PRFOC

The Parish Reconfiguration Fund Oversight Committee's Final Report

Commentary on the Final Report

Charter of PRFOC

PRFOC - An Antiphon

The Litany of the PROFC Report

The Litany of the PRFOC Final Report

* When the Parish Reconfiguration Fund Oversight Committee report was issued to the Boston Archdiocese on 11/11/07, it consisted of about 2800 words and two charts. The condensed version below was created by R. M. Kelly on 1/25/08. This version contains about 950 words. No words have been changed but headings have been added and about 2,000 words cut.
_________________

The PRFOC’s mission was advisory in nature and included assessing and making recommendations regarding the integrity of the process used to handle and dispose [of] reconfiguration assets and liabilities, the financial reporting of this information to Catholics in the Archdiocese, and operational improvements.

[Part I]

The PRFOC embarked upon its responsibilities with several assumptions:

- Proceeds from the reconfiguration process would be used to support the past, present, and future obligations and programs of the remaining parishes in the Boston Archdiocese.

- The archdiocese had severe financial problems that necessitated the use of funds generated by parish closures.

Chancery officials informed the PRFOC that assets of the closed parishes belonged to the “Central Fund”…rather than the parishes of the archdiocese.

Proceeds were contemplated to be applied to areas such as:

- Ensuring the solvency of the lay and clergy pension funds.

- Restoring the equity of the Revolving Loan Fund.

- Covering “ongoing support services for parishes” that amounted to covering operating deficits in the Central Fund.

… efforts to comprehend the full extent of the archdiocese’s bleak financial picture required a broader view of the archdiocesan structure and related financial statements.

The PRFOC believed that an examination of aspects of the Central Fund that related to the Reconfiguration Fund was necessary to complete its mission…

The PRFOC requested additional information…

The former Vicar General rebuffed the requests, preferring to interpret the PRFOC’s charter in a way that significantly narrowed its scope.

Other requests over subsequent months received the same response.

… the PRFOC’s oversight became so limited that it was being denied access to information that had previously been provided for review.

… the former operating officers of the archdiocese were being protective and defensive in not sharing financial information relevant to the Reconfiguration Fund.

The frustration…served to create suspicion on the part of the PRFOC members who were experiencing first-hand a culture with excessive concern that outsiders not be permitted knowledge of church policies and business affairs.

The lack of transparency in the corporate affairs of the church appeared intentional.

[Part II]

Members became concerned when…reconfiguration funds were used to support the ordinary operating expenses of the archdiocese.

…this $12,015,000 entry was a direct transfer of cash to the central operations of the Archdiocese.

Since cash is…capable of being interchanged with other cash, it became impossible for members to verify its actual use.

The PRFOC publicly objected to the manner and use of this portion of the reconfiguration funds.

It recommended that reconfiguration funds be used for a more enduring purpose, such as the longstanding deferred maintenance of remaining parish buildings in the archdiocese.

The PRFOC’s recommendation was not accepted, and being limited to “advisory in nature,” the PRFOC could not prevent the use of reconfiguration funds to cover the operating budget deficits of the Central Fund.

[Part III]

… changes in reconfiguration and the Finance Council unfolded including:

- Some parishes slated for closing initiated vigils and/or appeals to the Holy See.

The PRFOC noted that the chancery staff had provided a significant amount of information for review.

Lacking full disclosure of archdiocesan finances…members were unable to qualify its significance and the defensive attitude toward the PRFOC persisted.

[Part IV]

In October 2005, The Pilot published a PRFOC report concerning the appeals by certain closed parishes to the Congregation for the Clergy in the Holy See.

Soon after, the Congregation’s ruling on how the property of closed and appealing parishes should be handled was announced.

It indicated that property of those closed geographic parishes did not belong to the Central Fund of the archdiocese.

Instead, the Congregation directed that those funds follow the parishioners to their receiving parishes.

Prior to the Congregation’s response becoming public, chancery staff met with pastors of the receiving parishes and…members of parish finance and pastoral councils.

The archdiocese requested that the receiving parishes donate the property of the closed and appealing parishes to the Central Fund.

None of the results of these negotiations was disclosed to the PRFOC at the time.

Following these meetings, all but one pastor agreed to donate most or all of the assets of the closed parishes to the archdiocesan Central Fund.

Upon review … the PRFOC believes there was inequity in the process.

… parishes that did not formally contest their closures, and obediently surrendered their churches and assets, did not enjoy the same benefits as contesting parishes.

The PRFOC… made a verbal recommendation to the archdiocese to restore equity in the closure process by voluntarily applying the Congregation’s ruling to the non-appealing parishes that were slated for closure in the same time period.

The archdiocese did not accept the PRFOC’s recommendation.

[Part V]

…O’Malley assured both clergy and laity that the PRFOC was monitoring the reconfiguration process to insure that no reconfiguration funds were used for abuse settlements.

… the PRFOC registered an objection that the archdiocese was publicly using the PRFOC as a shield while privately denying it access to pertinent financial information.

[Part VI]

… the PRFOC recommended that it become a subcommittee of the Finance Council.

In the church’s organization the diocesan Finance Council is the canonically-empowered body with the power of “consent and consult” in matters of finance, law and property and in our archdiocese is composed primarily of lay people.

The PRFOC’s recommendation, which was an attempt to reposition its advisory role in the archdiocesan decision-making process, was ultimately rejected in the summer of 2006.

… the PRFOC was disappointed that acceptance of its advisory role in the archdiocesan decision-making process never really emerged because it was restricted to receiving information largely after the fact and because the Finance Council is the canonically-empowered body in financial matters.

Its ability to make recommendations regarding operational improvements as contemplated by its charter was similarly limited. At best, the PRFOC’s purview was largely restricted to an after-the-fact audit function.

-- the end --

Top