A lesson in whistleblowing.
Chicago Sun-Times writer Steve Patterson reports today on the disconcerting story of a parish business manager who warned the chancery about his pastor’s questionable spending habits and was told to keep his yap shut–then fired.
Brockhagen was business manager at St. Margaret Mary — the
Northwest Side parish [Rev. Mark] Sorvillo was convicted of stealing thousands of
dollars from. In that role, Brockhagen was responsible for overseeing
financial records.
Sorvillo, it later emerged, was spending lavishly on himself and a male stripper he met at a gay club.
Says concerns rejected
Brockhagen was never charged with any wrongdoing and never
officially implicated as being involved in Sorvillo’s years-long scam.
Yet the cloud hangs over him, through a skeptical glance or quiet
whispers around the neighborhood, Brockhagen and parishioners say.
He had to know something, they speculate. How could he not have known?
In fact, Brockhagen says, he did know about Sorvillo’s spending
habits — and brought them to the attention of the archdiocese multiple
times. Each time, he claims, archdiocese officials asked him to remain
quiet.
But now that Brockhagen has been fired — and filed a retaliatory
discharge lawsuit against church leaders — he says he feels more free
to talk about what he knew and when he knew it.
Read the rest right here.
Law gets a basilica.
George gets a presidency.
And Brockhagen gets fired.
Should he have agreed to take on the other parish’s accounts in such a way? Was he paying himself from St. Jerome’s account for his work at St. Margaret Mary’s? This strikes me as irregular. But, I do hope he gets justice.
It shows Cardinal George and his cronies indeed don’t get it. For a “smart guy” the Chicago archbishop is conducting a very retro operation in the Windy City: blame the victims and ignore the whistleblowers. I wonder what the morale situation is under the cardinal among clergy and laity both? Clearly, he’s an old-school guy who doesn’t like being told what to do.
To be fair, it’s not clear whether or to what extent Cardinal George was aware of this case.
“To be fair, it’s not clear whether or to what extent Cardinal George was aware of this case. ”
Sorry Grant; I don’t buy it. Even if he was ignorant of it, he’s responsible. The possibility that he’s over his head in a large diocese (as the McCormack case suggests he may have been) doesn’t excuse him. It might convict those who cling to the wisdom of bloated sees or appointing only competent bishops to run them.
This is a black eye for Chicago and the cardinal. There’s no getting around it.
I wasn’t suggesting that the archbishop does not bear responsibility, only that your statement that this incident “shows Cardinal George and his cronies indeed don’t get it” is called into question if George lacked direct knowledge of the incident.
Thanks, Grant, for challenging me to clarify. I think it’s part of the circle-the-wagons mentality. We saw George dismiss the input of his own review board. If his appointees at the archdiocese imitate their boss, I’d say it’s all part of the culture of arrogance. If they can’t be trusted to get the predators out of action, why should we be surprised they can’t deal with financial mismanagement?
Other than subdividing the archdiocese into two or more sees, I don’t know what the solution might be. Of course, given the reaction to calls for George not to be elected USCCB prez, it might be counterproductive to suggest he step down as archbishop. Despite his blunders, I don’t think he’s merited that kind of disgrace. In the JPII-era, he’d have to be a more outspoken progressive to get a co-adjutor.
I’d be interested to see if any Chicagoland clergy or laity have anything to add on this. My level of disgust is too high to continue here today.
Let’s face it, membership in the Finance Council and employment within a parish are at the SOLE discretion of the Pastor.
Unless the Pastor challenges himself and doesn’t appoint cronies or toadies to the FC, and is willing to hire for competence rather than safety, this kind of stuff will continue to happen.
Where was the oversight of the FC within this parish? Was there no audit process? If it happens on your watch it is your responsibility and, in cases like this, your fault!
I have been a FC member for years and it is sometimes necessary to push back with the Pastor when he wants to lack stewardship with respect to the PARISH’s monies (no, they are not his!).
Yet another reason for Cardinal George to not have been elected as USCCB President. This whole thing is beginning to smack of Law revisted: An archbishop pre-occupied with being a Vatican insider, pouring his time and energies into his Vatican congregation assignments and now USCCB business, instead of overseeing and tending his own flock.
This on top of the all sexual abuse issues. Jimmy is correct about parsh FCs. Good pastors collaborate, empower, and let themselves be held accountable. Sadly, there is little accountability for pastors, even under the 1983 CIC.
The question that all this suggests: Why would anyone get involved in working for the Catholic Church? if you want to do good, there are other ways.
I am beginning to think of Pontius Pilatus as a well meaning administrator surounded by clerical sharks.
An organization as large as any large diocese, and Chicago certainly qualifies, should have audit and compliance teams who investigate credible claims of wrongdoing using established and uniform guidelines on legitimate expenditures so that complaints to the chancery are unnecessary, or if made, are subject to reasonable resolution. I am sick to death of this level of amateurism on display by the Church. It’s depressingly clear that the people in charge would not last long even as middle managers in any other large organization.
When you realize the person or people you are managing the books for are crooks, don’t you have an obligation to resign and turn over whatever you know to the appropriate authorities? Something doesn’t make sense about Brockhagen’s behavior here, it seems to me. I am not sure I would call him a whistle blower.
Well-stated Barbara. The recent shenanigans in Cleveland also come to mind. Such rank amatuerism is inexcusable, even in a small diocese., let alone the archdiocese of Chicago.
In a decent-sized parish of 1,000 registered families we’re talking a million dollar+ cash flow just in the weekly collection. Multiply that across even a modest sized diocese and you are in the $100,000,000+ plus range.
David, no, an organization should have controls and mechanisms that allow employees to report suspected malfeasance internally. Although in this case the wrongdoing sounds pretty clear cut, in many cases it isn’t and in any event, much of what appears to have happened was not theft in the ordinary sense, but misuse of funds that might or might not be illegal depending on what restrictions the organization placed on them.
Barbara,
Thanks for the explanation. I don’t know anything about how parishes handle their finances, but to someone like me who works for a huge corporation, it sounds like the arrangements were very informal. Almost like, “Hey, could you do our books? And how about doing this other parish’s books for $10,000 more?” And then the other parish claims not to know about the arrangement. It is a little bit like when we hire “independent contractors” (freelancers), except there are formal, written agreements (a contract of sorts) and purchase orders done for payments, with two signatures required. No one could ever be uncertain of what someone was hired to do or how much they should be paid.
What strikes me as odd, in most of the blogs, is the lack of outrage at the firing of Mr. Brockhagen by Fr. Thomas after he questioned “suspicious video rentals” and “spending irregularities” at St. Jerome’s. Obviously we have yet another red flag here.
It’s worth noting that when it comes to what one church official referred to the “fiscal malfeasance” of Fr. Sorvillo ,when this sorrid story first broke, justice is swift and the offending priest is dealt with severely.
On the other hand “misconduct with a minor” results in a great deal of foot dragging downtown while more children are left at risk.
And woe to those who dare to reveal the truth. Mr. Brockhagen’s head wound up on the same chopping block as Barbara Westrick, the principal at St. Agatha’s who turned in the pedophile Fr. Dan McCormack.
You know how those deemed “snitches” are treated by criminal gangs? Well, “whistleblower” is a fancy word for snitch and those who are outed for their malodorous conduct feel approximately the same way, and everyone else looks over their shoulder thinking that their own sins might get laundered too. That’s why smart organizations try to build in self-protective systems to channel the efforts of those who are interested in integrity: so that there are fewer incentives for the enterprise to be operated like a criminal gang.
Barbara
You seem to be suggesting that chancery offices operate rather like the mafia or the camorra.
No. I am suggesting that in nearly every organization on the planet, whistleblowers are almost always reviled for doing the right thing. It appears to be human nature.
Is there no room for R.C. exceptionalism?