|
Letter to Gerson Santos
Executive Secretary of Greater New York Conference
November 23, 2013 |
Message # 256
Nov. 23, 2013
Dear Gerson Santos: |
| This is to inform you that I am still exercising my right to seek fairness in accordance with Church Manual, page 67. As you know I sent a message to 175 members of the NAD Executive Committee ( courtesy copy to you on Oct. 30 ) asking the question; Which charge should be considered at my appeal. Here is the on-line version. |
| |
| I received replies from ten members but none of them answered the question. The best reply came from Mike Tucker (Director, Faith for Today), he gave me permission to publish his name with the letter. Click here to see his reply. I also posted what I consider the second best reply, because this Conference President exchanged three e-mails with me, until he decided to discontinue the dialogue on the third message. Read the exchange of e-mails. |
| |
| What is interesting about the second reply is that he discontinued the dialogue when I said. "I guess the question now becomes, what does "the right to seek fairness" mean?" So it seems logical to contact the NAD Executive Committee again, specifically asking this question. However, before I do that, I wanted to give you this report and ask if you will answer the easier question which will allow my appeal to move forward. The question again is, What charge should be considered by Manhattan Church at the appeal? |
| |
| This is being discussed on several LINKEDed groups for Adventists. One group, which is named the E-ventist Network has almost 1,900 members, it has over 250 comments posted about this. I want to remind you of the letter to Dan Jackson which I sent on Oct. 17th - - - But you’ve seen this one. |
| |
| You sent your reply to the 'What charge' question to me on August 14th |
| |
|
E-mail from Gerson Santos Dated: Aug. 14, 2013
Dear Mario
I want to repeat my previous recommendation and this will be the last time I will answer this matter. If you want to appeal start the process with the local church. If you are not satisfied the conference can get involved, but you need to go to the church first.
Gerson P. Santos
Copy sent to Earl Knight, Carlos Gonzalez, Steve Cassimy, Herman Kuma, Claude Morgan
|
|
|
Your reply did outline the process described in Church Manualm page 67, but did not answer the question so I brought the question and your reply to the Atlantic Union Conference. As I explained in other messages, if I follow Church Manual, page 67 and send a written appeal to Manhattan Church, they may grant the appeal but only consider only the second charge. This is the charge that was presented to the congregation at the Aug. 3rd hearing, the charge which violated the due process procedure established in the church manual as a fundamental right.
|
| |
|
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 to 65
|
| If the appeal is denied because Manhattan Church still would not allow the first charge to be considered, and we learn that the answer to the question is that the second charge did violate due process and the first charge should be considered because it did NOT violate any right granted to members or any ‘due process’ established by the church manual. Also if the answer to the question comes after the new hearing by Manhattan Church then I have squandered my appeal for reinstatement as a member of the church. I believe it is better to identify the fundamental mistakes made at the first hearing before asking for the appeal. Also if the answer from church administrators recommends that the first charge should be considered at the appeal, and Manhattan Church ignores this statement from church administrators, then this fact will support my claim of ‘unfair practices’ when I bring the appeal to the GNYC Executive Committee. I believe this scenario is in accordance with the Church Manual procedure for reinstatement of membership, page 67. |
| |
| I consider that getting an answer to this question as part of my ‘right to seek fairness’ because if the appeal is heard by Manhattan Church on the second charge, the second hearing will still be unfair. |
|
I am sure you understand all this, but I just wanted it to go on record that you are aware of why I have presented this question to Don King and Carlyle Simmons and when the Union response was to block delivery of my e-mails and ignore 45 telephone calls, I brought this to the NAD level.
|
| |
| I could try to dialogue with the other eight members of the NAD Executive Committee who replied and/or I could send a second message to all of them. Before I do that, I want to give you and the GNYC another chance to answer the question, and allow the appeal to proceed. I also sent you a copy of my message to Earl Knight asking for a copy of the letter he sent to Manhattan Church introducing Nick Satelmajer as the representative of the conference to the hearing on Aug. 3rd - - he still has not responded. I will also need to see this letter in order to write my appeal, but since you referred me to Elder Knight regarding the letter, I will continue to contact him and Nick Satelmajer for a copy of the letter. |
I hope I hear from you this week.
In God We Trust
Mario
|
|
