Further the decision that the congregation voted on was whether to accept a specific offer of purchase and sale, it was not a resolution to “keep the church.” Indeed, never has a “keep the church” resolution been presented to nor voted on by the congregation. The resolution at issue required a 2/3 majority of the congregation which it narrowly did not achieve. In other words the majority of the congregation supported the motion but a special majority did not. Finally, the current Council was not elected, it was put in place by way of acclamation.
2. Paragraph 5 3rd sentence: The statement that “Talvi Maimets […] cancelled the meeting” is false.
The 7 former Advisory Committee members requested to meet with the bishop and the Council on February 5 and on several occasions thereafter, offering a number of meeting dates. The purpose of that meeting was to discuss, among other things, Council’s breaches of the Church’s Constitution and Bylaws. On March 26 Council agreed to a meeting, but proposed a single date and time on which several of the members were unable to attend. The members promptly communicated same to the current Council requesting alternate dates. Mr. Einola replied in an email to the members that “The meeting with Bishop Pryse will not be rescheduled.” In short, Talvi Maimets did not cancel the meeting.
3. Paragraph 6 1st sentence incorrectly cites my article which stated the views of the previous Council in the introductory paragraph “The previous Council had recommended selling our property, since the costs of upkeep proved unaffordable.” I have no visibility into the current financial affairs of the corporation as budgets and financial statements have not been presented to the congregation. Mutating my published statement from the past to the present tense and publishing same, is improper and incorrect.
4. Paragraph 8 1st sentence, (and bolded insert): the authors allege that my “attacking the financial competency of the new Council is shameful.” Nowhere in my article was their financial competence in question.
Paragraph 8 2nd sentence relates to the 1st sentence.
5. Paragraphs 9-12: the resolution passed by the congregation on a 2/3 special majority basis to close the columbarium was not contingent on sale of the 817 Mt. Pleasant Ave. property. Council does not have legal authority to override a decision of the congregation but must put the matter to the congregation if new information so requires.
6. Paragraphs 13-15 are incorrect, attribute intent where none can be known, and claims to legitimize overriding decades of practice at St. Peter’s and at every Lutheran church under EELK. On February 26, 2024, shortly after the Advisory Committee members requested the meeting referenced in Item 2, above, the current Council sent an email (attached) to the Advisory Committee citing expiry of their mandate, ie, disbanding same. Allegation of a mass resignation from the Advisory Committee is false.
From the time it took office in June 2023, the new Council enjoyed the contributions and service of the Advisory Committee members to Church services activities and corresponded with them re same.
7. Paragraph 18 5th sentence: the Council and its members are the aggrieved parties for the three congregants to whom “Notices of Disciplinary Hearing” have been issued by the current Council.
The dictatorial behaviour that I note in my article is so characterized because not only is the Council and its members the allegedly aggrieved party in these Notices, but they seek also to adjudicate their own dispute. Further, as I am privy to the disciplinary hearing notices issued to the three congregants I note that no restorative mediation was offered as required by the By-Laws of the Church.
8. Paragraph 21 3rd sentence: past practice has been to have the Advisory Committee discuss and vote on the budget which the Council did not permit, and the congregation is required to adopt the budget under the church’s Constitution and Bylaws. This sentence incorrectly asserts that the previous board should have presented a budget. Had the motion to accept the proposed Agreement of Purchase and Sale succeeded, the previous board would have continued in office and would have presented a budget. However, as the motion failed, the previous board resigned, and therefore it would have been inappropriate for them to present a budget. It was the responsibility of the new board to do so.
9. Paragraph 22, 2nd sentence: a lease or rental agreement is an encumbrance on the property, whether or not it is registered on title.
The statement is the author’s opinion.
10. Paragraph 23 3rd and 4th sentences mischaracterize and misstate my article in which I stated that the church was seeking that the widow pay not just her own documentation costs, but to issue a blank cheque to cover the church’s discretionary legal costs. The letter from the chairman to the widow, dated February 4, 2024, stated: “This is a complex matter, and should the church incur any legal costs in order to comply with your request, we respectfully request that you agree to pay these costs.”
11. Paragraph 23 5th sentence (and indeed in other parts of the article) states that I lack knowledge on the matter and that I have issued misinformation. As a long-standing member of the church including long-standing tenure on the Council and Advisory Committee, that statement is inflammatory, wrong, and insulting.
12. Paragraph 36 per Item 2, above: its implication is false.
Read more:
Serious problems with the Council of St. Peter’s Church of Toronto
