This post continues what is beginning to seem like it may be a never-ending analysis of the document What Really Happened in Latin America. Today we begin from page 7, immediately following the heading, “Response of the Latin Ministry”.
The document states that on June 21 (the day on which Leon Walker was required to respond in writing to the demand to return to the US) the elders in Latin America wrote to the COE stating that they did not agree with the removal of Leon Walker. They requested the decision (not yet made – as Leon Walker still had the option to meet with the COE in the US) be reversed and that they have a say in who would be their regional director. The document asserts that requesting a say in who is their regional director is their right under article 1-130 of the UCG rules of association.
Let us examine that final assertion a little. To begin with, how about I do what nobody else has done that I have seen so far and actually link the official versions of the relevant documents:
Now, starting with rule 1-130 from the Rules of Association:
Rule 1-130 National Councils
National Councils (or their equivalents) administer areas outside the United States as established by the Constitution of the UCGIA [Article 3.2.2.1 of the Constitution of the UCGIA]. In areas where there is no National Council (and no desire to have one), the brethren, in consultation with the Home Office, the Management Team and the Council of Elders, will determine the status of administration they will seek within the United Church of God. The choices are either a local congregation (or congregations) functioning under the administration of the Home Office and Management Team, or a local congregation (or congregations) functioning under the administration of a neighboring National Council.
I’m no legal expert, so I have to admit I really couldn’t say how this would be interpreted in a legal sense. The important part, with respect to the Latin American situation, is only the very beginning: “National Councils (or their equivalents) administer areas outside the United States as established by the Constitution of the UCGIA“. So, until we examine the constitution article 3.2.2.1, everything hinges on the meaning of this word, “administer”. Does that include deciding their own regional director? I suppose that will depend in part on the rules established by that National Council. This is probably complicated if the person holding the position of Regional Director is salaried by the US administration (as was the case with Leon Walker). It is further complicated by the requirements of any National Council to abide by the Rules of Association and Constitution to be affiliated with UCG-IA.
So how about we have a look at article 3.2.2.1 of the Constitution:
3.2.2.1 National Councils
A council or board that is established to meet the requirements for legal recognition of the United Church of God, an International Association or serve the administrative needs of the Church in nations other than the United States of America, are national councils. The national councils shall conduct themselves in accordance with the scripture, this Constitution, their local bylaws, the rules of association and applicable law.
So what does a national council do?
- Meet requirements for legal recognition of UCG-IA
- Serve the administrative needs of the Church in other countries
or
These national councils are required to conduct themselves in accordance with scripture, the Constitution of UCG-IA, their own bylaws, the rules of association (of UCG-IA) and any other applicable law.
So now, in my inexpert opinion, it appears that the UCG-IA rules do not specifically give the national council of any country a particular “right” to select their regional director, unless such a right is specified in their own bylaws. I have no idea what the bylaws of the Latin American national councils are (note the plural, as they were apparently five national councils in the area – see page 4 of What Really Happened in Latin America). However, I am assuming that the authors of What Really Happened in Latin America would have referred to those bylaws had they contained anything relevant to the situation. They don’t, and nor have I seen any reference in any other arguments presented elsewhere. The closest they get is to refer, in the next sentence of the document, to other national councils having this “right” specified in their bylaws:
As mentioned above, most international areas have this right written into their governing documents (Germany, Italy, England, Australia, South Africa, etc.).
What is glaringly missing here is any statement that Latin America had this “right” written into their governing documents.
This might begin to answer a question that has been bugging me: If the COE have been violating the governing documents of UCG-IA as has been continually asserted, why has the matter not been dealt with via legal channels? I had been thinking the argument would have been based on I Corinthians 6:1:
When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?
However, that makes no sense when one considers that it has been often mentioned that UCG was established with legal documents intended to prevent “what happened in WCG”. If I Corinthians 6:1 forbids us to use the legal system, why build on it as a protection to begin with? So why not use those protections when those in charge (the COE) are allegedly doing pretty much what the documents were put in place to prevent?
Joel Meeker, among others, has been at pains to use the argument of not being a “hireling” to justify behaviour on the part of those who have split (search for hireling in Joel Meeker Answers Challenges Regarding His Resignation Letter). However, isn’t splitting to form a new organisation instead of using the protections put in place at the foundation of UCG to protect the whole church from the “misconduct” of the COE exactly what a hireling might do: run away with his supporters? The problem (for them) is, though, the more I examine the case that has been presented, the more the facts indicate that there has been no violation of UCG’s documents in any legal sense. So that would explain why no legal challenge…
But I have digressed. Back to the document at hand…
The Council of Elders met in a special session on Wednesday, June 23 and Thursday, June 24, 2010, to select the next president of UCG. Several Council members were unaware that Mario Seiglie was already en route to Chile until it was noted that Mr. Seiglie was not present in Cincinnati for these meetings.
I’m not sure of the relevance of this, except that in the account that follows it is implied that there was an orchestrated plan, involving Mario Seiglie and Dennis Luker acting as President, to take control in Latin America. The fact that Mario Seiglie was already on his way before Dennis Luker was even made president tells us … what?
On the afternoon of Thursday, June 24, 2010, President Dennis Luker, newly elected that same day, signed a document removing Saul Langarica as pastor of the Santiago congregation. Why was Mr. Langarica removed, but not the other pastors? The only area with a substantial bank account in Latin America and also the owners of a church building was Santiago. Mr. Seiglie made contact with a church member in Santiago who was also a lawyer and was familiar with the Chilean legal documents. The documents gave authority to the Spanish Regional Director for naming the pastor in Santiago. Upon replacing Mr. Holladay on Thursday morning, Mr. Luker also took on the title of regional director. That afternoon he signed the document removing Mr. Langarica as pastor. This action also removed Mr. Langarica as the president of UCG, Chile—a legal entity and charity in Chile. Mr. Langarica was not spoken to about this and no one explained why he was being removed (this is contrary to the approved policy of UCG). He received an attachment to an e-mail informing him of his removal, but still without any explanation as to cause. It was reported on Wednesday that Mr. Langarica was planning a meeting to change the legal documents to prevent Mr. Seiglie from gaining control of the assets, but this charge was not true. There was a congregational meeting in Santiago on Thursday evening but it was to inform the brethren about Mr. Walker, not to change any documents. Mr. Langarica was removed based on false information.
- The only area with a substantial bank account in Latin America and also the owners of a church building was Santiago.
- I take it the implication is this was a dastardly plan to seize Latin American assets. What would be the point? As is repeatedly noted in these documents defending those who have split from UCG, Latin America is heavily subsidised by the US. If money is what they needed, it would have been much easier to just cut off Latin America altogether.
- Saul Langarica was not spoken to about why he was removed, and this was contrary to UCG policy
- As I have pointed out before, a policy is not the same as a law or rule. If the defence of the COE is to be believed, following policy would have simply left the Latin American church open to being effectively hijacked by men who did not appear, at that point, to have the best interests of the members in mind.
- Saul Langarica was falsely alleged to be planning to change the legal documents, and was thus removed based on false information
- If the school at which one of your children is a student receives allegations that have a degree of plausability that a teacher has been sexually abusing students, would you accept the school arguing that they allowed the teacher to continue to teach because the allegations had not been proven? Sure, the teacher might be innocent, but why risk it? We can always reinstate and compensate later.
- Planning to change legal documents could have some serious implications for the membership of the church in the area, and it was right to take swift action to protect those members. What is important is what then follows.
What did follow will have to be the subject of a future post.
[…] Comments « What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 4 […]
[…] What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 4 […]