Now that is what the institution formerly known as ECUSA calls good stewardship.

Do the common law concepts of Champerty and Maintenance have any meaning in California?

The budget is one extraordinary document!

For your money you get:
a Bishop $108K
a Canon $97K
An administrator and assistant $104K
and FIVE parishes on life support $200K (I thought there were only about six in total)
plus some admin costs $94 K (and some of these are explicitly stated to be only part of what is needed)

So total costs of $598K

and the money they expect to be able to find is $360K including $100K that was a “carryover” from who knows who’s giving of last year and all of that is going into a legal fund. Eh?

So who is paying the $600K that has been budgeted to be spent on keeping the place going? I know the TEC put aside $700K to support dioceses like this—but at very least that has to be split with Pittsburgh—and perhaps more widely than that.

By their fruits you will know them. How christian of them! I hope KJS has no problem propping up Jerry Lamb and her puppet diocese for another year!

Oh and BTW…..I agree with another commentor from Stand Firm who said

This is, of course, how TEC will keep its legal budget for errrr….“Title IV enforcement” under $2 million next year.  Pseudo-diocese pays $260 grand in legal expense, then TEC pays $260 grand for the bishop, staff and offices of the diocese.  That way, TEC can claim they are spending the $260 grand on the “mission of the church” and not a penny to sue the real Diocese of San Joaquin.
If you don’t believe me, just watch the PB’s opening speech at GC09.  Bet we hear all about TEC spending to support mission in pseudo-SJ, and that not a dime of TEC money is being used in lawsuits there.

I stand corrected by a look at the Episcopal Church of San Jaoquin website.

They have a total of 18 churches or missions listed there.

It looks like 6 were existing parishes that stayed with TEC and still meet in their church buildings;
3 meet in other denominational church buildings (including one in a Jewish building);
5 meet in community facilities (including one in a funeral home chapel);
1 meets in a person’s home.
The remaining 3 were unclear.

I looked up the church statistics. I couldn’t find 4 parishes in the statistics—so I am not sure what that means. Are they new or renamed?

Anyway if everyone went across with the others then the diocese would have an ASA of 1085—with 265 of these being in aided missions. This means that 820 people are effectively providing the budgeted $260,000 that will go from parishes to the diocese this year ie almost $320 per head. Assuming the diocese is asking something like 20% of the parish income this implies an average giving of $1,600 each.

I suspect the assumption of everyone going across is not real—for instance the parish that now meets in a home had ASA of 90—so it would have to be a big house. For everyone who did not go across the giving burden on the remainder will be that much higher.

Margaret G,
The website you looked at reports is ASA numbers much like TEC does. It’s not that accurate! You must read it with a huge grain of salt….if you get my drift!

So are all the staff and clergy working pro-bono?  Why don’t they g3et the lawyers to work pro-bono, too?

Ah, the TRUE mission of the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC revealed ... and it’s not the MDGs!  I am shocked…why limit legal expenditures to the paltry?  There’s a national conventicle that needs some affirming here.  Is the faux DioSJ considering ‘legal fees’ “contributions” to the National Groupie Center at 815 ?

having eyes they cannot see, having ears they cannot hear (815?)

The article doesn’t say anything about how much the reasserter diocese is spending.

Sidney,
I can tell you we are not allocating any funds from any of our parishes! We have a few attorneys who are working pro-bono!
If you are interested in our Diocesan Budget here it iis on this link page 10

In channeling all assessments into legal fees, this ersatz-diocese has achieved a union of theory and praxis, spirit and deed. All hail, Vanguard of the ECUSAtariat!

RoyIII writes: “Why don’t they get the lawyers to work pro-bono, too?” 

Pro Bono [publico] means for the public good.  Attorneys recognize there is nothing good in what ECUSA wants, therefore, you might as well make some money off of them, so you can do your pro bono elsewhere.

This is sad.  Money for litigation but none to promote the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Mission of the Church.

Anybody care to hazard a prognostication as to how long this funding situation will last…that is, TEC subsidizing rump dioceses as modern day “missionary dioceses”?  I suspect that the congregations in DioPgh that are staying with TEC will be able to support themselves. But as DioQuincy and DioFtW leave, their TEC remainders will also need support.  If you figure about $600K in support for each departing diocese, that gives you about $2M.  Add to that the $2M budgeted by TEC for legal fees, and you have $4M, or 8% of a total annual DFMS budget, going to fund the role that 815 has chosen to play in the current unpleasantness.

This is sad. Money for litigation but none to promote the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Mission of the Church.

It’s never been abut spreading the Gospel! It’s only been about spreading their agenda and feeling comfy.

The reason they are doing this is precisely because they are feeling UN-COMFY!