What Some Pastors Say...

“They should not have taken the case to court.

They have not exhausted all avenues!!!”

It has come to our attention that some AOG pastors are saying that the TTG is wrong in going to the Court as they have not exhausted all avenues available to them. The “available avenue” that these pastors said the TTG should have taken was to have requisitioned for an EGM and then put in the Resolutions for the members to vote on. As the TTG did not do this “necessary available” step, they felt that it was wrong for the TTG to go to court.

There could only be several reasons why these pastors said what they said. One reason could be that they have not read or chosen not to read this blog and therefore, are still totally ignorant of what has taken place in Calvary Church (CC) or all the actions which the TTG group has taken to resolve the issues amicably. Another reason could be that they are just mimicking the justification response of the AOG Executive Committee (Exco) members since it has now been highlighted that the CC Constitution DOES NOT comply with the AOG Constitution.

Calvary Church’s existence is derived from the Trustees (Incorporation) Ordinance 1952 under which the AOG Malaysia was set up. In other words, Calvary Church exists under the umbrella of the AOG Malaysia. Calvary Church is technically a sub-trustee of AOG Malaysia. Any offence of breach of trust within Calvary Church or by its leaders, if charged by the authorities, may have serious material impact on the continued existence of AOG itself.

Since it is now obvious that the CC constitution is not in compliance, besides been seriously flawed, to the requirements as spelt out in the AOG Constitution, the present Exco is in a fix on how to explain or justify why the CC Constitution was approved by their predecessors back then. However, due consideration must be given to the fact that the CC Constitution was approved by the then Exco when Pastor Prince Guneratnam (PG) was its General Superintendent (GS). With PG sitting in the Exco as the GS, who in the Exco then, would be courageous enough to question or not approve PG’s Church Constitution?

Coming back to these pastors, they feel that the TTG should have exhausted the “available” step before going to Court. Do they really understand or know what this “available” step is? Do they know exactly what the requirements are in order for the TTG to requisite for an EGM? We will try to explain the requirements in simple terms.

Firstly, we must understand that there are only two Meetings in which the Church Members can vote on Resolutions.

1. Annual General Meeting (AGM). This can only be called for by the Board of Deacons.

2. Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM). This can be called for by the BOD or by Voting Members by way of a “requisition”.

Now this is the “available avenue” that the pastors are saying that the TTG should have taken. Convene an EGM by way of requisition.

Secondly, we need to understand what CC Constitution states with regards to convening an AGM and EGM.

1, Rule IX (1). states that, "the quorum for a General Meeting is ¼ of the total Voting Members." This means, if the Church has 880 members, there should be 220 members in attendance before the Meeting can proceed.

2. Rule IX (2). states that, “If within half an hour from the time appointed for a General Meeting a quorum is not present at the said meeting, the voting members so present shall by a two thirds majority vote resolve that all Voting members so present shall duly constitute a proper quorum for such a general meeting…”

This simply means that if a General Meeting is convened (called for) by the BOD and after half an hour only one Voting Member turns up, that one member can vote to proceed and the Meeting can actually proceed technically with just one Voting member present, as allowed by the CC Constitution now.

3. Rule IX (7) states that members may requisite for an EGM with signatures from ¼ of the voting members. This means, if the Church has 880 members, we would need 220 signatures before we can requisite for an EGM.

Assuming 220 signatures have been obtained, 3 things can happen depending on the Board of Deacons (BOD) decision.

1. The BOD on receiving the requisition can convene (call for) the EGM within 30 days. If the BOD convenes (calls for) the EGM, the quorum is ¼ of the Voting Members as required in Rule IX 1.

2. The BOD can also refuse to convene (call for) the Meeting.

3. In such case, the requisitioning members can convene the Meeting as provided by Rule IX (7b). It sounds very nice and democratic but Rule IX (7b) imposes an unfair condition on the requisitionists (the 220 signatories). The rule says, “In such an event and notwithstanding Rule IX (1) & Rule IX (2), the total number of VM present to form a quorum shall not be less than one-half of the existing voting membership.”

This means that, if the church has 880 VM, there must be 440 VM present to form a quorum to convene the EGM.

What does this mean in simple terms?

1. When BOD calls for a General Meeting, only 220 VMs need to be present. However, they have an escape clause to carry on the meeting even if less than 220 VM turn up. Technically, even if  one VM turns up, the BOD can convene the Meeting.

2. However, the requisitionists or the 220 signatories will need 440 VM present before the EGM can proceed. There is no escape clause provided.

How can the AOG Exco approve such unfair and biased provisions in a Church Constitution?

It has an apparent form of democracy and fairness but it is really a camouflage. The Constitution does provide for the rights of members to requisite for an EGM but the same Constitution also makes it almost impossible for the members to do so. The members are made to feel happy at first glance but will be made to face a mountain when exercised.

This is all part of the great deception. Make the members believe that they enjoy democratic rights and responsibilities of a Congregational Church but in reality, it is a Dictatorial Structured Church disguised as a Democratic Structured Church.

Does the present EXCO members and pastors really think that TTG would have been successful in trying to requisite for an EGM as the “available avenue” to propose any Resolutions with PG and the present BOD in control?

Let us do a flashback.

The TTG submitted 7 Resolutions for tabling at the August 2008 EGM. As it happened, the BOD threw out the resolutions. The reasons given were two fold:

1. The first reason given by the Church Secretary was that the explanations from the lawyer and forensic accountants would address the issues. What a ridiculous answer! What has the explanations from the lawyer and accountant to do with the tabling of resolutions?

2. Perhaps recognising that the reason given sounded ridiculous, she then said that since no Preliminary Notice of meeting was given for the said EGM, the BOD would not entertain any resolution.

Since Rule IX (5) states, “within 7 clear days after preliminary notice is given…”, the TTG accepted her interpretation of the Constitution at that time and waited for the AGM instead. This was the TTG’s FIRST ATTEMPT to submit Resolutions for tabling.

Then at the 2009 AGM, the TTG made a SECOND ATTEMPT and submitted the same Resolutions based on Rule IX (5) which states,

RESOLUTION

a) No matter or resolution shall be brought forward at any GM unless written submissions has or have been received by the Secretary of the Board of Deacons within 7 clear days after preliminary notice is given of such meeting or meetings.


b) Subject to para (5a) of this Rule, any matter or resolution, notice of which has been received, shall if received in sufficient time before such meeting, be included in the notice convening the meeting.

Even this time when the TTG submitted their resolutions in absolute compliance with the requirements stated, the resolutions were “thrown out”. The reason given was it was unconstitutional. What does ”unconstitutional” means, up till today no one can explain it properly. The best “award winning” explanation given at this 2009 AGM was that tabling the members’ resolutions were likened to tabling the purchase of Manchester United in a church AGM. This analogy was actually suggested by a young lawyer who was voted in as Deacon at that AGM. This ridiculous analogy was actually accepted by the Resolution Chairman, Pastor Ronnie Chin who is also the Assistant General Superintendent of AOG today. Is this the quality or integrity of our Christian leaders today?

Once bitten, twice shy. After the bitter experience at the 2009 AGM, no one in the right frame of mind would attempt to propose any Resolutions based on the current flawed Constitution. Please listen to the recordings of the 2009 AGM to feel the heartache and intimidation members were subjected to.

Please listen to CLIP 6.
Click here to listen : 2009 AGM

Anyway, this is water under the bridge. With the mastery stroke of a pen, PG has recently axed more than 400 suspected TTG supporters (with many innocent members included as well) from Voting and Associate membership. This despicable act of dictatorship has effectively stopped all possibilities of any requisition for an EGM by any remaining TTG supporters or concerned members.

So have the TTG exhausted all avenues?
The TTG/Concerned Members have exercised great patience and tolerance in trying to engage the BOD to be fair to all the members of the church. The pastors who make comments such as these,

“They should not have taken the case to court.
They have not exhausted all avenues!!!”

have very little or have not understood the camouflage and deception that are embedded in the CC constitution.

Can we fault the pastors?
The camouflage and deceptions in the CC Constitution are very difficult to detect by mere reading. The true spirit of the CC Constitution can only be seen and felt when it is exercised or put to a test like what is happening now….the ongoing CCC, short for Calvary Church Crisis.