I am part way through this book, and I have some of the same concerns. Anyone who writes publicly knows that those who are published have an unfair advantage over others who are not, and the better person is the one who doesn't take advantage of that. To the degree this book is used as a platform to throw so many of the earlier parishioners "under the bus" it's objectionable.
If anyone has similar notions regarding "rebuilding" a parish and needs guidelines how to marginalize others who don't share that same vision, he'll find it "Rebuilt."
Example: Is the belittling characterization of these former parishioners as "consumers," who see their parish as a type of store, fair? It's more likely they viewed their parish as an extension of "family" and "home." Of course, anytime you turn family life upside down, people will feel disoriented and threatened. Yes, the authors give the requisite nod to their own shortcomings in handling the transition, but they spend far more time describing their own hurt feelings and pointing out the shortcomings of those who did not see eye to eye with them.
There's a self-serving quality to such comments that will cause me to read the rest of the book with more than a grain of salt.
And making other people identifiable to those "in the know" - such as the cantor - is truly unconscionable.