And the Rev. Gregory Groover told Charles Street AME parishioners to stop giving donations rather than risk having it fall into the hands of the bank seeking to foreclose on the church, the Bay State Banner reports.
In addition to heading up the church, Groover is also chairman of the Boston School Committee.
Ed. note: The Banner once again failed to note in its story that owner Mel Miller is on the board of directors of the bank.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Why no mention that Groover is Chair of Boston School Committee?
By Wrong Trousers
Sun, 10/07/2012 - 7:54pm
UHub, why omit the fact that Groover has financial oversight of BPS as chairmen of Boston School committee? Globe will not mention, Banner will not mention, but you still should!
It has been mentioned in previous articles
By Billy
Sun, 10/07/2012 - 10:43pm
It has been mentioned in previous articles
Not several hundred
By Billy
Sun, 10/07/2012 - 10:35pm
Several hundred thousand. $600,000
I don't think you really meant "several hundred dollars"
By Ron Newman
Sun, 10/07/2012 - 8:04pm
I read your headline and wondered, what's the big deal over $600? Then I followed the link to the Banner article and saw that it's really $600,000.
Post fixed
By adamg
Sun, 10/07/2012 - 8:20pm
I left out "thousand" by mistake.
As for Groover being School Committee chairman, why, yes, he is, and the fact that he apparently can't balance the books at what is basically his daytime job is concerning. But let's not overstate his power over the school budget as head of an unelected committee that at times appears to be more of an advisory group for the superintendent than the final arbiter of anything.
To state an official role
By Wrong Trousers
Sun, 10/07/2012 - 9:21pm
which in reality may be a farce, is not to overstate. It's just holding on to standards.
When you oversee $856.5
By Uncle Sam
Sun, 10/07/2012 - 9:41pm
When you oversee $856.5 million budget, $600K is not a big deal.
OK, my ignorance is showing
By adamg
Sun, 10/07/2012 - 10:42pm
Thanks for pointing that out; I was not aware about the specific charge to establish and monitor the annual operating budget.
That does make a difference. Yes, $600,000 is a pittance compared to the school budget but it's a huge percentage when it comes to the church - enough to swing it from the black to the red, and by a fairly significant amount. That might be concerning for somebody with oversight of several hundred million dollars.
What would we find out ...
By Uncle Sam
Mon, 10/08/2012 - 2:58pm
What would we find out if an independent BPS budget audit ever done?
So, $600,000 is no biggie?
By anon
Mon, 10/08/2012 - 8:00am
What's $600,000 between friends?
It's all RELATIVE. $600,000 is a big deal
Ed. note: The Banner once again failed to note in its story that
By anonism
Sun, 10/07/2012 - 9:57pm
But that must be OK, right? I mean, when I wrote the Patch's David Ertischek was showing his political bias in an interview question, he wrote back that he makes it known in his Patch profile and that I should go read it (or maybe he was surprised that I hadn't already done so?).
Or do you think that was insufficient, as I surely do? Granted, the circumstances are different, but the potential for bias certainly is present nonetheless.
Context is everything
By adamg
Sun, 10/07/2012 - 10:14pm
First, yes, I think conflicts should be spelled out (longtime Hub readers may recall when I wrote a column for the Globe City Weekly section that I mentioned that every time I wrote about the Herald, GateHouse, etc. - and, yes, I will admit I only started doing that when another blogger, who happened to work for the Herald, noted the conflict).
Mel Miller, even if he claims he makes no money from the bank (which I think he did somewhere), has a direct interest in the outcome of the church bankruptcy case because of his role on the bank's board of directors.
Was David asking you a question that involved somebody for whom he was actively working? Or is it he's a liberal and you're a conservative (or vice versa, I have no idea)? That's a bit more nebulous.
Ertischek interviewed a local Republican
By anonism
Mon, 10/08/2012 - 8:47am
To elaborate: Ertischek interviewed a local Republican. He asked a couple of questions (maybe in jest?) which I considered gratuitous, insulting and evidence of anti-Republican bias. In my comment, I wrote my opinion of his questions.
He states he is a Dem, maybe even a lib. Generally, I lean the other way, in part because of the local, left-leaning lopsidedness and the apparent resulting bias toward all things outside the Democratic realm, particularly anything Republican.
I'm not sure it would hurt someone in Ertischek's position to state his political affiliation at the end of each political piece he writes.
I pinged him on that
By Billy
Sun, 10/07/2012 - 10:51pm
At one point I wrote to "the editor". The next week he mentioned in that he is is on the board of the bank in the article. But that has been the only time I saw him do that. As mentioned in a previous thread he did at one point address the entire issue in an editorial. I always assumed it was journalism that any possible conflicts are advertised.
The headline itself, by starting with "Oops! ..." makes it sound like the editor is happy the issue was found out.
So when are we going to make churches start paying taxes?
By Will LaTulippe
Mon, 10/08/2012 - 2:40am
Child rapists and book cookers don't deserve a free pass from Uncle Sam. Call me weird, but that's what I believe.
Makes sense to me
By Billy
Mon, 10/08/2012 - 11:09am
And any property they own, which doesn't have a church built on it.
Let they have some thing like 5 million in assets, than after that they start paying taxes.
Under IRS rules churches are
By anon
Mon, 10/08/2012 - 12:10pm
Under IRS rules churches are classified as nonprofit charitable organizations; so churches are tax exempt for the same reason that Boston Medical Center etc. is tax exempt.
Should all nonprofits organizations be taxed or only certain ones; and then which ones.
I think
By eeka
Mon, 10/08/2012 - 1:39pm
that in order to get nonprofit/tax-exempt status, all groups should have to abide by all federal, state, and local nondiscrimination laws. Religious groups with nonprofit status should have to follow the same laws as hospitals, schools, artistic groups, etc. that are nonprofit.
Nondiscrimination laws still allow for quite a bit of choosiness in hiring. For instance, a synagogue could, without violating any nondiscrimination laws, require as job functions that their rabbis have a rabbinical degree and ordination, and that their work as a clergyperson reflects certain belief systems such as G-d and prayer and holy days being important. However, they wouldn't be able to fire or refuse to hire a clergyperson for being female, gay, nonwhite, single, married, etc. They would be still be able to turn away a clergyperson who decided that sabbath services would be held on Tuesdays on weeks when she felt like it, or that he would light the dreidels and spin the Chanukah candles.
This would be just like how my nonprofit secular program can fire clinicians who ignore research and decide that kids with AD/HD can be cured by watching more TV, or how spousal unit's nonprofit secular music school can fire teachers who decide that kids should learn to play the cello by blowing into it instead of using the bow. Neither of our jobs is allowed to fire people for discriminatory reasons though, and neither should anywhere that gets tax-exempt status.
They would be still be able
By NotWhitey
Mon, 10/08/2012 - 2:24pm
So you think they should be allowed to fire (or not hire) people for any reason they want, as long as it's not something you disagree with? Sounds like we should give you an official position: Supreme Arbiter of Religion. Do you look good in black robes?
I agree that any nonprofit
By anon
Mon, 10/08/2012 - 7:26pm
I agree that any nonprofit receiving gov't funds should be held to all non-discrimination laws. And churches shouldn't receive gov't money. However, religious organizations, unlike other nonprofits, have protections from the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that exempting churches from taxation supports the First Amendment goal of separation of church and state.
Religion is different than other non profits
By anon
Tue, 10/09/2012 - 2:51pm
**that in order to get nonprofit/tax-exempt status, all groups should have to abide by all federal, state, and local nondiscrimination laws. Religious groups with nonprofit status should have to follow the same laws as hospitals, schools, artistic groups, etc. that are nonprofit.**
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Except...(wait for it)...there is something called the First Amendment.
The First Amendment doesn't apply to "hospitals, schools, etc".
It's not that they are "non-profit...it's that they are religious endeavors and that pesky First Amendment.
Remember the thing called The First Amendment?
By anon
Tue, 10/09/2012 - 2:38pm
**So when are we going to make churches start paying taxes?**
When we do away with the First Amendment?
Good luck!