Over 15 years ago, at our old parish (in S. Florida) which was always hurting for money, they would usually put the donations in a small drawstring bag and hide it in the sacristy during the Masses and then the pastor would, I guess, take it to the office after the Masses were done. I think someone stole the bag one weekend and they installed a locked wooden box in the sacristy. The ushers would take a bag with the donations at each Mass and put it into a slot in the wall in the church and it would fall into the box. They then discovered that the collections for the Masses went up $1k each week. Someone had been stealing from the collections, probably for years.
When Archbishop Wenski came in 2010 he brought with him from the Orlando Diocese his comptroller. They instituted a system of mylar bags and at every Mass two ushers put the collection in the mylar bags, sign it, and seal it, and then they both take it to the safe. Seems to be a good system.
Several years ago, the bookkeeper for the Florida Catholic newspaper embezzled a good bit of money. The paper was so financially hurt that they had to go to bi-monthly papers from monthly. So yes, there needs to be a strict watch on the money. But can every parish afford two people dealing with the books?
There are many stories of changes in controls over the collection that result in increases in revenue. Usually, "the guy" who has been taking care of the collections becomes incensed, suggests that (s)he's being unfairly persecuted and walks away.
TaDa! Collections increase and large bills (50s and 100s) that had never been seen before start to show up.
"But can every parish afford two people dealing with the books?" Good question and almost certainly not exclusively, meaning some people in the parish office wearing a few different hats. (I'm thinking "DRE and secondary invoice reviewer" type stuff.)
I wonder if dioceses could centralize some of these bookkeeper functions (A/P, recons). Or does that simply kick the "internal control" can further up the road?
It wouldn't be a bad idea to have an external control person or group at the diocese level. Additionally, the fact that most parishes probably can't afford two people dealing with the books will be another reason that more parish consolidation will occur.
Definitely agree that probably many parishes can't afford two people full-time, but doesn't mean you can't add responsibilities to different employees, even if that's just the priest and the secretary. And if the parish is small enough that they can't afford these employees, the activity level is probably low enough that they could find a volunteer to do a bank reconciliation for two hours a month, someone on the finance committee or something.
It can be one, two, a dozen or a hundred. If they are all hand selected by the pastor It does not make any difference. We need to come to accept that the whole system is hopelessly flawed. The Corporation Sole needs to be abolished. Trusteeism or something else needs to be implemented.
// "If the past is prologue, Ms. Darrey will not spend too much time behind bars,” Warren predicted. //
This seems to imply that she should receive harsher punishment. What is it about public scandals that brings out the torturer in journalists? It feels akin to rabble rousing.
// But while she awaits sentencing, Robert Warren, a retired IRS investigator and professor of accounting at Radford University, said the case illustrates the importance of internal controls in parish and diocesan finances — and the need for dioceses to set clear standards and expectations. //
Nothing will be adequate so long as pastors and bishops are solely in control (even with hand selected lay "advisors" or employees). Until laity are brought into the process, our money (and it IS our money) will continue to be stolen.
I don’t think there’s any implication in the part you quoted that indicates that a “harsher” punishment is warranted in the journalist’s judgment; it simply means that, judging on past, similarly situated defendants, this woman is unlikely to serve the entirety of the sentence she receives. There’s no judgment there about whether that is right or wrong.
If we're being honest with ourselves, it's usually much cheaper to accept that some fraud will happen than to pay someone to prevent fraud. If a new employee costs $50K/year (including benefits), the parish will have spent as much money on this employee as lost in this *large* fraud in just 15 years. Or put another way, someone could steal $1K/week from the Sunday collection, and it would be a nearly identical loss.
Parishes need to figure out how to distribute accountability tasks among existing employees, and bring on volunteers where possible. Parishes cannot hire their way out of problems.
Auditing the people processes and redistributing accountability tasks without paying more salaries would be ideal, of course. I'm not sure it's possible to fully assess the cost of not doing things right though.
When blatant misuse of "the money I donated" becomes public, I think it does tend to cause people to stop giving, or to leave (i.e. it is a scandal, a stumbling block), or at least to loudly claim that they have stopped giving. Sin has some consequences that are immediately visible, and other consequences that are not immediately visible. And we ought to want to do things well for the glory of God (if they are good things), rather than in an amateurish or slipshod fashion... There is a parable somewhere about this.
A fellow CPA I know does volunteer work at their church after retirement. It's an easy gig: do something you're good at where there's PLENTY of stuff to fix/upgrade. :-)
I don't think getting more volunteers to help oversee the check-cutting process is high on Father Pastor's list when he can barely get enough volunteers to teach CCD on Sundays.
How about instead of a new employee (hired and fired by one source), we consider that pastors no longer have sole authority and oversight over parish finances?
Yes, maybe the reason, but not the practice. Some pastors do what is right (which means the laity are only guaranteed this until the next pastor is named). But the members of the Council serve at the pleasure of the pastor, do not need to be publicly disclosed, and only see information and offer advice on matters the Pastor presents to them (except for large property transfers, which the pastor must hear their advice but not follow it).
As I recall from the conclusion of independent lay investigations into clergy sex scandals, the recommendation was for better financial controls. It is thought small financial problems are a precursor and sign of developing problems. If we are to win back the trust of the faithful and the public, this is a requirement, even if "expensive."
Financial responsibility and transparency are a requirement for evangelization.
Exactly the recommendation I made at my parish after the police came to the rectory door and put handcuffs on one of the parish priests. In his civil trial it came out that he put charges on the parish AMEX card to pay for drinks for his girlfriend in Cancun.
Frankly, when priests have no oversight of the parish finances, it leads to a culture that they can do everything they want privately, which of course enables sexual abuse.
Over 15 years ago, at our old parish (in S. Florida) which was always hurting for money, they would usually put the donations in a small drawstring bag and hide it in the sacristy during the Masses and then the pastor would, I guess, take it to the office after the Masses were done. I think someone stole the bag one weekend and they installed a locked wooden box in the sacristy. The ushers would take a bag with the donations at each Mass and put it into a slot in the wall in the church and it would fall into the box. They then discovered that the collections for the Masses went up $1k each week. Someone had been stealing from the collections, probably for years.
When Archbishop Wenski came in 2010 he brought with him from the Orlando Diocese his comptroller. They instituted a system of mylar bags and at every Mass two ushers put the collection in the mylar bags, sign it, and seal it, and then they both take it to the safe. Seems to be a good system.
Several years ago, the bookkeeper for the Florida Catholic newspaper embezzled a good bit of money. The paper was so financially hurt that they had to go to bi-monthly papers from monthly. So yes, there needs to be a strict watch on the money. But can every parish afford two people dealing with the books?
There are many stories of changes in controls over the collection that result in increases in revenue. Usually, "the guy" who has been taking care of the collections becomes incensed, suggests that (s)he's being unfairly persecuted and walks away.
TaDa! Collections increase and large bills (50s and 100s) that had never been seen before start to show up.
"But can every parish afford two people dealing with the books?" Good question and almost certainly not exclusively, meaning some people in the parish office wearing a few different hats. (I'm thinking "DRE and secondary invoice reviewer" type stuff.)
I wonder if dioceses could centralize some of these bookkeeper functions (A/P, recons). Or does that simply kick the "internal control" can further up the road?
It wouldn't be a bad idea to have an external control person or group at the diocese level. Additionally, the fact that most parishes probably can't afford two people dealing with the books will be another reason that more parish consolidation will occur.
Definitely agree that probably many parishes can't afford two people full-time, but doesn't mean you can't add responsibilities to different employees, even if that's just the priest and the secretary. And if the parish is small enough that they can't afford these employees, the activity level is probably low enough that they could find a volunteer to do a bank reconciliation for two hours a month, someone on the finance committee or something.
It can be one, two, a dozen or a hundred. If they are all hand selected by the pastor It does not make any difference. We need to come to accept that the whole system is hopelessly flawed. The Corporation Sole needs to be abolished. Trusteeism or something else needs to be implemented.
// "If the past is prologue, Ms. Darrey will not spend too much time behind bars,” Warren predicted. //
This seems to imply that she should receive harsher punishment. What is it about public scandals that brings out the torturer in journalists? It feels akin to rabble rousing.
// But while she awaits sentencing, Robert Warren, a retired IRS investigator and professor of accounting at Radford University, said the case illustrates the importance of internal controls in parish and diocesan finances — and the need for dioceses to set clear standards and expectations. //
Duh :o)
You say "Duh," and yet we keep reading about case after case of embezzlement, fraud, etc.
I sincerely hope that this series of Pillar articles will effect policy changes in the dioceses and parishes that don't have adequate accountability.
Nothing will be adequate so long as pastors and bishops are solely in control (even with hand selected lay "advisors" or employees). Until laity are brought into the process, our money (and it IS our money) will continue to be stolen.
I don’t think there’s any implication in the part you quoted that indicates that a “harsher” punishment is warranted in the journalist’s judgment; it simply means that, judging on past, similarly situated defendants, this woman is unlikely to serve the entirety of the sentence she receives. There’s no judgment there about whether that is right or wrong.
Lord have mercy, and may there be financial reforms and accountability protocols where needed ASAP.
I must admit that reading Robert Warren's incisive comments has been a guilty pleasure.
If we're being honest with ourselves, it's usually much cheaper to accept that some fraud will happen than to pay someone to prevent fraud. If a new employee costs $50K/year (including benefits), the parish will have spent as much money on this employee as lost in this *large* fraud in just 15 years. Or put another way, someone could steal $1K/week from the Sunday collection, and it would be a nearly identical loss.
Parishes need to figure out how to distribute accountability tasks among existing employees, and bring on volunteers where possible. Parishes cannot hire their way out of problems.
Auditing the people processes and redistributing accountability tasks without paying more salaries would be ideal, of course. I'm not sure it's possible to fully assess the cost of not doing things right though.
When blatant misuse of "the money I donated" becomes public, I think it does tend to cause people to stop giving, or to leave (i.e. it is a scandal, a stumbling block), or at least to loudly claim that they have stopped giving. Sin has some consequences that are immediately visible, and other consequences that are not immediately visible. And we ought to want to do things well for the glory of God (if they are good things), rather than in an amateurish or slipshod fashion... There is a parable somewhere about this.
A fellow CPA I know does volunteer work at their church after retirement. It's an easy gig: do something you're good at where there's PLENTY of stuff to fix/upgrade. :-)
I don't think getting more volunteers to help oversee the check-cutting process is high on Father Pastor's list when he can barely get enough volunteers to teach CCD on Sundays.
How about Father teach CCD and leave the parish finances to the laity?
How about instead of a new employee (hired and fired by one source), we consider that pastors no longer have sole authority and oversight over parish finances?
I thought the reason parishes had financial councils was so the council could oversee parish finances.
Yes, maybe the reason, but not the practice. Some pastors do what is right (which means the laity are only guaranteed this until the next pastor is named). But the members of the Council serve at the pleasure of the pastor, do not need to be publicly disclosed, and only see information and offer advice on matters the Pastor presents to them (except for large property transfers, which the pastor must hear their advice but not follow it).
As I recall from the conclusion of independent lay investigations into clergy sex scandals, the recommendation was for better financial controls. It is thought small financial problems are a precursor and sign of developing problems. If we are to win back the trust of the faithful and the public, this is a requirement, even if "expensive."
Financial responsibility and transparency are a requirement for evangelization.
Exactly the recommendation I made at my parish after the police came to the rectory door and put handcuffs on one of the parish priests. In his civil trial it came out that he put charges on the parish AMEX card to pay for drinks for his girlfriend in Cancun.
Frankly, when priests have no oversight of the parish finances, it leads to a culture that they can do everything they want privately, which of course enables sexual abuse.
That’s a lot of money in only five months!
It’s hard to even imagine that kind of cash flow in most parishes!