Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Dr. Taylor Marshall posts response regarding Fisher More College

News originally posted at Rorate Caeli.

I'm not sure why the Diocese of Ft. Worth doesn't do a press release to clear up the confusion.  Everybody is left to speculate when it's left ambiguous.  If Michael King's theology is the culprit... why not just say that?





I might also recommend a comment at Fr. Z's place:
lindarobinson says:
3 March 2014 at 3:01 pm
Dear Father et al,

Some have suggested that this was a hasty action on the part of a new bishop. In fact, the episcopacy in Ft. Worth had been vacant for quite a while (more than a year, I believe) and the apostolic administrator had been quietly accumulating a dossier on Fisher More and Michael King. I was myself an employee of the college until I could remain no longer on grounds of conscience. My friends who remained employed there have given me a lot of information over the eight months since I resigned and so I have a good idea concerning the information that is in the dossier; it’s not pretty stuff. In fact, rather than being shocked at the stern tone of the letter, I congratulate the bishop on his gentlemanly restraint.

Also, I find it amusing that so many are citing Canon Law on SP; does anyone really suppose that Bishop Olson has no canon lawyers of his own? I’m sure he knew that liturgical ideologues would crucify him in the blogsphere once the fact of his disciplinary action was public; isn’t it quite likely that he consulted with his own canonists before he took action? Thank God he drew courage from the graces of his office and did the right thing.

Those who love the EF should understand that the EF is being used, as were good priests and people, for bad ends.

Many, many, good Catholics have been devastated by Fisher More College — good Catholics who love the EF. They have all borne their crosses in silence, trying to avoid scandal. Whoever sent the Bishop’s letter to Rorate Caeli unleashed a sickening firestorm of slander and hysteria against Bishop Olson and the people who have been quiet are now in a position of having to speak out lest they become an accessory to sin. Catholic World Report is preparing an in depth report as we speak; I urge everyone to wait for the article and give Bishop Olson the benefit of any doubt, both now and after the article is made public.

Linda Robinson

29 comments:

  1. Thank you for giving us a truly balanced look at this very emotional situation. I love the TLM but I have been sickened by many of the posts and comments I have seen on many "traditional" Catholic blogs and websites. Some of them seem like they have been written by the devil himself who is rubbing his hands in glee at the self destruction of the Church as we take aim at each other, and most especially at those who have been placed in charge of our souls. I hope that when this whole thing plays out and the truth is fully known, that many of these "traditional" Catholics will hang their heads in shame and ask God for his mercy and forgiveness at their callous and hateful words against a bishop of the Catholic Church.

    ReplyDelete
  2. One other thing - you ask why the bishop doesn't just point the finger at Michael King. I think this shows the true charity of the bishop. I am sure that he is hoping for the repentance of Michael King, and so is not exposing him in any way but the bishop is instead taking the heat himself. We have to stop thinking of hierarchy of the Church as our enemy and stop listening to those people who tell us that the Church is our enemy. That is coming straight from Satan himself.

    ReplyDelete
  3. People are overlooking the fundamental problem at FMC.

    Mister Marshall posted on Facebook some allegations. Let's assume those are 100% correct (and I have no reason to doubt). Let’s go further and declare Mr. King is the Antichrist and he did horrible ugly things at FMC.

    In the end, I’m more disgusted by Marshall and the 5 (or 4 other) board members that fled than I am at King.

    Let’s be clear for those that don’t know. Boards control the organization and exist to protect the institution and its fiduciary interests. Officers run day to day operations, report to the Board and serve at their pleasure. By Marshall's own admission he was on the Board and a clear majority were distressed at what was happening. The financial transactions that Marshall describes would have had to be approved by the Board or authority given to the President to initiate them. In the end, it is always the Board's responsibility.

    What happened? Marshall and 4 other shepherds resign "in conscience" fleeing the wolf, and now Marshall sits back and says how much he loves FMC and its sheep and how horrible it is that the bad wolf ravaged them. Shouldn’t a properly formed conscience have dictated the need to stay, fight and right the wrong? Marshall rants on his blog about manliness and manhood, but flees because duking it out in the board meetings (with a majority) is too unpleasant? And then he sits silent for 9 months while everything implodes, only speaking publicly now? I'm just so impressed. Who did the real damage to FMC and the TLM, the wolf or the shepherds?

    Take a look at how the Board at Penn State stepped in over the Sandusky fiasco and removed the President. Let’s have Marshall start telling us who was on the Board when King was made President. Who approved what? Who left? Let’s see the Board minutes concerning the real estate deals. Where was the motion to remove King as President and who voted how? Stop passing the buck to an underling and have the Board take a little responsibility for mismanagement.

    This is just a microcosm of the Church crisis over the last 60 years: those with the authority and duty to put things in order refuse to mess in unpleasantries and then wring their hands at how sad they feel about the sheep.

    Marshall should stop blogging about manhood and start practicing the virtue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don...thank you for that. It's about time some rational thought enters the feeding frenzy of disgruntled employees.

      Delete
    2. Don,
      You make some good points. I cannot claim to know all the dirty details at the college, but my husband has had close connections with the college since before Mr. King took it over. Many people do not know the full history of this school; that Dr. Patrick was it's founder, and originally hired Mr. King, I believe to help with publicity efforts for the then College of St. Thomas More (CSTM). Regarding the board, as far as I am aware, part of the issue has to do with the board being stacked with people hand picked by Michael King. Don't ask me how that could happen, but I understand that something to that affect was done, and allowed him to take over as president and effectually get rid of the college's original founder as president. Also know that Mr. King has a background as a lawyer. That may have something to do with the odd way things have played out there. We have heard from many who left of being threatened legally. And you could say that they should still have stood up and fought it out, but that may have been tricky for those who have families/children to support (like Dr. Marshall) and no money or desire to get into a long drawn out legal battle with a man who knows more in that field then they do. My husband and I heard of threats of "defamation lawsuits" those that were fired or left spoke out, but I don't know what that means or how much of a threat it really would've been to former employees. And maybe the board originally thought the plan of renting the current property would work, under Mr. King's persuasion, but once he had control in that situation the finances just started to spiral out of control, who knows? And I am not sure, but I don't think Dr. Marshall was ever a board member... I don't think that's what he stated. Just that 5 of the 8 on the board resigned. And I hate to say it, but there really are some personalities that you can't stand up to, or that even if you do, you won't win, especially if they are the ones in control. There really wasn't much anyone could do without looking like the bad guy themselves, so like my own husband, who teaches for the online academy, they have just waited to see him bury himself in his own errors, knowing it was all going to collapse due to bad management decisions, since he wouldn't listen to anyone's voice of reason/advice. But when the man purposely releases a personal letter, knowing it will cause attacks on the new bishop, some of us feel he has taken it too far, and saw it as a sign that the time had come to stand together and speak out.

      Delete
    3. Kimberly,

      Let me address your counterpoints.

      First, if you had read all of Marshall’s post, he specifically said that as Chancellor he had an ex officio position on the board. In most academic environments, the chancellor is actually superior to a president, though sometimes it is created as a president emeritus position for fundraising. I don’t know if King also has an ex officio position, but at any rate, Marshall and King were at least peers on the board assuming that the board had not been so foolish as to make a reporting officer the chairman.

      I know boards can be stacked, but it can’t be stacked by a president without the existing board approving any recommendations for appointments. Marshall’s statement that 5 of 8 board members left over King is tacit acknowledgment that King had not yet achieved any majority support on the board. Again, this assumes that all board members were voting members—a non-voting member is a bit of an oddity and would normally be called a board advisor. 5 of 8 board members is a majority, and majorities rule. Period.

      I am intimately familiar with how brutal academic politics can be, and that there are dominate and nasty personalities. However, when someone seeks or is asked to assume a position of authority in academics, particularly chancellor and/or board member, he better take a deep breath after the initial thrill of the honors and privileges subsides, and take a brutally honest and humble look at himself as to whether he has the strength of personality and resolve to handle the dirty side of academics. Anyone naïve enough to think Catholic academia is all butterflies and rainbows has no business accepting a position with governance and fiduciary responsibilities. Let me make clear: the responsibilities of board members are far different than mere employees of FMC.

      I’d further point out that personality strength is on a natural level, and the sacrament of confirmation is given to provide the supernatural strength to fight these kinds of battles for the Faith. Presumably, all board members were confirmed Catholics? Think of the irony of a college named after John Fisher and Thomas More, and then you try to make the case that it would be personally difficult or unpleasant (“looking like the bad guy themselves”) to fight it out? Seriously?! These were men that literally lost their head standing up to a dominate, nasty personality with a sword when everyone else capitulated voluntarily.

      (continued...)

      Delete
    4. (...continued)

      As regard to threats of lawsuits, organizational bylaws typically indemnify board members from liabilities if they are acting responsibly which means FMC would have to cover the legal costs of intra-board suits between sitting board members. Talking after resigning is a different matter, but then leaving is what I’m criticizing.

      Now, let’s take a look at the effect of Marshall speaking now and not 9 months earlier. Marshall let the students commit a year of their lives and cough up a year’s tuition without concern of the effect on them. He sat by while they convinced others to donate $300,000 to FMC. Then he speaks out because he’s upset that the bishop is being maligned? Give me a break. The bishop is big boy and isn’t publicly crying himself. It’s sentimental laity that are doing all the crying for the bishop. Don’t feel sorry for the bishop; he accepted the episcopal see voluntarily, and this all comes with the territory. In my not so humble opinion, Bishop Olson made a strategic blunder in how he acted. In dealing with dominate, nasty personalities you don’t negotiate, dialogue, or make threats. You act decisively first, and talk later. That much he did to his credit, but he took the wrong action and stepped on a landmine. He is also choosing to remain silent on the issue despite calls for clarification.

      Marshall says King is playing politics with the Mass. Maybe, but the bishop couldn’t have given him better ammunition than if King had written the letter himself. King is under no obligation to keep it confidential, and considering that it had direct effect on the students, practically speaking King couldn’t. Letters like that get leaked to the internet so regularly that one might assume they always get leaked. The bishop should have assumed it would happen, and considering how sensitive traditionalists are feeling right now after the actions against the FI, should have expected this kind of reaction. If not, no doubt he’s getting a quick lesson in pastoral studies. A far better letter would have gone something like: “Mister King: Due to grave concerns about administrative and academic issues at FMC, I am revoking permission for the public celebration of sacraments and the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament until these matters are satisfactorily resolved.” Direct, simple, and reads much better on the internet. The reader immediately wonders what’s going on at FMC. The EF is not singled out which takes the wind out the current outcry, and there is no hint of any attempt to foist the Novus Ordo on traditionalists as some kind of oath of fidelity. It doesn't take a Monday morning quarterback to make this call.

      So, I stand by my comments that the board members need to step up and take responsibility for mismanagement and stop pretending like there was nothing they could do.

      Delete
    5. I would like to make clear that my previous comments posited that Marshall’s statement was 100% correct, and that Mr King was the evil man depicted in online comments. This was done to show that even if true, the responsibility of governing FMC resides with the Board, and finger pointing at Mr. King as the root of all evil, is overlooking who has ultimate responsibility and that Marshall held that responsibility with those 4 or 5 other members that left. It doesn’t mean that I accuse Mr King or the Board of mismanagement, but rather it was done to show the Board is ultimately responsible.

      Since my last rebuttal to Kimberly, I’ve had a change to review some current postings, especially those on FMC. The Board of FMC has issued a statement of confidence and support of Mr. King. SO, again, those with responsibility for governing FMC have supported Mr. King. You can not like that or think it wrong, but target your unhappiness at those who rule FMC.

      Information from the statements posted by FMC as well as from comments posted against Mr. King, lead me to question aspects of Marshall’s assessment. Shortly after Marshall left FMC, he posted on his blog an article about the FI situation where he tries to define “radical traditionalism” which led me at the time to think his leaving at FMC involved some disagreements about traditionalism. This seems to be bearing out.

      Delete
    6. @Don I completely agree with you that the board has some responsibility here. I would imagine that what happened is something like what has happened twice before during Mr. King's tenure as President of the college. He conned the board into agreeing with him when it mattered...by a hair of a majority. Members who were opposed left. Eventually others found out they had made a mistake and left as well. The board is responsible, yes. But when a board member is trying and failing to stop an impending disaster he will leave. When those who supported the disaster see how wrong they were...well, there is nothing left to do but leave as well.
      I would like to take the attention away from Dr. Marshall's comments for a moment...and look at the official FMC statements in the same way you treat Dr. Marshall's. Let's assume everything they say is 100% correct.
      Since it came out first let's look at the chaplains first. Don't you find it strange that according to the official statement released by the school they have been unable to keep a residential chaplain for longer than 9 months? Fr. Weber was there July-January; Fr. Orlowski was there February-October; Fr. Henderson was there October-February. The residential chaplains stayed an average of 7 months. Of course they were reassigned by their superiors...that's what happens anytime a priest moves for whatever reason...but it is HIGHLY unusual for reassignation to happen so quickly. I'll just mention it was unusual. There's no need to speculate what might have caused it...although Bishop Olson probably knows since the Orders would have been in contact with him as they moved there priests in and out of his diocese.
      As an aside (and now not related to FMC statements), you might also look into the student retention rate at FMC during King's tenure. Since we can assume that most of those students come from good Catholic families and often chose the college specifically because it offered the TLM daily, and since the tuition was so low with many students receiving full scholarships, it is again HIGHLY unusual that so many would leave. (This is not to mention the staff and faculty retention rate...as with the chaplains most leave after less than a year.)
      Back to official Fisher More statements. In response to Dr. Marshall's claim that the college would not disassociate the the himself/the college with the claim that Vatican II was not a valid council FMC posted the text of the faculty member's lecture. In it he claims "I would argue that it is an dangerous standpoint for Catholics to say that they accept the II Vatican Council with the exception of those passages that contradict traditional Catholic teaching. There are so many passages that contradict traditional teaching that I would argue that it is of the greatest importance to entirely reject the II Vatican Council". Not a very good rebuttal. You can find the text on the FMC website.
      In response to Dr. Marshall's claim that the campus real estate deal financially crippled the college the college's official statement argues "but it was a REALLY GOOD DEAL!" Right. And a really good deal can steal be financially crippling...and is in fact a terrible deal if you can't afford it. Any housewife can tell you that. The proceed to explain how they spent all of the capital they inherited from the previous administration. In most colleges the President is in charge of fundraising. One wonders whether anyone (aside from the students) has been doing any fundraising over the last years. In the statement, it seemed as if they were just waiting for a single generous benefactor to materialize.
      Oh well. It is what it is.
      I agree with you that the board needs to take responsibility in this issue. But I wouldn't be so quick to fault board members who have left. Some left after trying hard to stop the train from going over the cliff.

      Delete
  4. Don Harris, thank you for your responses. They are the most balanced and level headed and closest to the facts. A few noteworthy considerations here: Taylor Marshall accused Mr. King of employing a suspended priest but he did not name him. The school has provided a list of the priests who have served the school. So the question begs, who is Taylor Marshall talking about? By not naming him, he has started a rumor that has taken off. Taylor Marshall is responsible for this rumor and needs to provide proof or recant. Next is that Taylor Marshall spent a lot of time focusing on the so-called bad real estate deal but failed to mention that he, himself, voted for the deal. In addition, the papers reported that the deal was a sealed transaction. This was TCU's request. That is not uncommon for large businesses, corporations, etc. to make deals like that. As a Board member, Taylor Marshall would have known that the transaction was sealed and he would have been bound by a confidentiality agreement that would not have ended simply because he left. These three things alone call in to question Taylor Marshall's integrity. That is enough not to trust a single word from his mouth. Also noteworthy is that Taylor Marshall had blogged a few weeks back about his friendship with Bishop Olsen. Are we to believe that it is just a coincidence that one of Bishop Olsen's first acts was to go after FMC and Mr. King?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wasn’t going to comment any further here since “Mary”’s comments were weak enough that the reader should be able to dismantle them on his own. However, “Anonymous” raised a game changer. In further researching the situation, I also stumbled across a couple of rather interesting items.

      First though, I, too, was a little troubled that Marshall would make a serious canonical charge about an irregular/suspended priest without naming the priest. This makes it impossible for the intended reading audience to independently verify the accusation.

      The game changer is “Anonymous”’s assertion that Marshall voted for the deals that he is now criticizing. While I can’t take an assertion from “Anonymous” as verified fact, if it is true, then Marshall comes out looking like a fool. If, having all the relevant information available to him, he voted for a proposal that he declares is crippling to FMC, that’s just plain dumb and irresponsible. Why would he now be bright enough to critique it from a distance?

      FMC is a startup college transitioning from an institute with very few students. FMC reports they had a maximum capacity of 25 residential students and that the student body tripled between the 2010 and 2011 academic years. That implies that there were at most 8 residential students prior to that. You can’t run a college on the tuition of 8 students ($80,000). Their strategic plan (in place before Marshall became Chancellor) calls for growth in the student body to 100 to reach sustainability. No college makes it on tuition alone. Public colleges get funding from the State. Private ones establish Foundations and troll the alumni. Both run massive for-profit athletic programs with indentured servants. Thus the expectation of FMC that to make their plan work would require donors is not unreasonable.

      Startups of all kinds have struggles with funding and growing pains. That’s why most fail. Ave Maria College/Ave Maria School of Law/Ave Maria University had major controversies involving disgruntled staff, issues with the local bishop, and continues to have controversies over “interesting” real estate deals. Interestingly enough “reform of the reformer” Fr Fessio had his own controversies at AMU and with its administration. Now, Fr Fessio pops up in dealings with FMC and has public, critical things to say about King. Trouble just seems to follow Fr. Fessio.

      (continued...)

      Delete
    2. (continued...)

      I happened upon Marshall’s public professional resume on the LinkedIn networking site. Quite astonishingly, Marshall claims to have been Chancellor from January 2012 to June 2013 (1 year 6 months). Online records clearly show otherwise. Padding one’s resume is scandalous and common grounds for dismissal anywhere. Marshall joined FMC as Tutor of Philosophy [FMC uses the Oxford system] in late January 2012. In mid April 2012 prior to the summer break he was named academic Dean. It was only in late December 2012 after the Fall semester that he was appointed Chancellor. Now my mathematical background only extends to first year calculus, but I believe that would give a maximum of 6 months as Chancellor. Perhaps those with more advanced mathematics have more sophisticated counting methods. Now when a fellow cannot accurately recall his own positions at his most recent employer, it really calls into question the accuracy of his recollections about events there and the role played by others.

      He also claims to have been the Director of the Year of Faith Lectures (October 2012 – November 2013) which included the controversial lecture by Dr. Dudley. Maybe Director means something different to Marshall, but the obvious meaning to the reader is that he would have been responsible for arranging for the speakers and topics and therefore had responsibility over what is presented. Perhaps Marshall means he arranged the coffee and donuts.

      I’m going to stop short of offering my speculations regarding motives for the resume, speaking out now to pass responsibility to an underling and distancing himself from traditionalist viewpoints. Instead I’m calling for substantial public clarification by Marshall. For the record, days ago after posting my original comment, I popped over to Marshall’s website (I have no Facebook account) and left a comment informing Marshall about my questioning of him and of board responsibility. He has not appeared here yet to address these comments. As far as I am aware, I’m the only commenter taking a crack at this perspective of responsibility, and a former board member accusing an underling should address it. So, if someone (Matt?) would tweet Marshall (I’m not on twitter either) about these posts so it can be publicly seen that he’s aware of them, I’d appreciate it.

      Mr. Marshall, please explain your public resume. Mr. Marshall, as Dean of FMC, did you not know of Dr Dudley’s controversial view of Vatican II when you organized the lecture series and previous to the April 2013 lecture? Were you that out of touch with the faculty you were to supervise? Mr. Marshall, did you vote for the real estate deal that you are now blaming King for?

      Mr. Marshall, having voluntarily stepped into the public forum with vague and incomplete statements, you owe your groupies and critics alike a full and detailed explanation.

      Delete
    3. Please keep cracking.

      Delete
    4. Don - Don't hold your breathe for a response from Taylor Marshall. He has been deleting posts that question him or portray the other side. Including from people who are/were just as involved in the school as he claims to have been. I say claims because his extracurricular career actually grew during his time at Fisher More. He was collecting a pay check from the school but from all public appearances was blogging, writing a book(s), traveling to give talks, and starting and fundraising for his Catholic alternative to the boyscouts. None of these things were related to school business. These were all personal endeavors.

      Delete
    5. Also forgot to mention there are reports online that Catholic World Report is also deleting comments in defense of the other side. I haven't bothered to follow them, so I don't know how much but the reports say they are heavily censoring the comments.

      Others have written to Taylor directly and he has yet to acknowledge them.

      Delete
    6. Deleting comments is par for the course in Happy Catholic Land.

      "Dissenting" viewpoints are never allowed. Persistence will get you banned from their blogs. Been banned from a number of them myself.

      Delete
  5. Someone should ask Linda Robinson where she attends Mass. Her comments become very clear when you know this information.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I attend Mass in the extraordinary form in my own parish; one reason why the Fisher More debacle should be upsetting to those who love the EOF is that the college's now public resistance to bishops will do nothing but harm to the fuller implementation of Summorum Pontificum.

      But your question does illustrate the ideological mindset that is so distressing.

      Delete
  6. http://amongtheruins2.blogspot.com/

    Just rounding out the record. Sometimes we want to believe something is true in order to avoid dealing with the alternatives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. I'm crushed, I was an avid listener to Taylor's podcast, blog and thought about signing up for his current endeavor but now, no way! I often wondered why he left FM. I thought he probably needed to make more money with the blog etc. It's crushing when you admire someone and then find out that they are not as saintly as you had hoped them to be. This beautiful college just got thrown under the bus by those who were supposed to protect it. Pray for everyone involved. This is so sad. We're Catholics, we're supposed to be more charitable than this.

      Delete
    2. Oh please; Robert Drum's letter discredits itself. Everyone is the bad guy except Michael King, his personal friend. Drum himself resigned from the board due to his concern that the college would not survive the infamous real estate deal. His allegations of secret meetings arranged to topple King are totally fallacious. What actually happened was that, BEFORE the bishop's intervention, the students were becoming confused about what was going on at the college and went to the former FSSP chaplain for counsel. Soon, the priests at Mater Dei were spending so much time counseling Fisher More students that they called a group meeting of students in order to answer their questions and address the issues that had arisen.

      Within ten minutes of my first meeting with Michael King in person, he said he had enough money to run the college for 5 years even if he never got another donation. Square that with Robert Drum's account (and call me a liar if you wish but there was another person present when King told me that and so my statement can be verified). He furthermore told me that he had raised two million dollars with one phone call and within a few days another two million. He led me to believe those were donations; later he admitted they were loans. Whatever they were, the money didn't last five years as he predicted.

      Delete
    3. Linda, You were not part of the school for a very long time before any of this so you would have no idea. I think R. Drumm would know why he resigned from the Board much more than you would. R. Drumm served the Board until recently so he clearly did not resign over the 'real estate' deal.

      R. Drumm can back up what he says, can you?

      The Bishop did not provide any intervention, he illegally suppressed the TLM and provided no real reason. The Mass is not something that can be suppressed. The TLM was never abrogated and is part of the patrimony of the Church. All Catholics everywhere are entitled to it at all times. Had the Bishop had a real reason other than Taylor Marshall having his ear, he would have provided it.

      Delete
    4. Yes, I can back up everything I have said and will do so if called into court.

      Your statement that all Catholics everywhere are entitled to the TLM at all times is erroneous. The Ecclesia Dei Pontifical Commission is to adjudicate when there are disputes between bishops and those requesting the TLM. Msgr Pearl has already stated that the case of a college chapel needs more study. Getting in the bishop's face is certainly not going to incline anyone in Rome to favor the college.

      Meanwhile, the Commission's instructions say in part, "19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church."

      http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html

      Mr. King, by making it clear that the forma ordinaria would not be said in "his" chapel was asking for the trouble that came his way.

      And all the armchair canon layers out there should explain -- emphasis with * is mine:

      Can. 1225 All sacred services may be celebrated in a lawfully constituted oratory, apart from those which are excluded by the law, *by a provision of the local Ordinary*, or by liturgical laws.

      As I wrote in my response to the Catholic World Report article, Msgr Berg, the apostolic administrator during the interregnum had been collecting a dossier on Michael King and Fisher More college during the interregnum. The dossier was quite fat long before Taylor Marshall or then Msgr Michael Olsen had any idea thwho the next bishop would be.

      The more you try to demonize Taylor Marshall, the more you validate the "Anonymous" statement that "Sometimes we want to believe something is true in order to avoid dealing with the alternatives."

      Delete
    5. How do you know how long I was associated with the school?

      Delete
    6. Anonymous...neither was Robert Drumm part of the school for a long time! Drumm was on the board for only a very, very short time...He has no idea the lies he is perpetuating because parts of his letter are based only on hearsay. Problem is, he trusts the people who told him lies and has put his name on the line.
      I will say this: Mr King is some kind of sales person. He has thoroughly convinced Drumm that he is the innocent party while so many, many others are incompetent and liars. If there were only a few people it would be believable. But FOUR distinct sets of faculty/staff have left FisherMore since King arrived. Many board members...more than three times as many as currently sit on the board have also left. Any reasonable person would look at the chain of events and see that there must be something seriously wrong at the college itself.

      Delete
  7. http://www.wfaa.com/news/education/Fort-Worth-college-under-financial-scrutiny-after-lawsuit-250715061.html
    Just rounding out the record. Shortly after Fisher More defended the real estate deal (which Dr. Marshall called ruinous) and said the landlord was considered one of there most generous benefactors...they are sued by the landlord.
    One wonders why when they so publicly raised $300,000 in December they never paid the rent and utilities for December, January, February and March; and why they never got around to paying their taxes (unpaid since November); and if that money wasn't enough to operate the semester...why didn't they just close down as was the original plan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed one wonders. Could the GoFundMe campaign have been fraudulent in some way? Hmmm.

      Looks like we've added disgruntled landlords to the list of disgruntled people surrounding Fisher More college. Of course there is no such thing as a disgruntled capital T Traditional Catholic.

      Delete
    2. Most generous benefactor is now suing the college he supported? Something is rotten in Denmark.

      Delete
  8. The bottom line is this: Something stinks when the Bishop uses the TLM as a weapon. Robert Drum may be friends with Mr. King, but what he said about Taylor Marshall appears to be true. Imagine if FMC never hired him, they probably wouldn't be in the mess that they're in now.

    ReplyDelete

Please contact matt@badgercatholic.com if you have issues commenting.