Misappropriation

These are unauthorized and unofficial ramblings. I didn't take notes when I heard this, so you’re getting my recollections at a later date; all errors are mine.

About misappropriation of funds in general

… not necessarily this case in particular:

We often won’t know how long misappropriation went on.

Sometimes an initial report will mention “at least five years,” because it's fairly easy to get bank records going back five years. Farther back, they’re harder to get.

We often won’t know how much money was taken without an arduous investigation.

Perpetrators do not usually keep separate ledger columns, so they don’t know. They don’t want to know, really. It takes time to analyze financial records, and if the misappropriation went on for over five years, records may also be incomplete.

Whether stolen assets can be returned depends on how much the perpetrator has in the way of recoverable assets.

Many organizations have insurance policies to protect them from losses of this kind. Insurers often require a police report to be filed in order to process a claim.

Police report? Aren’t these civil matters?

IANAL but I understand that there can be both criminal and civil actions. Any criminal charge would be filed by the District Attorney. It is the DA’s decision whether to file charges and prosecute. When guilt is admitted, I understand that the DA would usually proceed to file charges. This decision is influenced by many factors, including political factors.

What about a civil case?

Any civil case would typically be initiated by the insurer. This decision may be based on a judgment of whether recoverable assets would likely exceed the costs of litigation. If a defendant owns a house in the San Francisco Bay Area, then equity in the house would typically be the largest single asset and might be recoverable in a civil action.

If recoverable assets do not exceed the estimated litigation expense, a civil action would likely not be initiated.

Why the perpetrator did it is something that is usually not knowable.

Perpetrators, like all of us, tell themselves stories to justify themselves. These stories evolve over time. They tell the stories to themselves for so long that they actually believe them, even though their version of events may contain elements that simply did not happen that way. So after some time, even they don’t know why they started; consequently, they cannot tell us.

In the Trinity case, whose funds were taken?

Some denominations have legal ownership of all a church’s assets; this is true at Trinity. All assets “owned” by Trinity Menlo Park are, as a legal matter, held in trust for the Diocese of California. The Diocese is the legal owner of bank accounts, real estate, and everything else that Trinity “owns.”

When funds were taken from Trinity, then, they were as a legal matter actually taken from the Diocese. The injured party in this case is thus the Diocese; it is not “us.” That is why the Diocese must be involved.

What has Matthew said?

The Diocese’s “Title IV” process prohibits Matthew from communicating to us; we are requested not to reach out to him by any means (including social media). I recently thought to consult local news media. An April 19th article in the Mercury News includes these excerpts:

“This is a very painful time for me, and particularly for my family,” Dutton-Gillett said in a statement to this news organization. “I have a deep love for the Trinity community, and they for me, and I know that this is painful for them, as well. I regret that deeply.”

“The essence of the Christian faith is repentance and reconciliation with reparation,” Dutton-Gillett said in the statement. “It is my profound hope that we will find a way to continue our journey together in a way that embodies Christ’s forgiveness and healing, finding our way back to a place of mutual trust.”

Jail Ministry

I’ll confess here to one of my many blind spots. Until a recent meeting of Trinity’s jail ministry team, the question of jail time had not occurred to me. Or if it did, I guess I suppressed the thought because I like Matthew and worry about his future and his family.

In that jail team meeting, a team member commented that as we try to serve jail inmates, some of whom may be there unjustly, it made no sense that a white male with connections is still at large even though he has admitted guilt; there is no doubt that he stole some $125,000. This was of course a criminal act (or a sequence of criminal acts).

This team member is withdrawing from the jail team for a time, and possibly also from Trinity.

The above comments shocked me, not because I disagreed, but because, as I mentioned above, the question of criminal prosecution had somehow not occurred to me at all. It put me in mind of the Roman Catholic Church’s scandal exposed by the Boston Globe’s Spotlight team—at least as depicted in the eponymous film. What stood out for me from it was the comment from so many parishioners that they didn’t want to get the Father in trouble.

I remember feeling shocked to hear parents say that, and this instance is hardly as egregious, but I can now completely sympathize with the feelings of fondness and respect for a teacher/counselor figure.