Chapel Guardian recently received an unexpected mailing from the so-called “Friends of Chapel” group. This entry will take to task actions and assertions made in this mailing, including the blatant usurping of the “Chapel of Awareness” name through the use of a post office box not affiliated with the church.
The so-called “Friends” have every right to meet in fellowship on their own, as they appear to be doing. It even seems that this group could be considered the foundation of a new organization. This entry does not have an issue with their right to do that.
Where the organizers have crossed the line (again), in Chapel Guardian’s view, is in having the arrogance and audacity to claim the name of the church now for themselves. As quoted from the mailing (material bolded by Chapel Guardian for emphasis): “Please do not return your proxies to the present Pastor or Chairperson of the Board. Assign them to Rev. Donald Schwartz and mail to: Chapel of Awareness, PO Box 502, Cardiff by the Sea, CA 92007.”
1) As already covered by Chapel Guardian, proxies are the purview of the Pastor and Board, not an individual member. Anyone with common sense would know that a member (of any such organization, of any self-claimed “title”) cannot simply ask for everyone’s proxies, bring them to a general annual meeting, and claim rights to vote for all those members they claim to represent. The process does not work that way. It is dishonest and deceptive to claim otherwise, in Chapel Guardian’s opinion.
If the so-called “Friends of Chapel” truly wanted to engage in protest, all they had to do was state their case and ask members simply to not vote at all, not divert proxies using a questionably obtained mailing list. Deception is unnecessary.
2) Even more deceptive and dishonest (and potentially illegal under postal code, although Chapel Guardian will not comment on such an assumption), is sending out a mailing to the church membership claiming their own address as that of Chapel of Awareness.
This action is ironic given that the mailing states that the group’s “... steering committee has chosen an experienced lawyer ...”
Chapel Guardian asks: What experienced lawyer would support the lifting of an organization’s name, using Postal Service mechanisms to do so, to achieve his or her client’s goals?
Also ironic is the group’s statement that it is “... striving for a fair election at the December Annual Board Meeting ...”
Chapel Guardian asks: How can the so-called “Friends” claim to seek a fair election when they have interrupted due process of the church corporation?
Finally, the so-called “Friends” group consistently claims the mantle of Rev. Eugene C. Larr’s legacy. To Chapel Guardian’s knowledge, Rev. Larr’s teachings and legacy were not built on mean-spirited, deceptive and dishonest practices, and personal attacks.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Chapel mail diversion?
(**This is a reader submission and does not necessarily represent the view of the blog administrator.)
A post office box #502 was rented by Friends of Chapel in Cardiff by the Sea, CA, to misdirect mail intended for Chapel of Awareness Spiritual Church, 560 Third Street, Encinitas, CA 92024, to the Friends of Chapel post office box in Cardiff.
A flyer was sent out by the FOC requesting that California 501-C-3 Non-Profit Corporation proxies addressed to Chapel of Awareness in Encinitas -- intended for use by the Board of Trustees at the Annual Meeting of the Corporation -- be addressed and sent instead to "Chapel of Awareness" at the post office box in Cardiff rented by Friends of Chapel.
According to the United States Postal Inspection Service, this qualifies as a Mail Service Issue.
Sleuth
A post office box #502 was rented by Friends of Chapel in Cardiff by the Sea, CA, to misdirect mail intended for Chapel of Awareness Spiritual Church, 560 Third Street, Encinitas, CA 92024, to the Friends of Chapel post office box in Cardiff.
A flyer was sent out by the FOC requesting that California 501-C-3 Non-Profit Corporation proxies addressed to Chapel of Awareness in Encinitas -- intended for use by the Board of Trustees at the Annual Meeting of the Corporation -- be addressed and sent instead to "Chapel of Awareness" at the post office box in Cardiff rented by Friends of Chapel.
According to the United States Postal Inspection Service, this qualifies as a Mail Service Issue.
Sleuth
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Look to yourself before throwing stones
For the past couple of weeks, Chapel Guardian has stayed largely silent given the lack of activity on the so-called “friendsofchapel” rant (as now admitted by one of the “friends” writers themselves).
In recent days, however, the so-called “friendsofchapel” have ratcheted up their vitriol. Chapel Guardian assumes this must be a buildup to the Chapel of Awareness annual meeting in December, at which time they may attempt a hostile takeover of the organization. Chapel Guardian sees this possible goal based on the so-called "friends" own actions.
So in this posting, Chapel Guardian will look at the so-called recent “friends” posts to analyze their apparent level of seething anger. The so-called “friends” claim they are the ones of peace? That they are the ones who are the truly spiritual? They accuse the current pastor and others of the church of being nonspiritual and political?
Chapel Guardian suggests they look to themselves first before they throw their stones.
Please note that these “rants” as posted by the so-called “friends” are on a public blog, and are therefore subject to criticism and opinion in general (just as Chapel Guardian is). It is Chapel Guardian’s hope that those with interest in this situation at Chapel of Awareness will read both blogs and make truly informed decisions for themselves separately from the rancor.
The "Rant"
On Nov. 15, 2009, a man by the name of Peter Libby posted what he admitted was a “rant” (Chapel Guardian understands he was ordained at Chapel, so keep that in mind).
The letter’s second paragraph reads:
“I was one of the first few people who came under fire from Ann Barnicoat’s (Lorenzini, or whatever) early attempts to rid the Chapel of any and all who opposed her or posed any kind of threat to her desired position of absolute control. From the very first moment she accepted the role as Pastor, it was abundantly clear to me that she knew nothing about what this role entailed. First and foremost, a pastor is the spiritual leader of a church. Ann has never understood this and has, in fact, seemingly gone out of her way to operate in a manner that is polar opposite to spiritual.”
First of all, note Libby’s personal attack of the pastor by belittling her name as “whatever,” immediately designed to demean her. You don’t have to throw civility out the window just because you’re fighting for something. Libby does not understand this spiritual principle, judging from the first line.
Below is the third paragraph of the letter, which contains misinformation that Chapel Guardian can only assume is designed to misguide anyone who reads the “rant,” as he calls it.
“It may seem harsh but it remains, nonetheless, a fact that Ann's rise to such negative power, as well as the return and contributing negativity of Barbara Koenig, all stem from a lack of opposition. Every time Ann was re-elected as Pastor, every time she (with the help of Barbara and the Board she put together) were allowed to perpetrate such acts that have been so negative, so outrageous, so illegal and unethical,......we must recognize that it is we, ourselves, who are to blame. Whether you mechanically cast your vote, or sit back and do nothing, the result is the same.”
Libby’s statement gives the impression that the “negative” Rev. Barbara Koenig has been a source of the perceived problems at Chapel for a good length of time. It is important to note that Rev. Koenig’s new participation in Chapel did not begin until 2006. Even by the so-called “friends’” own admission, the conflicts at Chapel go far beyond 2006.
Rev. Koenig’s involvement is a random element that the so-called “friends” did not anticipate in their behind-the-scenes plan to mount a hostile takeover dating back to the time of Rev. Gene Larr’s passing. The so-called “friends” have used the Chapel leadership’s right to purge membership roles for whatever reason it saw fit to mount their final attempt to take over Chapel of Awareness for their own agenda. That does indeed date back to 2006.
The only thing Chapel Guardian can surmise from bringing Rev. Koenig’s name into the mix is to kill the messenger. Rev. Koenig, as membership chair, signed the original membership cancellation letter. But that doesn’t mean the decision was ultimately hers to make. Killing the messenger is not compassionate, and therefore not spiritual.
In summary, he states:
“Well, thank you for reading my rantings.”
In the copy of his letter to the pastor, posted on “friendsofchapel,” he signs off stating: “Disgustingly yours.” Are those the words of someone supposedly ordained at Chapel of Awareness?
Chapel Guardian thanks Libby for providing his rants, as they provide interesting insight into just how questionable the so-called “friends” movement is. The vast majority of the posts on “friendsofchapel” have used innuendo, anger and questionable tactics to promote an agenda. Read Chapel Guardian’s earlier posts to understand more.
The so-called “friends” have indeed been posting rants designed to harm personally people they don’t agree with. It is interesting that the so-called “friends” are willing to put forth such negative energy toward a hostile takeover of the Chapel of Awareness, when – if Rev. Larr’s teachings really meant anything to them – they could take what they have learned to create their own spiritual organization. Ministers and members of the Chapel have gone on to do this for decades.
That is one true measure of a spiritual path. When in disagreement, part ways and build your own path.
In recent days, however, the so-called “friendsofchapel” have ratcheted up their vitriol. Chapel Guardian assumes this must be a buildup to the Chapel of Awareness annual meeting in December, at which time they may attempt a hostile takeover of the organization. Chapel Guardian sees this possible goal based on the so-called "friends" own actions.
So in this posting, Chapel Guardian will look at the so-called recent “friends” posts to analyze their apparent level of seething anger. The so-called “friends” claim they are the ones of peace? That they are the ones who are the truly spiritual? They accuse the current pastor and others of the church of being nonspiritual and political?
Chapel Guardian suggests they look to themselves first before they throw their stones.
Please note that these “rants” as posted by the so-called “friends” are on a public blog, and are therefore subject to criticism and opinion in general (just as Chapel Guardian is). It is Chapel Guardian’s hope that those with interest in this situation at Chapel of Awareness will read both blogs and make truly informed decisions for themselves separately from the rancor.
The "Rant"
On Nov. 15, 2009, a man by the name of Peter Libby posted what he admitted was a “rant” (Chapel Guardian understands he was ordained at Chapel, so keep that in mind).
The letter’s second paragraph reads:
“I was one of the first few people who came under fire from Ann Barnicoat’s (Lorenzini, or whatever) early attempts to rid the Chapel of any and all who opposed her or posed any kind of threat to her desired position of absolute control. From the very first moment she accepted the role as Pastor, it was abundantly clear to me that she knew nothing about what this role entailed. First and foremost, a pastor is the spiritual leader of a church. Ann has never understood this and has, in fact, seemingly gone out of her way to operate in a manner that is polar opposite to spiritual.”
First of all, note Libby’s personal attack of the pastor by belittling her name as “whatever,” immediately designed to demean her. You don’t have to throw civility out the window just because you’re fighting for something. Libby does not understand this spiritual principle, judging from the first line.
Below is the third paragraph of the letter, which contains misinformation that Chapel Guardian can only assume is designed to misguide anyone who reads the “rant,” as he calls it.
“It may seem harsh but it remains, nonetheless, a fact that Ann's rise to such negative power, as well as the return and contributing negativity of Barbara Koenig, all stem from a lack of opposition. Every time Ann was re-elected as Pastor, every time she (with the help of Barbara and the Board she put together) were allowed to perpetrate such acts that have been so negative, so outrageous, so illegal and unethical,......we must recognize that it is we, ourselves, who are to blame. Whether you mechanically cast your vote, or sit back and do nothing, the result is the same.”
Libby’s statement gives the impression that the “negative” Rev. Barbara Koenig has been a source of the perceived problems at Chapel for a good length of time. It is important to note that Rev. Koenig’s new participation in Chapel did not begin until 2006. Even by the so-called “friends’” own admission, the conflicts at Chapel go far beyond 2006.
Rev. Koenig’s involvement is a random element that the so-called “friends” did not anticipate in their behind-the-scenes plan to mount a hostile takeover dating back to the time of Rev. Gene Larr’s passing. The so-called “friends” have used the Chapel leadership’s right to purge membership roles for whatever reason it saw fit to mount their final attempt to take over Chapel of Awareness for their own agenda. That does indeed date back to 2006.
The only thing Chapel Guardian can surmise from bringing Rev. Koenig’s name into the mix is to kill the messenger. Rev. Koenig, as membership chair, signed the original membership cancellation letter. But that doesn’t mean the decision was ultimately hers to make. Killing the messenger is not compassionate, and therefore not spiritual.
In summary, he states:
“Well, thank you for reading my rantings.”
In the copy of his letter to the pastor, posted on “friendsofchapel,” he signs off stating: “Disgustingly yours.” Are those the words of someone supposedly ordained at Chapel of Awareness?
Chapel Guardian thanks Libby for providing his rants, as they provide interesting insight into just how questionable the so-called “friends” movement is. The vast majority of the posts on “friendsofchapel” have used innuendo, anger and questionable tactics to promote an agenda. Read Chapel Guardian’s earlier posts to understand more.
The so-called “friends” have indeed been posting rants designed to harm personally people they don’t agree with. It is interesting that the so-called “friends” are willing to put forth such negative energy toward a hostile takeover of the Chapel of Awareness, when – if Rev. Larr’s teachings really meant anything to them – they could take what they have learned to create their own spiritual organization. Ministers and members of the Chapel have gone on to do this for decades.
That is one true measure of a spiritual path. When in disagreement, part ways and build your own path.
Friday, November 6, 2009
The only civilized voice of the "friends"
In reference to an Oct. 20, 2009, post on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com:
In reading the generally mean-spirited and factually questionable material on the "friendsofchapel" blog, it was heartening to see one civilized ray of light in the form of the posting placed on Oct. 20 on the "friends" blog.
Had the discussion about Chapel's future taken this route -- rather than the apparent "let it die and then take over" mentality of this group dating back to Rev. Larr's passing around 2006 -- the current situation would likely have played out in a much better, more constructive way.
In reading the generally mean-spirited and factually questionable material on the "friendsofchapel" blog, it was heartening to see one civilized ray of light in the form of the posting placed on Oct. 20 on the "friends" blog.
Had the discussion about Chapel's future taken this route -- rather than the apparent "let it die and then take over" mentality of this group dating back to Rev. Larr's passing around 2006 -- the current situation would likely have played out in a much better, more constructive way.
Why so angry?
(**This is a reader submission and does not necessarily represent the view of the blog administrator.)
Hello Guardian:
What is that FOC group so angry about? They lay claim to the original teachings of the church, lay claim to scores of "friends" and several ministers, so why don't they start their own church? As I hear it, they didn't support, contribute to, or participate in the original church after the founder died, so it seems to me they would want to have their own organization.
The church building sits on a prime piece of real estate located at the corner of 3rd and E in upscale Encinitas, worth from 5 million to 8 million dollars. It sits across the street from the empty old Pacific View School site which is prime for development in the downtown historic district. When the founder died, I understand the first thing out of the collective mouth of that FOC group was, "Who holds title to the deed?"
So it's all about the money, and all that stuff about spirituality is smoke and mirrors. It's pretty clear to me that group wants the building, and they thought if they all walked away, the hand full left to run the church couldn't do it. I guess they figured that it would be just a matter of time before they could come back in force and simply take it over. I think they deserve what they got by losing their membership, and don't deserve what they're after.
Sleuth
Hello Guardian:
What is that FOC group so angry about? They lay claim to the original teachings of the church, lay claim to scores of "friends" and several ministers, so why don't they start their own church? As I hear it, they didn't support, contribute to, or participate in the original church after the founder died, so it seems to me they would want to have their own organization.
The church building sits on a prime piece of real estate located at the corner of 3rd and E in upscale Encinitas, worth from 5 million to 8 million dollars. It sits across the street from the empty old Pacific View School site which is prime for development in the downtown historic district. When the founder died, I understand the first thing out of the collective mouth of that FOC group was, "Who holds title to the deed?"
So it's all about the money, and all that stuff about spirituality is smoke and mirrors. It's pretty clear to me that group wants the building, and they thought if they all walked away, the hand full left to run the church couldn't do it. I guess they figured that it would be just a matter of time before they could come back in force and simply take it over. I think they deserve what they got by losing their membership, and don't deserve what they're after.
Sleuth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)