While the prospect of selling the Yona property had been mentioned by Mr. Untalan as a means to better the condition of the archdiocese, he DID NOT bring it up until after he and the other three members of the AFC who opposed the outright conveyance of title to RMS had been fired.
Mr. Untalan wrote to me to correct the record:
Dear Mr. Rohr,I need you to post a correction on the post. Not I, nor any other member of the council who was fired, ever brought up the possibility or option of selling the seminary, officially or unofficially, when we were on the council. It wasn't until after we were fired, and during all this controversy when I mentioned to you and others what selling the seminary could do for the archdiocese. In one of our letters to the archbishop after we were fired, we did use that as an illustration but it was never brought up as a reason for our denial of the transfer. Our reason then was that transferring an asset, let alone a valuable one as this, to another entity without substantial consideration is never in the best interest of the archdiocese. It would endanger the patrimony of the Church.Please post a correction. Your arguments and basic facts are correct though. It was just your timing of when the events occurred.
This is all made clear on the notes for the agenda for the AFC meeting of September 7, 2011.
The full agenda can be viewed here.