FEBRUARY 10, 2008

In today’s bulletin there is a letter from the Diocese of Pittsburgh. Here is the story behind that letter.

When I was appointed your Pastor on December 12, 2005, the Parish was in dire financial straits. With a debt of $1,250,000.00 it was running an operating deficit of $350,000.00 a year. In a word, it was bankrupt and could not fund its ministries. While money is not everything, it was the most immediate problem to tackle if the Parish were to survive. Many stringent measures, most hard or sad, had to be taken to allow us to support ourselves. Among the most difficult but most necessary was the trimming of compensation for paid employees.

Using what I trusted were responsible, just and Christian principles, I had a meeting with each employee, witnessed by Fr. Larry. At each meeting I outlined what the Parish was able to offer for compensation for their employment. Some jobs were eliminated, and those individuals had the option of collecting unemployment compensation. All but one employee had a reduction of salary and/or benefits offered (some were slight, others were considerable amounts.) Some employees chose to leave the employ; others accepted the offers with admirable good grace.

One set of employees from the cemeteries opted to take their retirements voluntarily, and the requisite accommodations were made. However, at a later date, after making complaints to the Catholic Cemeteries Association and the Clergy Office of the Diocese (which were deemed by both offices not substantiated), they notified the Parish through an attorney that they intended to sue unless we offered a money settlement to them.

In justice, I declined any settlement, and they filed official complaints with the Equal Economic Opportunities Commission, charging the Parish and the Diocese with violations of Federal Law in the categories of age discrimination, American with Disabilities Act discrimination, retaliation and sexual harassment. I stated categorically and before God that all such charges were absolutely false and fabricated and that they attacked me personally and morally. The Diocese of Pittsburgh retained a lawyer on behalf of itself and the Parish to answer the false accusations. The EEOC consequently dismissed all charges.

Those former employees then through their counsel filed a civil suit in Federal Court on the same charges. As part of the process, a Neutral Evaluator was appointed by the court and agreed to by both sides to hear a summary of the charges and the defense. He too found they had not made a case, but offered according to juridical practice to attempt mediation. To him, and before the Risk Manager of the Diocese, the lawyer who had been retained to defend me and the Parish, and a claims manager used by the Diocese, I asserted that I would not mediate or negotiate. Their claims were utterly false, and inasmuch as they accused me of not only illegal and unethical, but immoral behavior, I insisted that we proceed to trial where I believed testimony from all parties taken under oath, and the threat of perjury, would clear my name. My instructions were "No settlement! Zero dollars! We go to trial for the truth!"

Unknown to me, the Risk Manager of the Diocese and the lawyer in fact reached a settlement that would pay $4,500 to plaintiffs to drop their suit. When I found out that these actions were taken in contradiction to my express instructions, I through a series of e-mails and a meeting with Diocesan officials protested their actions. Based on my objections, a new lawyer who represented both the Parish and the Diocese petitioned the court to set aside the settlement and to allow the matter to go to trial so that I might be vindicated.

Unfortunately, the court ruled that there was not a "mutual mistake" regarding the authority to settle (the lawyer and Diocesan representative had never communicated my orders to the court during the process, and in fact had never informed me of the meetings.) Therefore, not on the merits of the case, but rather on the basis of the assertions of the Diocese, the court ordered the settlement to proceed.

The reasoning of the Diocesan representative for doing this was that a trial would have cost $25,000 and that was too much to spend to defend against the charges. It was cheaper to pay the $4,500. It was a good business decision, he said, for what they considered a nuisance suit.

In this entire process, I feel that my reputation and good name were ruined by false witness, and my rights and responsibilities as Pastor and trust administrator were compromised, even if it were not the intent of the representatives of the Diocese to do so. I have always based my financial administration on the principles of justice, transparency and accountability to the people whose money I steward. The charges iterated by these former employees impugned my integrity, and they financially profited by those lies. I leave them to the judgment of God in these and other matters regarding their employment in the Parish.

To those employees who accepted less and did more for the good of the Parish and its survival: my admiration and commendation.
To Fr. Rege, Fr. Al and Fr. Larry with whom I have lived and ministered: my affection and fraternal support. Living with each of you has been a joy and it is an honor to have my name mentioned in the same breath as yours in serving the people of this Parish.
To the people of St. John of God Parish who remained loyal to their faith and their worshipping community, who labored and loved so long, hard and generously (whether you liked me or not, agreed with me or not) but remained committed to the continuing life of the Parish: my blessings and gratitude for the privilege of being your Pastor.

Diocesan Letter