Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Charter of the GOA

Our Mother Church of Constantinople has made the determination that the present Charter must be revisited. The present Charter of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America has been in use for over 20 years. Having reached the 20-year milestone of this Charter’s existence, it makes sense to consider both its benefits and shortcomings to determine if some modifications are necessary as we enter our Archdiocese’s second century.

There is no question that the Archdiocese, its parishes, and its Metropolises have seen growth over the past twenty years—growth in ministries, institution of new programs, expansions in certain areas and enhancements to physical plant and other resources. Those are all positives. Our parishes and Metropolises are not just buildings or offices or programs, however. They should function as thriving centers of resources and people and ministries, working in synergy with the national church as we share our faith with others.

Assessing progress, making course corrections if needed and reviewing our pluses and minuses are signs of a healthy organization.

Some of the many opportunities a new charter may bring include the following examples:

1. For the Hierarchs:
   1. The same Synodical system as in the past will continue.
   2. Reassess the geographic boundaries of the existing Metropolises and develop manageable geographic areas for the Hierarchs to effectively perform their pastoral duties.
   3. Adopt a canonically sound structure for the Archdiocese.
2. For the Clergy:
   1. Establishing national criteria for the relocation of clergy from a parish to protect clergy and their families from sudden transfers and to ensure consideration of family and financial circumstances.
   2. More uniformity in the administration of benefits and other services.
   3. Protecting the hard-earned sabbaticals that our clergy deserve.
3. For the Laity:
   1. Strengthen national ministries for greater consistency throughout the country and support of the faithful and their families. We must recognize the reality that our society is more mobile and transient than ever before. People move from coast to coast. There should be some consistency in the Church they encounter while at the same time recognizing that there will be some regional differences.
   2. More direct access and pastoral services from their local hierarch through more practical and reasonable geographic borders.
   3. More streamlined administrative structure for more efficiency and cost-effectiveness through the elimination of duplicative services.
   4. Growth in the coordinated fund-raising capacity of the Archdiocese thereby reducing the Total Commitment burden on the parishes and further diversifying the revenue streams supporting our ministries, parishes, and National Institutions.
4. For the Youth:
   Recognizing that our youth may call one state "home", live elsewhere as college students and in yet another location as they begin their professional lives, we must provide:
   1. More consistent and more manifold youth programs to prepare them for the future;
   2. Consistent and coordinated YAL and other young adult programs / ministries to support them while they pursue higher education and career;
   3. Consistent religious education programs that will be implemented nationwide;
   4. Solid and increased Greek education opportunities for a sound foundation in our common culture;
   5. A nationwide, consistent camp program that all our youth will have fair access to.

The Charter of the Greek Orthdox Archdiocese of America (GOA) is given by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and is just that: a Charter for the GOA. The Charter cannot be applied to parishes of another Orthodox jurisdiction. Whereas the hope is that one day there will be ecclesiastical administrative unity of all the Orthodox presences in the United States under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the current Charter revisions play no role in other Orthodox presences.

It cannot be disputed that there is strength in being a national church and we are proud of what we have achieved over the last 100 years in America.

Our forefathers came to this country with nothing, and when they came here, their priority was to establish a parish and to celebrate the Divine Services with a priest. The success of that initiative was the growth of the national Church, especially under Archbishop (and later Ecumenical Patriarch) Athenagoras as well as Archbishop Iakovos. Their successes were greatly aided by the structure of the national Church at that time, which underscored its unity.

The Metropolis system which the Charter created has yielded both benefits but also some unintended consequences which did not serve the Church well on a national basis. The Archdiocesan District and eight Metropolises ended up becoming nine independent silos which lacked adequate transparency and accountability and consistency. Individually, each one has focused on its own programs, its own people, its own goals, and its own priorities. Focusing on regional and local needs and ministries is a worthy cause but not to the detriment of integrated ministries and resources for the benefit of our national church. Instead of one unified Archdiocese with nine regions having their uniqueness represented as part of the unified whole, what emerged were eight mini-Archdioceses. There has been limited sharing of successful programs so that the entire Archdiocese can benefit from creative local initiatives and, conversely, there is no mechanism for beneficial initiatives developed by the Archdiocese to reach the local parish level. This has led to a replication of ministries, duplication of services, and an accumulation of duplicative costs resulting in a crushing and ultimately unsustainable financial burden on the parishes and the faithful. Our parishes simply cannot afford this financial burden.

This, coupled with a lack of adequate oversight and a lack of consistent transparency has resulted in very uneven services for the faithful, increased financial burdens on us all and increased risks for parishes, Metropolises, and the Archdiocese.

Our focus must be to meet the needs of our faithful, grow their ranks, expand spiritual engagement and be good stewards of our financial resources. One unified Archdiocese would facilitate the growth that we all desire.

Likewise, the lack of consistency in pastoral care, youth ministry, youth protection, clergy matters, and the administration of our national ministries has left the Church, as a whole, in a weaker position to respond to the manifold spiritual and practical needs of our Greek Orthodox faithful and their parishes. Our obligation as a church is to meet the needs of our faithful, their children and grandchildren now and for the future.

The fact that we have one seminary and one department of religious education demonstrates the vestiges or remnants of a previously unified Church in America. Let’s look at the practical application of the current structure, for example, on our one seminary, and other national issues.

Over the past 20 years, each Metropolis focused on its own planning, ministry and growth. Looking inward, each one engaged in a “building” phase. Some built camps; others focused on Metropolis offices and structures; some gave priority to ministries, and programs; each one focused on itself and what it believed was most important.

However, while each Metropolis flourished, the national resources—those that serve all the Metropolises and clergy across the country—suffered greatly:

• Holy Cross Hellenic College (HCHC), our one seminary, was in a precarious financial condition and losing its accreditation;
• Our Archdiocese was in dire financial straits and in risk of bankruptcy;
• The Maliotis Center located on the HCHC campus was immersed in decades-long litigation;
• The clergy pension fund was not being funded adequately; and much more. While everyone was working and focused on their Metropolis, their own silo as it were, there was no unified vision or plan to address each of these national issues or the needs of the national church. It was always someone else’s responsibility.

As it stands today, the Archdiocese, for example, could develop the best programs through the Department of Religious Education, yet they are ignored and never implemented because each Metropolis is developing its own programs; replication of efforts has been rampant and of course with that comes replication of costs, lack of accountability and inconsistent financial reporting to the faithful.

It is not just the national programs of the Archdiocese that suffer. Leadership 100 has had to compete with local endowment programs for the limited donations of the faithful. These conditions do not pave the way for growth. Our growth should be fueled by new ideas, strategic investments, wise and measured deployment of financial resources and, above all, spiritual engagement.

It is hoped that the revision of the Charter will maintain those elements that have worked to the benefit of the church and addresses the unintended consequences created by the Charter of 2003 as well as providing the following three main benefits:

1. Provide more effective ministry and services to our faithful to meet their needs in this rapidly changing society;
2. Provide a more canonical structure so our church can grow and reach its full potential of spreading the Gospel and the truth of Orthodoxy
3. Increase transparency, accountability, and financial efficiencies, while eliminating duplicative and ineffective spending.

These critical steps will help strengthen our connection and alignment with each other no matter where we live and will enhance the unity of the Church in America. Most importantly it will help us grow and meet our mission as Orthodox Christians to share the truth of Orthodoxy by increasing the number of faithful, enhancing spiritual enrichment for all, and being good stewards of our financial resources. One unified Archdiocese would facilitate the growth that we all desire and ultimately will enhance not only our unity in America but also with our Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

The existing Charter has created an anomaly insofar as it is incorrect to have Metropolises within an Archdiocese. Our Archdiocese is one indivisible entity of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as per our Archdiocesan Regulations. But a Metropolis has inherent prerogatives that give it a certain level of independence. Imagine, if you will, a large company that has a Board of Directors, a Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and regional managers. For the purpose of this example, imagine that the Patriarch together with the Holy and Sacred Synod is the Board of Directors, the Archbishop is CEO, and the Metropolitans are the regional managers. We all would expect that if the CEO needs to enforce company policies due to a deviation in those policies by a regional manager, he should be able to do so. The present Charter does not allow the Archbishop to ensure or enforce Archdiocesan policies in other Metropolises. However, if a Metropolitan is not responsive to his responsibilities, there is no recourse in the present Charter to allow the Archbishop to enforce the policies or to address concerns of the faithful that are addressed to Him. To continue with our example, it would be as if you do not have one CEO and eight regional managers, but nine CEOs with none of them able to enforce policies.

The importance of a unified Archdiocese with functioning national structures is the very underpinning of His Eminence Archbishop Elpidophoros's vision for the future of the Charter. This vision would have some of the same centralized functions as the pre-2003 structure, but it would not be a “regression." The fact of the matter is that today's Charter structure requires neither transparency nor accountability, and our centralized resources, such as National Ministries and the Seminary, are suffering. These National Ministries should exist and be vibrant, but the current structure does not allow for it. For example, some Metropolises have a robust YAL (Young Adult League), while others do not have one at all, despite the Archdiocese spending a lot of money on the Youth and Young Adult Ministry. Why should such rewarding experiences be available to young people in one Metropolis, but not in all of them? We need strong national ministries and the new Charter will help us achieve them.

Today, each Metropolis provides a different experience for clergy and faithful alike. Centralized standards that are implemented regionally or locally and compliance mandated nationally would create a level of consistency nationwide. It has been said that each Metropolis "feels like a different church, a different religion." Given our mobile society, that does not serve us well. Youth ministry is a great example of how the Metropolises differ. The resources that each Metropolis has to devote to Youth Ministry vary greatly from Metropolis to Metropolis. Not only does this create a different experience for our youth depending on where they live, but it has also caused implementation issues with important national policies such as the Archdiocesan Youth Safety protocol. A policy as vitally important as Youth Safety should be uniformly implemented across all Metropolises, but this has proven challenging under the structure of the current Charter. As another example, clergy transfers and sabbaticals are handled very differently and often unpredictably in each Metropolis. Consistency could be obtained if centralized standards for considering transfers and sabbaticals existed and involved an appeal process to someone other than the clergy’s own hierarch.

The role of the Clergy-Laity Congress in setting the vision for National Ministries is not expected to change as a result of a revised Charter. Though the Archdiocese has existing mechanisms for sharing its information, it should flow both ways--from the Archdiocese to the Metropolises and parishes and vice versa. A revised Charter envisions breaking down structural barriers so that knowledge sharing and best practices can more easily be made available for all to benefit from. Similarly, effective ministry requires the availability of data to inform decison-making and measure progress and effectiveness. Such proposed changes would facilitate the acquisition of this information and data so that we can all benefit from each other's experiences nationwide. Communication, sharing, and unity characterize Orthodoxy, and the concept of breaking down barriers is being enthusiastically embraced, for example, by the Assembly of Orthodox Canonical Bishops in their Inter-Parish Associations Program.

The suggestions that you make for "liaisons" are helpful and practical in implementing our vision of one united Archdiocese. Once the structure of the Archdiocese is redefined through the Charter process, the establishment of processes and people to execute the vision consistently and effectively will be developed, including suggestions such as yours.

The current process was initiated by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, consistent with its supreme ecclesiastical and canonical authority. Accordingly, the Mother Church will determine the process. Here, a Mixed Commission of representatives has been formed to ensure a collaborative process and the Archdiocesan Council and the Clergy-Laity Congress will have the opportunity to comment on any proposed revisions to the Charter.

Our current Charter acknowledges "the supreme, ecclesiastical and canonical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate." Accordingly, the decision regarding the Charter, like all canonical and ecclesiastical matters, falls to the Holy and Sacred Synod at the Ecumenical Patriarchate, just as been the case with all ecclesiastical Charters both for our Archdiocese and for other eparchies under the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Some confusion on this final point may exist because of Article 25 of the Charter which sets forth one procedure for amending the Charter (a process that is codified in Article 7 of the Archdiocesan Regulations) when the request for amendment originates in the United States. This is the process that was utilized in 2003. That process, however, is inapplicable here because the current process was not initiated by a formal request of the Holy Eparchial Synod or the Archdiocesan Council.

The Mixed Commission is a 10-member group of clergy and men and women laity appointed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate to represent the concerns, and issues regarding the Charter of the Archdiocese.

​​​
Mixed Commission for the Charter of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

The Archdiocesan members of the Mixed Commission were recommended by the Holy Eparchial Synod in November 2022 and subsequently appointed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Their role under the leadership of the Archbishop is to listen to the concerns of the clergy and faithful and present this information to the Patriarchal appointees of the Mixed Commission so that together a framework for an amended or new charter can be developed.

The voices of all parishioners are very important and your emphasis on women is pertinent. At last year's National Philoptochos Convention, His Eminence Archbishop Elpidophoros expressed his appreciation, saying: "The women of our Church are numerically half of the Body of Christ, but I think we all know that they do much more than half of the work." In addition to an Officer on the Archdiocesan Council and members of the Executive Committee and Archdiocesan Council itself being women, His Eminence has also inaugurated Senators for Orthodoxy and Hellenism to recognize those faithful with long service to the Church and allow for other voices, including our new and young leaders, to be represented on the Archdiocesan Council.

The revision of the Charter of the Archdiocese is indeed a process. An important part of that process is engagement with the Clergy as well as the laity. His Eminence Archbishop Elpidophoros has just concluded meetings with all of the clergy of the Archdiocese, sharing his vision and discussing the problems and issues that we need to address. That process will continue as His Eminence will go to all Metropolises to engage the faithful, hear their thoughts, and address their concerns. He wants to hear from everyone; that is why he is traveling to every Metropolis in order to engage in locations convenient to the faithful. This website is also a means of engagement. Your comments and questions are welcome.

So far as the composition of the Archdiocesan component of the Mixed Commission is concerned, it comprises His Eminence and five other members (hierarchs, clergy, academics, and laity) who each represent a segment of our Archdiocese and its major ministries. The Eparchial Synod through His Eminence Metropolitan Gerasimos, the clergy through Fr. Paul Kaplanis, the laity through Mr. Jim Logothetis, Chairman of Leadership 100, and Ms. Anita Kartalopoulos, Vice President of National Philoptochos, and Fr. Bartholomew Mercado, a professor of canon law represent us all in this process. They, along with His Eminence, convey the concerns, hopes, and expectations of all our faithful in this Holy Archdiocese of America.

The Charter process was initiated by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, so it will determine the timeline. The Archdiocese cannot unilaterally dictate timing.

Ultimately, that is the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. His Eminence’s vision is that the Holy Eparchial Synod will be expanded in number based on participating hierarchs. This will give the faithful a more direct voice through their local hierarch who serves their pastoral needs, represents them directly and who knows their concerns. Additionally, the Holy Eparchial Synod will not meet only twice a year, as the current Charter requires, but every month as His Eminence has already been implementing during the last four years.

Let us bear in mind that this process was initiated by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and it is our Mother Church that will be the ultimate decision maker regarding the new Charter, including if it should create a more centralized organization. In any event, the proposed revisions of the Charter provide for a greater sharing of authority given the fact that the Holy Eparchial Synod would be increasing in size and frequency of meetings, therefore allowing for more voices to be heard and the concerns of the faithful to be addressed in the traditional Orthodox synodical manner more regularly.

There is no desire to change this and indeed, having been elevated to the rank of Metropolitan, they will continue to hold that rank.

The title of Metropolitan can be used in a few ways. If we were to use the Archdiocese of Constantinople as a model, then we see that within the various districts there are hierarchs (either Metropolitans or Bishops) who assist in the administration of those regions. If a Bishop does an exemplary job in ministering and administering the region he serves, then He is elevated to the rank of Metropolitan so that His services can be honored and rewarded. In such a way, one earns his title and the privileges that accompany the rank. That being said, the intent is that both titles will exist, but the elevated title of Metropolitan will be an earned title.

While some people may not be confused by the current use of the term "Archbishop," a large number of laity have already expressed their confusion about having a Metropolitan who is called "Archbishop" in the Divine Liturgy. This may, perhaps, only seem like a technical matter, but it has consequences for our faithful understanding the canonical structure of our Church. Canonically and consistently throughout ecclesiastical history, priests and deacons typically commemorated their local hierarch. When another ruling hierarch was present and presiding, then that hierarch would be commemorated instead. This is to show the canonical connection between the priests and deacons to either their ruling hierarch or the concelebrating hierarch. Although the inclusion of all three names (the Patriarch, the Archbishop, and the local hierarch) within the same commemoration petition could be debated, there are perhaps other ways in which we could remember other hierarchs in prayer. For example, throughout the Archdiocese we presently commemorate whoever the local hierarch is, but we also prescribe a separate petition for the Holy Great Church of Christ (the Ecumenical Patriarchate). This could be the ideal petition in which to also insert the name of the Ecumenical Patriarch as he presides over the Holy Great Church of Christ and his Exarch in our Holy Archdiocese. Such an arrangement of petitions would both honor the ecclesiastical heads of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Archdiocese, respectively, while also preserving the canonical integrity of the proper order of commemorations. It is important to remember that there is flexibility in petitions. As we recall, the Holy Eparchial Synod drafted several COVID petitions during the recent pandemic.

The intended revisions to the Charter would not see suffragan Bishops throughout the country, but envision Metropolitans present for episcopal oversight over local matters. National issues will be dealt with on a national basis by the Holy Eparchial Synod, which would include greater geographic representation through an increased number of participating hierarchs. Every Bishop, rather than just a select few as the current Charter dictates, would have the right to be on the Holy Eparchial Synod. Moreover, under the proposed system, the balance between ensuring the unity of the Archdiocese and local representation is fundamental and would better serve the faithful. The prestige of the Archdiocese would not be diminished whatsoever since both the integrity of local governing structures would remain intact and the overall unity and strength of the national Church would be elevated due to this canonically more appropriate system.

Stronger and more consistent internal controls, both legal and financial, would address some of the issues of the current Charter. However, in the current governance structure, such controls cannot be easily or consistently implemented. As it stands today, if Metropolitans do not voluntarily agree to and implement consistent Archdiocesan-wide controls in accordance with good accounting and governance practices, then they do not exist. Moreover, even the voluntary imposition of controls would not address the duplication of effort that is caused by the current structure.

The regional councils have proven to be of particular importance and have brought great benefit, so of course they will continue. The voices of the faithful must continue to be heard through these bodies. The councils may be increased in number so even more voices can be heard on a local/regional level. At the same time, the Archdiocesan Council would address matters of a national nature such as unified pastoral concern for clergy and their families, the existence and consistent support of Hellenic College Holy Cross, and other national institutions and concerns.

One of the most important anticipated outcomes of a revised Charter is the potential for increased effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability. A revised Charter that permits more consistent administration of ministries and stewardship which will assist in increasing accountability. Financial accountability including uniform, streamlined and efficient financial systems, audit processes, and external financial reporting are critical and more economical when implemented and monitored under a unified structure.

As stewards of the contributions of the devout faithful, we are compelled to take these crucial steps to ensure the financial security and integrity of our Archdiocese. The church must be as transparent and accountable as any other 21st century entity that we interact with.

A flatter organization with fewer administrative roles can serve to improve efficiency and provide cost savings resulting in lower Total Commitment obligations to our parishes. Examples include fewer Chancellors, administrative positions, unified data and financial systems and purchasing power efficiencies afforded the Archdiocese. Another possible outcome would be to invest the cost savings in increased funding for the Clergy and Lay Employees Pension Plan or Hellenic College Holy Cross.

Examples of how we could serve the faithful better:

Youth Safety: Our current structure doesn’t facilitate us determining how many of our parishes are compliant with the youth safety requirements such as obtaining background checks on those working with our children and ensuring that they have proper training. The inconsistent application of these requirements from metropolis to metropolis undermines our goal to protect and care for our children.

Greek Education: Whether one sees Greek education as a regional or national issue, the reality is that Greek education is not embraced across all our Metropolises as an important or necessary ministry. Instead, the burden falls to our parishes with inconsistent results. Despite an Archdiocesan developed curriculum and professional development opportunities for our Greek education teachers, these resources are not widely used or disseminated by the Metropolises. Every parish should have the benefit of these programs and materials and then make the local decision regarding their implementation.

In order to improve compliance by the parishes, the party requesting the information or action should have the authority and responsibility to achieve compliance. The current Charter provides for each Metropolitan to administer his Metropolis in an orderly and fiscally responsible manner and to submit an annual report to the Archbishop regarding the progress of the work of the Metropolis. Adherence to these responsbilities has not always been the case. Further, priorities in each of the nine Metropolises may not be consistent with the goals of the National Ministries, resources and skill sets are varied, and duplication of effort is evident at both the Archdiocese and Metropolis level. Alleviation of ineffectiveness and increased transparency and accountability can be accomplished through consolidation of certain responsibilities at the Archdiocesan level.

Currently there are fifteen active hierarchs serving the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese holding the ranks of Archbishop, Metropolitan, or Auxiliary bishop all of whom are all paid by the Archdiocese. If the new charter results in more pragmatic borders and the creation of districts as proposed these bishops can be assigned to allow all these hierarchs to serve the faithful more directly and meet their pastoral needs. There are parishes today that have not seen a bishop for years because of the current geographic configuration of the metropolises and allocation of hierarchs. Depending upon the final borders decided upon, it is possible that one or two more bishops may be needed.

It is important to note that what is NOT contemplated is the replication of the current, expensive duplication of staffs, chancellors, administrators, buildings, and more support staff ... what is contemplated is better pastoral care for the faithful by the bishops.

The importance of our clergy to the life of our parishes and our church is spot-on. Supporting our Hellenic College Holy Cross on a national basis is critical. A consistent national program, supported by all, which focuses on discerning vocations to the priesthood, training clergy to effectively address the issues that our Church in America faces, and providing appropriate pastoral support to the faithful will help ensure that every parish has a properly trained priest to serve the pastoral, administrative, and ministerial needs of our faithful. Regarding the question of additional Bishops, one of the directives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (April 5, 2023) is to determine more "pragmatic borders" for the provision of pastoral services to the faithful. Those borders will also inform the determination of how many hierarchs are actually required. Currently, there are six Auxiliary Bishops and eight Metropolitans serving in the US, and they are on the payroll of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. His Eminence Archbishop Elpidophoros's intention is that they be deployed in a geographically strategic fashion so that they can better know the faithful and meet their pastoral needs, rather than being located in Metropolis offices and fulfilling primarily administrative roles.

These proposed changes are intended to have positive benefits for the clergy and resolve some of the outstanding issues of the past.

Compensation and benefits packages must be uniformly applied for all the clergy. This is not the case today.

For example, the sabbaticals which are included in the clergy compensation guidelines must be protected and clergy should be encouraged to seek out further education. This benefits both clergy and laity alike.

Further, one of the unintended consequences of the current Charter has been the abrupt and repeated transfer of clergy causing them to uproot their families without concern for family circumstances, the presvyteres, the children, their financial situation, or other important factors. The revision of the Charter will include protections for the clergy so that they are assured stability. Included in this will be certain criteria which must be met for a transfer to take place as well as the collaboration with the parish council.

There is no uniform program for retirement of seminarian student debt nor can the current Charter mandate it. Some Metropolises do nothing to assist in this area. Others do far more. In the Archdiocesan District and Metropolis of New Jersey, for example, His Eminence Archbishop Elpidophoros uses his discretionary funds to retire debt for clergy in that District/Metropolis. Though he personally sets this example for others to follow, the current system cannot mandate it.

Presently, there is no protocol or criteria for the transfer of clergy. This, unfortunately, has had adverse effects whereby clergy have been transferred unexpectedly and with little consideration for family matters. Moreover, the present structure of the Archdiocese allows a Metropolitan to do this without any oversight. In the revised Charter, the structure provided will allow for a national standard whereby both clergy families and parishes have input regarding the transfer of their clergymen. Greater synergy and collaboration among the hierarch, the clergy, and the parish is imperative to ensure that any transfer is equitable to all concerned and not merely expedient for one party.

It is not expected that a revised Charter will change Holy Cross Hellenic College and its governance through its Board of Trustees. For the school to flourish, however, it needs a steady stream of students. For the Church to flourish we must be sure that we will have clergy. A unified Archdiocese will assist in the identification and recruitment of students interested in Hellenic College or Holy Cross School of Theology through the development of consistent programs which will allow students and those discerning their future vocations more opportunities to visit the campus of Hellenic College Holy Cross. Our common goal must be that, through their experience of the Orthodox Christian environment on campus, they will be better able to discern their vocation, if they are called to serve the Church.

The ability to administer financial assistance including student scholarships or debt reduction programs will also be enhanced if developed as a National Ministry. Currently, some seminarians receive Metropolis assistance retiring their student debt while others do not.

The potential benefits a revised charter may have on the Youth and Young Adult Ministry include:

• Uniform priorities, economies of scale, and organized investment in our youth and young adults will help grow the church in America as we minister and support our youth. Nationwide access to camps, all having the same youth protection standards, is imperative for the safety and spiritual growth of our children.
• Propagation nation-wide of successful local, grass-roots programs that can benefit all our youth;
• Consistency of programming throughout the Archdiocese will allow families to find familiar, nurturing programs whenever they relocate; Consistency in the church’s educational, spiritual, and camping programs supports our families and faithful.

Specific to young adults, the revision of the Charter will allow more effective organization and coordination of YAL ministries throughout the Archdiocese and on a national scale. It will also provide an opportunity for young adults to grow their faith, to connect, network, and to develop professionally all in the embrace of the Church wherever they reside and wherever they relocate. The Church, consistent, and welcoming with recognizable ministries, will be there for them.

These ministries do need to be reenvisioned and improved, but given the financial constraints that we face, we must have an organizational structure that allows us to do more, while using fewer financial resources. We also need to be able to assess impact across the entire Archdiocese and to invest in effective ministries. Our data has become so decentralized that it is impossible to know with specificity how many parishioners or stewards we have across the US. In fact, the lack of data and inconsistent application of the guidelines that do exist is one of the reasons why there is a need to revise the structural organization and remove the barriers to making informed decisions consistently and across the Archdiocese.

If a new structure is created by a revised Charter, it is expected that this will result in economies of scale and cost savings which the faithful deserve in the administration of the Archdiocese and Metropolises. Many large not-for-profit organizations have reorganized from separate regional structures to one entity with local or regional representation to take advantage of fund-raising capacity, ministry delivery and cost effectiveness and the Archdiocese should be no different.

An excellent example is the Registry where the need for a National Registry is self-evident and may result in cost savings. Other potential areas of savings include a flatter organizational structure with less duplication of staff positions, a unified financial system and risk management process and better utilization of the economies of scale available to one unified Archdiocese. These areas alone could yield savings in excess of $1 million.

One of the objectives of a revised Charter is to improve transparency and accountability across the entire Archdiocese and achieve financial efficiencies through a streamlined organizational structure. The Grant Thornton internal control study commissioned in 2018 (located on the Archdiocese's website) indicated that the root cause for the financial difficulties of the Archdiocese was ineffective compliance with governance processes and, in some cases, the lack of standard governance processes, coupled with ineffective internal controls. However, trying to improve governance and financial accountability across the Metropolises is difficult. For example, some Metropolises are still not complying with the requirements for independent certified public accounting firm audits or reviews. This requirement is consistent with good governance for any organization. Under one unified Archdiocese, a common requirement for consistent financial reporting, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and one set of internal controls with enforcement authority at the Archdiocese, would go a long way towards meeting the stated objectives. Maintaining the existing structure opens the door to the recurrence of the same problems in the future.

One of the objectives of a revised Charter is to improve transparency and accountability across the entire Archdiocese and achieve financial efficiencies through a streamlined organizational structure. The objective is to reduce the cost of operating the Church in America, thereby assisting parishes with their Total Commitment obligations. The expectation is that over $1 million can be eliminated from the budgets. These cost savings could be shared with the parishes through Total Commitment and/or redirected to ministries or institutions where additional resources are needed. These decisions would be made by the Clergy-Laity Congress as part of the budget setting process. The ability to not only establish but enforce financial controls across the entire Archdiocese is one of the expected outcomes of a Charter revision.

That is ultimately the determination of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It is proposed that the current Metropolises of the Archdiocese be configured into Districts that will have more practical borders than the Metropolises we have today. Our current configuration is neither efficient nor logical. In some cases, under our current Metropolises, the geographic configuration provides for large geographic areas to be covered, sometimes requiring the Hierarch to travel through another Metropolis to reach parishes in his own Metropolis! Other Metropolises are so large that they could be split into two or more districts. Gatherings such as Clergy-Laity Assemblies, Local Council meetings, Clergy Syndesmoi meetings and others can be difficult for all members to participate in given the distances involved. The objective of the Districts is to have the regional pastoral, ministerial and pastoral needs of the faithful more effectively met. Our current Metropolis configurations are just not practical for the pastoral care that our parishes deserve.

The revised Charter cannot address the matter of the OCA hierarchal presence in America principally because this is not within the scope of the Charter. The Charter of the Archdiocese relates to the governing structure of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and has no role in addressing the existence of other Orthodox presences in America.

Any proposed revision of the Charter will be posted on this website and broadly circulated among our clergy and parishes for their review.

The Archdiocese is an Eparchy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and, as such, receives its Charter from the Patriarchate. The faithful in the United States are encouraged to participate in this process by passing on thoughts, concerns, and questions to our website (as you have) or meeting with His Eminence Archbishop Elpidophoros as discussion sessions on the Charter are scheduled across the country with clergy and lay people. His Eminence seeks and welcomes your input and wants to hear from all constituents in the Archdiocese.

The inclusion of the word "Greek" in the title of our parishes is not a reference made to the language used in services or an ethnic requirement someone must meet. It is a reference to the liturgical background and Byzantine historical ties of our Church and identifies to which Patriarchate we belong, i.e., to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople as opposed to the Patriarchate of Alexandria or Jerusalem, for example.