Churches in Diocese of South Carolina reject Episcopal Church’s  ‘Spurious’ Offer to Settle

Recognizing the disingenuous nature of the settlement offer, the parishes of the Diocese of South Carolina unanimously reject the proposal.

CHARLESTON, SC, JUNE 15, 2015 –

Statement from The Rev. Jim Lewis, Canon to Bishop Mark Lawrence, Bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina

On June 3rd, Mr. Tom Tisdale, legal counsel for The Episcopal Church in South Carolina, sent letters to attorneys representing all Diocese of South Carolina churches in the litigation, an offer of settlement proposal.  It essentially proposed that if the Diocese and Trustees relinquished their names, identities, and all assets (including the St. Christopher Camp and Conference Center), then The Episcopal Church (TEC) would relinquish its claim to all parish properties.

After careful consideration of this proposal it was quite clear that it was not a legitimate offer of good faith negotiation and never was intended to be. Thus, the proposal has been unanimously rejected by all parties to the litigation for the Diocese of South Carolina.  

Reasons:

1.  First, if it had been legitimate, it would have come from someone with authority to bind all the parties on the Episcopal Church side.  The Presiding Bishop, though referenced in the letter, does not have that authority for TEC.  It would - at minimum - require an action by TEC's Executive Council, if not General Convention.  Tisdale’s letter doesn't even have the signature of legal counsel for TEC.  Counsel for TEC was contacted to request that they provide the necessary proof of authority, along with THEIR signature on this offer.  There has been no response.

2. Equally important, a valid proposal should have come to the Diocese’s lead counsel for this litigation, not to a parish representative.  After nearly two weeks from the time of the original "offer" that contact has still not been made.  A good faith offer has still not been properly presented .

 3.  Along these same lines, it should have been done entirely in confidence, and not presented as a kind of mass public statement.  On Friday (6/12)  it was publicly announced by a TECinSC blogger that Bishop vonRosenberg had sent a written notice to all his parishes, informing them this offer had been made.  Both communications represent a serious breach of confidentiality.  Today's announcement from them further emphasizes this dynamic.  If some kind (any kind) of good faith negotiation is what they were really interested in, this certainly was not the way to conduct it.

Particularly to the point, the letters from Mr. Tisdale should not have been presented in the midst of the appellate briefs being filed. It must be noted that the expiration date of this offer was the same day our reply brief was due to be filed with the State Supreme Court.  That is obviously no accident.

4.  Finally, a serious offer  (the specifics of this one entirely aside) would have given adequate time for discussion and consideration, given the nature of the proposal and the number of parties involved.  This proposal failed to do so.  The attorney receiving Mr. Tisdale's original offer asked that it be withdrawn and resubmitted after the June 15 deadline for our reply brief to be filed. The fact that our reasonable request was rejected points to the essential question.

Why was this really done?  There are likely four motives at play here.

The first and primary intention of all this was to disrupt the preparation of our reply brief for the South Carolina Supreme Court.  The timing here is not coincidental.  The time and energy devoted to dealing with this non-offer was significant.  That cannot be overstated.

 Secondly, and of similar importance, this was an attempt to create division between the Diocese, Trustees and the Parishes.  By structuring their "offer" in this way it tries to set what is good for one against what is good for the other.  Our unity in this case has been, and continues to be, essential to its success.  To falter now, when our case is so strong and the end so near, would be foolish.  But that is what counsel for TEC would desire.

Additionally, there is always publicity.  Not even the smallest legal proceeding in this case has been too small to merit a press release.  Mr. Tisdale has alluded, frequently, to their willingness to negotiate, while never once making a proposal over the last two years.  This "offer" gives the appearance of being reasonable and conciliatory while offering nothing of substance.  What the parishes would get, if accepting this proposal would be their property.  What they would lose, would be their historical heritage, their place in a diocese, St. Christopher and all the ministry it makes possible, all the assets of the Trustees, the Diocesan House and the legal protections carrying this case to conclusion would guarantee.  This is no bargain! Their offer gives the Diocese of South Carolina nothing the court hasn’t already said is rightfully ours, while asking us to relinquish the identity we’ve held since 1785.

Finally, TEC would like to mitigate their loss at the S.C. Supreme Court level.  Having lost in Illinois and being on a similar track in Texas (with a further loss there this past week), they are desperate to avoid another precedential ruling.  It is worth remembering that this issue is not just about our individual parishes or even the Diocese of South Carolina.  We are part of a larger conflict in which the outcome here may significantly benefit other parishes and Dioceses wishing freedom from TEC.  This is not a request for reconciliation but rather for capitulation.

It should be noted that TEC has never, in the 90+ cases litigated nationwide, agreed to a settlement – even when it was requested.  In the Virginia case, for instance, the local diocese was close to settlement with the local departing parishes when the Presiding Bishop’s office intervened to prevent any such action.  There was, as the court testimony later revealed, "a new sheriff in town."  Not once, in the two and a half years of our own litigation, has there ever been a proposal made for settlement. (That's what we were trying to pursue when they attempted to remove the Bishop, as some may recall.)  The Presiding Bishop's chancellor is on record as saying they would never settle.  In that, they have been utterly consistent up until now.  This is not an attempt to end the litigation but rather to disrupt it - and to do so when we are only one hearing away from its final conclusion.

The only factors that appear to have changed for our case that would prompt this proposal are that:  
a) TEC appears to be facing imminent loss at the state Supreme Court level and
b) the Presiding Bishop, who launched the scorched earth policy leading to an estimated $40+ million in litigation, will be replaced this fall.   
Negotiation requires a  “good faith” partner.  For all the reasons cited above, this alleged "offer" was shunned for the deceitful imposter it is.
 
 

About the Diocese of South Carolina

The Diocese was founded in 1785 by the parishes of the former South Carolina colony.  Based in the Lowcountry of South Carolina, the Diocese is one of the oldest religious districts in the United States and counts among its members several of the oldest, operating churches in the nation.

The Diocese of South Carolina is recognized by Anglican Dioceses and Provinces around the world, many of whom have broken fellowship with The Episcopal Church, and in 2013 the Diocese joined the global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and entered into a formal relationship of Provisional Primatial Oversight with Global South Primates.

MEDIA NOTE:
For interviews, contact Jan Pringle 678-667-6169 or Joy Hunter 843-696-1757.
For more information, Names of Plaintiff’s in lawsuit, Backgrounder, Timeline, Fact Sheet, Photos, Glossary of Terms, visit the Media Room: http://www.dioceseofsc.org