 |
|
ANTHONY S. FOTI, P.E.
770 Lantern Hill Road
Shavertown, Pennsylvania18708
(570) 696-3169
June 15, 2007
Dear Parishioners of Sacred Heart – St. John’s Parish Community,
As you already know, I sent a letter to our Pastor, Msgr. John Sempa, requesting, not demanding, a parish meeting to answer questions and concerns regarding the future of our church. Those of you who know me, know that my only intention is to try to restore our church to allow it to remain open for years to come. For those of you who do not know me, I am the parishioner who developed and presented to the parish, a comprehensive plan to address the deterioration of the church and the debt due the diocese. This plan was presented to parishioners at the Pastor’s parish meeting on November 6, 2006, three weeks after the October 17, 2006 updated presentation by the architect that Msgr. Sempa refers to in his letter.
I requested a parish meeting for one reason only: not to present a financing plan as alleged by Msgr. Sempa (the fund raising plan was presented to the parish community back on November 6, 2006), instead I wanted Msgr. Sempa to explain to the parish the developments regarding our church and parish that I had become aware of from my correspondence with the Diocese, and of course to answer any lingering questions. I felt these developments were important, and that the entire parish community needed to be informed, not by a parishioner, but by the pastor. Although calling a parish meeting could have simplified matters, Msgr. Sempa choose instead to send a letter to all parishioners in an attempt to discredit my plan, and suggest that it would tear the parish apart. I take umbrage at his statements and characterization of my efforts, and I have no choice now but to respond in writing to his comments.
To begin with, I will be the first to acknowledge and commend the professional architects and contractors who made numerous presentations identifying the deterioration of the church and school, and the work and costs required to address these issues. However, I think we all realize that this is only part of the story, as merely presenting the problem at hand without establishing a plan to address the problem leaves unanswered questions. Contrary to Msgr. Sempa’s assertion that we have all been informed every step of the way, Msgr. Sempa has never presented his plan to address the condition of the church and the debt due to diocese. It is absolutely true that we have been uniformed.
As of November, 2006, the only plan offered to address the deterioration of the church and school, and to repay the debt, was the plan I presented. I first demonstrated my interest in this project by offering my professional services, pro-bono, to Msgr. Sempa back on May 9, 2002, after the initial presentation by the architect on the condition of the church. Since that time, I have attended numerous meetings, and have been actively involved in many of the emergency repair projects referenced in Msgr. Sempa’s letter. One example of my contribution was my review and advice regarding the repair of the school parapet, which reduced the scope of the repair project, and saved the parish over $100,000.
Based on the representation by Msgr. Sempa that any well conceived plan that had support of parishioners would be presented to the diocese for approval, I developed a plan to repair the church, school, and grounds, and repay the debt. Having presented this plan first to Msgr. Sempa and Deacon Pete on August 4, 2005, to the Finance Committee on June 7, 2006, and to the Parish Community on November 6, 2006, and having obtained approximately 250 signatures by interested parishioners in support of the plan, I anxiously awaited the opportunity to present this to the Bishop. In response to my first letter to the Bishop dated February 2, 2007 requesting assistance and guidance with the approval process, I received a letter dated February 14, 2007 from Msgr. Bambera. You have seen the part of this letter which states that efforts to save our church are irresponsible. The last paragraph, quoted below, is even more disturbing (emphasis added).
While there may be some parishioners who question Monsignor Sempa’s approach to the crisis facing Scared Heart of Jesus – Saint John parish, Bishop Martino agrees with Monsignor’s assessment of current parish needs and the manner of resolving them. Any further concerns should therefore be addressed to Monsignor Sempa, mindful of the Bishop’s approval of the direction that Monsignor has established for Sacred Heart of Jesus – Saint John Parish.
There it is, my friends, in black and white: a plan for the future of our church had already been presented by Msgr. Sempa and approved by the Bishop. The questions remain: What is this plan? When was it developed and approved? Who prepared the plan? Did it go through the same review process? When was it presented to the parish community? They dismiss a plan to repair the church and repay the debt as irresponsible because, in their opinion, other parishes and the diocese have better use of the money that would have to be spent on our church. Msgr. Sempa states in his letter “it is not our plan to embark upon such a costly project.” It is now my opinion that the only reason they will not allow the church to be restored is because there is a plan to close the church, and neither Msgr. Sempa nor Msgr. Bambera have responded to or challenged my reasoning. I find it appalling that the diocese would think that it would know how to spend your money better than you do. I am also greatly dismayed that only now have the parishioners learned of this development. Yet, we are to believe that we have been informed every step of the way.
There have been several requests to Msgr. Sempa to inform the parish of this diocesan decision. It is, after all, Msgr. Sempa’s responsibility to make an announcement of this magnitude. On March 2, 2007, I sent a letter to Msgr. Sempa requesting a parish meeting to explain the plans that had been approved by Bishop Martino, which was never answered. I also sent a letter dated March 2, 2007 to Msgr. Bambera requesting the demographic and parish statistics and studies, and financial information influencing their decision. At the same time, I suggested that the parishioners and diocese collaborate on plans for the church. The response was a letter dated April 11, 2007 acknowledging receipt of my letter. I still have not received any of the requested demographic and financial information on which they have allegedly based their decision. Surely there is more than just the one telling statistic referenced in Msgr. Sempa’s letter. It was not until May 31, 20007 that Msgr. Sempa, in his letter, announced the decision not to proceed with the restoration. Clearly, we have been uniformed.
I can not guarantee that we would be successful in raising the funds required to initiate this project, no more than Msgr. Sempa, certain members of his finance committee, his outside fundraiser, Msgr. Bambera, and Bishop Martino can predict with any certainty that the funds cannot be raised. The only way to determine this is to actually start the process. However this requires the support of the pastor and the diocese. I would have expected the pastor and the diocese to applaud and champion the proactive measures being proposed by some parishioners, instead they choose to discourage and denigrate the dedicated faithful.
What I do know is the amount required to be raised under the plan I submitted in order to initiate this endeavor. Msgr. Sempa, Deacon Pete, the finance committee, and those of you who attended my presentation know that I developed a comprehensive, multi-phase plan to accomplish the repairs and debt repayment in phases over many years. The first phase of the project to preserve and repair the structure of the church and to prevent any further damage has an estimated construction cost of $1,670,400, based on the professional architect and contractor estimates. The associated construction contingency allowances and architectural and engineering fees bring this total to $2,055,400. The first phase also included funding to repay $309,000 of the $700,000 debt due the diocese, bringing the total Phase 1 budget to $2,364,400. It was expected that $200,000 would come from the proceeds from the sale of the cemetery park, which are being held in a diocesan savings account, and that at least $250,000 could be raised from outside philanthropic organizations. This would leave $1,914,400 to be raised during the first fundraising campaign, which is indeed less than $2,000,000, as noted by Msgr. Sempa. I would not have achieved a perfect 800 score on the math college boards, have been awarded two degrees from MIT, and have a successful career as a licensed professional engineer in four states if my math skills were woefully inadequate, as alleged by Msgr. Sempa.
Phase 1 Construction Cost (adjusted for inflation by ASF):
Structural Modifications to BellTower: $ 7,200.
Masonry Repairs and Reconstruction of West Elevation
And BellTower (including scaffolding): 681,200.
Removal of Pests and Pest Droppings: 2,200.
Exterior Repairs and Reconstruction of Copper Steeple: 269,600.
Masonry Repairs and Reconstruction of North and South
Elevations and Finials (including scaffolding): 710,200.
Construction Subtotal: $ 1,670,400.
Contingency: 250,600.
Arch. and Eng. Fees: 134,400.
Total Project Cost: $ 2,055,400.
Debt Repayment: 309,000.
TOTAL PHASE I COST: $ 2,364,400.
LESS: Proceeds from Sale of CemeteryPark: (200,000.)
Outside Philanthropic Donations: (250,000.)
TOTAL PHASE I FUNDRAISING REQ’TS: $ 1,914,400.
Even this amount may seem staggering. However, remember that the collections can be spread out over four years. And also realize that for each $500 of annual contributions to this cause, a family would have to set aside about $1.37 every day for a year. And if they could do this for four years, that family could contribute $2,000. Think about that: if every family in the parish (1090 according to Msgr. Sempa) could sacrifice the cost of a bottle of water every day for four years, $2,180,000 could be collected. Of course, it is understandable and to be expected that some parishioners may not be able to, or will not contribute to the restoration project. However, it is just as likely that some parishioners may be willing to contribute more.
The issue at hand now is not whether the parish community can actually raise the funds for this endeavor, but why are we being prevented from even trying. From the first presentation over five years ago, we were warned that the deterioration of the church and the debt owed the diocese could result in the closing of the church. Was this a challenge to be met, or a foregone conclusion? Barely seven months ago, Msgr. Bambera attended the parish meeting on October 17, 2006 to review the work required to restore our church. At that meeting he gave no indication whatsoever that the church could not be repaired or restored. To the contrary, he acknowledged that fundraising activities for any church could only commence upon a commitment from the Bishop that the church would not be closed. Upon conclusion of this meeting, the next parish meeting to present my plan was announced. Less than three months later, after all the presentations have been made, and strong support has been voiced and documented, these efforts are somehow irresponsible. Clearly, all of us have indeed been mislead.
There can only be two explanations for this reversal. Either there has been a significant change in circumstances, or this entire process has been a diversion. The only change in the demographic studies in five years is that according to published data, the population has apparently bottomed out, and that the population is actually starting to increase again. As previously mentioned, I am still waiting for the demographic studies of which I am accused of failing to acknowledge. Financially, the parish should see a significant improvement, as the cost of supporting elementary education should be drastically reduced with the announced closing of the school. According to published financial statements, $271,000 (52.5%) of the $516,000 collected as income in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006 went to school subsidies. Considering that operating expenses exceeded income by only $32,000 during the first six months of this fiscal year (July 1 through December 31, 2006, it does not take a mathematical genius to see that the closing of the school, and the resulting anticipated reduction in school subsidy expense, will allow this parish to operate in the black. Considering that there are many parishes in the diocese that owe substantial debt to the diocese, and that many of these parishes have been granted permission and have completed significant capital improvement projects, there is no justification for denying the parishioners of Sacred Heart the opportunity to undertake their own capital improvement project. Please understand that this is not the first time I have questioned the legitimacy of the presentation and approval process, and have suggested that the challenges to address the problems facing our church were made under clouded pretences. Msgr. Sempa, Msgr. Bambera, and Bishop Marino have yet to respond to my inquiries.
Given these facts, one has to ask what harm is there in allowing the parishioners to try to raise the funds required to fix their church. It is, after all, the parishioners’ money and not the money of the parish or diocese. Shouldn’t they be allowed to spend their money as they see fit, and not be told what they can and cannot do? My plan established a goal of attaining the required funding milestone for the first phase in 27 months after obtaining the diocesan approval to proceed. (So there is no future misrepresentation, the required funding milestone is 100% of the funds pledged, and 50% collected and deposited in the bank). If Msgr. Sempa and his finance committee are correct, and the funds cannot be raised, we have no one to blame should the church eventually have to close. At least we would have been given an opportunity to try. However, should we be successful, there is no reason why the Sacred Heart of Jesus Church, once restored in all its grandeur, could not accommodate the entire North Wilkes-Barre area.
I’m not discounting the fact that parishes may need to be consolidated, and some churches may need to close. I simply believe that Sacred Heart of Jesus Church, a huge basilica type building out of the flood plain in this city, would be the best church to accommodate all the parishioners in North Wilkes-Barre. Obviously, the last church standing would no longer face a precarious situation of declining membership, considering the majority of parishioners from the closing churches would join the remaining parish.
In closing, let me reiterate that my intention all along has been to restore our church, and to prevent it from closing. I offer my sincerest apologies to Msgr. Sempa if my enthusiasm and dedication to this cause has in any way offended him. It is unfortunate that he has avoided a parish meeting, where he would have to face the parishioners, to present such monumental information regarding the future of our church. Instead, he choose to send a letter in an attempt to criticize me and defame my reputation, while dismissing the good intentions of the growing number of dedicated parishioners who support the restoration of the church. Yet, somehow, I may responsible for tearing apart the structure, err fabric, of the parish community. In reality, my desire is to build up and unite this community. This is the perfect opportunity, with the right leadership, to bring the parish community together behind this important endeavor.
What I see are two opposing philosophies. I see the precarious situation facing our church as a challenge, not an obstacle. This challenge, although enormous in magnitude, still pales in comparison to the challenge the founders of this church faced nearly one hundred years ago. The sacrifices we as a parish community will have to make to restore this church pales in comparison to the sacrifice made by those who built this church. I would venture to characterize the opposing philosophy as defeatist. They would believe that all is lost, and there is nothing we can do now but let the church close.
Clearly, there are now two plans that have been formulated: my plan presented in public to restore and preserve the church, the Msgr. Sempa’s plan, kept secret until now, to avoid the necessary repairs and eventually close the church. I believe the parishioners who will be affected by either action should be allowed to participate in debate and discussions regarding both options. And I believe parishioners should have the opportunity to vote for either option. Unlike Msgr. Sempa, who has developed and promoted his plan without consultation with all parishioners, I welcome the opportunity for open debate. Unlike Msgr. Sempa, I have every confidence that the parishioners can come to their own conclusions, and will make wise and correct decisions regarding their church and their finances. My offer stands to have a parish meeting at his convenience at his desired location. In the meantime, for those of you who are interested in where we may go from here, a meeting will be held at Genetti’s Best Western in Wilkes-Barre on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 7:00 PM. All are invited to attend.
Please remember myself and my wife Noreen in your prayers, and say a special prayer for Msgr. Sempa, Deacon Pete, Msgr. Bambera, and Bishop Martino.
Sincerely,
Anthony S. Foti |
