June 25, 2004

Dear Countryside Home Board of Trustees,

Thank you for continuing to search for a resolution to the cross and altar issue. The public forum certainly showed the public's interest in this topic. The Daily Union's coverage became an AP wire story, which begat stories on Wisconsin public radio and Milwaukee talk radio and television coverage.

In the May 28 Daily Union news story, I saw a certain amount of spin emerging. For example, the name and function of the room is changing. What has most often been used a single, open space became in the story two separate rooms. The handout at the front desk calls it the “chapel / multi-purpose room,” but the Union story said “Countryside's chapel, which when opened up with an adjoining community meeting room, becomes a large multi-purpose room.” The same phrase, with the same typos, appeared in the later masthead editorial.

Next, I think it is misleading for anyone to claim that the cross was donated. The purchase orders and cancelled checks clearly show that the cross was purchased with money from the Resident's Fund many months before donations were solicited and even longer before two cross-specific donations were received. Similarly, no donations were ever received for the much more costly altar or the relatively overpriced lectern.

Yet the Daily Union story quoted Sharon Schmeling as claiming the cross and altar were purchased with donated funds, and then quoted Earlene Ronk saying that specific donations paid for the cross, altar and lectern. If the Union got the story so blatantly wrong, why don't you ask for a correction? If you want to claim they were all covered with specific donations, where's the other $4,000?

Similarly, the press coverage and other statements from Countryside staff also attempt to justify the purchase and location of the cross and altar with OBRA regulation F248. As far as I can tell, “F248” only requires your therapists to insure that residents have an activities program that lets them express their religious, cultural and recreational interests. Countryside has this in spades. It is very misleading to suggest there is a danger of being fined for non-compliance if anything changes about the placement of the cross and altar. “F248” does not justify purchasing the cross and altar with public money, nor does it tell where to put them, nor does it require 24-hour access. This minor regulation does not provide a loophole in the Constitution.

If you continue to claim that F248 justifies the use of public funds in this way, let's explore it in detail. Let's ask the auditors. Let's find out if any nursing home anywhere was ever fined for not supplying enough religious activities. Let's see exactly what they did wrong and what they did to fix it.

Along with deciding how the cross and altar will be displayed, I hope the Board makes other decisions. It would mean a great deal to me to see this Board and the County create new policies to correct the lack of guidance in these areas. I think you need to clarify the proper uses of undesignated donations to the Resident's Fund. I don't think you can use them to purchase religious items.

Even if donations are specifically earmarked, I'd be eager to learn exactly how they can allow the County to do things it can't legally do with other funds. Or perhaps you have discovered a new “donated funds” loophole that lets governments support religion. There are many other groups who'd love to hear about how it works.

Without policies, you are ripe for more controversy. A Countryside resident at the forum made this point perfectly. She asked “Can we get a Catholic cross, too?” That's a cross, not a crucifix. She wanted a cross with Jesus on it. Should every group be allowed to spend $6,000 on their symbols, too? How do you judge, how do you draw the line? This is why the First Amendment asks government to stay out of religious matters. It protects religion. It protects freedom of thought. It's not fair to allow “majority wins” votes on matters of conscience.

I suspect you'll soon come up with a decision involving open and closed dividers, open and closed curtains, new room names and new staff policies to enforce – probably against the wishes of staff and esidents. I prefer the “true separate room” solution. I think it satisfies more goals, including mine and including all-day-anytime access.

For members of the public here today, you may be wondering why my complaint was not dismissed out of hand. I think the Board and the County's attorney correctly recognized that there are serious legal issues to consider. I've been generally pleased with the seriousness and sincerity that the Board has debated the issue in their last five meetings. I intend to defend the right to religious expression, not hamper it. The County needs to be even-handed and neutral. It can't expend its funds to promote religion. I think my statements to the Board have always affirmed my commitment to the right of religious expression for Countryside residents. I look forward to the Board's decisions.

Sincerely,

John J. Foust