"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