The Layman has obtained a copy of an email in which the executive of the Presbytery of Eastern Oklahoma says he had the “personal assurances” of General Assembly Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons and PCUSA lawyer Mark Tammen that they would endorse the agreement between the presbytery and the Kirk of the Hills Evangelical Presbyterian Church.
“Their position is that the presbytery has the right to make decisions about mission and ministry within our bounds,” Greg Coulter says in the message to the Kirk’s attorney. “While that cannot assure us that any individual would not file an ecclesiastical appeal, the matter is somewhat moot in that both the Presbytery and the GA would be able to say that all avenues had been exhausted, all Presbytery and PCUSA policies were followed, and a reasonable offer was accepted (which could not be said in the matters before the Presbytery of South Louisiana).”
Assurance disappears
The email seems to contradict what has happened since the presbytery and the Kirk approved a proposed settlement of $1.75 million to let the congregation keep its property. After the agreement was approved, Dean Luthey Jr., the Tulsa attorney who represented the PCUSA in the two-year property dispute, introduced what has been termed a “probable deal-breaker.”
Luthey said the PCUSA could not approve the deal unless the civil court judge enters a written ruling favorable to the presbytery’s arguments. "For the PCUSA to sign any release and or dismissal there will need to be an order or judgment memorializing the PCUSA's success on its motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff reciting both the hierarchical deference ground and the neutral principals ground announced by the Court,” he stated.
Since Luthey’s intervention, attorneys for the Kirk and the congregation’s leaders have accused the presbytery of deception by demanding that the judge enter an order agreement on key issues in the case, including his verbal commitment to the “hierarchical” claims of the PCUSA and rejection of settling the case on the basis of neutral principles of law.
Judge Jefferson Sellers has not concluded with a written order affirming those points. Instead, he entered a interlocutory judgment, leaving the door open to other findings.
Coulter: No deception
In an October 30 letter, Coulter says the “Kirk's leadership now claims to have been deceived, indicating that part of the agreement was to waive the filing of a written order following the September 9 Court decision.”
In that letter, Coulter contends the presbytery did not waive a written order and that it waived only the enforcement of such an order. The settlement that was approved by both parties states, “Action on the enforcement of Judge Sellers’ decision shall be stayed by agreement of all parties until the earlier of 30 days after the date on which this agreement is voided due to failure to approve such agreement by the Kirk or the EOP or November 15, 2008.”
Coulter’s Oct. 30 letter denying deception
In response to the Tulsa World article to which Presbyweb linked on Saturday ("Kirk deal no longer is certain"), something needs to be clarified. Mr. Trump declares "we have been deceived." I'm not sure how that could be.
Over Labor Day weekend, Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery proposed a settlement. The Kirk's leadership responded that they had come this far and they would take their chances in court. On September 9, they had their day in Court. The District Court ruled against Kirk of the Hills Corporation and in favor of Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery and the Presbyterian Church (USA) on competing motions for summary judgment. The Court affirmed the state's precedent in such matters under "hierarchical deference." The Court ruled additionally that even under "neutral principles of law" the decision would have been the same.
Even after that ruling, Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery was willing to consider another settlement agreement. Representatives for the Kirk and EOP developed the current proposal, which calls for the effective transfer of the title of all the church's property by EOP to the Kirk and the termination of all pending or future legal actions in return for a payment of $1.75 million. This seemed more than fair for a building and contents insured for about $10 million. The presbytery approved the proposal on September 19 and the Kirk congregation approved the proposal on October 19. However, the Kirk's leadership now claims to have been deceived, indicating that part of the agreement was to waive the filing of a written order following the September 9 Court decision.
The approved settlement contains this provision: "Action on the enforcement of Judge Sellers' decision shall be stayed by agreement of all parties…" (emphasis added). Once the Court issued a ruling on September 9, there was already a public record of the decision. Although the specific language of that formal written record (referred to as a "journal entry") is being worked out between the parties to the lawsuit and the Court, the judge has previously stated on several occasions that there will be a written record of the Court's decision. Thus, a journal entry of the decision will be made, regardless of the terms of any settlement agreement. What EOP has agreed to waive is the enforcement of that decision (the awarding of the church property to EOP, on behalf of the PCUSA). Neither PCUSA nor EOP is adding additional requirements after the parties approved the settlement. It is the Court's requirement that the decision formally be made part of the record of the District Court of Tulsa County. EOP and PCUSA have no ability to erase the events of September 9.
We continue to pray for our sisters and brothers in Christ at the Kirk, as this is a difficult time. However, we continue to believe that the settlement approved by both the presbytery and the congregation remains the best way forward for all involved. We trust in the Holy Spirit to lead all forward to a new day.
Greg Coulter
General Presbyter
Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery
Kirk ministers respond to presbytery
November 1, 2008
After the Judge announced his September 9 ruling summarily granting our property to the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery [EOP], he set a hearing to work out the terms to be included in the official written "Journal Entry," which would be filed in the case. Until the journal entry is entered, the appeal period does not begin to run and there is no judgment to enforce.
Even without that written judgment filed, EOP increased its price and gave us until October 20 to decide on its ultimatum – pay up or move out!
At the hearing on October 6, the Judge determined that he could not enter the Judgment that he had announced on September 9 granting EOP our property. Instead, he substantially modified his earlier ruling. The parties are waiting on the written journal entries from the September 9 and October 6 hearings.
In the meantime, as our congregation was considering EOP's ultimatum, EOP laid out its terms of settlement and told us that it spoke for the denomination as well. This, we later learned, was not true. After we voted by the slimmest of margins to authorize our Trustees to enter a settlement agreement on certain terms, we received a notice that the denomination would not agree to the deal unless it included a requirement of the entry of a judgment for EOP and PCUSA. The denomination wants to use the judgment to discourage other churches around the country from leaving the denomination.
This additional demand was not included in the terms EOP gave us. There is no settlement agreement.
The way that EOP presented and we understood the terms were (1) that all litigation would stop once both parties voted to approve the proposed terms (which they did), and (2) that the PCUSA would accept whatever was negotiated between the Kirk and the EOP.
The biggest problem we have now is dealing with a party in which we have no trust at all.
It seems that the only road before us is to see what the Judge finally does. If he rules against us still (not a given), then we will appeal to the highest courts.
If Mr. Coulter honestly believed that "the settlement approved by both the presbytery and the congregation remains the best way forward for all involved," all he would have had to do was honor his end of it and demand that the PCUSA do the same.
Wayne Hardy and Tom Gray
Co-pastors
Kirk of the Hills, Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Coulter’s email to Kirk attorney
Robbie asked me to send you a copy of the motion which was presented to (and approved by) the Presbytery this weekend. I have attached it in Word format. Please let me know if you have trouble opening it, and I will scan it and send a pdf copy.
As is to be expected, there is an overlap of concerns between the legal and ecclesiastical arenas in which this has all played out. I have the personal assurances of Mark Tammen (Director of Constitutional Services) and Gradye Parsons (new Stated Clerk for the PCUSA) that they will endorse this agreement if approved by both the Kirk and the Presbytery. Their position is that the Presbytery has the right to make decisions about mission and ministry within our bounds. While that cannot assure us that any individual would not file an ecclesiastical appeal, the matter is somewhat moot in that both the Presbytery and the GA would be able to say that all avenues had been exhausted, all Presbytery and PCUSA policies were followed, and a reasonable offer was accepted (which could not be said in the matters before the Presbytery of South Louisiana).
If it would help, I would be glad to answer any questions you have, especially in the area of polity. I will be in the office today and tomorrow and you are welcome to call (582-3077) or email me. After Tuesday night, I will be out of town, but still able to check email once or twice a day. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help. I appreciate the difficult position you are in. Robbie and I have played a similar role between the Presbytery and the PCUSA now for over two years and we are well aware of the competing interests involved and how difficult it is to satisfy everyone.