whistleblower on Church finances

[Tacenda]

On the opposite side of the equation!

https://www.abc4.com/news/local-news/reporting-church-financial-abuse-fast-offering-donations/?fbclid=IwAR06VlPCXiaJWF1Z1XvIoTSLLwVDDf78slvaSgD3YIeK8Qz9myJLeGarvVY

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

On the opposite side of the equation!

https://www.abc4.com/news/local-news/reporting-church-financial-abuse-fast-offering-donations/?fbclid=IwAR06VlPCXiaJWF1Z1XvIoTSLLwVDDf78slvaSgD3YIeK8Qz9myJLeGarvVY

I saw this yesterday.  Seems like there should be better controls in place when someone's story becomes fishy and things need to be double checked.  I like that the church doesn't ask members to prove a need, but at the same time, if someone is using the system I would hope there would be a way for that to be challenged.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

On the opposite side of the equation!

https://www.abc4.com/news/local-news/reporting-church-financial-abuse-fast-offering-donations/?fbclid=IwAR06VlPCXiaJWF1Z1XvIoTSLLwVDDf78slvaSgD3YIeK8Qz9myJLeGarvVY

Well, let's see:

Quote

A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is asking; where can she turn to report financial abuse?

Not sure "a church helping one of its members pay for housing and transportation" amounts to "financial abuse."

Quote

Members of the faith give Fast Offerings, donations made in addition to tithing that the Church says go to families in need within the local congregation or community. But this member says in her case, fast offerings were used to exacerbate a messy divorce.

Sounds like this story being trumpeted in the public sphere is intended "to exacerbate a messy divorce."

Quote

Lesley Butterfield filed for divorce nearly three years ago but recently learned in court that her husband has received nearly $18,000 in church assistance paid directly to his mortgage and car payments.

Butterfield said she was shocked when she found out, “I immediately emailed the Bishop and the Stake President and said I’m alarmed, I’m concerned.”

Fast Offerings are a standard and regular form of assistance within the Church organization; the principle is explained on the church website: “Fast offerings are used for one purpose only: to bless the lives of those in need. Every dollar given to the bishop as a fast offering goes to assist the poor.”

Butterfield was able to provide documentation showing that while her husband was receiving this aid, he was earning $300,000 per year as a physician.

Well, that does sound strange at first glance.  

But it also seems that "Lesley Butterfield" has a pretty huge chip on her shoulder relative to the Church (see, e.g. here ("I bet you didn’t know, but Lesley Butterfield ... {has} not yet resigned from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, more popularly referred to as the 'Wins For Satan' Church...", here, here, here, here, here, and many more).  So I'm not exactly certain we are getting the straight dope, or all of it.

Quote

Butterfield says she was never notified of these payments though she is a co-owner on the accounts. She said, “I wanted to know what implications there were; there must be tax implications for taking these large sums of money.”

Tax implications for her soon-to-be-ex-husband, possibly.  But so what?  How is this newsworthy?

Quote

She attempted to contact her current Bishop and Stake President–they did not respond.

I think that's probably the correct thing to do.  She's not entitled to this information.

I suppose they could/should call her and explain this.

Quote

Her local audit committee also gave her no response.

What is a "local audit committee"?  

Quote

Butterfield then called Church headquarters and made contact within the auditing department.

A Church auditor explained, “There’s no verification of hey, let me see your bank statements, you know, you take a member’s word for it unless there’s high need to question.”

Butterfield was eventually routed to Dan McConkie, a lawyer representing the Church and its ecclesiastical leaders.

McConkie said, “You go directly to the Stake President and then the Stake President will hopefully be very responsive and address that immediately with the Bishop and phone legal.”

She was told that her Stake President would provide her with contact information for the next man up, the Area Authority. She asked for that information but did not receive it. 

Well, she is entitled to that.

Quote

Butterfield asked, “In that case, in my case when the system breaks down, when the mechanism for members to report these things breaks down, what happens?” McConkie answered, “I think in that case you have a recourse to go to the Area Authority or to get an attorney.”

Area Authority contact information is not readily available to members.

ABC4 contacted the Church for a comment on this story; we have not received a response. 

Still not sure how this is newsworthy.  Seems like Ms. Butterfield is just using ABC4 to harange her ex and the Church about a private, non-newsworthy issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 8, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I saw this yesterday.  Seems like there should be better controls in place when someone's story becomes fishy and things need to be double checked.  I like that the church doesn't ask members to prove a need, but at the same time, if someone is using the system I would hope there would be a way for that to be challenged.

There are such mechanisms in place.  Bishops are given training and guidelines on authorizing expenditures.  Stake presidents have oversight over such expenditures.  Significant expenditures can be, and often are, flagged at and followed up on by church headquarters.  The Church has a system for flagging members' names when they have been found to be abusing the assistance of the Church.

That's not to say that these mechanisms are perfectly designed or utilized in every instance.  But on the other hand, I'm not inclined to give Lesley Butterfield much in the way of a benefit of the doubt.  Way too much in-your-face hostility against the Church.  She clearly has a big axe to grind with the Church, and is going out of her way to do so as loudly and publicly as possible.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 8, 2020 by smac97

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

She's not entitled to this information.

If she is co-owner of the house, if the Church paid into the account (not just gave money to her estranged husband), seems like she would be entitled.

[Tacenda]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, let's see:

Not sure "a church helping one of its members pay for housing and transportation" amounts to "financial abuse."

Sounds like this story being trumpeted in the public sphere is intended "to exacerbate a messy divorce."

Well, that does sound strange at first glance.  

But it also seems that "Lesley Butterfield" has a pretty huge chip on her shoulder relative to the Church (see, e.g. here ("I bet you didn’t know, but Lesley Butterfield ... {has} not yet resigned from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, more popularly referred to as the 'Wins For Satan' Church...", here, here, here, here, here, and many more).  So I'm not exactly certain we are getting the straight dope, or all of it.

Tax implications for her husband.  

Sheesh.  How is this newsworthy?

I think that's probably the correct thing to do.  She's not entitled to this information.

I suppose they could/should call her and explain this.

What is a "local audit committee"?  

Well, she is entitled to that.

Still not sure how this is newsworthy.  Seems like Ms. Butterfield is just using ABC4 to harange her ex and the Church about a private, non-newsworthy issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

I had no idea! Thanks for looking into this. I'll have to sit on it for a spell. But if her husband pays tithing, it would be 30,000 a year. As someone else mentioned elsewhere, could be that the church wanted him to still be able to pay tithing and helped pay the bills so that he could. Maybe the divorce is costing him lots of money? Many holes to the story, and she is indeed antagonistic towards the church, which garners some trust issue with me, in her motive.ETA: Can't believe I'm having trust issues, because that shouldn't be part of it, and why do I? Sure isn't fun when I'm doing what I hate others do when it comes to me, because of non belief. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, let's see:

Not sure "a church helping one of its members pay for housing and transportation" amounts to "financial abuse."

Sounds like this story being trumpeted in the public sphere is intended "to exacerbate a messy divorce."

Well, that does sound strange at first glance.  

But it also seems that "Lesley Butterfield" has a pretty huge chip on her shoulder relative to the Church (see, e.g. here ("I bet you didn’t know, but Lesley Butterfield ... {has} not yet resigned from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, more popularly referred to as the 'Wins For Satan' Church...", here, here, here, here, here, and many more).  So I'm not exactly certain we are getting the straight dope, or all of it.

Tax implications for her soon-to-be-ex-husband, possibly.  But so what?  How is this newsworthy?

I think that's probably the correct thing to do.  She's not entitled to this information.

I suppose they could/should call her and explain this.

What is a "local audit committee"?  

Well, she is entitled to that.

Still not sure how this is newsworthy.  Seems like Ms. Butterfield is just using ABC4 to harange her ex and the Church about a private, non-newsworthy issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

A side matter, but I wonder why the “Church attorney” is using non-current terminology. It is not called “area authority” anymore, but area seventy to distinguish the position from general authority seventy. It’s a common error, but I thought attorneys were into precision. 

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A side matter, but I wonder why the “Church attorney” is using non-current terminology. It is not called “area authority” anymore, but area seventy to distinguish the position from general authority seventy. It’s a common error, but I thought attorneys were into precision. 

Is the quote used from McConkie or is it Butterfield's recollection of what McConkie told her?  The way the story is worded makes it sound like all this is coming from Butterfield and the quotes from McConkie are her quoting him.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

If she is co-owner of the house, if the Church paid into the account (not just gave money to her estranged husband), seems like she would be entitled.

I don't see how.  If a friend gave her soon-to-be-ex money to cover a mortgage payment, is she entitled to demand disclosures of that friend?  It seems not.

Also, Lesley Butterfield appears to be living in Roanoake, Virginia (or was in May 2019, and perhaps as late as October 2019) (see also her LinkedIn account, which shows her as living in Virginia).  And her divorce does not appear to be pending in Utah.  Her husband lives in Virginia, too.

So why is she peddling this story to a news outlet in Utah?

-Smac

Edited January 8, 2020 by smac97

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, let's see:

Not sure "a church helping one of its members pay for housing and transportation" amounts to "financial abuse."

 

I might be reading it wrong, but to me it sounds like she is accusing her husband of financial abuse (by pretending he has no money and getting the church to pay his bills while he makes over $300,000 a year), and not the church. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I might be reading it wrong, but to me it sounds like she is accusing her husband of financial abuse (by pretending he has no money and getting the church to pay his bills while he makes over $300,000 a year), and not the church. 

Okay.  But I don't understand how this entitles her to the information she is wanting to see.

And I am still not sure how this is newsworthy, or why this is being reported by a news outlet in Utah (since the couple live in Virginia).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I might be reading it wrong, but to me it sounds like she is accusing her husband of financial abuse (by pretending he has no money and getting the church to pay his bills while he makes over $300,000 a year), and not the church. 

And that has an impact on her, because the court battle between them is greatly impacted by the funds of each party. The church is giving him financial relief, when he already has far more funds, while she is struggling as a working single mother with much less income. 

I think the story is covered by a Utah station because of the church connection.

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And that has an impact on her, because the court battle between them is greatly impacted by the funds of each party. The church is giving him financial relief, when he already has far more funds, while she is struggling as a working single mother with much less income. 

I think the story is covered by a Utah station because of the church connection.

If the church's help is making it possible for him to wage divorce war more efficiently and effectively than she can, then you have a good point.  Divorce is expensive and usually the person with more funds has an advantage over the one without.  Not only can they afford better attorneys but they can afford to keep things in the legal system for much longer.

Edited January 8, 2020 by bluebell

[pogi]

57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A side matter, but I wonder why the “Church attorney” is using non-current terminology. It is not called “area authority” anymore, but area seventy to distinguish the position from general authority seventy. It’s a common error, but I thought attorneys were into precision. 

47 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Is the quote used from McConkie or is it Butterfield's recollection of what McConkie told her?  The way the story is worded makes it sound like all this is coming from Butterfield and the quotes from McConkie are her quoting him.

If you watch the video in the link, there is an actual recording of McConkie's voice saying "area authority".  Habits are hard to break. 

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  But I don't understand how this entitles her to the information she is wanting to see.

And I am still not sure how this is newsworthy, or why this is being reported by a news outlet in Utah (since the couple live in Virginia).

Thanks,

-Smac

If her name is on the accounts, and someone is putting money into the accounts or paying on them, it seems like she would have a right to know that.  Wouldn't that be especially true if she is in the middle of a divorce and these accounts or the home is a part of those proceedings?

There's a lot we don't know.

As for why it's newsworthy, it's newsworthy because of the $100 bn issue that came to light a couple of weeks ago.   That's the only reason that the news is interested in stories that shed more light on how the church uses it's money, especially money that is donated by members right now.   

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I had no idea! Thanks for looking into this. I'll have to sit on it for a spell. But if her husband pays tithing, it would be 30,000 a year.

Which doesn't really transmute into her having a right to demand financial disclosures from the Church.

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

As someone else mentioned elsewhere, could be that the church wanted him to still be able to pay tithing and helped pay the bills so that he could. Maybe the divorce is costing him lots of money? Many holes to the story, and she is indeed antagonistic towards the church, which garners some trust issue with me, in her motive.ETA: Can't believe I'm having trust issues, because that shouldn't be part of it, and why do I? Sure isn't fun when I'm doing what I hate others do when it comes to me, because of non belief. 

Yes, a lot of unknowns.  It doesn't make sense to draw any conclusions about or criticisms of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I might be reading it wrong, but to me it sounds like she is accusing her husband of financial abuse (by pretending he has no money and getting the church to pay his bills while he makes over $300,000 a year), and not the church. 

 

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  But I don't understand how this entitles her to the information she is wanting to see.

And I am still not sure how this is newsworthy, or why this is being reported by a news outlet in Utah (since the couple live in Virginia).

Thanks,

-Smac

Two factors here weigh heavily in my view against her credibility. One is the background of a very messy, ugly divorce. The second is her bitter and publicly accessible prior expression of hostility toward the Church. 
 

I agree with Smac that the newsworthiness of this thing is very marginal. As a journalist, were I to publicize it at all, I would be very wary indeed. Not enough to place the obligatory call to Church headquarters and then report that they didn’t respond (they could hardly be expected to anyway, since rendering welfare assistance is a confidential matter that Church leaders are bound not to disclose). Given the credibility problems, the station should have found other avenues to bear out what the woman was saying and to find the other side of the story (there are always at least two sides) before putting it on the air. 

[provoman]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't see how.  If a friend gave her soon-to-be-ex money to cover a mortgage payment, is she entitled to demand disclosures of that friend?  It seems not.

Also, Lesley Butterfield appears to be living in Roanoake, Virginia (or was in May 2019, and perhaps as late as October 2019) (see also her LinkedIn account, which shows her as living in Virginia).  And her divorce does not appear to be pending in Utah.  Her husband lives in Virginia, too.

So why is she peddling this story to a news outlet in Utah?

-Smac

As I understand the case is her divorce, could it be that in terms of what either party income is considered would possibly include all monies regardless of source? 

[pogi]

50 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And that has an impact on her, because the court battle between them is greatly impacted by the funds of each party. The church is giving him financial relief, when he already has far more funds, while she is struggling as a working single mother with much less income. 

She claims that she only wants to know what "tax implications" there were "for taking these large sums of money" as she is a co-owner on the accounts, and not that it is impacting any legal battle. 

How do you know she is struggling more than he is financially?  Do you know what she does, or how much she makes?  Then you have to add on to that, child support which comes out of his pocket and goes into hers.  It appears that they both own the house, but she is probably the only one living in it with her kids.  We don't know the back story here.  I know how messy this kind of stuff can be with my brothers divorce.  We don't know if she is even making payments toward the mortgage, potentially leaving the whole burden up to him to make payments towards the house she is living in plus the house he is living in, or destroy his credit -causing him to turn to the church for assistance until it is all sorted out in court.  There are just a lot of unknowns.  

Edited January 8, 2020 by pogi

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Two factors here weigh heavily in my view against her credibility. One is the background of a very messy, ugly divorce. The second is her bitter and publicly accessible prior expression of hostility toward the Church. 
 

I agree with Smac that the newsworthiness of this thing is very marginal. As a journalist, were I to publicize it at all, I would be very wary indeed. Not enough to place the obligatory call to Church headquarters and then report that they didn’t respond (they could hardly be expected to anyway, since rendering welfare assistance is a confidential matter that Church leaders are bound not to disclose). Given the credibility problems, the station should have found other avenues to bear out what the woman was saying and to find the other side of the story (there are always at least two sides) before putting it on the air. 

I'm not quit willing (yet) to accuse her of fabrication because 1) being in a messy divorce doesn't mean you aren't being victimized, especially if the other spouse has a lot more money that you do and 2) her story here doesn't seem to, in my view anyway, say anything negative about the church (other than perhaps it has trusted the wrong person).

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If her name is on the accounts, and someone is putting money into the accounts or paying on them, it seems like she would have a right to know that.  

She can ask for information from the bank, if her name is on those accounts.  I don't think she has any right to make demands to a payor.

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Wouldn't that be especially true if she is in the middle of a divorce and these accounts or the home is a part of those proceedings?

To the contrary, I can think of all sorts of reasons the Church would not want to respond to demands from Spouse A (who "is in the middle of a divorce") about financial assistance to Spouse B.

The Church really doesn't want to take sides in such matters.  But I don't think we can or ought to construe financial assistance as "taking sides."

What if Lesley had asked the Church for financial assistance, and the response she got was "Hey, sorry.  You're in the middle of a messy divorce.  You're on your own"?

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There's a lot we don't know.

Yep.  

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As for why it's newsworthy, it's newsworthy because of the $100 bn issue that came to light a couple of weeks ago.   That's the only reason that the news is interested in stories that shed more light on how the church uses it's money, especially money that is donated by members right now.   

That's "the reason that the news is interested," but I don't think an acrimonious divorce playing out in Virginia is "newsworthy."  At all.

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

She claims that she only wants to know what "tax implications" there were "for taking these large sums of money" as she is a co-owner on the accounts, and not that it is impacting any legal battle. 

How do you know she is struggling more than he is financially?  Do you know what she does, or how much she makes?  Then you have to add on to that, child support which comes out of his pocket and goes into hers.  It appears that they both own the house, but she is probably the only one living in it with her kids.  We don't know the back story here.  I know how messy this kind of stuff can be with my brothers divorce.  We don't know if she is even making payments toward the mortgage, potentially leaving the whole burden up to him to make payments towards the house she is living in plus the house he is living in, or destroy his credit -causing him to turn to the church for assistance.  There are just a lot of unknowns.   Either way, if they are divorced, or divorcing, they need to get our of co-ownership. 

I know because she's in many online support groups.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Two factors here weigh heavily in my view against her credibility. One is the background of a very messy, ugly divorce. The second is her bitter and publicly accessible prior expression of hostility toward the Church. 

For me, the third factor re: her credibility (and non-newsworthiness of the story) is that there is essentially no nexus with Utah, but Lesley went to a Utah news outlet, despite living in - and getting divorced in - Virginia.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I know because she's in many online support groups.

So you know her side, and what she chooses to reveal online.  Has she revealed how much she makes?  Has she revealed if she herself is making payments towards the mortgage, or leaving him with two mortgages (or mortgage and rent) etc. etc. How much do you really know?  I would be interested in hearing his side too.  Because from the youtube video, she doesn't appear to be "struggling" at all. 

I have seen how my ex-sister in law posts publicly on-line, and I have seen how she is in private.  Two different people, two different stories. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

So you know her side, and what she chooses to reveal online.  Has she revealed how much she makes.  Has she revealed if she herself is making payments towards the mortgage, or leaving him with two mortgages (or mortgage and rent) etc. etc. How much do you really know?  I would be interested in hearing his side too. 

Fair enough, me as well.