Letter to Gerson Santos about Unfair Hearing at Manhattan Church
on August 3, 2013 |
Message # 245
Aug. 11, 2013
Dear Gerson Santos: |
|
I want to thank the Greater New York Conference for sending Pastor Nikolaus Satelmajer to attend Business Meeting on August 3rd to insure the disciplinary hearing was conducted fairly. He appeared to be a good choice to monitor the hearing because in Message # 237 I expressed my concern that there may be confusion because in the letter from the church board dated July 15th the Greater New York Conference was named in the charges against me. You responded to that message saying that “this was between me and Manhattan Church.” Since Pastor Satelmajer was not an employee of the conference, it was proper that a letter of introduction was sent and read to the members at the start of the hearing. I asked you for a copy of that letter and you referred me to the President’s office.
|
| I have met Pastor Satelmajer before, when he visited Manhattan Church about ten years ago and he presented a sermon and afternoon study; many of the members remember him fondly, including me. His position at the NAD Ministerial Department and his work for Ministry Magazine gave him excellent credentials to be the conference representative and I thank the conference for granting my request. |
| Unfortunately, despite Pastor Satelmajer’s presence and his knowledge of proper procedure it was not a fair hearing, many violations of my rights still occurred right under his nose. I do not bring a complaint against him. This message is to present reasons why I did not get a fair hearing in spite of his presence and to inform you of my intention to appeal the decision made to remove me from membership at Manhattan Church after 25 years of membership. |
|
It is unusual for a church board to recommend disfellowship when the charge against the member is not a sin; and it is unusual for them to change the charge after sending notice to the member about the charge and date of disciplinary hearing. It is also unusual for a member to want to defend himself and it turned out that Pastor Satelmajer was not the right man to insure fairness in this case. It was good that the conference sent a representative to the hearing to insure fairness, but he ignored so many violations of the church manual and proper procedure, that it would have been fairer without him.
|
| The Church Manual gives me the right of appeal for reinstatement and defines a process that starts with a written appeal to the church and if that fails an appeal to the Conference Executive Committee. The details of the process is found on page 67 . . . |
|
Right of Appeal for Reinstatement
“While it is the right of the church to administer discipline, this does not set aside the rights of members to seek fairness. If members believe that they have been treated unfairly by the local church, or not had the right to be heard fairly, and the church is unwilling to reconsider the case or if the officers refuse to consider their applications for reinstatement, the former members have a right to appeal in writing to the church for a hearing. The church should not neglect or refuse to grant such hearings. If it does, or if the former members still feel unfairly treated by the church after the appeal, they have the right to a final appeal for a hearing to the executive committee of the conference. If, after a full and impartial hearing, the conference committee is satisfied that an injustice has been inflicted by the church, the committee may recommend reinstatement to membership. But if membership is still refused by the church, then the conference committee may recommend membership in some other church. On the other hand, if it finds good grounds for sustaining the church in refusing to reinstate the former members, it will so record its decision.”
Church Manual, page 67
|
| Therefore, not getting a fair hearing or not being “heard fairly” is proper grounds for an appeal for a new hearing, the standard for fairness is set by the church manual and by rules of order. A valid reason to claim unfairness would be any violation of the rights of the member. Since it is the right of a member to seek fairness, a good way to determine if the hearing was fair is to compare what happened at the hearing to the other rights given to members on page 64. |
|
Fundamental Rights of the Members
Members have a fundamental right to prior notification of the disciplinary meeting and the right to be heard in their own defense, introduce evidence, and produce witnesses. No church should vote to remove a member under circumstances that deprive the member of these rights. Written notice must be given at least two weeks before the meeting and include the reasons for the disciplinary hearing.
Church Manual, page 64
|
| Let us look at each of these rights closely and compare it to what happened. |
| I have a Right to prior notification ► The notice must have the reason for the hearing and must be given two weeks before the meeting. |
| The reason presented to the church at the business meeting was “Persistent refusal to recognize properly constituted church authority or to submit to the order and discipline of the church.” This is a valid reason for discipline found on page 62 of the church Manual. The problem is that the letter was dated July 27th and the envelope it came in shows a USPS stamp on July 30th and it reasonable to expect Priority Mail was delivered the next day, Wednesday, which was two days before the Sabbath and only three days before the hearing. |
| Therefore, I was not given the required notice and I did not have time to prepare my defense, to gather evidence and line up witnesses. In fact, I was preparing a defense of the charge stated in the July 15th letter which was received two weeks prior to the hearing date, I decided to prepare my defense of the charge that was properly presented and spent little time to prepare for the charge that was presented to the congregation. Even if the second letter was a clarification of the charges, the charge read to the church should have been the charge stated in the first letter. It was not fair for the church to consider charges that I did not receive until three days before the hearing. |
| I have a Right to be heard in my own defense ► I was allowed only ten minutes to defend myself against about an hour of testimony against me. There was testimony given against me that I was able to refute, because my ten minutes time have expired and I was not allowed to speak, this right was violated every time a new information against be was presented and I could not answer it. Especially when the new information that was presented was not even within the scope of the charges, and amounted to nothing more than character assassination and I was unable to speak in my defense because my time to speak had expired. |
|
The text on page 67 above adds a word to this the word “fairly” to the wording on page 64 - - so I submit that it is a fundamental right to present a defense and to be heard fairly. The chairman suggested I get 10 minutes to speak in my defense, and the church voted it, but it was not fair because I spent two weeks preparing a defense which printed on twelve pages. Therefore, getting ten minutes to present twelve pages of prepared material deprived me of my right to be heard fairly.
|
| Also after I presented my defense, they continued the meeting and new testimony was presented, I had documents with me to introduce as evidence to refute the testimony, but since my 10 minutes was used up, I was unable to present any defense. This was not fair because the hearing to determine if discipline was necessary turned into a popularity contest and not a hearing of the facts. The members could not make a decision based on the facts or on the evidence that I brought to the meeting to defend myself. It became a popularity contest with undecided members bombarded for 90 minutes with hearsay and speculation and false accusations against me. |
| ". . . Many a man will not come openly to talk with the one he thinks in error, but will go to others, and under the mask of friendship and sympathy for the erring, he will cast reflections. Sometimes he openly agrees with the one whom he covertly seeks to injure. Suppositions are stated as facts, without giving the person charged with wrong a clear, definite statement of his supposed errors, and without giving him a chance to answer the charges. This is all contrary to the teaching of Christ. It is the subtle way in which Satan always works." {15MR 174.2} |
| I have a Right to introduce evidence ► I was allowed to distribute material to support my prepared defense but 15 pages of documents were not ‘introduced’ – the hearing was unfair because I was not allowed to introduce my evidence. Also my requests to present rebuttal evidence were denied by the chairman. |
| Beside the documents and evidence that I distributed to the members, I had other evidence to present and was not allowed to present it. |
|
They allowed me only ten minutes. I started reading from my prepared presentation which printed out on 12 pages when I came to a part of the presentation that needed support from a document or piece of evidence I asked the church to look at the document, in this way I was able to introduce and explain the evidence they were viewing. Since my presentation was scripted, and I marked the point it was cut off, I can show that only two documents that I distributed were actually introduced properly, with explanation, there were 15 pages that I could not explain because the time had expired.
|
| I point out that there was no break in the meeting that allowed any member to review any evidence distributed and no one commented or asked a question that shows that anyone had read any of the documents / evidence that was not introduced. |
| Distributing evidence is not enough, I have a right to introduce evidence. The evidence by itself could not be understood unless I was able to explain it and set the context where it came from, and what it proves. This deprived me of my right to introduce evidence. |
| After my ten minutes was up, additional testimony was given against me, I had evidence with me to refute this testimony, but my request was denied because my time had expired. |
| I read from a prepared presentation, the time keeper said, time is up, and I was not given any more time to continue. I marked the place in my presentation. After I returned home, I read the same material, at the same speed and when I reached the point I was cut off - - my clock said only seven minutes, I did it again and again and still the timer said I was speaking for only 7 minutes. Not only was it unfair to only give me ten minutes to present a defense, it was unfair to cut me off before I spoke for ten minutes. |
| I have a Right to produce witnesses ► I asked five people to appear at the hearing and give testimony in my behalf, four of them actually came to Manhattan Church to give testimony. |
| Four witnesses came to testify in my behalf, and not one was allowed to testify. Three witnesses got into the church but my last witness was stopped at the front door and told the police would be called if she entered the church. They locked the door and posted a guard at the door to let people out and in, except for my witness. |
|
The church had a witness who was not a member of Manhattan Church who was allowed to sit in the Business Meeting and hear the entire proceeding and when he gave testimony against me his testimony began with I invited him to the meeting. In contrast a Pastor that I invited and two Adventists to give testimony in my behalf had to wait outside the meeting for three hours and were still not allowed to give testimony.
|
| Not only was my right to produce witnesses denied, the church board did something I never saw happen. They let a non member attend the meeting, he actually sat next to me and I know his name. During the time given for members to comment, he raised his hand and was allowed to speak. Since he was in a room full of members except for the conference representative, he may have felt the need to introduce himself. He said, “Mario, invited me.” The chairman should have known that I can not invite anyone to a business meeting, this person should have left when they said this meeting is for members only. But he did not. The members had heard me say several times to the chairman that I had witnesses, and so they could have easily thought this was my witness, when he said, “Mario invited me.” |
|
The ten minutes given to me to speak had expired, but still I interrupted him with “I did not invite you” – the chairman should have stopped his testimony. The conference representative was there to insure fairness, he should have spoken up and if this was not my witness than he was giving a false testimony, and if this is the church board witness, he should be introduced in that way. It soon became evident from his testimony that he was a church board witness planted in the meeting to cover something that they could not prove themselves. By saying that I invited him, and giving testimony against me, some members thought that even my friend (my own witness) was against me.
|
| Putting that aside, they are allowed to have a witness who is not a member of the church, but it is unfair that he be allowed to attend the meeting, while the three witnesses that I did invite had to sit outside the meeting and were never allowed to testify (my fourth witness was not allowed into the building). To be fair all witnesses should have been treated the same, my witnesses should be allowed to attend the meeting, or the church board’s witness should be required to wait outside until his time to testify. |
| Violation of Parliamentary Procedure – Rules of Order
There was as violation of parliamentary procedure which had a huge affect on the outcome and by itself is grounds for a mistrial and appeal. I could quote GC Rules of Order, but the process of introducing motions is so basic, I do not think anyone will contest my claim for unfairness in this regard.
|
|
When it came to the vote, a motion was made to disfellowship me, an amendment was introduced to change it to Censure, and there was a second to the amendment. The Chairman would not accept the amendment, he ruled it was “out of character with the motion.” There was a challenge of the ruling from the floor and that challenge was not accepted by the chairman.
|
| To set the foundation for this point, lets consider a member who receives a letter from the church board informing him of their decision to start a disciplinary process against him, and for this letter to be read to the congregation at the business meeting informing them of the Church Board decision and when it came time for a vote to decide his membership in the church, a different motion is considered. This would be unfair. Here is the letter that was read to the church. |
Letter from Church Board to Mario Dated: July 27, 2013
In our July 15, 2013 letter we gave a general reason why the Church Board made the recommendation and would have given all the particulars at the Business Meeting. In this letter we are giving you the specific reason as stated in the Church Manual. The specific reason why the Church Board has recommended to the Business Meeting disciplinary action is as follows: “Persistent refusal to recognize properly constituted church authority or to submit to the order and discipline of the church.” (Church Manual, page 62).
The Church Manual states that you have the right to be heard in your own defense, introduce evidence and bring witnesses.
Signed by Church Clerk
I received this letter on July 31, 2013
|
| The part of the letter that confirms my rights are discussed above, please notice the recommendation to the Business Meeting was “disciplinary action.” Discipline by Censure is a proper disciplinary action. |
|
Discipline by Censure —
In cases where the offense is not considered by the church to be so serious as to warrant the extreme course of removing membership, the church may express its disapproval by a vote of censure.
Censure has two purposes: (1) To enable the church to express its disapproval of a grievous offense that has brought disgrace upon the cause of God and (2) to impress offending members with the need for a change of life and reformation of conduct and to give them a period of grace and probation during which to make those changes.
A vote of censure is for a stated period of from a minimum of one month to a maximum of 12 months. It terminates an erring member’s election or appointment to all offices and removes the privilege of election while it is in effect. Members under censure have no right to participate by voice or by vote in the affairs of the church or lead church activities, such as teaching a Sabbath school class. They are not deprived, however, of the privilege of sharing the blessings of Sabbath school, church worship, or communion.
Church Manual, page 62
|
| The ruling by the chairman is improper and unfair, because the amendment to change ‘disfellowship’ to ‘censure’ is in harmony with the church manual and it is in harmony with the church board’s letter presented to the church as their recommendation of discipline. |
| A challenge from the floor is a proper procedure to correct a questionable decision by the chairman and it is improper and unfair for the chairman not to allow this challenge. It is unfair that the conference representative did not allow censure to be considered as a proper disciplinary option. It was a violation of the church manual that the only option the church was allowed to vote on was “disfellowship” and removal from membership of his church after 25 years of membership. In speaking with some members after the meeting, they would have voted for censure, but were not given that option. |
| Changing the charges |
| I mentioned the two letters that were sent to me, and that only the second letter was read at the hearing. Here I present another point to expand on the unfairness of the Church Board’s second letter which changed the charges. The proper procedure would have been to reset the clock and give two weeks notice after sending me the second letter. |
| It is unfair to change the charges that appear in the July 15th letter and present different charges to the church at the meeting. As shown above the charges read to the church was the July 27th letter, the July 15th letter was not read. The point is that now only was it unfair to do this, it was intentional. They actually put this into writing for everyone to see . . . in their own words . . . |
|
Letter from Church Board to Mario Dated: July 27, 2013
In our July 15, 2013 letter we gave a general reason why the Church Board made the recommendation and would have given all the particulars at the Business Meeting. In this letter we are giving you the specific reason as stated in the Church Manual. The specific reason why the Church Board has recommended to the Business Meeting disciplinary action is as follows: “Persistent refusal to recognize properly constituted church authority or to submit to the order and discipline of the church.” (Church Manual, page 62).
Signed by Church Clerk
|
|
At the time they wrote the letter dated July 15th they knew that they were holding back “all the particulars” for the Business Meeting. They knew the July 15th letter gave a 'general reason' and they intended to give the real reason at the Business Meeting, which means I would have no time to prepare a defense, no time to assemble evidence and no time to contact witnesses. Praise the Lord that He caused them to reveal the Church Board’s intention not to give me proper notice, by withholding the charges until the hearing.
|
| In the paragraph above I underscored the words change the charges so that I can present another point. According to the July 27th letter on July 15th they presented a “general reason why they made the recommendation” – but looking at the church manual regarding the written notice that must be given two weeks before the meeting |
|
Fundamental Rights of the Members —
Members have a fundamental right to prior notification of the disciplinary meeting and the right to be heard in their own defense, introduce evidence, and produce witnesses. No church should vote to remove a member under circumstances that deprive the member of these rights. Written notice must be given at least two weeks before the meeting and include the reasons for the disciplinary hearing.
Church Manual, page 64
|
| It must contain the reason for the charges, the Church Board claims they followed this requirement but calls it the “general reason” – then the “specific reason” is given in the letter I received on July 31st – this would mean the specific reason would be a subset of the ‘general reason’ and that even though “many hours at the local and conference level attempting to reconcile my differences with the church organization” is a general statement, the specific charge of “persistent refusal to recognize properly constituted church authority or to submit to the order and discipline of the church” still had to be within the context of the general charge. Many of the specific charges presented to the church were outside the scope of the specific charges, and even outside the scope of the general reason. The only evidence actually presented was a slide projection of a webpage which appeared from Dec. 29 2004 to Jan. 8, 2005, the congregation was told that I published something on the website that disgraced the pastor, the Treasurer and the Church Board. This same charge appears on page 4 of the Dec. 2011 Grievance Committee report. The committee response on the same page said, “Recognize that your website post was extremely disturbing to church leaders. . . when you laid out your displeasure with the pastor, the treasurer and the church, you seriously undermined the confidence of the board in your management of the website. |
| In Message # 160 to you sent dated July 17, 2012 I requested that you reopen Issue # 2. In this message I pointed out that you accepted the claim of the church board about what I wrote. You did not look at the page and read it for yourself. I did not have the document with me on Nov. 17th but when I got home and examined it closely, I found that it did not say what (name removed) told you it said on Nov. 17th – At the disciplinary hearing, (name removed) presented the same item by projecting a slide on the wall and few if any were able to read it, so the members accepted what (name removed) told them. She made the same charge as what was on page 2 of the report. I remembered the appeal (Message # 160) and I happened to have a hard copy of the document with me, but I was not able to present any evidence in rebuttal (I was only able to present evidence in my ten minute presentation) and I was not able to speak because my time had run out. The Grievance Committee reached a decision without looking at the evidence, and now the church was asked to disfellowship me based on the same false testimony of what the same evidence said. |
| With the Conference Grievance Committee fairness was not valid grounds for appeal, but when a member is brought to the church for removal of his name from the church books, fairness is valid grounds for appeal. And it was not fair that I could not present rebuttal evidence or speak after my ten minutes of time was used up. |
| If you would have considered my request to reopen the issue you would have been sent the hard copy of the webpage from Dec. 2004 and asked to read what it actually said and compare that with what the grievance committee wrote about it in Dec. 2011. It is obvious that you did not look closely at it, you just accepted what (name removed) told you it said. This is what happened at the disciplinary hearing, they only presented one piece of hard evidence the rest was unsubstantiated accusations about what they claim I did and what they claim I said. |
| I want to make an interesting point about this document from 2004 (which was the only evidence presented to the church at the hearing). I remember that the church board voted to close this issue in April 2005 and when Lloyd asked them to speak to me in Oct. 2005 they send him a letter saying |
"Upon your request, we reviewed once more the matter involving Mario during our Church Board meeting held on Oct. 29, 2005. During this meeting, the church Board concluded that the issues pertaining to Mario require no further discussion by the Church and considers the matter closed."
". . . Hence, we are writing to you and respectfully requesting that the Conference uses its authority to close this never ending issue with Mario. . .”
Letter from Church Board to Lloyd Scharffenberg
Dated: Nov. 9, 2005 and signed by ten members of church board |
| They considered the matter closed and then they asked Lloyd to close what they call “this never ending issue” - - - |
| It seems now that the church board reopened the matter, not for the purpose of resolving the issue with me, and not for the purpose of doing what the Grievance Committee recommended as the solution to Issue #2, and not because Pastor Romeo agreed to resolve the issue, but for the purpose of presenting evidence at my disciplinary hearing because they had no other evidence to present. |
| At the hearing they told the members that the church board started talking about discipline for me 2 ½ years ago and gave the church several dates when discipline was discussed. It is an important point that at the hearing I told the church that the church board has not spoken to me since January 2005 and they actually voted not to talk to me in April 2005. At the Nov. 17th Grievance Committee Pastor Romeo told the committee that they had nothing against me. The Dec. 2011 Report of the grievance committee mentions this for Issue # 6. On the bottom of page 7 it says, “The new pastor has indicated that there are no issues pending before the board and that he has no interest in pursing any such issues involving past conduct.” |
| Another interesting point about the charges. The original charge of “irreconcilable differences” does not hold up when you look at the Church Manual, page 67 |
|
Reinstating Those Previously Removed From Membership
Because removal from membership is the most serious form of discipline, the period of time, determined by the church business meeting, before Members may be reinstated should be sufficient to demonstrate that the issues which led to removal from membership have been resolved beyond reasonable doubt. It is expected that readmission to membership will be done in connection with rebaptism.
Church Manual, page 67
|
| Notice that it says “before members may be reinstated it should be sufficient to demonstrate that the issues which led to removal from membership have been resolved beyond a reasonable doubt.” It makes no sense for differences with the church to reach a point that the inability to resolve them is grounds for separating the member from the church. If one agrees with the church board that the issues can not be resolved, then how can I ever be re-instated, yet here is a provision in the church manual that says re-instatement depends on resolving the issues. Logic and reason will bring one to the point that “irreconcilable differences” is a charge that is not included in the reasons for disfellowship, because it is not in harmony with the rest of the church manual. |
| = = = = = = = = = = |
| Furthermore, the Church Board recommend that I be removed from membership and they ignore what the church manual says about removing a member . . . |
Matthew 18: 15 - 17
“No church officer should advise, no committee should recommend nor should any church vote, that the name of a wrongdoer shall be removed from the church books, until the instruction given by Christ has been faithfully followed. When this instruction has been followed, the church has cleared herself before God.
. . . To the church the Lord had delegated the power to settle all questions respecting its prosperity, purity and order. Upon it rests the responsibility of excluding from its fellowship those who are unworthy, who by their un-Christlike conduct would bring dishonor on the truth. Whatever the church does that is in accordance with the directions given in God’s Word will be ratified in heaven.”
Church Manual, page 57-58 quoting from Testimonies, Vol. 7, page 261-163 |
| Our God is a God of justice and fairness - - the text above says that it is not for the church to focus on if member is guilty of what they think is doing wrong – for the guilty will not escape the justice of God and they will not be cleared. Exodus 34: 7. What matters is for the church to do it right. All sin in the church must be dealt with, but if the church does not do it right – what they did do will not be ratified in heaven. |
| “All heaven is interested in the interview between the one who has been injured and the one who is in error.”
Church Manual, page 57
|
| The appeal process gives us another chance to bring the two sides together, so that the process can be done in accordance with God’s Word. |
| Yet the church gave me only ten minutes to speak in my own defense, I do not believe that the removal of my name from the body of Christ has been ratified in heaven. But since it seems to be important to the Church Board that I be removed from membership rather than to just talk to me, and resolve our differences, I am asking that you help them get another change to get it right and give me another chance to convince the members that the differences can be resolved if the church board would only talk with me. |
| Once it is understood that Pastor Romeo and the church board would rather remove me from the church than to talk to me about our differences, then it will be easy to understand why I did not get a fair hearing, and why they have ignored the following instructions given in the church manual |
|
Settlement of Grievances of the Church Against Members
At times Church organizations or institutions may have grievances against members. In such circumstances, Church administrators must, in Christian forbearance, keep in mind the biblical counsel for settling disputes among Christians and apply that counsel to the settlement of grievances of the Church against its members. The Church should, in preference to litigating matters in a secular court, make every reasonable effort in cooperation with the member to provide a process by which orderly settlement of the problem can be accomplished.
Church Manual, page 61
|
| The process that they chose was to disfellowship me, so that if they could not silence me they would discredit me with those who do not know the facts. The Church Manual says, |
| “Removing individuals from membership in the church, the body of Christ, is the ultimate discipline that the church can administer. Only after the instruction given in this chapter has been followed, after counsel from the pastor or the conference when the pastor is unavailable, and after all possible efforts have been made to win and restore them to right paths, should an individual be removed from membership.”
Church Manual, page 63
|
| Since they did not do what it says, “church administrators must do” on page 61 the process to remove me from membership was improper. |
| = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = |
| I mentioned Message # 237 at the beginning of this message, and my concern that the members would be told that the conference is involved with the charges against me. You replied to that message several hours later saying that you were aware of the letter sent to me and you said, “This is a local church decision. It is between you and the Manhattan Church.” |
| My concern was justified, the members were told that the conference wanted me to be disfellowshipped and your name was mentioned that I sent you 241 e-mails and you wanted it to stop. I brought with me a printed copy of your reply. But I was not allowed to introduce evidence. Your response to Message 237 allows me to show the members that you do read my messages, that you reply promptly, that you speak cordially, and most important it showed that the conference is not involved with the charges brought against me. The restriction that I could not present evidence in rebuttal to anything said against me was unfair and it should be removed and replaced with a process that will give me time to refute every accusation made, less than that will not be a fair hearing. |
| If the conference did not send a representative the hearing would probably have been fairer than it was. There would not have been a letter introducing Pastor Satelmajer to the congregation as the conference representative. What was needed was a representative from the conference to be a “watchman” to assure that the hearing would be conducted fairly, however, the conference representative did not prevent any of the unfair practices from happening and he did not comment to the members that any of the events mentioned above was unfair or point out any violation of my rights or any violation of the church manual. The members got a strong impression that the conference was involved with the charges against me. |
| How could this have happened? Nikolaus Satelmajer had excellent credentials and enough pastoral experience to know how disciplinary hearings should be conducted. I believe his mistake was to speak to Pastor Romeo and the church board and hear their side of the story and not speak to me to at all. He should have realized that the ‘general reason’ for the hearing was stated by the church board was about “differences with the church” it was not about sin. How could any outsider hear only one side and understand the differences. How could he understand the charges without knowing what the other side of the differences were? he only know what one side told him. Instead of being an observer to insure fairness, he became a participant in presenting information to the members of the church that was outside the scope of the charges and he overlooked violations of procedure because he thought I was guilty. Thus he added his influence to the injustice being done to me. He involved the conference in this injustice in a way that I do not believe you intended. |
| I now call upon you to set the record straight. If you did not send a representative, it may have gone better for me. The degree of unfairness was heightened because the conference representative encouraged the members to think the conference was involved in the charges against me. In your message you told me this was a local decision and it was between me and the church board. This is not the impression given to the church at the hearing. The impression that the Manhattan Church members received needs to be corrected if I am to receive a fair hearing on appeal. I feel that the conference in now responsible to correct the errors made by the representative you sent to monitor and observe the meeting, By meeting with them and not meeting with me Pastor Satelmajer lost his impartiality and this prevented him from calling the obvious violations in procedure and fairness. |
| At this point I would like to propose a solution that would make it easy for the conference to reach a fair decision. Let’s look at the final appeal which I have a right to make to the Executive Committee. The church Manual says, |
| |
|
Right of Appeal for Reinstatement —
“. . . The church should not neglect or refuse to grant such hearings. If it does, or if the former members still feel unfairly treated by the church after the appeal, they have the right to a final appeal for a hearing to the executive committee of the conference. If, after a full and impartial hearing, the conference committee is satisfied that an injustice has been inflicted by the church, the committee may recommend reinstatement to membership. But if membership is still refused by the church, then the conference committee may recommend membership in some other church. On the other hand, if it finds good grounds for sustaining the church in refusing to reinstate the former members, it will so record its decision.”
Church Manual, page 67
|
| The final appeal that is brought to the Executive Committee is based on “an injustice has been inflicted by the church” – my appeal does not need to show injustice resulting from false testimony or questionable evidence from them or from me it can be a simple matter for them to decide based on the rights of a member and an injustice due to violations of these rights. I suggest that you correct the mistakes that Nick Satelmajer allowed and give me a letter recommending they accept my request for a fair hearing and tell the church what is needed for the hearing to be conducted fairly. |
| If the church rejects my written appeal with your recommendations, it would be clear to the Executive Committee that an injustice has been done to me by Manhattan Church and they do not intend to treat me fairly. It could be so simple and my appeal to the Executive Committee can just take a few minutes. |
| I am thinking forward to the “final appeal for a hearing to the executive committee of the conference” and it will be an easy decision for you and the members of the executive committee. By making an effort at this point in the appeal process my proposal will make it clear to the committee that removing my membership in the church was an injustice done by the church. |
| The first decision that is needed is regarding the charge against me. What should be the proper charge? The first one (July 15th letter) or the second one (July 27th letter)? |
| Notice the wording of their specific reason in the second letter, “Persistent refusal to recognize properly constituted church authority . . .” We find this phrase in the church manual, page 60 |
| Members who demonstrate impatience and selfishness by their unwillingness to wait for and accept recommendations of the Church in the settlement of grievances against other church members may properly be subject to the discipline of the church (see pp. 58, 59) because of the disruptive effect on the Church and their refusal to recognize properly constituted Church authority.
Church Manual, page 60
|
| This is about disputes between members where a member starts litigation in court without waiting for a church process and “recognition” that the biblically outlined procedure has been exhausted. The church manual says, they “may properly be subject to discipline of the church.” Since it is written as a reason on page 60, it is included in the list of reasons for discipline found on page 61 and 62. |
| The charge in the second letter goes on to say, “ . . . or to submit to the order and discipline of the church.” This pertains to when a member is censured and continues his wrong doing, he does not repent and the church board feels it is necessary to take it to the next level which is disfellowship. This charge does not apply to this situation because I have not been asked to submit to an order of the church and I am not under censure. Reading the second letter from the church . . . |
Letter from Church Board to Mario Dated: July 27, 2013
In our July 15, 2013 letter we gave a general reason why the Church Board made the recommendation and would have given all the particulars at the Business Meeting. In this letter we are giving you the specific reason as stated in the Church Manual. The specific reason why the Church Board has recommended to the Business Meeting disciplinary action is as follows: “Persistent refusal to recognize properly constituted church authority or to submit to the order and discipline of the church.” (Church Manual, page 62).
Signed by Church Clerk
I received this letter on July 31, 2013
|
| The specific reason has nothing to do with the “general reason” which they stated in the first letter. But it is even easier than that, just look at the date on the letter, July 27th does not give me the two weeks notice that is required in the church manual. The first letter ( July 15th ) does give me proper notice and therefore this is the only charge that does not violate my right to receive proper notice. |
| Another point that I am asking the conference to clarify to Manhattan Church that would make the process fair is a decision of who decides my appeal. Is it the church board or is it the church at a business meeting? |
| The church manual says, about the Right of Appeal for Reinstatement |
| “While it is the right of the church to administer discipline, this does not set aside the rights of members to seek fairness. If members believe that they have been treated unfairly by the local church, or not had the right to be heard fairly, and the church is unwilling to reconsider the case or if the officers refuse to consider their applications for reinstatement, the former members have a right to appeal in writing to the church for a hearing. The church should not neglect or refuse to grant such hearings. If it does, or if the former members still feel unfairly treated by the church after the appeal, they have the right to a final appeal for a hearing to the executive committee of the conference. . .”
Church Manual, page 67
|
| If the church board rejects my written appeal, is matter ready for the next level which is the Executive Committee. The text says, “the church is unwilling to reconsider the case or if the officers refuse to consider the applications of reinstatement” it may appear that either the church makes this decision at a business meeting or the church board rejects this without a business meeting. However, other texts in the church manual show that this is decision has to be a decision of the congregation. |
| First text to show it is found in the section, Church Board Cannot Remove Members |
| The board may recommend to a business meeting the removal of members, but under no circumstance does the board have the right to take final action. Except in the case of the death of members, the clerk can remove a name from the records only after a vote of the church in a business meeting.
Church Manual, page 64
|
| The key phrase is “Under no circumstance” does the board have the right to take final action. An appeal based on “unfairness” is really an appeal to redo the hearing so that the member is given a fair hearing. The church board can’t take the final action the first time and taking a final action before a fair hearing is just another circumstance where the board does not have the right to take final action. |
| Another text in the Church Manual, that supports my position is found on page 124 |
| Major items should be decided at a regular or specially called business meeting.
Church Manual, page 124
|
This was added to the church manual by a vote of the delegates at the 59th GC session.
Here is a list of the charges to the church manual regarding Business Meetings
Disfellowship of a member is the ultimate discipline and with an entire chapter of the Church Manual devoted to Discipline, I think you will agree that disfellowship of a member is a major item of business. It seems that the delegates at the 59th GC Session neglected to extend this clarification to page 67, but I hope you will agree with the arguments presented that your letter of recommendations include the part about this decision is to be made from the church board and that you recommend that I be allowed to present my appeal personally to the members at a business meeting. |
This message prints out on 16 pages, so I will cut it short and ask you to consider the information and my request for you to correct the mistakes make by the conference representative and help to insure that I can get a fair hearing at the appeal. I will send you a follow-up message with a list of the other areas that need to be addressed.
In God We Trust
|
| Mario |
| |
|
|
► |
Read the reply from Gerson Santos
Received on Aug. 12, 2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
