Kermit Brashear (Lincoln Journal Star photo)

Another member in good standing of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Robert H. Duesenberg of St. Louis County, has shared some correspondence he sent to LCMS president Gerald B. Kieschnick and board chairman Donald K. Muchow. The letter concerns the circumstances of the Synod’s sale of KFUO-FM to Gateway Creative Broadcasting, aka Joy FM, and makes some specific requests of the leadership.

In his letter, dated October 14, he challenged the response of board member/paid counsel/spokesman Kermit Brashear to my question about Brashear’s compensation. Brashear refused to answer me, saying, “The terms and conditions of the engagement of a lawyer, including all of the specifics, details and nuances thereof, are ‘privileged and confidential’ under the Attorney-Client Doctrine.”

Writes Duesenberg:

Mr. Brashear is dead wrong. There are circumstances in which communications regarding attorney fees may be privileged, but they are surely not applicable here. The privilege protects communications, not underlying facts, and exists in the common law to encourage open and honest communication between client and attorney.

The declination of Mr. Brashear, invoking the privilege, to respond to Ms Miller is disturbing. Mr. Brashear is a member of the Synod Board of Directors. He has been a strong proponent for the sale of KFUO. Members of Synod, prominent individuals within and outside the Synod, all advocates for retaining KFUO, have been stonewalled and ignored in their appeals to you, to Mr. Brashear, and to others within Synod. The circumstance at hand raises potentially serious questions about the propriety of actions, including Synod Board action, in regard to the decision to sell KFUO and succeeding events.

Now back to the attorney client privilege: It is a client’s privilege, and a client may waive it. To avoid argument over whether the privilege may be applicable in the circumstances, I ask you to do just that, i.e., waive it; and, as a member of Synod, I ask you, please, to provide me responses to the following questions:

1. Is Mr. Brashear, or his law firm, being compensated for his services in the negotiation for and sale of Radio Station KFUO FM, or in his role as spokesman for the LCMS in the KFUO matter?

2. What are the terms of the compensation, if any?

3. Is there a letter or memorandum of engagement of Mr. Brashear or his law firm in respect to KFUO matters, and, if there is, would you, please, provide me a copy?

4. Are there Board minutes, including resolution(s), of action of the Board in respect to the sale of Radio Station KFUO FM, and if so, would you please provide me a complete copy of the portion of the Board minutes and the resolution(s) relative to the decision and authorization of the sale of the station and the engagement, for that purpose, of Mr. Brashear and his law firm?

I ask you this with concern, but respectfully, and trust that you will, consistent with the recent letter of Mr. Muchow to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to be open regarding the disposition of Radio Station KFUO, respectfully and fully respond.

Sincerely,

Robert H. Duesenberg

That was three weeks ago; so far, Duesenberg has had no response at all. Perhaps this is simply another case of Brashear’s stated conviction - apparently shared by other members of the Board - that to ignore and  stonewall a request is really the same thing as responding to it.