The difficulty was Mrs Bush. She began attending mass at St Mary's in the summer of 2010, and was nearly as new as my wife and I. She came off as a grande dame, a well-put-together wealthy widow who lives in a luxury penthouse and is active in the community. She seemed to be friendly to everyone, if a bit reserved, and although she was new, the majority thought she would be a good candidate. Unfortunately, nobody knew how thoroughly she'd been turned by Bartus, Ms Akan, and the Kangs. That she was so close to the Kangs was a particular surprise, as their personal styles, in contrast to that of Mrs Bush, can only be characterized as tacky.
The new vestry majority wanted to reappoint me as treasurer, especially since, having attended mass for a year, I was now fully qualified to serve. In fact, it was expecting to do that in a vestry meeting immediately following the February 5 election. Mrs Bush successfully got them to postpone a decision. But in the next regular vestry meeting, although he was no longer a member, Mr Kang insisted that he be allowed to speak, and he rambled on for about three hours. (His wife and another dissident former member waited in the hallway the whole time, apparently ready to take over and continue the filibuster if needed.) It appears that their purpose was to prevent the new vestry from conducting any regular business.
Finally, late in the evening, the vestry called me in to discuss reappointing me as treasurer. Mrs Bush immediately objected. She had, it seems, information that adversely reflected on my character: I had once said, to both her and Andrew Bartus, "Pat Omeirs can feed his horse, but he can't pledge." She stressed that Andrew Bartus could, if needed, testify to this statement. In the opinion of both Mrs Bush and Bartus, this reflected an inability on my part to keep financial information confidential.
My response was that, although amounts pledged are confidential, simply whether a parishioner pledges is not, since Article VI, Section 2 of the parish bylaws says, "Any pledging member of the Church shall be eligible to be elected a member of the vestry," and the parish needs to be assured that vestry candidates pledge. Mrs Bush remained intransigent, insisting that in her view, as well as that of Bartus, I was not of good character and should not serve as treasurer.
It probably rankled that I made the point I did about Omeirs, a prominent dissident -- and they didn't like the implication that he had never been qualified to serve on the vestry. (On the other hand, I've come to learn that little Mr Omeirs says about himself is reliable, and there's a question about whether the horse he boasted about actually belonged to him or his neighbor.) However, it became plain that Mrs Bush had mastered the strategy Mr Kang had earlier employed: stubbornly insist on an off-the-wall position and then rely on other vestry members to split the difference in an effort to seem reasonable. The vestry decided to defer a decision on a treasurer indefinitely, even though the parish bylaws require that there be one.
What only the dissidents knew, and pretty clearly understood among themselves, was that a treasurer who wanted to keep the parish up-to-date on its bills was the one thing that wouldn't fit their plan. Mrs Bush and Andrew Bartus were clearly aware of, and eager to facilitate, that agenda.
