Cecilia Chang- NY Mag

From this afternoon . . .

To: University Community
From: Board of Trustees
Re: Message to the St. John's University Community
Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Dear Members of the St. John’s Community:

In light of the questions raised concerning issues related to the
Cecilia Chang case, the Board of Trustees wishes to provide the
University community with some information concerning the genesis of
this situation and the process that the Board is following in dealing
with these serious matters.

In 2010, upon learning of the allegations concerning Dr. Chang, the
Board, with the full support of Father Harrington, directed that the
entire matter be reported to law enforcement authorities. After
conducting their official investigations, both the Federal and State
authorities indicted Dr. Chang on a variety of fraud-related charges,
including theft of more than $1 million from the University. The
University has recouped approximately half of that amount through
insurance.

After the initial report, the University fully cooperated in the
official investigation. The University provided all documents and
witnesses requested by the prosecutors, and two University officials,
Father Harrington and General Counsel Joseph Oliva, testified as
prosecution witnesses at Dr. Chang’s trial. At the same time that it
reported the Chang matter to law enforcement, the University also took
steps to tighten its internal controls and enhance its related
policies.

A number of weeks ago, the Board directed its outside counsel to
conduct an additional inquiry into new issues that have come to light,
including any necessary review of the information developed in the
original Chang investigation. That inquiry is ongoing, and the Board
has directed that it be thorough and comprehensive. The Board expects
to provide the University community with more information at the
conclusion of its work.

Although the Board is committed to resolving this matter as quickly as
possible, in order for the inquiry to be thorough, it will necessarily
take some time. The Board recognizes that this is a difficult period
for the University community. As is normal in such matters, the Board
has requested that all the individuals involved not engage in public
discussions of these matters until the Board has completed its work.
The Board also asks the University community to reject any premature
judgments about this process and its conclusions.

We are proud of St. John’s and its accomplishments under Father
Harrington’s leadership. He has a long and distinguished tenure of
over 23 years at the University, and an even longer career in
leadership positions in Catholic higher education. Under his
leadership, the University has assembled a strong and diverse team of
many devoted administrators, faculty and staff. The Board is confident
that if all of us work together, in a common commitment to truth and
fairness, we will maintain the University’s dedication to the
accomplishment of its mission as a Catholic and Vincentian University
that espouses the teachings of St. Vincent de Paul.

The Board will continue to proceed in full recognition of its
oversight obligations and the best interests of the University and its
students, faculty and staff.

Sincerely,
Peter P. D’Angelo
Chairman, Board of Trustees
 
Reading between the lines, and this is pure speculation, it seems like the Board is going justifiably rely heavily in the results of the investigation. No mention of Wile, so I wouldn't be surprised if after the report is released he is gone, they minimize Harrington's bad actions and allow him a graceful exit.
 
The other issues are how others might have benefited with gifts from Chang (as detailed in a news article that was part of another thread). I look at it in two ways:

1. Others who have benefited will be leaving the University, either by termination or by resignation. Father Harrington will not be one of them and this just sets up the PR as to why.

2. Others will be leaving the University including Harrington who as Class of 72 suspects and stated in this thread, will retire.
 
The absolutely only way the University can regain any credibility is if both FH and Wile are terminated. Not retire or resign, but terminated. And neither should receive any kind of "good-bye gift" such as Pernetti got at RU.
 
The absolutely only way the University can regain any credibility is if both FH and Wile are terminated. Not retire or resign, but terminated. And neither should receive any kind of "good-bye gift" such as Pernetti got at RU.
Click to expand...

There are always politics involved in these types of decisions and my guess is St. John's isn't looking to embarrass either of them

My guess is Father Harrington will just retire at this stage and do what is best for both parties
 
The absolutely only way the University can regain any credibility is if both FH and Wile are terminated. Not retire or resign, but terminated. And neither should receive any kind of "good-bye gift" such as Pernetti got at RU.
Click to expand...

There are always politics involved in these types of decisions and my guess is St. John's isn't looking to embarrass either of them

My guess is Father Harrington will just retire at this stage and do what is best for both parties
Click to expand...

You're most likely correct in what will happen. But the focus should not be on what is best for both parties. They abused their positions within the University and brought shame upon the campus. The sad part is, they will probably both get off with a slap on the wrist and a way to bow our gracefully. I hope the legal system comes down hard on both of them.
 
If Harrington steps down and Wile quietly is let go, St. John's won't lose credibility. Everyone will know it was forced by the situation. A public lashing isn't necessary. And if Harrington is replaced with someone highly qualified who moves the University in the right direction, this won't cause any lasting damage.

Now if Harrington winds up staying (I can't imagine Wile staying, but him too), then credibility is severely damaged.
 
Things heating up?

“@STJTorch: BREAKING: The open letter from faculty to the Board of Trustees has been delivered to Fr. Harrington and VP Dr. Habben.”
 
"As is normal in such matters, the Board has requested that all the individuals involved not engage in public discussions of these matters until the Board has completed its work. The Board also asks the University community to reject any premature judgments about this process and its conclusions"

This statement is a statement to provide cover for FH. He isn't being directed by the BOT to keep quiet, but this statement makes it look so, especially in light of cancelled meeting, and lack of public statements.

My guess is the new board of the Torch has already been contacted by administration and told to refrain from the public opinions that the outgoing board refused to be intimidated by.

The last sentence in my quote is troubling. I certainly am, as are all of us, free to judge whether a vow of poverty priest should have accepted unaccounted for cash in white envelopes and not reported it. I can judge whether a vow of poverty priest should be wearing a watch that could have cost as much as $80,000. I can also question the judgment of being given 30 hand tailored suits when parish priest I know wear clothes that are often threadbare. I can question whether its appropriate for a nearly 60 year old priest to take a beach vacation with a 25 year old male subordinate. All of this seems improper even when paid for by others, but when you add the lack of oversight that caused the university to be paying for all of this all along, it's either incompetency or outright thievery. Throw in the impropriety of entering in a corporate, for profit relationship with a close subordinate, all funded by interest free loads provided by the university. Yes, given these known facts, I can pass judgment and so can you.

The only judgment left to make is whether D'Angelo and the rest of the BOT aren't also so corrupt in ethics that they will not push hard for the removal of FH. My guess, well, that I won't rush to judgment on, but I have my own thoughts on the matter.
 
The article talks about transparency. Well, when you are doing an investigation, you can't be totally transparent. You can announce the investigation and go into its scope, but you don't report on how the investigation is going until it is completed and at the very least have a preliminary report. Then you can be transparent in providing the information, documentation and other materials used in the investigation and that your report and recommendations are based on.

I agree, that a full accounting needs to be done and the results of the investigation and any recommendations need to be made public.
 
I can judge whether a vow of poverty priest should be wearing a watch that could have cost as much as $80,000. I can also question the judgment of being given 30 hand tailored suits when parish priest I know wear clothes that are often threadbare.
Click to expand...

Vincentians are secular priests and do not take a vow of poverty. The Vincentians (aka Lazarists) are not an order e.g. Benedictines ("OSB" Order of St Benedict), Franciscans ("OFM" Order of Friars Minor), Dominicans ("OP" Order of Preachers) etc. They are more akin to Jesuits who likewise are not an order but rather a "Society" Jesuits - "Society of Jesus." I believe Vincentians are "Congregation of the Mission". That is what the "CM" stands for after his name. And to be clear since most people assume that all priests take a vow of poverty, parish priests (Secular) do not take a vow of poverty.
 
I can judge whether a vow of poverty priest should be wearing a watch that could have cost as much as $80,000. I can also question the judgment of being given 30 hand tailored suits when parish priest I know wear clothes that are often threadbare.
Click to expand...

Vincentians are secular priests and do not take a vow of poverty. The Vincentians (aka Lazarists) are not an order e.g. Benedictines ("OSB" Order of St Benedict), Franciscans ("OFM" Order of Friars Minor), Dominicans ("OP" Order of Preachers) etc. They are more akin to Jesuits who likewise are not an order but rather a "Society" Jesuits - "Society of Jesus." I believe Vincentians are "Congregation of the Mission". That is what the "CM" stands for after his name. And to be clear since most people assume that all priests take a vow of poverty, parish priests (Secular) do not take a vow of poverty.
Click to expand...

From SJU website:

http://www.stjohns.edu/about/vincentian/vincentians/faqs/general.stj

Do Vincentians take ‘vows’ and if so, what are they?
Yes, Vincentians take vows of poverty, chastity, obedience, and stability. They are first taken at the end of the novitiate year, and then finalized after a three-year period of formation. The vows help focus our lives individually and communally so we may use our time, talent, and energy for the spread of the Gospel
 
Do Vincentians take ‘vows’ and if so, what are they?
Yes, Vincentians take vows of poverty, chastity, obedience, and stability. They are first taken at the end of the novitiate year, and then finalized after a three-year period of formation. The vows help focus our lives individually and communally so we may use our time, talent, and energy for the spread of the Gospel
Click to expand...

I stand corrected however generally speaking this is a common misconception that priests get criticized for, often incorrectly with the assumption that there is a vow of poverty when there isn't.
 
In my opinion:

- Harrington is not going to resign in the near future.

- If Harrington cared about St.John's University he would have resigned months if not years ago.

- The press release/ memo which started this thread is merely an attempt at spin control; the request for patience in the press release is merely an attempt to have the story pass.

- If St.John's Board of Trustees were independent then Harrington would have been gone months if not years ago (see allegations in Chang trial regarding gifts, etc.)

- The culture of mediocrity evidenced by "Harrington Gate" with allegations against Wiles, Chang, and others demonstrates a serious lack of institutional control will not be changed until Harrington leaves.

- News reports indicated that St. John’s paid Dr. Chang a salary of $120,000 per year. It is difficult to understand how Harrington believed that the gifts received from Dr. Chang were paid for by her, or that it was proper to accept expensive gifts or gratuities from unknown donors.
 
I stand corrected however generally speaking this is a common misconception that priests get criticized for, often incorrectly with the assumption that there is a vow of poverty when there isn't.
Click to expand...

There is also a misunderstanding of what the vow of poverty is. It doesn't mean you don't have things.

"A person who has been initiated into a Religious Order may take a vow of poverty at any time during their membership in the Order. The vow of poverty is not to be interpreted as being for ever poor, but rather to sharing everything in common. Those who embrace a vow of poverty do not claim private ownership of any possessions: everything they have is used for the common good of the Religious Order/"

So you can wear a watch for example, or a nice suit, if it furthers the broader mission of ministering to the poor. Probably that distinction doesn't matter much to those who slander FH with thinly veiled accusations of sodomy and fornication, but I figured I'd throw it out there.
 
I stand corrected however generally speaking this is a common misconception that priests get criticized for, often incorrectly with the assumption that there is a vow of poverty when there isn't.
Click to expand...

There is also a misunderstanding of what the vow of poverty is. It doesn't mean you don't have things.

"A person who has been initiated into a Religious Order may take a vow of poverty at any time during their membership in the Order. The vow of poverty is not to be interpreted as being for ever poor, but rather to sharing everything in common. Those who embrace a vow of poverty do not claim private ownership of any possessions: everything they have is used for the common good of the Religious Order/"
Click to expand...

Yes, and as one of my communist/Jesuit professors at St John's would like to point out that "the Apostles were the first Communists."

IMHO the common perception of the vow of poverty is identified with the mendicant orders in particular St. Francis of Assisi (who was not a priest as many people also falsely assume). In line with what your are saying, a particular order /vow could also have a special focus or emphasis of the 3 Evangelical Counsels (Poverty, Chastity, Obedience). So in the case of the mendicants this means that they own nothing either personally or in common. They rely completely upon charity or even begging. The Vincentians on the other hand were formed specifically with the intent of distinguishing their members (both priests and laity) as secular so whatever the particular emphasis of the evangelical counsels may be for the Vincentians, it is not a mendicant order. Regardless though, I think most agree that any garish display of personal wealth by clergymen is not prudent.
Aside from questions of their personal morality which is a little ridiculous for most of us to be engaging in, it feeds into the misconceptions and established prejudices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top