Early in the week of September 2, 2019 the church served us with a notice that they were applying to the court for an order to shut down this website, a clear attempt to silence the discussion on the 2016 decision to consolidate the Churchyard, Building, Organ and Remembrance Funds into a single account to be used for any purpose. A hearing was to be held on Thursday, September 5 which, after shuttling between the Supreme and County courts, was postponed until Tuesday, September 10. This motion was separate and apart from the motion made on August 12 to dismiss the case. That motion remains unheard.

This motion was heard first (and quickly) because the church also requested a "temporary restraining order" (or "TRO"), alleging that this site needed to be shut down immediately, as they would be irreparably harmed if it was permitted to stay up. The Rector's sworn affidavit stated that "It is clear that the sole motivation behind plaintiff's website is to cause damage to the Church" (Paragraph 15 of the affidavit). Really?

In a normal motion, a hearing on the matter would not be held for several months and the decision would follow at a future time. When requesting the "TRO," a preliminary hearing is held quickly, the judge either signs or refuses to sign the TRO, and the more formal hearing would then be scheduled.

On September 10 the judge refused to sign the TRO, so the website remains. But he also did something very unusual: he simply handed the papers back to the church's attorney, unsigned. This effectively killed the entire motion. There will not be a future hearing on whether the website should be taken down. That part is over. The judge clearly indicated that there was no way documents posted on the site from the 1940's and 1990's were confidential in nature; and clearly not so harmful to the church that keeping them (and the entire website) up constituted a threat that outweighed our free speech rights. The court recognized those documents to be historic in nature, being used simply to back my position.

So Where Are We?

The case continues. The church's first motion (to dismiss the case) remains. The will be a hearing on that motion in late October or November. The judge will then rule at a future time. There are two possible outcomes and frankly neither is really "good" for either side.

The court could dismiss the case. Church "wins," Haring "loses." But that ruling would be based on whether or not I had the right to bring the action, not on whether the consolidation of funds was lawful or unlawful. So the cloud of suspicion and controversy will remain. There will surely be a contentious annual meeting in January of 2020. Maybe it will fizzle, maybe a group in favor of moving the money back will run for open vestry seats. Maybe it will take two annual meetings to shift the balance of power on the vestry. Maybe three, bringing us into 2022.

Or the court could refuse to dismiss. Haring "wins," church "loses." The case goes on. And on. People and documents are subpoenaed from the parties and from outside parties. Perhaps we will find out how the 2000 audit suddenly and without explanation reclassified those funds from "restricted" to "temporarily restricted." That's a burning question to me. But things are likely to go on for years, at great expense. At the rate we're going, attorney fees will exceed six figures; perhaps six figures for each side. I hope no one wants that.

Alternatives Remain

I remain available to discuss. After the action was commenced I had one "good" meeting with the Rector and, about ten days later, with the Rector and Wardens. That second meeting was more strained, but certainly civil. The vestry seems to be stuck on the idea that the consolidation was legal because the by-laws allowed for transfers. I get that, especially since I was the one who wrote the by-law amendment in 2003 that contained the transfer provision. I too had believed the myth that transfers from the Churchyard (and other funds) were OK, as I was given this information when I first was elected. If you aren't aware of how this myth came to be, see this page of the website--I won't repeat it here.

The Charities Bureau of New York State Attorney General's office has offered to mediate--and we have stated our willingness to do so. It will bring the matter to an end much quicker and at a much lower cost. The church has not agreed to do this. I remain open to mediation from any other third party, whether that party be from the Attorney General's office, charitable foundation, or religious organization. My only requirements are that the person be independent/impartial, and have an excellent knowledge of charitable giving laws/rules/practices. It is my hope the Rector and Vestry prayerfully consider this option.