Unfair practices

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.