Proportional Judgment or, more accurately, proportional liability, clouds the litigation. It is the principle that when multiple entities bear some responsibility for a loss, the court (jury) may assign a proportional responsibility to each party with corresponding financial obligation. If one party is responsible for 20% of the loss, another 30% and another 50%, each party pays “their percentage” of the dollar amount awarded.

It sounds fair, depending on your perspective. It gets more complicated, though. What if a defendant is deemed to be 90% responsible, but has No Money (or not enough)? The Plaintiffs would collect 10% from the other entities, and they would receive little or nothing from the entity judged most the blame. Herein lies the risk of going to trial…it is a gamble. Major blame could be given to a party with the least ability to pay. The Plaintiffs lose big time. Are you reading between the lines?

The Institution, The Plaintiffs, and The Others are walking a tightrope trying to balance who is to blame for how much of the judgement and do they have the resources to pay? Settling before going to trial substitutes reasonable negotiation for risk. When there is no agreement, those with confidence welcome the jury, as those who are unsure seek compromise and pray for a better result.

Who do you think is responsible… and at what percentage? Is the Harris Estate sufficient? Is there recoverable money hidden somewhere by those who managed the loss? Will the corporate entities rise to the point of blame, and payments, for us to achieve 100% wholeness through the Settlement?

Morally, there is no mystery. The Institution owes the People. The Others owe the Institution! What is the moral commitment of The Institution?

If ANY of the Others choose to go to trial, proportional responsibility will be assigned regardless to The Settlement. The Plaintiffs’ ability to collect from the Institution is capped. Does limited Institution liability matter if insufficient liability falls on The Others? Will The Institution and The Plaintiffs drop its case against some, if others settle? (A bad mistake for morale. Will there be a cover-up in our future?)

Is this a good deal? Yes, if you think you think significant, additional, collectible funds may not be awarded at trial. No, if The Institution does not respond with post-judgment payments to bring Participants to 100% whole. No, if The Institution walks away, and Participants do not have a court enforceable moral commitment (a legally binding promise without acknowledging legal responsible for the cause). No, if The Others are not ordered to pay significant, collectible funds that will bring Participants to 100% Whole more quickly. No, if The Institution continues to spend money on legal fees to pursue The Others with little or no hope of recovering any of those fees in even a “good” outcome. No, if the only ones walking away smiling and at peace are attorneys.

From the beginning, The Institution and The Plaintiffs should have been working together to hold OTHERS responsible for their part, and together, they should have been seeking financial restitution for the wrongdoing of others. Just as important, The Institution should have committed to a trustworthy path toward 100% Wholeness from the start.

Sophistry, evasion, and opaqueness corroded a fragile confidence. Still, are they listening? Will they respond as Emperors or Shepherds? Will the Church commit to a moral response with equitable, viable plans as The Institution pursues legal justice and remedies? Why make us Object or Opt Out to get a just acknowledgment of our cries? Compromise usually entails loss. The Participants should not be the losers here!

Two frightening phrases in the earlier days of the litigation were: “this will destroy the church as we know it” and “this will send us into bankruptcy.” That the church could be changed in a fair settlement is probable. We are already different with our levels of trust. Bankruptcy, though, seems more rooted in fearmongering and institutional selfishness, not institutional survival.

Bankruptcy is a legal instrument to protect assets and enable continued, modified operation. The connectional church has very few directly titled properties. Reaching for school property and local church properties would be a long, arduous, and complex endeavor which will yield little or nothing. Local, incorporated property, even with trust clauses, is more secure than most imagine. Moreover, the connectional church does not have authority to step in and claim local church property to satisfy a debt. We are not organized like the Roman Catholic Church where a diocese has a direct title to church properties.

Bankruptcy is moot, though, for two important factors. 1. The Institution’s properties and negotiable assets are not essential for our operation. 2. We operate on an annual budget. As long as we are collecting assessments, there are resources to structure debts and pay judgements. The threat is not bankruptcy; it is the diminished assets and the ego/business perks which accompany them.

Those who think the current “Settlement” protects the Institution from bankruptcy are falling for a rhetorical, strategic scam. The “Settlement” does not protect from bankruptcy as much as it preserves our current excessive mode of operation. This is especially true if The Institution does not have to deliver additional funds to make participants 100% whole. Limiting a payment to Plaintiffs (actually all of us) is no consolation when exigent circumstances are used to justify the nonpayment of additional funds.

Sure, it is great to operate with a cushion. We don’t do enough in vital areas such as Christian Education, Evangelism and Global Development. Nevertheless, the Institution has made it on a shoe string before, and it can do it again. The Church must address a 100% Whole guarantee with absolute, moral resolve. If the Institution recovers funds from responsible parties, we will rejoice and give thanks. If not, we must tighten our belts. Reorganize. Pay those who served within the last 60 years that which is fair based on contributions and actual interest paid.

It may not be much. It may not be all that it could have been. It is a debt that should not be evaded through bankruptcy, asset manipulation, or disingenuous efforts at preserving the current, lavish Institution at the expense of the dignity of The Church’s salaried servants. Rather than expending so much time and energy on financial assets, we need to focus on our other, most valuable asset: The People who sacrifice to pay assessments and walk as faithful disciples.

The Proposed Settlement as known is undesirable for many reasons. The “details” are probably more troubling. Foremost, there is NO commitment to Wholeness guaranteed by The Church. Alarming is inattention to the disposition of denominational assets which will make it difficult to see a path to full restoration. Sadly, we need a court recognized and ordered commitment to push our Institution to act like The Church we love and of which we can be proud. The following is a summary of an alternative. A more detailed document may be forthcoming. We need legal assistance to polish an alternative and present it to the Court!

AN ALTERNATIVE SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL

Whole

“Wholeness” shall be defined as actual contributions; less approved fees; less loans, hardship and other early withdrawals; plus interest at the rate actually paid by Symetra compounded quarterly (which often exceeded 1.5%); plus interest at the Symetra paid rate of 1.5% for the period of July 2021up to final, full payment.

The AME Church shall ensure that all participants will be made whole within 16 years or by the time of their separation.

The AME Church will provide any additional funds necessary to make participants whole once all reasonable efforts have been made to collect court awarded funds.

The AME Church will advance payments of “wholeness” to those who have retired/separated with the understanding that if supplemental funds have been applied, the Church will be reimbursed up to the amount advanced in settlement.

Current Retirees (estates) Will be Made Whole Immediately

As indicated above, funds won through negotiation/judgement will reimburse the Church for funds up to the amount paid in advance. Additional amounts received above the advance payments will be paid to Retirees (estates) as compensation “above wholeness.”

Statement on Status of “Wholeness” to Be Issued

            The Church will maintain a separate record of the status of “wholeness.” Such statements will indicate the original sum, plus interest earned (1.5%/yr from July 2021), less appropriate fees, less payments to individuals (separated) or to accounts in approved, qualified plans. The record shall continue until the balance owed for all participants is zero.

            In no case shall the Church, or a Trust, fail to pay to each participant (or their accounts) a proportional share of ALL annual earned interest less reasonable fees.

Funding the Alternate Settlement

The Church shall liquidate 75% of investments, including the AME Future Fund. This should provide more than $10m. These initial funds shall be used to pay those who are already retired/separated.

The Church shall sell, or develop, the Washington, DC property. Up to $5m shall be used to make whole those already retired. The remainder shall pass through a Trust to accounts held in a qualified plan such as that currently managed by Wespath. The remaining participants shall be credited with their proportional share.

The Church shall establish a lien against the Sunday School Union Property (Nashville) which will have the effect of limiting excessive leveraging and secure the residual value to the Annuity Participants until all are made whole.

The Church and The Plaintiffs shall continue to pursue claims against other responsible parties. The total expenses/fees requested by The Plaintiff attorneys shall not exceed $20m, and it shall be the first paid claim against funds won/collected from the other parties.

Should more than $75m be won/collected from the other responsible parties, both The Plaintiffs and The Church may apply for additional compensation.

The Church shall provide no less that $4m each year to satisfy the cash requirements to make whole those who are retiring/separating. There shall be an actuarial analysis to determine the annual cash requirements and the amount to reach full settlement within 16-20 years. In no event shall funds not be available at the time of separation.

The Church shall ensure funds availability through its annual budget by exercising its discretion relative to decreases to expenses and increases to income.

Allocution

            The Church (and other responsible parties) shall submit an allocution to the court expressing regret for whatever role they played (or failed to fulfill) in the creation of the Annuity Crisis with an apology to the Participants and their families and to the AME Church.

This Summary does not address the Real Estate Deal or other suspect funding plans. The Participants have little concern on “how” the Institution finances settlement, but Participants cannot allow further financial abuse or underfunding of 100% Wholeness. The unfair binding of assets and “business as usual” at the expense of Participants is UNACCEPTABLE.