Regarding an Oct. 14, 2009, post on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com:
A letter dated Oct. 9, 2009, by an attorney representing "friendsofchapel" was sent to the Chapel of Awareness Board of Trustees (which was subsequently mailed out to Chapel members using a questionably obtained Chapel mailing list).
The letter "orders" the Board of Trustees to step down (why they would do so based solely on one lawyer's demand is odd). What stands out in this letter is the following, if the board did NOT meet this lawyer's demand. In the letter, the lawyer states that trustees' failure to resign would "result in severe financial consequences to each of you personally if a lawsuit is filed, as well as public humiliation if this situation is allowed to escalate."
A lawyer threatening public humiliation if a church's board doesn't bend to their request? That seems pretty outrageous. Since when is "public humiliation" a legal course of action? It's not. What it can be, however, is libelous.
It's ironic, in this blogger's opinion, that the lawyer would also demand that the Chapel end its so-called "escalation" of the current conflict. The only escalation to be found, however, is in the behavior observed on the "friendsofchapel" blog site.
Based on this lawyer's statement, in this poster's opinion, it seems as if the "friendsofchapel" are willing to engage in public humiliation to achieve whatever goal they seek. Is that what founder Rev. Eugene C. Larr would want?
Monday, October 26, 2009
"Without full approval of the board"
In an Oct. 15, 2009, post on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com:
"I recall when I was membership chair; I was expressly prohibited of sending any correspondence of ANY sort without full approval of the board."
This statement was included in an angry red-inked letter in which the author takes the Chapel's Board of Trustees to task for recent decisions. There is an incredible irony with this statement.
The letter writer is part of the "friendsofchapel" group, yet they specifically, strongly make the statement above that they were "expressly prohibited of sending any correspondence of ANY sort without full approval of the board" while serving as membership chair.
But isn't that exactly what this group has done in the act of using a questionably obtained Chapel mailing list, then sending out "PROXIES" to confuse the membership? Proxies are the purview of the Board of Trustees, not a splinter group.
"I recall when I was membership chair; I was expressly prohibited of sending any correspondence of ANY sort without full approval of the board."
This statement was included in an angry red-inked letter in which the author takes the Chapel's Board of Trustees to task for recent decisions. There is an incredible irony with this statement.
The letter writer is part of the "friendsofchapel" group, yet they specifically, strongly make the statement above that they were "expressly prohibited of sending any correspondence of ANY sort without full approval of the board" while serving as membership chair.
But isn't that exactly what this group has done in the act of using a questionably obtained Chapel mailing list, then sending out "PROXIES" to confuse the membership? Proxies are the purview of the Board of Trustees, not a splinter group.
"Appropriate proxies"
On Oct. 20, 2009, it was posted on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com:
"Please fill out the form, sign the appropriate proxy(ies), fold it and drop it in the mail at your earliest convenience. Thank You."
These so-called "proxies" were sent out in a mailing to Chapel members from a questionably obtained mailing list. A link for the "proxy" form is on the "friendsofchapel" site.
These "proxies" were NOT sent out by Chapel leadership as a duty of the church corporation, and would be invalid come the church's annual meeting for that reason alone.
The mailing of these "proxies" can only be interpreted in one of two ways based on the method and reasoning behind their mailing:
1) They are designed to usurp the authority of the Board of Trustees and membership of the Chapel.
2) They are designed to confuse Chapel members -- including those who are exercising their right to express any frustration toward the church -- by creating an atmosphere in which the leadership of the Chapel is unclear, possibly harming the legal process of the annual meeting.
"Please fill out the form, sign the appropriate proxy(ies), fold it and drop it in the mail at your earliest convenience. Thank You."
These so-called "proxies" were sent out in a mailing to Chapel members from a questionably obtained mailing list. A link for the "proxy" form is on the "friendsofchapel" site.
These "proxies" were NOT sent out by Chapel leadership as a duty of the church corporation, and would be invalid come the church's annual meeting for that reason alone.
The mailing of these "proxies" can only be interpreted in one of two ways based on the method and reasoning behind their mailing:
1) They are designed to usurp the authority of the Board of Trustees and membership of the Chapel.
2) They are designed to confuse Chapel members -- including those who are exercising their right to express any frustration toward the church -- by creating an atmosphere in which the leadership of the Chapel is unclear, possibly harming the legal process of the annual meeting.
"Background checks" is misleading
Oct. 15, 2009, it was stated on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com:
“I have heard that to become a member of Chapel now you need to fill out a back ground check paper.”
Note the use of "I have heard" ... in other words, based on rumor as opposed to fact. More importantly, however ...
The phrase “background check” is misleading and, by definition, would indicate that Chapel of Awareness is now doing legal background checks of those interested in memberships. This is not the case.
What Chapel is asking for is a statement of interest as to why one would wish to be a member, including information about their interests in study and exploration of their spiritual pathway. This is hardly a background check. What they ask is important, however, especially for those who wish to study in Chapel’s classes.
Further clarification on this is welcome. Please send any information to this blog.
“I have heard that to become a member of Chapel now you need to fill out a back ground check paper.”
Note the use of "I have heard" ... in other words, based on rumor as opposed to fact. More importantly, however ...
The phrase “background check” is misleading and, by definition, would indicate that Chapel of Awareness is now doing legal background checks of those interested in memberships. This is not the case.
What Chapel is asking for is a statement of interest as to why one would wish to be a member, including information about their interests in study and exploration of their spiritual pathway. This is hardly a background check. What they ask is important, however, especially for those who wish to study in Chapel’s classes.
Further clarification on this is welcome. Please send any information to this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)