April 28, 2004

Dear Countryside Board of Trustees,

Thank you for considering the Countryside chapel issue at the meeting on April 23. I recognize this is a difficult issue to solve and I appreciate the extraordinary effort that you've put into it to date. I have also been pleased by the Board's perceptive comments and recognition of the factors at play.

I wholeheartedly agree with Sharon Schmeling's suggestion of pursuing a solution and not pursuing blame. However, I think it is reasonable to question the lack of oversight regarding these donated funds. I think all of us were surprised to see how much money had been spent on the cross, altar and lectern. Why are these donations and spending outside normal Board of Trustees and County Board oversight? How was this purchase made with County funds if it exceeded the normal $5,000 limit for placing purchases out for bid? [Note: I was wrong here - a County purchase needs to exceed $10,000 in order to be sent out for bid.]

Donated funds do not remove the County from the need to follow the Constitution or take advice from case law. The source of the funds does not allow the County to purchase religious items. Even if the cross, altar and lectern had been donated intact, it does not mean the County can erect them on public property. The County needs to remain up-to-date regarding adherence to Federally-accepted practices regarding avoiding the establishment of religion.

First, I do not like the way the recent minutes included supposedly direct quotes from the previous meeting. The draft of the March 19 minutes did not accurately quote my statements as far as I see. The presentation is not uniformly detailed.

The meeting minutes are normally a summary, not a transcript. I question why some direct quotations and sentence fragments are now engraved in the minutes out of context, while other long discussions are omitted or summarized in a sentence. I was not present at the February 20 meeting, but the minutes of the entire cross discussion are summarized in two sentences and did not state any details of the discussion.

If you intend to create a transcript, please do it from a tape or video recording of the entire meeting. Then the record could include the comments about me made by members who thought I wasn't in the room, as I overheard Friday in the hallway as I waited for the meeting to conclude.

One comment was “Doesn't he have anything better to do?” Of course I do, but this issue is important to me. Another confused my objections with a lack of tolerance. I am quite tolerant and open-minded. The central issue here is County government favoring one religious view over others through the expenditure of County funds.

Next time, I encourage you to feel free to say what you really think while I'm there. I know there are strong feelings about this, and I don't think filtering your statements helps the process.

My purpose is to protect the minority, not to affirm the majority. I do not think it necessary for me to go door-to-door within Countryside to survey the resident's beliefs. Although many may have indicated Christian religions on their intake paperwork, this does not imply that they actually ever attended a church. Nor should it allow us to presume that their particular beliefs are identical to any other Christian's beliefs.

If we could indeed see the actual tally of denominations of the residents, I would guess that Countryside is not actually insuring that religious representatives of every listed sect are made available. Similarly, even if a majority listed a Christian religion, it does not give them a right to hold a “majority wins” vote to determine which religion's symbols can be placed on the walls, or to use funds donated to the County to purchase them.

I look forward to helping the Board find a solution that addresses my objections as well as preserves the goal of providing Countryside residents with their right to freedom of religious expression.

During the Board meeting, I examined the cross, altar and lectern. The cross is not heavy. It weighs approximately ten pounds. It is hung on two brackets on the vertical bar of the cross. It can be easily lifted off the brackets and off the wall. I found it a bit tricky to re-hang, but that problem could be addressed with different brackets. Because of the stained glass elements, it is naturally fragile and therefore moving it this way may be problematic. The good news is that it's not so heavy that it would easily tip if it were fastened to a portable stand. The lectern does not have any religious symbols.

The altar's decoration is wood and is fastened to the front. The decoration has a cross and “IHS”. There are many interpretations for this, all generally Christian. One is “In hoc salus” or “There is safety in this” with the theory claiming that it marked the way to secret Christian masses in the Roman catacombs. Another is “In hoc signo spes mea”, meaning “in this sign (the cross) is my hope”.

Another is “in hoc signos vinces” or “In this sign you will conquer,” coming from a story about Emperor Constantine winning a battle, ending his persecution of Christians and beginning his Christian conversion. It's also well-known for appearing on packs of Pall Mall cigarettes. Another is “'Iesus Hominum Salvator”, Latin for “Jesus, Savior of Man”. Another says it's a transliteration of the first three letters of “Jesus” as rendered in ancient Greek.

I also more closely examined the hymnals on the bookshelf in the chapel area. There were dozens of comb-bound booklets of approximately 25 pages of Christian hymns. The cover said “Countryside Hymnal” but there was no indication who prepared the hymnal. If the County paid for these, I question why public funds were used to produce Christian hymnals.

While examining the chapel, two male residents approached in their wheelchairs. They apparently knew that I was the person who had objected to the cross. They did not introduce themselves. One man's first statement, repeated several times loudly, was “Would you remove a cross from a church?” The other suggested that if I didn't like it, it's “too bad and you should leave the County.”

I recommended that they attend the Board of Trustee meetings to learn more about what I had to say. One said he wasn't allowed to attend meetings. I assured him they were open to the public. Next a staff member accosted me without identifying herself, saying that my objection was invalid because I'm the only person complaining, and that I should go door-to-door to ask all the residents what they think of the cross and altar.

To me, this showed that there is an atmosphere of hostility towards anyone who doesn't support the presence of this cross and altar. To me, it confirms the idea that any resident of Countryside would be subject to intimidation if they expressed any objection. Also, what does it say to a prospective non-Christian resident? I hope you are striving to provide an environment where residents can freely worship. You have often spoken about a desire to attract new residents and to remain competitive in this market. I hope you are open to new residents of all beliefs, and that your facility will reflect that.

I have many objections to camouflaging the cross with a curtain. Like the fence in the La Crosse park case, I think a judge would say it only serves as evidence that the County reaffirms its right to purchase and place the cross. It establishes the permanence of the County's preference for a Christian altar and cross.

As Earlene Ronk pointed out in Friday's meeting, I believe that reasonable Christians could find it sacrilegious to cover the altar and use it as a secular table. Similarly, some might take exception to covering the cross.

Any solution needs to address the way the community room is used by residents, their guests, and staff members throughout the day. If these symbols are left in place throughout the day, then the public will be exposed to them even when there is no scheduled event like the mayoral debates. While I examined the chapel, an apparent member of the public (a man my age, wearing an outdoor jacket) was watching the large-screen television in the other half of the room.

The freedom for residents to come to the chapel and pray has been mentioned many times in this discussion. This cannot be accommodated in a public community room that is used throughout most of the day. It also shows little concern for anyone's desire for privacy during prayer.

As it says in the Gospel according to Matthew, “And when you pray, you are not to be as the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners, in order to be seen by men. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will repay you.” Of course, residents are always free to pray in their rooms. I presume they are free to hang crosses or even install an altar.

As Earlene Ronk pointed out, she doesn't want to become the “curtain police.” Who will be responsible to cover the cross and altar? It would be far too easy for anyone to engage in a little civil disobedience and press the button that opens the curtain to uncover the cross. It would be easy for any user of the room to remove the cloth that covers the “IHS” symbol on the altar. I don't want to become the curtain police, either, to verify if this closed-curtain policy is sincerely enforced in the future.

Phil Ristow mentioned avoiding “entanglement.” This is the term from a Supreme Court decision establishing the “Lemon test,” which details the requirements for United States legislation concerning religion. It has three prongs: the government's action must not promote a particular religion or religious view; the government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and the government's action must not result in an “excessive entanglement” of the government and religion. If any of these three prongs is violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I propose a solution. You need a policy that accommodates religious expression and insures that residents have free access to worship. Your staff needs to be free to assist them in meeting their needs, but you need to draw a line and establish a clear policy of neutrality. You need a policy that does not show any favoritism towards any particular religious group. For example, that would mean not buying hymnals again. The policy could state that religious groups must find their own funding sources and may not erect any permanent symbols.

When an organized religious group wants to use the community room as a chapel, they can section the room or reserve the entire room as necessary for privacy. This is no obstacle to worship. Looking at the Countryside schedule, I saw that religious events took place perhaps four to five times a week.

Next, remove the cross and altar. If they are present or visible, it impinges on the public's rights in this room. The cross and altar solely promote the Christian religion. They should not have been purchased with County funds. They should not be exhibited or even retained as County property. The County is not in the business of furthering Christian religion. You spent $6,000 for them. $4,000 was taken from general donations and $2,000 was donated specifically for a $1,000 cross. Someone's donation didn't go to the requested destination. Other donations from the public have gone towards religious expenses.

I hope that the “wish list fund” becomes more closely supervised. It, too, needs to be considerate of Countryside's policies about religious expression. It should not have been given the authority to choose and purchase Christian symbols with County funds.

I suggest formally handing the ownership of the cross back to the Methodist church or the other anonymous donor. They could make it available to the other groups as they do now. If they choose to continue to use it, perhaps we can all find a way to make it portable. I think it is reasonable to make available some non-public storage space for any group that meets regularly in the community room. The cross could be stored there.

As for the altar, you've spent $3,000 to create it from the altar from the old facility. I think you have two good choices. One, remove the “IHS” and cross from the front, thereby turning it into a secular table that could also be used as an altar. It's a very nicely made piece of furniture and I'd hate to see it go to waste. Adapting an old altar as a new multi-purpose table is an interesting concession to both sides, I think.

Two, sell the altar. Look beyond the mistake and buy a different table. As was pointed out in the meeting Friday, any table could be converted into an altar with the appropriate table coverings. Apparently at least one group is already customizing the altar with their own covering.

When someone wants to pray outside of those times, they have choices. One, they can pray in their room. I don't think it's the County's role or responsibility to outfit a Christian chapel for the minority of residents who pray outside of other organized services.

I think it is reasonable to say that it goes far beyond the Federal OBRA “tag F248” requirements in terms of insuring that residents are offered activities that meet their cultural and religious interests.

It stretches the definition of “prayer” to say it has to be done in a chapel. I doubt you believe you must create a place where people can go to pray in front of other people who are not there to pray, or as Matthew put it, “to be seen by men.” That is the unfortunate side effect of attempting to merge a chapel with a community room.

When someone wants to pray outside of those times and they don't want to pray in their room, you could create a separate place for them to do so. It doesn't need to be large. I also understand that you might want to find a space that's large enough for an entire family that wants to pray – although again, that could be done in a resident's room. A resident might want to meet with clergy in a private place at any time. No one can meet privately in the current chapel space during bingo games, either.

I would hope that this new space would be neutral and not representative of one faith. I also hope you avoid the path of thinking that by placing symbols from several faiths in this room, you are accommodating everyone. It's not the County's job to promote multiple religions, either, and no one's need for a semi-private meditative space is hampered by lack of symbols.

As Phil Ristow pointed out, none of us have been able to find any definitive case law that might demonstrate how a public nursing home can run a chapel. Given the extensive landscape of law from the Supreme Court on down regarding religious questions, I doubt that any nursing home wants to become the lightning rod test case.

Sincerely,

John J. Foust