Spin in a "newsletter"

On Jan. 20, 2010, the “Friends of Chapel” posted a digital copy of a document it referred to as a “Chapel Newsletter” (check the file name: “January+14+Chapel+News+Letter_1”).

Chapel Guardian takes this document to task for two reasons.

1) Hijacking a name

This is, again, an example of how the so-called “Friends” have attempted to claim the “Chapel of Awareness” name as their own, just as they did with a post office box in Cardiff a few months ago. This group continuously attempts to mislead the Chapel community that it is actually the Chapel, when it is not.

The only newsletters regarding Chapel of Awareness come from Chapel of Awareness, not a splinter group.

Members of the “Friends” have often cited a business model (even though Chapel is a non-profit religious organization) that Chapel must follow. With that in mind, consider a recent example in the business world: the conflict between comedian Conan O’Brien and the NBC network.

When NBC decided to reshuffle its programming, Conan O’Brien protested, including on his show. However, just because he was upset with the network, did he and his production group start claiming to be NBC? Of course not.

That is just as unacceptable as the Friends of Chapel’s continued attempts to hijack the Chapel of Awareness name for themselves because they are unhappy with the organization’s actions.

2) Speaking for the judge

The “Friends of Chapel” spin on the court hearing is interesting.

Their “newsletter” claims the judge was open to their case. Yet he handed down a preliminary ruling in which basically over 75% of that case was found not in their favor, followed by an order for mediation even after they flooded the courtroom.

“The judge clearly stated that if we are unable to gain willingness and cooperation from the Chapel board, we should not wait 90 days, and should come back to his court right away for his ruling.”

The context in the whole “newsletter,” and the overall tone, indicate that the Friends of Chapel know that the judge will rule in their favor. A judge is impartial … neutral to both sides. Unless the judge is unprofessional, it is highly unlikely he would have expressed such “openness” without making a ruling. If anything, he narrowly dismissed the complaint, and then ordered mediation.

As always, read the material for yourself. And read between the lines.

Tentative Ruling posted

The judge's Tentative Ruling in the "Friends of Chapel" action against the Chapel of Awareness has been posted online at the San Diego Superior Court's website.

Chapel Guardian is posting the Tentative Ruling here without comment at this time.

 

A thought as Jan. 8 approaches

In the midst of the current Chapel of Awareness conflict, Chapel Guardian has pledged to look at information presented and offer alternative points of view as a counterbalance.

What has ultimately taken Chapel Guardian by surprise is how far the "Friends of Chapel" group has pushed the boundaries of taste, civility, and truth.

Pursuing a legal hearing of their grievance was their fair right, but they went far beyond that. They were unwilling to wait for a Jan. 8 hearing. They escalated hostile feelings by using inaccurate information, innuendo, rumor, and personal attacks, and venting all of that on a public blog. This behavior has not been evident on the Chapel of Awareness side.

Both sides originally acted in the way they felt was right, but it has been the "Friends of Chapel" who have unreasonably escalated the hostilities.

Now as the Jan. 8 hearing approaches, the “Friends of Chapel” group continues to engage in misinformation, loose interpretations, intimidation, among other tactics, to get its message across.

Regardless of the outcome of Jan. 8’s legal hearing, the Chapel of Awareness congregation as a whole, however it comes together after this time, must hold the “Friends of Chapel” group accountable for its mean-spirited philosophy.

A matter of interpretation

An anonymous post Jan. 5 on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com states: “Note also, that Rev. Larr never closed the Chapel contrary to Rev. Lorenzini's claim.”

This is a matter of interpretation, and not fact. Nowhere does Rev. Ann Lorenzini’s Dec. 20 letter to corporate members state that founder Rev. Eugene C. Larr closed the Chapel. What it explains is that he had to reorganize the Chapel on three separate occasions.

Unfortunately, given Rev. Larr’s passing and the “Friends of Chapel” group’s convoluted campaign that has gone far beyond a simple quest for a legal finding, the Board of Trustees found it in the church corporation’s best interest to suspend operations as the “Friends” battle is sorted out.

With "all his love," he attacks

Chapel Guardian received and accepted in good faith the comment below posted by a man named Terry Hall. It seemed genuine and civil. His letter to Rev. Ann Lorenzini on the "Friends of Chapel" blog dated Dec. 29 also seemed heart-felt and genuine.

********************
This is the comment received by Hall:
@xxxxxxxx said...

Dear Chapel Guardian,

I have posted an open letter to Rev Ann on the Friends of Chapel site @ http://friendsofchapel.blogspot.com - As I've read your comments, I trust you to include my simple and possibly niave request (typos and all) as you give counsel in the matter.

All my love,
Terry Hall
December 29, 2009 2:08 PM
********************

But then, on Jan. 1 comes a post based on questionable information in which he uses innuendo to accuse Lorenzini of a real estate scheme by saying "canceling the historical status for the Chapel may have foreshadowed her intentions to use the Chapel property for her own personal benefit."

This was further followed by an inaccurate claim to "understand it correctly the most of the Board Appointments are Barbara Koenig and her relations (son & husband)?"

While it appears true that her husband John Petrowski has served on the board recently, there is nothing to indicate that Koenig's son has ever served on the board of trustees or in any appointed position. What he has been, based on his own statements published here and sent to Hall, is an active member of the organization who sat in on board meetings.

It is apparent that Hall's questionable accusations resulted in the strong responses from Roman Koenig himself, posted below.

Chapel Guardian will let Hall's and Koenig's posts speak for themselves. But what disquiets Chapel Guardian, based on Guardian's message from him and in Guardian's opinion, is that he apparently plays nice in preparation for attack. This is not what Chapel of Awareness promotes in its teachings, as far as Chapel Guardian is concerned.

Chapel Guardian also finds it disquieting that the so-called Friends of Chapel appear to be engaging in what extremists of many costumes often do ... When they cannot succeed in attacking someone directly, they turn to the families and beliefs of those people and seek to destroy them.

This is not Chapel of Awareness philosophy, in Chapel Guardian's opinion.

"Now I'm under attack, and what for??"

(**This is a follow-up submission in response to a posting by Terry Hall on the "Friends of Chapel" blog at friendsofchapel.blogspot.com on Jan. 1, 2010.)

Now I'm under attack, and what for??
Kick Boxaah xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 11:37 PM
To: chapelguardian@gmail.com
Cc: xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, friendsofchapel@gmail.com

Dear Chapel Guardian,

As a follow-up to what I wrote earlier, I wanted to further say that I am upset that friendsofchapel have taken upon themselves to attack family members of those involved in this membership argument.

I stood alone as a Chapel member, and as a professional individual, when I held the board accountable for what I personally believed was an ill-advised process for historical preservation. What friendsofchapel is not telling anyone is that my mother, Basia Koenig, and stepfather, John Petrowski, were on the board at that time, when I *was not*. They are also not telling anyone that Don Miller was also on the board at the time, the same man who is involved with friendsofchapel and is listed in Nell Rose Smith's legal action.

Terry Hall's friendsofchapel post refers to me as Barbara and John's "son" while roping me into this alleged conspiracy of leadership headed by Ann Lorenzini, making it sound as if I have some kind of covert leadership position and a vested interest in Ann's alleged real estate scam. *I have never served on the board nor have I ever put my name in nomination for the board; no one has ever put my name in nomination.*

I am a professional working in the public spheres of journalism and higher education, and I resent that Terry Hall and friendsofchapel have taken this approach to achieve their goals. It is deceptive, hurtful and spiteful.

I allow only Chapel Guardian to publish this and my previous message today. Posting of these materials anywhere else is done without my permission as author.

Thank you,
Roman S. Koenig

"re: Chapel-DEMA deed misinformation"

(**This is a submission in response to a posting by Terry Hall on the "Friends of Chapel" blog at friendsofchapel.blogspot.com on Jan. 1, 2010.)

re: Chapel-DEMA deed misinformation
Kick Boxaah xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 3:51 PM
To: xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: friendsofchapel@gmail.com, chapelguardian@gmail.com

Dear Terry Hall,

I have quietly followed the postings on friendsofchapel (and the counter-blog chapelguardian) for some time, but after what you posted on friendsofchapel at the start of this New Year, I am now compelled to respond to statements made by you that I find outrageous and false.

I don’t know you, nor your motives for posting what you did on the friendsofchapel blog. But since I am someone with direct knowledge of the situation you address (independent of my family ties, before you pass judgment on me), I must set the record straight on what you claim.

First of all, you claim that it is the now-former pastor who is dragging this “friends” mess into court, when it is the friendsofchapel group itself that initiated a court action, not her. All you need is a copy of the friendsofchapel action as filed by Nell Rose Smith to see that (handed outside the annual meeting Decemeber 13th). So that is falsity number one.

Second and most relevant to this message to you is the issue of the chapel building’s historical status.

You claim that “canceling the historical status for the Chapel may have foreshadowed her intentions to use the Chapel property for her own personal benefit.” Seeing as *I* am the one who demanded that the board review the plans for historical status, I can tell you that your claim in your friendsofchapel post is outright false.

The issues regarding the deed restriction came to my attention in mid-2008 when an Encinitas-based film festival was advertising events scheduled in the Chapel of Awareness building, unknown to the Board of Directors or the general membership, and when the handover of the deed had not taken place and no final board approval had been given.

As a filmmaker, journalist and member of Chapel, this raised a red flag with me. So I raised the issue with the Board of Trustees at its next meeting (which I recall was September 2008). I demanded that, as a member of Chapel, I get a direct understanding of what the plans were for the deed restriction and historical designation through the Downtown Encinitas MainStreet Association (DEMA). Members of the board were also unhappy with the methods used by the board chairman and first vice-chair at that time to push the proposal through with as little discussion as possible.

Having been a past member and secretary of the Encinitas Historical Society, an avid local history buff, and having a journalistic relationship with DEMA separately, I had a general idea of how appropriate channels should work for these kinds of dealings. From my own understanding of process and how Chapel is designed to function, I sensed something wasn’t adding up.

I was not satisfied with the explanations I got from the Chapel board chairman and first vice-chair, nor were other members of the board at that time. (This was all in open session of the board, so I can discuss this as an active party and witness. I am not privy to any closed-session issues, obviously, so that is not appropriate to address.)

The situation escalated when DEMA published on its website that the Chapel building deed had been turned over to the organization, when in fact it had not, nor had even been finalized. I again brought this to the board’s attention, and the board handled the concerns that followed as they saw fit.

I was at the open-session board meeting at which the board chairman resigned, and the vice-chair was forced to resign. Again, *speaking as the person who raised concerns about the deed issue myself*, I can tell you that any actions regarding this matter had to do with the board’s concerns over the DEMA process and the actions of the chairman and vice-chair.

The fault, in my opinion, didn’t lie with the board, nor with DEMA. The chairman and vice-chair should have been more open about the process to the board and membership. That lack of communication could have been completely unintentional, but that wasn’t the point. The process was viewed as contaminated because I, as a member, and board trustees felt that the Chapel as an organization had been left in the dark as to what exactly was happening.

You claim in your missive that, “At the 12th hour, the agreement was canceled by Lorenzini. It is unclear to me whether the cancellation of this agreement had Board Approval.”

The *board* opted not to go through the process, not because Ann Lorenzini had some secret real estate deal in the works, but because this was an issue that *I* brought to the board’s attention as a responsible, active member of Chapel.

So you are right in one respect. You are unclear in your understanding of the issues.

Further, you demand that friendsofchapel “bring this matter to the attention of the Court as evidence that Lorenzini has NOT performed her responsibilities as the Chapel's Pastor.” They are more than welcome to do so, as I will testify to the contrary if called upon to do so. The trustees’ minutes, tape recordings, and roll call of the meetings in question will show I am accurate about this.

Even more outrageous is the posting of your misguided information on the friendsofchapel blog, a group under the guidance of Wanda Olson, among others. I bring her up because at the September 2009 meeting in which Olson and others engaged in a shout fest to prevent the board from doing its regular business, Olson claimed “she attended board meetings” at the time I did regarding the historical-status concerns in 2008. I told her during that shout fest that I never saw her there. In fact, I was the *only* regular Chapel member who apparently cared enough to attend open board meetings at the time. The meeting roll calls will show this.

Had I not been there to raise concerns as a regular member, the board would have entered into an agreement it and the membership might have later regretted. Historical status can be sought anytime, and you learn along the way as you learn the process.

I have tried to keep a certain distance from the friendsofchapel conflict, and I will not tolerate being dragged into it as you have done with me by discussing issues you clearly know nothing about but which I have direct knowledge of.

I find this conduct so outrageous that I am cc’ing friendsofchapel and chapelguardian alternative blog, and bcc'ing Chapel itself and the Downtown Encinitas MainStreet Association. DEMA deserves to know they have been brought up in friendsofchapel’s smear campaign (albeit indirectly, by bringing up the proposed deed transfer).

Roman S. Koenig

"My two cents ..."

(**This is a submission sent on Dec. 23, 2009.)

My two cents...
c wright xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx
Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 2:44 AM
To: chapelguardian@gmail.com

I feel the need to express my Love and thanks on the Chapel Guardian page during this time of external turmoil. It would be an understatement to say that I was deeply saddened by the hostility being vented at the recent membership meeting. I hold the highest regard for the loving people responsible for keeping the Chapel of Awareness alive and thriving so I could find my spiritual home. I send my thanks with much Love and respect...