I've heard through some reliable sources that San Joaquin has not earmarked its entire budget for legal expenses. We'll see it there's a correction in the future.
All of the $260,000 the reorganizing Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin expects to collect next year in assessment income will be allocated to its ongoing court battle with the leadership of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin. Delegates approved the measure during the diocese’s Oct. 24-26 convention.
The diocese, one of several that are reorganizing or expected to reorganize after a majority of their diocesan conventions vote to leave The Episcopal Church, will receive financial assistance from the national Executive Council. Resolution A&F075, approved during council’s meeting in Helena, Mont., Oct. 21-24, authorized up to $700,000 in 2009 for clergy salaries and other expenses in San Joaquin and other similarly situated dioceses. The budget approved by San Joaquin delegates assumes receiving $597,611 in funding from the program budget of General Convention.
2 comments:
No correction needed, the story is completely accurate. Note the headline and story state that all of the assessments are "earmarked" for legal fees, not that the entire budget is spent on legal fees. Paying the bishop and administrative staff is in the budget. Missions is in the budget. However, expected assessments are only 260K, while 360K is budgeted for legal expenses. The entire budget is 600K, obviously the national church will be making up a good bit of that budget. So, it is within the bounds of good journalism to observe the the expected assessments, 260K, will be completely consumed by legal fees, 360K. One wonders how long such a diocese will be viable and whether a better option would be to merge with another California diocese.
To say that all assessments are "earmarked" is inaccurate. Earmarking refers to directing or reserving funds to a specifc activity. If the convention did not "earmark" how assessments will be spent in the budget, the funds can be spent on any approved activities that fall within the mission of the diocese.
Hence, this is not good journalism based on the information provided. Accurate and responsible statmenets might include 1) a budget projecting a deficit of $340K was approved, or 2) projected assessments are $100K less than projected legal fees. As presented, a journalist could calculate, then speculate, that at least $20K of assessments are likely be spent - not earmarked - for legal fees. The math tells us that $600K-$260K =$340K deficit. $240K in expenses are budgeted for activities not related to legal fees, and could may be paid from assessments. Perhaps not, but that information is not provided because there is no substantiation of any earmarking of income derived from assessments.
It is the use of "earmark" that makes this inaccurate.
Post a Comment