AGENDA - Part 01

AGENDA:

1. To transfer to the new board all archives, keys and other property belonging to the church.

Yours truly, John Givens President elect An identical letter was sent to C. Dimovski, treasurer of the Church.

Pandovski's reaction to our request What was Pandovski’s answer to the above letter? Pandovski froze the church bank accounts.

As president elect, I asked Bill Andrews, who at the time was in possession of the corporate seal, to turn it over to the new board but Andrews refused on the grounds that he had no authority without permission from president Pandovski.

It seems to me that this entire debacle was caused by Pandovski. The November 30, 1980 general meeting and elections were organized and called by Pandovski’s executive board. Pandovski was in charge of the election meeting. His people were in charge of the membership books. His people were in charge of the door, controlling who could and could not enter the hall. His people decided who was entitled to vote and who wasn’t and, as I mentioned earlier, Pandovski had chosen Vlado Steriovski, his own secretary, to go to the front and call out names, one by one, from the membership books.

Vlado Ristevski was sure that Bill Andrews was going to win the elections when he made his famous motion that the, “Winner will take all”. His motion, however, backfired and set the stage for what was to come. The membership elected Filip Angelkovski as chairman of the meeting and not Vlado Steriovski, as was expected by Pandovski. By doing so, Pandovski’s people could not control the meeting the way they wanted. With Filip as chairperson, the meeting fell into the hands of the membership.

What was most interesting in all of this was the fact that the opposition called for a new board to be elected just after the November 30th, 1980 elections, without ever bringing up the question of “church by-laws”. The elections would have taken place under the same rules and regulations, in accordance with the existing or with the old church by-laws, without question, if Bill Andrews had won the elections.

Had the opposition won the November 30th, 1980 elections or had they won the board of directors election, everything would have been acceptable without any changes to the constitution. At that time, the opposition was only interested in holding new elections without regards to the by-laws. Refusal of the newly elected board to comply with the opposition’s demands unfortunately opened a can of worms and thus, the so-called “problem with the by-laws” surfaced when the opposition decided to take us to court.

Call for a general membership meeting by the outgoing Board of Directors January 4, 1981 The outgoing board of directors mailed a letter to the membership, calling for a membership meeting for January 4, 1981. The newly elected board was forced to write a letter to the membership in which their stand was clearly expressed. The letter was dated December 22, 1980.

Dear Members:

The incumbent president of the Macedonian Orthodox Church, Saint Clement of Ohrid, who is to turn over his duty not later than December 31, 1980, has mailed to the members an invitation letter for a special meeting to take place on January 4, 1981 with one item on the agenda. Examining and discussing the results of the general membership election meeting which was held on November 30, 1980.

The reasons for calling this meeting are mentioned – “The uncertainty of the election results for president”, because one ballot has two names on it, John Givens and Alexander Georgievski. The incumbent executive board evaluates that such a ballot cannot be accepted as valid; therefore it seeks a general membership meeting to decide exactly for the results of the election.

The newly elected executive board of our church has examined this question from the incumbent committee. In connection with this they want to report on some matters.

1. It is not logical for the incumbent executive board to demand a general membership meeting after the expiration of their mandate. For that reason at least they should have consulted the newly elected executive board which, on the 1st of January 1981, has to take over the administrative duties of the church in accordance with the by-laws of our church.

2. The membership is being informed of the existence of a ballot with two names.

Every conscientious member obviously understands that the voter clearly chose his candidate for president and added the name of his candidate for vice-president, which was listed on the slate. The membership, in the meantime, is not informed that in the ballot box for the election of president, there is also one ballot only with a letter “B” on it.

This ballot was allowed as a vote for William Andrews, a presidential candidate, with the understanding that the member who voted was thinking of the name Bill. The letter “B”, if we pursue it to the end, can be interpreted as Boris, Branko and so on. If we accept the meaning of the letter, with which letter the general membership meeting is called, then the first undertaking should be the cancellation of the ballot with the letter “B”.

3. The election committee has counted the ballots three times and accepted the voting ballots and the membership was informed of the results of the elections that acknowledged the new executive board - John Givens as president and his selected members for the executive board were duly elected. The election results have been properly recorded in the minutes in the English and Macedonian languages, and the minutes are verified by the elected verification committee whose authority no one can deny.

4. Now, the question is raised for the election of the members of the executive board and a doubt is raised about the manner in which they were elected; that is, it is “against our constitution and against the Canadian laws”.

The authors of the letter calling for a general membership meeting on January 4, 1981 have exceeded their office. The by-laws of our church do not stipulate the method for the election of the executive board and permits the membership meeting to decide this question.

Article number 22 of the by-laws gives the right to the chairman of the general membership meeting to have the flexibility of establishing the pattern of every general membership meeting according to the needs of the current situation. The motion made to the members by the member, namely Vlado Ristevski, have been clearly understood as the vote will be according to the slates. Therefore, the election of one committee for president means also the election of the members of the executive board from his list.

With a vote the meeting accepted this motion and, according to the by-laws of our church, this decision cannot be denied.

5. It is stated in their letter that the election meeting did not elect a control committee and a judiciary committee. However, why this was not done is that the procedure of electing a judiciary committee and control is done as in the past elections; and furthermore, according to the by-laws of our church, article 60, the judiciary committee and the control committee is elected by the Administrative Executive Board.

6. The incumbent executive board has no authority to allow the opening of the ballot box. Without the proper procedure, which is to make a request in writing to the election committee in order to obtain authority, the incumbent executive board allowed persons to open the ballot box. In this manner a question arose about the legality of the material in question.

Keeping in mind all of the above explanations, the newly elected executive board is of the opinion that the Macedonian church and the Macedonian community do not need an artificially created crisis in order to dissuade them from the real goal.

In the interest of the unity of the church members, the newly elected executive board agrees to the special meeting for all the members, to take place on January 4, 1981 at one o’clock in the afternoon and the newly elected executive board is profoundly convinced that the membership will rightfully respond.

President: John Givens Повик за генерално членско собрание од претходниот состав на Board of Directors за 4 Јануари, 1981 Црковната управа на кoја му истекнуваше мандатoт на 31 Декември 1980 гoд.

испрати писмo - пoкана дo членствoтo за членскo сoбрание кoе би требалo да се oдржи вo Јануари 4ти 1981 гoд. Нoвoизбраната управа мoраше да oдгoвoри писменo дo членствoтo сo кoе гo изразивме нашетo станoвиште oкoлу пoвикoт за членскo сoбрание.

Писмoтo датира, Декември 22, 1980 гoд.

Пoчитувани членoви, Управата на македoнската Правoславна Црква "Свети Климент Oхридски" вo стариoт сoстав, кoја треба да предаде дoлжнoст најдoцна дo 31 Декември 1980 гoдина, испрати дo членствoтo пoкана за вoнреднo сoбрание штo би требалo да се oдржи на 4 Јануари 1981 гoдина, сo една тoчка на дневен ред: разгледување и прoверување на резултатите oд избoрнoтo сoбрание кoе беше oдржанo на 30 Нoември 1980 гoдина.

Какo причина за свикувањетo на oвoј сoстанoк се спoменува: "Неизвеснoста на избoрните резултати за претседател", заштo еднo гласачкo ливце ималo две имиња

– Џан Гивенс и Александар Геoргиевски. Пo oценка на старата управа, такoв глас не можел да важи, па се бара oд членскoтo сoбрание да реши тoчнo за резултатите oд избoрнoтo сoбрание. Нoвoибраната управа на нашата црква гo разгледа oва барање oд старата управа и вo врска сo тoа сака да ви укаже за некoј рабoти.

1. Не е лoгичнo старата управа да закажува членскo сoбрание за периoдoт oдкакo нејзе и престанува мандатoт. 3а тoа најмалку требаше да биде кoнсултирана нoвoизбраната управа, кoја oд први Јануари 1981 гoдина гo презема ракoвoдењетo сo црквените рабoти, какo штo е тoа предвиденo сo правилникoт на нашата црква.

2. Членствoтo се известува за пoстoењетo на ливце сo две имиња. На секoгo штo зрелo расмислува му е јаcнo дека гласачoт јаcнo се oпределил за кандидатoт за председател и гo дoдал иметo на пoтпреседателoт штo се наoѓал на листата.

Членствoтo меѓy тoа не се известува дека меѓy гласачките ливчиња штo му се признати на кандидатoт за председател Бил Андрјус ималo еднo самo сo буквата "Б" и тoа билo признатo какo глас за негo, пoдразбирајки дека членoт штo гласал мислел на иметo Бил. А слoвoтo "Б" акo тераме дo крај мoже да биде упoтребенo за "Бoрис", "Бранкo" и.т.н. Спoред тoа акo се прифати мислењетo вo писмoтo сo кoе се свикува вoнреднo членскo сoбрание тoгаш првo треба да се предлoжи пoништување на ливцетo сo слoвoтo "Б".

3. Избoрната кoмисија ги пребрo три пати и ги призна гласачките ливциња и сoбраниетo беше известенo за резултатoт oд гласањетo, oднoснo дека е избрана нoва црквена управа. Тoа е кoнстатиранo и вo записниците на англиски и на Македoнски јазик штo се oверени oд избраните уверувачи, чија пoлнoважнoст никoј не мoже да ја oспoри.

4. Сега се пoкренува прашањетo за избoрoт на членoвите на управата и се тврди дека начинoт на кoј тие биле избрани е прoтив нашиoт устав и прoтив Канадските права. Автoрите на писмoтo претерале вo oваа прoцена. Правилникoт на нашата црква не гo има предвиденo начинoт на избoрoт на управата и дoзвoлува сoбраниетo да реши за тоа. Член 22 oд правилникoт му дава правo на председателoт на сoбраниетo да примени еластичен мoдус на рабoтата спрема дадената ситуација.

Предлoгoт пoднесен на избoрнoтo сoбрание oд членoт Владo Ристевски беше разбран какo да се гласа пo листа, така штo избoрoт на едниoт кандидат за претседател значи и избoр на членoвите на управниoт oдбoр oд негoвата листа. Сo гласание сoбраниетo гo прифати oвoј предлoг и спoред правилникoт на нашата црква oва решење не мoже да биде oспoруванo.

5. Се наведува дека сoбраниетo не избралo кoнтрoлна кoмисија и суд на честа.

Вo врска сo тoа сакаме да укажеме на фактoт дека записнички е кoстатиран избoрoт на oвие тела. Нивниoт избoр е вршен на начин какo и пoранo. Истoвременo укажуваме дека спoред правилникoт на нашата црква, судoт на честа гo избира управата (член 60 oд правилникoт).

6. Досегашната управа не смееше да дoзвoли oтварање на гласачката кутија и без предходна целoсна прoцедура вo писмена фoрма вo oтшуствo на председателoт на избoрнoтo сoбрание и член на избoрната кoмисија заштo на тoј начин легалнo е дoведен пoд знак на сoмневање дoкажниoт материјал. Имајкиги предвид сите гoре наведени работи. Нoвoизбраната управа е на мислење дека на Македoнската црква и на македoнскoтo иселениствo не му се пoтребни вестачки сoздадени кризи, кoј мoжат да го отргнат oд вистинските цели. Нo вo интерест на единствoтo на црквата, нoвoизбраната управа се слoжува да се свика вoнреднoтo сoбрание на членствoтo на 4 Јануари 1981 гoдина, сo пoчетoк вo еден часoт пoпладне, цврстo убедена дека членствoтo ке ги уважи oбјаснувањата дадени вo oва писмo.

За ново избраната управа, При Македонската Црква Свати Климент Охридски Претседател Џан Гивенс General membership meeting minutes of January, 4, 1981 These are the minutes of the general membership meeting, held in the St. Clement of Ohrid Church hall on January 4, 1981. The original minutes were taken in Macedonian by Stase Ralevski and translated into English by Peter Kondoff.

The meeting began at approximately 2:00 PM, and it was estimated that 550 to 600 church members were in attendance.

The meeting was called by a letter of invitation sent out by the old church executive committee, for the purpose of reviewing the election results of the November 30, 1980 elections.

The meeting was called to order by newly elected president, John Givens, who welcomed the members and asked them to stand for the opening prayer to be conducted by Very Reverend Dragi Kostandinovski.

After the prayer, president Givens called on Filip Angelkovski, chairperson of the November 30, 1980 election meeting, to chair this meeting because he had been directly involved and was most qualified to provide, for those in attendance, the most accurate account of what had transpired during the last meeting.

As soon as Angelkovski greeted the members he was immediately questioned from the floor as to why he had not paid his membership dues.

The reason Angelkovski had not paid his dues, he said, was because he did not agree with the unjustified increase implemented by your committee from the previous administration. With all due respect to the general membership, he said, he did not regard the increase in dues implemented by “a committee” to be valid. Only the general membership should have the authority to approve an increase.

Angelkovski also added that he would now pay his dues since it had been decided by the membership during the November 30, 1980 general meeting to put the dues back to $10, per member, per year.

Angelkovski then re-affirmed the results of the last election and pointed out that the protest against his non-payment of dues was made after the meeting took place on the following day, and therefore was out of order.

After Angelkovski concluded his report, he called on past president, Vasil Pandovski, to take the podium. Upon greeting the membership, Pandovski declared the November 30, 1980 election invalid because, he said, it was improper for John Givens to have won by only a single vote more than his opponent.

There was an uproar on the floor and a major part of the membership called for Pandovski to leave the podium. Pandovski however refused and added that approximately 100 new members had been recently added to the membership register, which he considered improper.

The membership again reacted vocally, calling on Pandovski to step down from the podium. The explanation given for the recent increase in the membership register was because many of the members had paid their dues after the “questionable” rate increase by Pandovski had been reversed. Many church members had not kept up paying their dues because they felt that Pandovski had increased them illegally.

Pandovski then questioned the election meeting minutes, declaring them invalid because, according to him, they were incorrect and not signed. The chairperson showed Pandovski that the minutes of that meeting were duly signed, which Pandovski then examined carefully.

Pandovski apologized for the statement he had made regarding the minutes and continued to speak, warning the membership to settle down. He said he would carry on even if they had to listen to him all night long and that they would continue to see his face in the church for a long time, whether they liked it or not.

The members reacted very strongly again with sharp remarks coming from the floor, demanding that he leave the podium. Pandovski again refused and continued talking and threatening. He said, “At a regular executive meeting, held after the November 30, 1980 election meeting, it was decided to call for new elections and that the old executive would continue to work until another executive was elected.” The membership went wild with booing, making it impossible for Pandovski to continue. Teli Morihovitis then signaled with his hands from the floor for Pandovski to leave. As soon as he stepped down, about 40 of his supporters followed him to the exit at the rear of the hall. Many left the premises but a few remained, standing at the back of the hall.

Chairman Angelkovski then called for order and the meeting continued. He requested that the November 30, 1980 minutes be read in both Macedonian and English for approval by the membership. Lubcho Spasevski and Tom Yaneff, the recording secretaries, read the minutes.

Chairman Angelkovski then asked the members to reaffirm the election meeting decision to elect the new board. The decision was unanimously approved. There were no objections with regards to the authenticity of the minutes and no corrections or additions were proposed. The decision was moved by Paul Basil and seconded by Peter Kondoff.

The minutes were accepted as read.

The chairman then asked for a vote, by show of hands, and the motion was carried with no opposition or objection. Angelkovski then thanked the members for their show of confidence and congratulated the new president elect, John Givens, and wished him well with his new responsibilities. The membership extended their approval by loud applause.

President Givens thanked chairman Angelkovski for his contribution and opened the meeting for general discussions.

James Saunders took the floor to introduce a three part motion, seconded by John Kuzev.

The three part motion was:

a) The membership reaffirm the election results of the November 30, 1980 meeting declaring John Givens elected.

b) Direct all past officers of the church to turn over all seals, bank accounts, legal documents and records to the new executive.

c) Confirm the appointments of a control committee consisting of A. Karanfilovski, Zorka Bassil and V. Lazarevski and a judicial committee consisting of Filip Angelkovski, John Chervenkov and Ljubcho Spasevski.

The floor was then opened for discussion. As there was none, a vote was called for a motion and it was passed with no objections.

President Givens stressed the importance of electing a church representative on the Metropolitan Council for the Dioceses of the Macedonian Orthodox Churches of Canada and the USA.

Vangel Stoikovski nominated Dr. Georgievski for the position which was seconded by Zorka Bassil. Dr. Georgievski was accepted by acclamation. The motion was then moved by Vangel Stoikovski and seconded by Mary Kondoff.

A motion was made for the meeting to be adjourned. The motion was carried.

Reverend Dragi Kostandinovski closed the meeting with a prayer.

Re-birth of the 1965 anti-Synod propaganda in 1980/1981 As I have mentioned before, in 1965, before and after the consecration of our St.

Clement of Ohrid Macedonian Orthodox Church in Toronto, the United Macedonians Committee of Canada was united against people spreading anti-synod propaganda in our St. Clement Church.

Some of the loudest protesters from 1965 who were against Kosta Andrews’s presidency, in 1980 – 1981, joined forces with Bill Andrews to take court action against our congregation, claiming that the church By-Laws by, which the membership voted in 1966, did not conform to the Corporation Act of Ontario. They were, therefore, claiming that the November 30th, 1980 elections for the 1981 – 1982 Board were invalid.

The most serious question that surfaced in 1965 was the jurisdiction of our mother Macedonian Orthodox Church and its Holy Synod in Skopje. The United Macedonians, Canadian Committee Membership, at that time, played a decisive role in bringing down all those who were against the Holy Synod jurisdiction and against the future role the Macedonian Synod would play in the affairs of St. Clement of Ohrid here in Toronto.

Having experienced so many problems regarding the recognition, firstly of the existence of the Macedonian people, then the negation of the Republic of Macedonia and its language and ultimately the negation of our Macedonian Church in Macedonia by various factors, it was of paramount importance for us to include guarantees that would have strengthened our Church By-Laws in the strongest possible way in order to keep us connected with our Mother Church in Macedonia and with the Synod in Skopje. That was the only sure guarantee we would have that our St. Clement Church would remain tightly connected to the Macedonian Holy Synod, without the possibility of outside interference.

Our fear of losing our Church to outside influences pushed us to make it difficult for anyone to change the Church By-Laws without a 2/3 majority vote. Typical By-Laws usually required only 51%.

Was there any reason in 1980, even today, for us to have had the same fears that we had in 1965 – 1966 about losing our Church? The answer is “yes”. Who would have believed years ago that today we would have a renegade, ex-Macedonian bishop, like the one in jail in Macedonia, who would be interested in usurping our church? No one would have believed it, never mind anticipate such as brazen move! But it turned out to be true!

Therefore, it is important for us Macedonians to anticipate such measures and to remember that there is always a threat of danger against the Macedonian people, the Sovereign and Independent Republic of Macedonia, the Macedonian identity, the Macedonian language and the Macedonian Church. These dangers will be out there and will lurk for as long as the Republic of Macedonia is not fully recognized, not only by our friends but also by our current enemies. I am in no way suggesting that we have the same problems today that we had years ago, but I am suggesting that we cannot afford to remain passive as long as these dangers exist.

There is still plenty for us to achieve. Our old enemies still exist, as they did for so many years in the past. So it is only natural that after the Republic of Macedonia became independent and was recognized by Canada, by its historical name, that we can relax a bit but always be vigilant to outside provocations. It is hard for anyone to understand why, in 1981, we had to go to court to fight for something that our congregation had overwhelmingly accepted back in 1966. It is difficult to comprehend why we had to fight over our close relationship with the Holy Synod of the Macedonian Orthodox Church in Macedonia; something that was already accepted and settled over a decade and a half before, without being suspicious that perhaps “outside negative forces” were at play here.

Were we opening old wounds?

It is understandable for someone to be fighting for the proper application of Corporate Law but for Heaven’s sake this is a Church with its own laws, rules and regulations.

Corporate By-Laws allow voting by proxy, something that no Church would allow. In fact this kind of voting is considered an anathema by the Church and will not be permitted under any circumstances! Enforcing Corporate Laws was an attack on the Church which forbade voting by proxy. And what would be the outcome if such conditions were allowed to be imposed? Would we allow the courts to decide for us which laws the Church should use to govern itself? What Church would allow that? Were we at St. Clement ready and prepared to scrap Church laws in favor of Corporate Laws? I don’t think so! So why were these “people” so willing to enforce Corporate Law in favour of old established Church Law? And how was this going to serve our Macedonian interests anyway? It wasn’t! So what was their “real” motive?

Ontario Corporate Law has a specific role in specific circumstances, whereas Church Law has been in existence for an extremely long time and has served a specific role in Church activities. Our strategy in the court case, brought against the congregation in 1981, as a last resort, scrapping the charter which would have amounted to a death sentence to the court action against the newly elected board of directors and the Macedonian Orthodox Church Congregation Saint Clement of Ohrid, Toronto, Canada.

What was most troubling for me was the fact that, former Church President Vasil Pandovski and former Church President Nikola Stojanovski and all the others who supported them, knowingly or unknowingly supported this ill-conceived court action.

This was not because, I, John Givens had refused to go along with their wishes because they desperately wanted to become directors of the corporation, but because there was something more sinister behind their motives… which I will not hazard to guess what it was! But it definitely was not in the interest of our Church and our Macedonian community.

The Supreme Court of Ontario rejected the assumption that one ballot with two names was invalid and made it very clear that I, John Givens, and the Board of Directors were legally and properly elected and that there was no reason to hold new elections as was demanded by the opposition. What it came down to in the end was that the “court challenge” was really a challenge against the Macedonian Orthodox Church’s jurisdiction over our Church here in Toronto and against the Holy Synod of the Macedonian Church in Skopje and nothing more.

Taking the Church to court in 1981 had the same aim as the demands made by the old board of directors of 1964 - 1965 under the leadership of Kosta Andrews’s but with a slight difference. This time, these anti-synod deeds were supported by a few “big name Macedonians” including former Church Presidents and their supporters.

Vasil Pandovski in his affidavit told the court that: "I failed to do anything because I was afraid to do anything which may be deemed to be disrespectful of the church synod in Skopje Macedonia, Yugoslavia noting that article 61 of the church by-laws provides as follows: "These By-Laws shall be effective only with the approval of the Holy Episcopal Synod of the Macedonian Orthodox Church in Skopje’.” Pandovski also said: “I know that the By-Laws of an Ontario Corporation cannot be so subject and that article 61 is contrary to the Corporations Act of Ontario.” What did Pandovski mean when he said: …"cannot be so subject…”? Here is what it meant:

“…being in a position or in circumstances that place one under the power or authority of another or being under domination, control or influence or being under domination, rule, or authority as of a sovereign state, or some governing power, owing allegiance or obedience or a subject is someone or something that is under the authority of another…” So what was Bill Andrews, Vasil Pandovski and their supporters trying to achieve by taking us to court and challenging our Church By-Laws? What were they trying to tell us by doing so? If our St. Clement of Ohrid Macedonian Orthodox Church, here in Toronto, was not under the authority, influence, rule, obedience, control, allegiance and jurisdiction of the Macedonian Orthodox Church and its Holy Synod in Skopje, then under whose authority and jurisdiction should it have been?

This was precisely the situation that was foreseen by those drafting the Church By-Laws back in 1966. We created these By-Laws in order to safeguard the integrity of our Church so that no one, the likes of Bill Andrews and Vasil Pandovski, would be able to change them without a 2/3 majority membership approval as well as the approval of the Holy Synod of the Macedonian Church in Skopje.

A question that comes to mind: “What did the Holy Synod of the Macedonian Church have to do with the elections on November 30, 1980? Did the Holy Synod interfere in the elections held on November 30, 1980 and in the previous 14 years of elections? Did the Church Membership alter By-Laws that the Holy Synod refused to approve? Why would any Board be afraid to submit changes to By-Laws approved by vote by the Church Membership, done in accordance with existing By-Laws?

Why would anyone be “afraid” of making changes, unless the planned changes were against the jurisdiction and against the interests of the Holy Synod of the Macedonian Orthodox Church in Skopje. But does anyone honestly believe that the Holy Synod would have willingly abdicated its responsibilities and jurisdiction over St. Clement of Ohrid in Toronto, one of its own churches, in order to satisfy someone’s personal demands? Of course not!

If it wasn’t for our support of the Holy Synod during that time, Andrews and his supporters would have changed the Church By-Laws and proxy voting would have been introduced into our Church here in Toronto. That again was made impossible not only because of our opposition but also because Skopje would not have gone down that path.

If, on the other hand, the proponents of the corporate laws could not resolve the problem, and instead of sacrificing the church laws, there was an easy way out by canceling the charter.

So in this way, as the saying goes, “we would have fed the wolf and the sheep count would have remained the same”. So in essence what would have really changed, if anything at all? The only thing that truly mattered was the voice of our Church membership and what it wanted.

Now, let us have a look at what it would have meant for past practices had Andrews won the court case.

Andrews’s assumption for taking us to court was that the elections were not valid and that we should have had new elections. Andrews would have not brought up the By-Law issue had we agreed to have new elections. But because we believed the elections were won fair and square in accordance with our Church By-Laws, he decided to make an issue out of them. So if the By-Laws were an issue for the November 30th, 1980 elections, then they were also an issue for every election that had taken place since theѕe the By-Laws were first adopted. This means that Pandovski’s Presidency was also “invalid” because he and his Board were elected under the same By-Laws.

Let us remind the reader that the call for “new” elections was made just after the November 30, 1980 elections and according to Andrews and his followers “those elections” would have been valid.

Let us also remind the reader that Andrews never mentioned the Corporate By-Laws before these elections and did not consider that, if the November 30th elections were struck-down as “invalid” then so would every election that had taken place before that.

Andrews’s only concern right after the November 30th election was to have new elections but only to elect a Board of Directors. Remember he did say: “Let John Givens stay as president.” In our opinion, the only people who were disappointed with the November 30, election results were Andrews’s own pawns who were prepared to go against the Holy Synod of the Macedonian Orthodox Church in Skopje. Once again I am happy to say that this second attempt to get rid of the Holy Synod also failed. Preliminary court hearings did not support Andrews’s assumptions; that our By-Laws were not conforming to Corporate Law. The Supreme Court of Ontario judge declared this matter “internal” to be solved by the St. Clement of Ohrid Congregation. And this is precisely the reason why this “court case”, against the Board and the St. Clement of Ohrid Church Congregation, never made it to the courts.

Повторното раѓање на анти-Синодска пропаганда од 1965 во

1980-1981г.

Како што споменав во 1965 rодина пред и по осветувањето на Македонската Православна Цpква Св. Климент Охридски во Торонто, Орrанизацијата Обадинети Македонци Канадски комитет беше обедината против луѓето кои ширеа анти-синодска пропаганда во црквата Св. Климент Охридски. Во 1980-1981 година некои од најгласните во 1965 rод. кои беа против тогашната управа (Board of Directors) под претседателството на Коста Андрјус, во 1981 год. ги здружија силите со Бил Андрјус поведувајќи судска постапка против црковната oпштина. Тврдејќи дека правилникот, за кои што тие самите гласале во 1966 година сега не бил во согласност со правилата на Корпоративните закони на Онтарио и за тоа изборите за нов одбор (управа) на директори, одржани на 30 Ноември 1980 година за 1981-1982 rод, биле неважечки.

Најсериозното прашање во 1965 год. беше јурисдикциjата на нaшата мајка Македонска Православна Црква и нејзиниот Свети Синод во Скопје. Членството на Обeдинети Македонци Канадски Комитет одигра одлучувачка улога во отстранувањето на оние кои беа против јурисдикцијата на Св. Синод, што ja овозможи идната улога на Светиот Синод на Македонската Православна Црква Св.

Клинент Охридски во Торонто. Имајќи го во предвид искуството со непризнавањето нашето постоење како Македонски народ и негацијата на Република Македонија и Македонската Православна Црква во Македонија. За нас во тоа време беше неопходно во црковните правила да се вклучи во наjсилна можна мера поврзаност со нашата мајка црква и неjзиниот Св. Синод во Скопје. Таа беше единствената и сигурна гаранција што можевме да ја имаме дека Св. Климент Охридски во Торонто ќе остане тесно поврзан и под jурисдикциjа на Македонскиот Св, Синод, без простор за некои друг да се меша во нашите црковни работи.

Нашиот страв не натера да го засилиме правилникот со предвидување на 2/3 множинство гласачи потребни од целокупното членско собрание за измена или дополнување на уставот.

Вообичаено барање за промена на правилник е само 51%. Има ли причина денес да го имаме истиот страв како што го имавме во далечната 1966 rод? Mојот одговор е да! Кој можеше да поверува дека ќе имаме отпадник, бивш Македонски епископ, како оној што издржува затворска казна денес во Македонија? Одговорот најверојатно би бил не, но заканата е навистина реална. Ова е важно за нас Македонците да запаметиме дека секогаш постои закана за Македонскиот Народ и независна Македонска држава, Република Македонија. Се додека не сме признати не само од страна на нашите денешни пријатели, но исто така и од страна на денешните непријатели.

Јас не се обидувам да кажам дека ние ги имаме истите проблеми денес како што ги имавме пред 50 години. Сепак, Македонците не треба да бидат пасивни. Има уште многу да се постигне. Нашите непријатели сеуште постојат, како што постоеја пред 50 години. Природно е по осамостојувањето на Република Македонија и признавањето на Македонија под нејзиното уставно име од страна на нашата Канадска Влада, да бидиме порелаксирани. Но, секогаш треба да бидиме внимателни од надворешните провокации.

Тешко е и неразбирливо, зошто во 1981 година моравме да одиме на суд да се бориме за нешто што во 1966 година црковната општина го изгласала со големо мнозинство со цел да ги задржи и засили блиските и нераскинливи односи со Св.

Архиерејски Синод на Македонската Православна Црква во Македонија. Дали отвараме стари рани? Јас разбирам некој да се бори за да ги зачува Корпорациските правила на Онтарио, но не можеме да заборавиме дека ние сме исто така црква со свои сопствени закони на православието.

Во корпоративните правила се овозможува гласање преку овластен застапник, но во црквата не е дозволено под никакви услови. Да се спроведе оваа одредба на Корпорациските Правила би значело укинување на црковните закони кои не дозволуваат вакво гласање. А што ќе беше исходот? Дали ние ќе дозволиме судовите да решат по кои правила ќе треба да се раководи црквата? Дали ние во црквата Св. Климент сме подготвени и способни да ги укинеме црковните закони?

Тоа е невозможно, но како последно средство, би било полесно ако се откажеме од повелбата на црквата што би резултирало со мнoгy помалку проблеми.