Support the Café
Search our site

Bruno hearing panel issues final decision

Bruno hearing panel issues final decision

The disciplinary panel which has been hearing charges against Bishop J. Jon Bruno, Los Angeles Diocesan, has issued its final decision.  This final report, same as the draft we reported on earlier, offers a damning account of Bishop Bruno’s actions document obfuscation, misdirection, and outright lying on the part of the bishop.  It also documents what comes across as a shocking disregard for the spiritual care of the people under his authority.  You can download the document here (pdf).

The evidence shows that Bishop Bruno first began to consider selling the property in 2008, before the property was recovered from the breakaway group which had occupied it.

  1. Bishop Bruno testified that as early as November, 2008, while the Anglican litigation was still active, he told Richard Zevnik (his counsel in this case) of his intention to put the properties at issue, including the St. James property, “on the market” after the litigation concluded. Tr. 491-92, 494.

 

It shows that the figures for the “cost” of the litigation were padded.

  1. At about that time, Ted Forbath, Chief Financial Officer of the Diocese, prepared a one-page “legal expense summary” of the Anglican litigation as of July 1, 2013. Mr. Forbath included not only actual legal expenses of $4,486,280, but added to these expenses three other items, totaling $5,066,544. First, Mr. Forbath added an “MSF Pledge Recoup,” his estimate of the revenue the diocese did not receive because the four congregations ceased to make contributions to the diocese. Ex. 45; Tr. 850-51. Second, Mr. Forbath added an estimate of the “cost” to the diocese of the staff work on the Anglican litigation, although the diocese did not hire any additional employees to handle the Anglican litigation, and there were no time sheets or other documents to support this estimate. Mr. Forbath testified that this was “an approximation and a best guess.” Tr. 853. Third, Mr. Forbath added an estimate of the income the diocese would have obtained if it had not incurred the legal expenses or lost the donations. Tr. 837-38. In June 2015, Bishop Bruno told the Mayor Pro Tempore of the City of Newport Beach that one reason he had to sell St. James was to help recover “the $9 million in legal costs” incurred in the Anglican litigation. Ex. 29.

 

It shows that the growth of the parish was remarkable and that Bishop Bruno’s statements concerning its lack of viability were false.

  1. In September 2014, Canon Voorhees delivered a PowerPoint presentation to Bishop Bruno, Mr. Tumilty and the Board of the Corporation of the Diocese, in which she discussed in detail the progress of St. James the Great. Canon Voorhees described some of the innovative ministries of St. James the Great: the kitchen and cooking classes, Holy Coding classes, and the “team structure.” She noted that St. James would receive “decreased diocesan support” in the next year and hoped by the end of the next year to be “independent” of diocesan support. Ex. 46. The Board, according to Canon Voorhees, was “very, very excited” about the progress of St. James the Great, “thought it was amazing,” and she “got a long clap at the end.” Bishop Bruno told her “very good. Great job.” Tr. 257-58.

 

And it shows that the sale of the St James property and the dissolution of a fast growing mission congregation, on track to be financially viable within another year, was done to fund a real estate speculation on the part of the Corp Sole, controlled unilaterally by Bishop Bruno.

  1. On February 4, 2015, Mr. Forbath emailed Mr. Tumilty a draft email to the Layne Foundation, seeking a loan of $6.3 million to purchase an additional interest in the Anaheim property [this was an investment property and this purchase would increase the Corp sole’s share from a 25% interest to 100%]. The draft email offered, as security, the St. James property and explained that, “Confidentially speaking, the Bishop’s Office is putting in place a 1-2 year plan that will involve consolidating our two churches in the area: St. James the Great (Newport Beach) and St. Michael & All Angels (Corona del Mar). The outcome of that consolidation will involve selling one of the two churches and realizing substantial proceeds . . . . At this point, the preference is to sell the Newport Beach site.” Mr. Forbath wrote: “my sense is that it would be best to simply state that the NPB church [St. James] will be sold … and not be fuzzy about which church will be sold…” Ex. 55. The St. James congregation had no idea at this time that the “Bishop’s Office” had decided to sell St. James or to consolidate the two congregations.

 

The panel’s finding was that Bishop Bruno had acted not like a bishop, but as real estate speculator;

“Although the building is an asset, Bishop Bruno is not the CEO of a commercial, for-profit company. The “asset” is a consecrated church that should be used for the glory of God and worship by a congregation, rather than sold to build condos and then left idle and useless after the sale fell through, almost two years ago. To keep a consecrated church building locked for no reason is to engage in Conduct Unbecoming. Bishop Bruno’s conduct has created immense public outcry, town hall meetings, city council meetings, neighborhood surveys, breaking of contracts, lawsuits and media attention. F.67-68, F.70-71, F.73, F.75-77, F.79-82, F.85, F.90, F.92, F.99. Having the church locked has created disorder and prejudiced the reputation of the Episcopal Church.”

 

As in the draft, the primary remedy is a suspension of the ministry of Bishop Bruno for three years.  This seemingly ends his career on a very down beat.  The panel also strongly recommended the diocese restore the congregation to the disputed property, though stopping short of ordering the same.

 

In a statement, Save St James, the group of parishioners who organized to save the parish said;

“We believe the reconciliation process begins now, and we look forward to a time – in the near future, we hope and believe – when we are back in our holy church and the Diocese of Los Angeles is once again a strong, united and joyful community in Christ, dedicated to spreading God’s word and doing His work on earth.”

Dislike (2)
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

newest oldest
Notify of
Rev. David Justin Lynch
Guest

James, the problem with that is the City of Newport Beach will not let the Burnham Ward do what they planned to do with the property. The City has the final word on this, and the City is behind the people of Saint James. Once the City makes clear that the property can only be used as a church, that is the end of the game for Burnham-Ward. If I were Burnham Ward, given the history of this property, I would want an ironclad guarantee from the City that the project would be a go. The fact is, there is significant community opposition to the sale and if the matter were put to a referendum (which very easy to do in California) Burnham Ward would be blocked from its plans.

Like (1)
Dislike (0)
Jay Croft
Guest
Jay Croft

On the funeral--it's very possible that Bruno's lawyers advised him not to re-open the church for any reason, not even for a funeral, for fear of setting a legal precedent. Today a funeral, next Sunday the faithful folks come back in.

Like (1)
Dislike (0)
Eric Bonetti
Member
Eric Bonetti

Re funeral, no doubt that Bruno's lawyers said no. But ++ Curry had the right to override him via pastoral directive and should have done so. The people affected by Bruno's misconduct should come first

Like (5)
Dislike (0)
Jay Croft
Guest
Jay Croft

I'm no lawyer, but if Bruno's Corp Sole was exclusively and entirely under Bruno's control, then such a claim may have no standing. In other words, the diocese had no power to enact a sale.

Corp Soles are common in the Roman Catholic Church, but should have no place in the Episcopal Church.

Like (4)
Dislike (0)
Eric Bonetti
Member
Eric Bonetti

LOL. Sorry, I didn't realize I had double posted. Long week, and I am tired, cranky, and not altogether with it.

Like (0)
Dislike (1)
Eric Bonetti
Member
Eric Bonetti

PS That was in response to Fr. Lynch's comments.

Like (1)
Dislike (0)
Eric Bonetti
Member
Eric Bonetti

I agree. One of the things that irritates me in this case is the reluctance of the national church to intervene during the pendency of the Title IV proceedings, including tossing the request, from a parishioner, to hold her mother's funeral at the church, back to +Bruno.

Pastoral direction can be issued even absent a Title IV case, and who would possibly have been hurt by allowing this to happen? I mean, why even have a hierarchy if it cannot care for someone suffering from the loss of parent who is caught up in this whole sordid mess? Shame on ++Curry for taking a pass on that issue.

Like (5)
Dislike (0)
James Walley
Guest
James Walley

The question now is what happens with the SECOND sale of the property (carried out secretly by +Bruno in the middle of the hearing process). According to the terms of the contract, failure to close on the deal by 7/3 (as did not happen) is grounds for the buyer suing for "specific performance" -- in other words, the court may rule that, even with +Bruno gone, the Diocese MUST sell them the property. If the buyer opts to enforce the agreement rather than walk away from it, it's likely the St. James property will soon be replaced by condos and retail regardless of the results of this hearing or the desires of the national church.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
tgflux
Guest
tgflux

It's difficult to understand what has happened to Bishop Jon here. I worry for his health (mental, physical and/or merely spiritual). Kyrie eleison...

JC Fisher

Like (4)
Dislike (0)
Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café