Virginia Bishop exhorts Episcopalians to fund diocese

Posted by Kendall Harmon

The diocese officially does not ordain homosexual clergy, although a resolution is on the table for today's meeting that would change that policy.

It also does not conduct "blessing" ceremonies for same-sex unions. However, a diocesan committee report, issued yesterday, said there was an "emerging consensus" among committee members to eventually allow such blessings.

"Scripture addresses lifelong committed relationships characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect and the holy love" among homosexuals, the report said. A new commission will "identify practical steps" on how the diocese can minister to homosexual couples, it said.

The Episcopal Church has had multiple splits over sexual and theological issues, all of which have drained numerous dioceses of funds. The Virginia diocese's budget is up by 4.5 percent this year, but that has come at the expense of maintaining a staff of only 24 full- and part-time workers.

It's the smallest staff of the nation's five largest dioceses, said Bishop Lee, adding that there will be "unwanted turnover" unless larger salary increases are forthcoming.

"That was a departure for him to be that forthright," said Steve van Voorhees, a council teller. "He's never put money in his pastoral address before." Diocesan treasurer Mike Kerr said some churches have curtailed their giving out of fear that the money may go toward the lawsuit and have asked whether they can restrict where their funds go.

Calling restricted giving "a slippery slope," Mr. Kerr said that the $70,000 needed to service the $2 million line of credit is coming out of an endowment fund, not out of the diocese's $4.7 million 2008 budget.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalEpiscopal Church (TEC)TEC ConflictsTEC Conflicts: VirginiaTEC Diocesan Conventions/Diocesan Councils

46 Comments
Posted January 29, 2008 at 7:47 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. The_Elves wrote:

You know, this article got me to wondering about something.
It would be very interesting to study diocesan growth in relation to diocesan assessment policies.

Virginia for years (until GC03 and its fallout) had been one of the healthiest dioceses in the country.  It was growing and planting churches.  It has the voluntary giving policy and giving by parishes to the diocese is low (averaging 7% !) as +Lee laments.

South Carolina, the healthiest diocese in the country currently in terms of growth relative to the population, has its well-known 10-10-10 policy.  (Individuals tithe, the parish tithes to the diocese, the diocese tithes to 815).

By contrast, Newark is one of the most distressed dioceses in the country, and, until last year when it had to cut its diocesan giving, was giving a WHOPPING 25% to the national church.  (I’m not sure what the parish assessment rate is/was.)  Newark is now giving 21%, which is what 815 requests of all dioceses.

Is there a link between a low % of giving by parishes to the diocese and/or the diocese to 815 and diocesan growth?  There’s some anecdotal evidence to suggest there could be.  I’d love to see someone examine it further.  Any takers?

—elfgirl

January 29, 9:11 am | [comment link]
2. MotherViolet wrote:

http://www.pwcweb.com/ecw/tec_to_nigeria.html

You can read more about the ‘protocol for departing congregations’ once the policy of the Diocese of Virginia at http://www.pwcweb.com/ecw/tec_to_nigeria.html

January 29, 9:20 am | [comment link]
3. AnglicanFirst wrote:

Here we have a diocesan bishop complaining about money issues when he should be re-examining the theological issues that are troubling many clergy and laity in his diocese.

Why is he so sure that the discussion of the theological issues is over in his diocese? 

If he doesn’t resolve the undercurrent of unrest about theological positions regarding human sexuality outside of heterosexual marriage, then the unrest will continue and ‘giving’ shortfalls will continue.

January 29, 9:30 am | [comment link]
4. Br. Michael wrote:

“Scripture addresses lifelong committed relationships characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect and the holy love” among homosexuals, the report said. A new commission will “identify practical steps” on how the diocese can minister to homosexual couples, it said.

Where does it say this in Scripture?

January 29, 9:37 am | [comment link]
5. Larry Morse wrote:

We are watching the financial kiss of death: Parishioners limiting the purpose of their contributions, servicing an enormous debt, continuing the attack that has created the debt, and refusing to alter the church’s practices which has made the financial difficulties inevitable. The can be no escape from the end if the means are not altered. Question: How can TEC not see this? LM

January 29, 9:38 am | [comment link]
6. Steven in Falls Church wrote:

Speaking at the annual diocesan council meeting at the Hyatt Regency Reston, he also revealed that the diocese has spent $2 million to date on a lawsuit involving 11 churches that left the diocese a year ago over differences in theology and the 2003 consecration of the openly homosexual New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson.

Does this mean that the Diocese has already used up the $2 million line of credit?  I thought they had only spent half that amount.  Where will the additional funds come from?

January 29, 9:45 am | [comment link]
7. Brian of Maryland wrote:

Larry,

It’s not seen because TEC’s Presiding Bishop has never in her career actually led a congregation. 

Brian

January 29, 9:51 am | [comment link]
8. Wilfred wrote:

#4- Why, Br Michael, it is in Bishop Lee’s version of Scripture and he will show it to you as soon as the ink is dry.  (It’s written in the lower margin of the last page of Revelation, right below where the Lord pronounces anathema on any one who alters His Book).

January 29, 10:40 am | [comment link]
9. TWilson wrote:

elfgirl - If you point me to a good data source for diocesan giving and growth, I’ll run some regressions. That would at least establish correlation, if not causation.

January 29, 10:40 am | [comment link]
10. dovefromabove wrote:

Yes there’s much to be learned at looking at the stats. For instance, let’s look at the latest numbers now in for the ten years leading up through 2006. After printing out all the charts for churches in the Diocese of Virginia, and comparing their attendance figures (ASA) and membership numbers, we learn this:

30% of the churches say their ASA has increased since 2003
61% of the churches have seen decreased Sunday attendance since 2003
Only 13% of the churches in the diocese have increased membership and ASA since 2003
Of that 13% (21 churches, not counting churches under 80 people where fluctuations tend to be variable) more than a quarter of the churches actually saw their attendance drop in 2006.
Fully 55% of the churches in the diocese saw attendance drop in 2006, that’s 87 of the 157 reporting.
This does not include losses from the 11 churches that left the Episcopal Church or the other new church plants that closed during the last few years ... those chats are no longer available from TEC, even though the Diocesan leadership refers to them in some form as continuing congregations. And interesting to note, these eleven churches have been totally purged from the Diocesan Journal where it reports attendnace and baptisms and otrher stats for 2006 (that’s before they voted to leave ...)

And a funny thing too ... many churches that list lower Sunday average attendance show that they have actually had an increase in membership. Which means ... we have a lower percentage of people who want to attend services on a regular basis than before.
You will have to draw your own conclusions. But it seems clear to me that since the radical decisions made by General Convention in 2003, our churches have been losing members and dropping in Sunday attendance. The same happened after the 2006 General Convention. I’ve seen the same effects at Church of the Spirit where I serve. Following the 2003 Convention we lost two Vestry members, the Parish Secretary (all of whom I had married) and a number of other folk ... along with over $50,000 a year in pledge income. We lost others again after the 2006 Convention. When I mentioned this to one of our Bishops after his Sunday visit, he told me “Well, you’ll just have to work harder to make up the difference.” It seemed less than pastoral at the time ...

With these facts in hand it makes it hard to understand when the Presiding Bishop says that the crisis in the church is being played up by the media and the blogs ... and that the Episcopal Church is largely healthy. How healthy? She described at the House of Bishops that the “crisis” has only touched 5% of the churches in the country. “The conflict in the headlines is not a reality in 95% of this church,” she said. I’m not sure where she got her figures, because from Virginia it seems that only 13% of our churches have been able to grow and a much larger number have lost people. And it’s not like Virginia has less people in it than a few years ago, or that there are not a lot of unchurched people we could reach ...

So who are you going to believe? It seems the facts point us to a clear conclusion that the reality of the crisis is in most of our churches. in one way or another. To think it is not having an effect on our churches, our evangelism, our mission, is to be willfully ignorant or just plain silly. For Bishop Jones to comment that there is a lack of internal conflict in our local churches in this diocese or for the Presiding Bishop to state that the conflict is only at the upper levels of the church is wrong. And neither of these seem to make becoming vestments for a bishop to put on.

January 29, 10:42 am | [comment link]
11. chips wrote:

The crisis in the Church has been effecting most of the Churches negatively for 30 years.  How did the love that could not speak its name become holy inside of two generations?

January 29, 11:07 am | [comment link]
12. Newbie Anglican wrote:

“Give us your money so we can sue the orthodox out of their buildings!”
Not exacting inspiring.

January 29, 11:12 am | [comment link]
13. Newbie Anglican wrote:

Not *exactly* inspiring, he meant.

January 29, 11:13 am | [comment link]
14. pendennis88 wrote:

And, Virginia lost all but one of the church plants that it had made in the last two decades or so to African provinces, which for some reason the Bishops have been reluctant to call attention to.

January 29, 11:17 am | [comment link]
15. Brent B wrote:

#1—good question
#9—To be convincing, you need not only the current giving policies, but the historical, as there have probably been changes (VA recently reviewed theirs, Newark apparently has changed theirs). My experience is that current info is much easier to obtain than historical.

January 29, 11:21 am | [comment link]
16. The_Elves wrote:

#9, TWilson,

There’s readily available data for pledge totals and ASA for each diocese at the TENS.org website:
http://www.tens.org/parochial-data.htm

What I am not sure where to find easily are either the diocesan assessments (how much the congregations give to their diocese) or the giving by each diocese to the national church.  It might be a case of having to wade through individual diocesan budgets / diocesan convention journals.

I’ve just tried finding that data for the 3 dioceses I cited in my comment above: Newark, Virginia, South Carolina.  It’s a LOT of work to wade through budgets / dio convention journals.  These figures are very rough because I was not always able to compare matching years for each of the three figures either within a diocese or between dioceses, but you get a rough idea from these data:

Most figures rounded.

Newark:
Total Plate & Pledge:  $16.5 million
Pledges to Diocese: $2.5 million (15% of Total P&P;)
Giving to National Church: $609,674 (24% of diocesan pledges)
sources:  TENS (2006 plate & pledge), 2008 budget

Virginia:
Total Plate & Pledge: $52.4 million
Pledges to Diocese:  $4.1 million (7.8%)
Giving to national church $821,116 (20%)
Sources: TENS, and 2008 budget

SC:
Total Plate & Pledge: $30 million
Pledges to Diocese:  $2.3 million (7.6%)
Giving to national church about $198,000**  (8.6%)
**($18,141 to TEC, plus roughly $180K in what appears to be redirected giving)
source: 2006 parochial statistics and 2007 budget

January 29, 11:27 am | [comment link]
17. Pb wrote:

Unfortunately withholding money is the only part of the ongoing dialogue that they can understand. I do not approve of it but what can you do when all else fails? I guess you could leave.

January 29, 11:37 am | [comment link]
18. Choir Stall wrote:

To +Lee:
Hope it was all worth it. Who will flock to your churches in droves as you continue to shove the mainstay supports out the back door?

January 29, 11:37 am | [comment link]
19. The_Elves wrote:

Oops, and here are the 1996-2006 ASA % change for each of the above dioceses:

Newark:  -15.5%
Virginia:  -10.5%
South Carolina:  21.5%

Note, however, that Virginia had a 7.8% ASA change from 1996 - 2005, so DID grow during that period.  But then they had the catastrophic 18% ASA drop from 2005 - 2006 with the departure of some of its largest parishes.  Oops.  So ultimately, theology does matter more than assessment rates.  But still…

January 29, 11:38 am | [comment link]
20. KevinBabb wrote:

“Scripture addresses lifelong committed relationships characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect and the holy love” among homosexuals,”

Is that something you can see after you close your eyes tight, click the end of your crozier on the chancel floor three times and say, “I DO believe in same sex blessings!  I DO believe in same sex blessings!”

At least the Gnostics had the grace to ascribe their theological views to personal revelation, not to an interpretation of Scripture that no one else has ever understood..

January 29, 12:09 pm | [comment link]
21. View from the Pew wrote:

Calling restricted giving “a slippery slope,” Mr. Kerr said that the $70,000 needed to service the $2 million line of credit is coming out of an endowment fund, not out of the diocese’s $4.7 million 2008 budget.

Mr. Kerr said more than he realizes. One can only wonder how those who gave the endowment funds feel about this use. But it is a nice dodge to prevent those in the Diocese who might oppose the lawsuits initiated by +Lee and TEC from cutting off future funding. It is hard to justify throwing former members of the Diocese who voted to severe ties in accordance with the laws of Virginia off the property that they and their fore bearers bought, built, and currently occupy. Obviously the better strategy is too avoid the discussion.

January 29, 12:13 pm | [comment link]
22. dovefromabove wrote:

M Kerr then went on to explain (not listed in the newspaper story but as a delegate I duly noted the comment) that the endoment funds being used were those designated “for the support of the episcopate.” So ........ you have to draw your own conclusions here. That holding ontot he buildings is actually all about the power of the bishops?

January 29, 12:26 pm | [comment link]
23. anglicanhopeful wrote:

Funny isn’t it how the ‘new thing’ the Holy Spirit has brought, that was supposed to propel the church to new levels of outreach and relevance, is proving to be so unfruitful.

January 29, 12:29 pm | [comment link]
24. Chazaq wrote:

the endoment funds being used were those designated “for the support of the episcopate.”

The purpose of Peter Lee’s episcopate is to sue Christians.  Got it.

January 29, 12:32 pm | [comment link]
25. William P. Sulik wrote:

Those of us here in Virginia are in great anguish about what has happened over the past decade (in particular).  Many of us have chosen to remain committed to the Anglican Communion through orthodox bishops (including myself and my parish).  Others have hoped to remain faithful to Christ Jesus in the structure of TEC.  It has been very difficult.

For additional insight into how things went, I recommend BabyBlue’s note here:

http://tinyurl.com/27qol3

January 29, 1:10 pm | [comment link]
26. tired wrote:

“It also does not conduct “blessing” ceremonies for same-sex unions.”

Not quite.  In the DoV, SSBs have been going on for years, despite policy.

January 29, 1:19 pm | [comment link]
27. Irenaeus wrote:

Elfgirl [#1]: I believe there are at least three connections between high diocesan assessments and parish growth. Call them (1) result, (2) resource drain, and (3) theological poison.

First, the financial weakness of the diocese may RESULT from the financial and other weaknesses of its parishes. That doesn’t excuse the diocese; it may (as in Newark) have helped blight the parishes. Weakened parishes (whether suffering from bad theology or adverse demographics) can less easily support the diocese.

Second, high diocesan assessments DRAIN resources from parishes. Money the diocese takes is money the parishes no longer have. Moreover, high diocesan assessments combined with donors’ doubts about the wisdom of diocesan and ECUSA spending, tend to reduce donors’ willingness to contribute: people (regardless of their theology) contribute more generously to the parish they know first-hand than to a larger, far-away organization about whose stewardship they know relatively little. The diocese’s budget response may exacerbate the problem. Asking parishes to pay a little bit more seems less painful to diocesan policymakers than cutting the programs and firing the colleagues they know first-hand.

Third, diocesan programs themselves can blight the diocese. Over the last four decades, these programs have disproportionately employed revisionists and helped advance revisionist theology. They have provided sinecures for nonparish revisionist clergy—-priests uninterested in and perhaps unsuited for parish ministry. Dioceses have in effect been taxing parishes to buy theological POISON for dioceses and parishes alike. Enlarged diocesan bureaucracies have also facilitated episcopal monarchy and micromanagement, which have helped consolidate revisionist control and demoralize clergy.

January 29, 1:40 pm | [comment link]
28. WestJ wrote:

It is my understanding that none of the money that I give to the Church goes to TEC. In our parish, if you want money to go to TEC you have to specify so when you make your pledge. I believe this is why we have been able to continue to grow.

Unfortunately, all that TEC understands is money, so redirecting funds is the only way to effect change.

January 29, 1:40 pm | [comment link]
29. Irenaeus wrote:

In connection with the theological-poison factor [#27], consider this entry from the Revisionist Dictionary:

CANON: In reference to Progressive clergy, priests affiliated with a cathedral and freed from the tedium of parish ministry. “The Reverend Mercedes Moonbeam-McGillicuddy is Canon Missioner for Diversity Curriculum Coordination and New Age Awareness.”

January 29, 1:45 pm | [comment link]
30. anglicanhopeful wrote:

WestJ - depends on how your parish accounts for plate & pledge - both restricted and unrestricted funds.  If your restricted giving is still considered part of the parish’s ‘income’, the parish is allowing itself to be assessed on your portion of giving regardless whether the funds you give are restricted.  If the parish complies with their diocesan assessment, then you are still, in essence, giving to TEC.  Check with your treasurer.

January 29, 1:56 pm | [comment link]
31. TonyinCNY wrote:

Restricted giving is a slippery slope?  How about revising theology?  Could there be a connection between the two?  How about correcting the theology slope and see whether the other slope might just be corrected as well?  duh

January 29, 2:26 pm | [comment link]
32. Russ Randle wrote:

Dear colleagues—I have served on two reviews of the Virginia Plan of Proportionate Giving, one which reported in 1992, and whose work is in the 1992 Diocesan Journal, and one which reported in 2004 to the Executive Board, recommending no changes in the Virginia Plan’s voluntary approach.  The average parish percentage giving in 1990 was around 11%; the average parish percentage giving in 2003, BEFORE General Convention was 6%.  The figures reported at the January 2008 Diocesan Council don’t show much change, still around 6%.  There are many reasons for the decline, but to attribute it solely or even primarily to the actions of General Convention in 2003 does not square with the data.  Faithfully, Russ Randle, L3, Diocese of Virginia

January 29, 2:35 pm | [comment link]
33. DaveG wrote:

Elfgirl asked about the assessment process in the Dio. of Newark.  There is no fixed mandatory assessment.  Every parish is expected to pledge at least 10% (if I remember correclty) and to increase it annually (by .25%, I think) until it reaches the point where 50% is used in the parish, 25% goes to the Diocese and 25% goes to “outreach.”  Few parishes give anything close to 25% and the averages seem to be in the 15% range.

January 29, 2:52 pm | [comment link]
34. Shumanbean wrote:

The notion that the diocese doesn’t “officially” ordain homosexuals seems strange to me. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I seem to recall that in the spring of 1994, the diocese had to change their venue for ordinations to the transitional diaconate, because the Falls Church balked at allowing the ordination of two active homosexuals who were graduating from VTS. They, along with others, were ordained elsewhere…although I can’t recall which church. If they weren’t official, why was there a dust-up? And as a result, are they not “officially” priests today? I guess my point is that if someone is ordained by a bishop, no matter their gender or preference, is it not then official?

January 29, 3:03 pm | [comment link]
35. Larry Morse wrote:

Was I the only one who burst out laffing when I first read this line from #10: “following the 2003 Convention we lost two Vestry members, the Parish Secretary (all of whom I had married)...” ? At first blush. this suggests your batting average as a spouse leaves something to be desired. LOL Larry
  (Some help please. I wanted to add a smiley but I couldn’t.  I clicked on one and nothing happened. What does one do?)

January 29, 3:15 pm | [comment link]
36. Choir Stall wrote:

# 32:

GC 2006 is over with. You’re right about that, Russ.
The worst happened afterward and is still being mopped up - kinda like holding the ocean back with a broom. No end in sight on your mess in Dio. Va. Statistics on “the new thing” are yet to come, but so far it’s an ugly gash that is growing worse by the month.

January 29, 3:38 pm | [comment link]
37. Wilfred wrote:

#28 West,  Look up the word fungible in the dictionary.  Money is fungible.  If your parish is paying anything to the diocese, in all likelihood some of your pledge is going to the national organization. 

#30 is right.  It makes no difference whether, to assuage your conscience, they tell you “your” pledge just pays the heating bill or whatever, and 100% of the pledge of that pew-potato two rows over is what goes to the diocese.  It’s all the same; the Beast still gets fed.

January 29, 4:28 pm | [comment link]
38. Russ Randle wrote:

Dear “Choir Stall” (#36)— My point was a simple one, which is the decline in percentage giving to the Diocese had already occurred before GC2003 and before the departure of the dissenting congregations, whose departure seems to have had little effect on percentage giving.  Percentage giving to the diocese was poor with them and remains bad without them.  TFC and Apostles had refused to give to the unrestricted diocesan budget after 1996 and giving from Truro to the Diocese was well under 5% before they cut off all giving. 

Kindly keep in mind that I voted against approving Bp Robinson.  Putting aside my theological objections, I also had some inkling of how large a beehive that decision would kick over and how much this fight would impair ongoing mission. 

Despite that impairment, we remain faithfully engaged in our Sudan mission, and I have been there twice in the last two years in that work.  Bishop Lee goes there in March or April.  Sadly, the press seems unwilling to report that work, which is probably of greater importamce to the church than what Ms. Duin’s article reported about.  Faithfully, Russ Randle, L3 (for 2009), Diocese of VA

January 29, 5:16 pm | [comment link]
39. CanaAnglican wrote:

#28 and #30.  Please give close attention to Wilfred in #37.  Money is fungible.  The only way you can assure that money does not go TEC is for A.) Every single tithe and gift given in the parish to be designated, and B.) The parish honors the designations.  For example, if 8% of a parishes money went to TEC last year and 92% of the funds are designated away from TEC by givers this year, TEC will still get their 8% with no realization of any complaints in the parish.  Compliance in gift restrictions would have to exceed 92% for any effect to be felt at the national level.  I doubt any parish will muster that level of designation, so all that will be accomplished is a serious irritation of the treasurer.

Our parish solved this problem, by aligning with CANA.  What a blessing it is to be with Christ-centered people.  We feel blessed beyond belief, and know that our money is going to Christ centered missions because in many cases our people are taking it there on missions locally, in the US, and around the world.

There were 99 of us who voted to go with CANA 13 months ago.  Now we number 126, with ASA of 107, the budget is larger and 27 of us went out on missions, last year.  We ministered in the Sudan, Uganda, Nigeria, Russia, and the Dominican Republic.  It is good to see the Lord’s money going out to spread the gospel !

January 29, 5:23 pm | [comment link]
40. WestJ wrote:

#37 and #39,
I agree that money is fungible (what a great term). I am in the Diocese of SC and as you can see from post #16, very little from the diocese actually goes to TEC. It is my understanding that the Diocese does not give to TEC unless expressly directed by the parish. This may not be so, so don’t quote me.

January 29, 5:32 pm | [comment link]
41. The_Elves wrote:

Larry and all, I think the smiley buttons are broken. (You can still enter them manually if you know the code, i.e. colon, hyphen, close-parentheses = smiley)

I’ll see if Greg can fix it for us and Stand Firm.  (They’re broken there too, I think)

January 29, 6:04 pm | [comment link]
42. Ken Peck wrote:

Br. Michael ask where “Scripture addresses lifelong committed relationships characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect and the holy love among homosexuals.” I think it is somewhere in the 2nd Epistle of the Apostle Bennison to the Philadelphians.

On the other hand, some gay rights activists have assured us that the writers of the O&NT;had no knowledge of such relationships.

It does get very confusing when one is dealing with mush. The apostle Paul addresses the problem in Romans 1.

January 29, 6:05 pm | [comment link]
43. Br. Michael wrote:

And, Ken, I think Paul was quite clear.

January 29, 6:14 pm | [comment link]
44. Jeffersonian wrote:

Bill Cosby had a joke about this.  It was about his dad telling him, “Got get me somethin’ to beat you with!”

January 29, 6:38 pm | [comment link]
45. TWilson wrote:

Elfgirl - sorry for the delay. I ran regressions on two sets of variables: Change in ASA vs. Change in Average Plate-Pledge; and Change in ASA vs. Change in Amount Pledged. The first analysis looks more at individual behavior, the second at diocesan health. Generally speaking, the faster ASA declines, the slower average plate-pledge rises. This suggests that those “left behind” in rapidly declining dioceses may be less willing to give, though the correlation established in the regression is not all that strong: only 4% of the variation in average plate-pledge is explained by variation in ASA; and the strength of the relationship between declining ASA and slower pledge growth is >95% sure to be positive, there is a small chance the variables have zero correlation.

A much stronger relationship is found between change in ASA and change in total amount pledged, which makes sense intuitively since less people, all else being equal, generate less amount pledged.  Across the church, amount pledged is growing, and growing faster than ASA is declining (how much of this makes its way upward to the diocese and the national church is another story).  In general, each 1% decline in ASA generates a 1/2% decline in total pledge - this correlation is very strong (all the underlying stats, R-squared, t-stats, significance are good). The large majority of diocese have pledge amount change (positive or negative) exceeding ASA change (positive or negative). Where the stats hide “facts on the ground” are in (a) not differentiating between diocesan size (it matters that Virginia, the “flagship” is in free-fall) and (b) focusing only on what’s collected, not how trickles up. I’m happy to share more if it’s useful.

January 30, 11:58 am | [comment link]
46. The_Elves wrote:

Thanks TWilson.  Helpful info.  This elf will be offline much of the next 36-48 hours, so maybe over the weekend I can e-mail you if I have more questions or further research suggestions.

Much appreciate the analysis!

January 30, 12:01 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): A 60 Minutes Segment on the Subprime Mortgage Crisis

Previous entry (below): Meeting in Hanford, California, Episcopal Church members struggle

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)