chooses to resign from their job. Thus, the $282,000 payment is simply a parting gift.
For less than one year of service to this church, the Riverside Council has chosen to pay Dr. Braxton a total sum of approximately $686,517, placing him among the wealthiest earners in the world for this year.
Here is the letter I sent the Council today:
Dear Riverside Church Council Members,
First, I will once again voice my view that the Council's decision to pay Dr. Braxton a parting gift of over $282,000, including the assumption of his personal housing debt of $149,000, is inconsistent with Christ's teaching to minister to those in need, and a violation of our social justice mission. It is my belief that this decision will have a very profound and negative effect on contributions to our ministry for a long time to come. If Riverside is going to minister by assuming personal housing debt obligations, it seems to me that, in the present era when many of our needy congregants, neighbors, and fellow citizens are losing homes due to foreclosures, the housing debts we should be assuming are theirs. That would be Christ's ministry. By using limited resources to make one man one of the wealthiest earners on the globe this year by paying him $686,517 while so many others are in dire and abject need around us, this Council has wrought an injustice that is incompatible with both our legal mission of social justice ministry and our spiritual mission to follow Christ's ministry and care for those who are in need. Among many possible ministries, $282,000 would have protected many of our brothers and sisters from becoming homeless.
Second, at yesterday's meeting, several members raised the allegation that Dr. Braxton was denied the housing Riverside originally arranged for him for reasons of race-based discrimination. This was the first time I heard this allegation. I believe the Council should fully investigate this claim. Furthermore, as a licensed member of the NY Bar in good standing, if the Council discovers a preponderance of evidence that discrimination, or any other illegal conduct, was the basis of Dr. Braxton's being denied that originally contracted housing, I hereby offer my legal services pro bono to work to vindicate that wrong.
We at Riverside must work to fulfill our social justice mission and follow Christ's ministry both by spending our fiscal resources to minister to those in true need, and by vociferously fighting to right egregious harms based on all forms of discrimination and social injustice. Our mission calls us to nothing less.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Hoult, J.D.
The Council Chairwoman acknowledged that this sum was not contractually required by Dr. Braxton's employment contract with Riverside. As most workers know, it is extremely uncommon to receive payment of any sort when a person chooses to resign from their job. Thus, the $282,000 payment is simply a parting gift.
For less than one year of service to this church, the Riverside Council has chosen to pay Dr. Braxton a total sum of approximately $686,517, placing him among the wealthiest earners in the world for this year.
Here is the letter I sent the Council today:
Dear Riverside Church Council Members,
First, I will once again voice my view that the Council's decision to pay Dr. Braxton a parting gift of over $282,000, including the assumption of his personal housing debt of $149,000, is inconsistent with Christ's teaching to minister to those in need, and a violation of our social justice mission. It is my belief that this decision will have a very profound and negative effect on contributions to our ministry for a long time to come. If Riverside is going to minister by assuming personal housing debt obligations, it seems to me that, in the present era when many of our needy congregants, neighbors, and fellow citizens are losing homes due to foreclosures, the housing debts we should be assuming are theirs. That would be Christ's ministry. By using limited resources to make one man one of the wealthiest earners on the globe this year by paying him $686,517 while so many others are in dire and abject need around us, this Council has wrought an injustice that is incompatible with both our legal mission of social justice ministry and our spiritual mission to follow Christ's ministry and care for those who are in need. Among many possible ministries, $282,000 would have protected many of our brothers and sisters from becoming homeless.
Second, at yesterday's meeting, several members raised the allegation that Dr. Braxton was denied the housing Riverside originally arranged for him for reasons of race-based discrimination. This was the first time I heard this allegation. I believe the Council should fully investigate this claim. Furthermore, as a licensed member of the NY Bar in good standing, if the Council discovers a preponderance of evidence that discrimination, or any other illegal conduct, was the basis of Dr. Braxton's being denied that originally contracted housing, I hereby offer my legal services pro bono to work to vindicate that wrong.
We at Riverside must work to fulfill our social justice mission and follow Christ's ministry both by spending our fiscal resources to minister to those in true need, and by vociferously fighting to right egregious harms based on all forms of discrimination and social injustice. Our mission calls us to nothing less.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Hoult, J.D.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
RSD Council Proposes large six-figure "gift" to Braxton
Recently, Dr. Braxton chose to resign his position at Riverside Church. In response, the Riverside Church Council has apparently voted to pay Dr. Braxton an outgoing "gift" that would be approximately the equivalent of 9-months of the financial package he has earned in his brief tenure at Riverside. This package has been valued between $400,000 and $600,000 per year. In total, this means the church would pay Dr Braxton close to, or possibly more than, $1,000,000 for less than one year's work, during the same period when our endowment has shrunk due to market forces, requiring us to rescind a promise to fund $1,000,000 in scholarship funding to needy children in our parish. In response, I sent the following letter to the Council:
August 4, 2009
Dear Riverside Church Council Members,
It has come to my attention that the Council intends to pay Rev. Braxton a six-figure departure gift out of the Riverside budget. As a member of this congregational church, I am strongly opposed to this decision.
In less than a year, Riverside has paid Dr. Braxton more money than 98% of the world's population will ever earn in a year. During this same time period, while Dr. Braxton has lived in luxury, Riverside's endowment has shrunk due to market factors, and we have been forced to rescind the promise to pay $1,000,000 in scholarship funds to needy children in our parish. Our ministry efforts have been completely strangled due to the financial remuneration to Dr. Braxton. During this same period, the world economy has been mired in a fiscal crisis of unprecedented proportions. Inflation in Zimbabwe has run over 200% for nearly a year; Iceland has been on the verge of bankruptcy. While Dr. Braxton has enjoyed the lifestyle of the richest men on earth, men, women, and children in our parish, our nation, and around the world, face the dire consequences of this monumental economic downturn.
Dr. Braxton chose to resign his position at Riverside. As all professional know, a person who chooses to resign is not entitled to payment of any kind. The only thing they are guaranteed by statute is the offer to pay (from their own funds) for a COBRA continuation of health insurance for 18 months, and keeping the balance of any vested pension funds they have acrued.
In response to Dr. Braxton's theology, donations at Riverside have plummeted. Those members who may consider returning to our church upon his departure are hardly likely to donate knowing that the bulk of their donations will go directly into Dr. Braxton's personal bank account, and not into the ministry of our church or maintenance of our building.
Last December, I lowered my annual pledge to Riverside to $1 precisely because our legal mission, and the teachings of our Scripture, did not support the luxury financial payments to Dr. Braxton. Since then, I have given my time and money to churches and institutions that minister to people instead of funding a few luxury lifestyles. Upon Dr. Braxton's departure, it is my intention to once again donate to Riverside. However, I am not willing to fund any part of the nearly $1,000,000 that the Council has chosen to pay Dr. Braxton over the past year (including his 2008-2009 financial package and the planned outgoing gift).
Thus, please be advised that, until such time as those who individually feel inclined to provide Dr. Braxton with this Wall Street-sized bounty-gift have completed payment to him, I will legally target all my donations to those departments within Riverside that will not fund Dr. Braxton's personal lifestyle; including, but not limited to, the Food Pantry, and the Music Department. Sadly, much as I would like to fund the building maintenance, and the salaries of the many extremely wonderful and dedicated people who work in our church, I know that, if I donate into the general management fund, my money will all go to Dr. Braxton, and not to these worthy people, or our magnificent edifice. Christ taught me to feed the people, so I will help feed their bodies and spirits through food and music until such time as the Council effectuates our mission and Scripture with appropriate fiscal leadership.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Hoult, J.D.
August 4, 2009
Dear Riverside Church Council Members,
It has come to my attention that the Council intends to pay Rev. Braxton a six-figure departure gift out of the Riverside budget. As a member of this congregational church, I am strongly opposed to this decision.
In less than a year, Riverside has paid Dr. Braxton more money than 98% of the world's population will ever earn in a year. During this same time period, while Dr. Braxton has lived in luxury, Riverside's endowment has shrunk due to market factors, and we have been forced to rescind the promise to pay $1,000,000 in scholarship funds to needy children in our parish. Our ministry efforts have been completely strangled due to the financial remuneration to Dr. Braxton. During this same period, the world economy has been mired in a fiscal crisis of unprecedented proportions. Inflation in Zimbabwe has run over 200% for nearly a year; Iceland has been on the verge of bankruptcy. While Dr. Braxton has enjoyed the lifestyle of the richest men on earth, men, women, and children in our parish, our nation, and around the world, face the dire consequences of this monumental economic downturn.
Dr. Braxton chose to resign his position at Riverside. As all professional know, a person who chooses to resign is not entitled to payment of any kind. The only thing they are guaranteed by statute is the offer to pay (from their own funds) for a COBRA continuation of health insurance for 18 months, and keeping the balance of any vested pension funds they have acrued.
In response to Dr. Braxton's theology, donations at Riverside have plummeted. Those members who may consider returning to our church upon his departure are hardly likely to donate knowing that the bulk of their donations will go directly into Dr. Braxton's personal bank account, and not into the ministry of our church or maintenance of our building.
Last December, I lowered my annual pledge to Riverside to $1 precisely because our legal mission, and the teachings of our Scripture, did not support the luxury financial payments to Dr. Braxton. Since then, I have given my time and money to churches and institutions that minister to people instead of funding a few luxury lifestyles. Upon Dr. Braxton's departure, it is my intention to once again donate to Riverside. However, I am not willing to fund any part of the nearly $1,000,000 that the Council has chosen to pay Dr. Braxton over the past year (including his 2008-2009 financial package and the planned outgoing gift).
Thus, please be advised that, until such time as those who individually feel inclined to provide Dr. Braxton with this Wall Street-sized bounty-gift have completed payment to him, I will legally target all my donations to those departments within Riverside that will not fund Dr. Braxton's personal lifestyle; including, but not limited to, the Food Pantry, and the Music Department. Sadly, much as I would like to fund the building maintenance, and the salaries of the many extremely wonderful and dedicated people who work in our church, I know that, if I donate into the general management fund, my money will all go to Dr. Braxton, and not to these worthy people, or our magnificent edifice. Christ taught me to feed the people, so I will help feed their bodies and spirits through food and music until such time as the Council effectuates our mission and Scripture with appropriate fiscal leadership.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Hoult, J.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
