In The News - Inquirer Express

The Inquirer Express reports:

Differences in beliefs caused Couples split

Excerpt:

"In an earlier interview, Nonong Contreras, one of the four members of the CfC interim committee and a former member of the Board of Elders of the International Council of the CfC Foundation for Family and Life, said they had not accused Gawad Kalinga of mishandling fund donations.

“Never did we say that there’s an anomaly. We only said there should be proper governance and accountability,” he said, adding: “When the money you are handling is not yours, there should be greater governance and accountability. The disbursements should jibe with the number of houses promised to partners.”

Contreras said he and his group had raised the issue of proper accountability because of instances when some Gawad Kalinga partners complained directly to their group about purported mismanagement of the donated funds."

Highlight mine.

When you raise an issue because of the "purported mismanagement of the donated funds", then you raise it because of an anomaly.

Can someone define double-talk for me? Hold on...I'll do it:

dou·ble-talk /ˈdʌbəlˌtɔk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[duhb-uhl-tawk] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

1.	speech using nonsense syllables along with words in a rapid patter.

2.	deliberately evasive or ambiguous language: When you try to get a straight answer, he gives you double-talk.

Was that clear enough?

The Election Question

Inasmuch as the past CfC council elections have been made a big deal over and over (that is, until the emphasis was switched to money and accounting) by the FFL in its drive to re-recruit CfC members to their fold, I think the whole election thing has to be explained here. There had been allegations of defiance of the Bishops, who asked for the elections to be postponed after Frank Padilla went to them. Here we will go over the events that led up to the June elections, and why the FFL feel that they got the short end of the stick.


To give a little background on how the CfC hold their elections and some general rules:

Elections are held every 2 years with the last one held in June 2007 for 7 Council members / board of trustees and 15 Board of Elders (BOE).

Eligible voters are members of the Elders Assembly (EA).

Elders Assembly is composed of:

• Sector Heads
• Provincial Area Heads
• Regional Area Heads
• Ministry Heads
• Regional Coordinators (Intl)
• Mission Directors & Spouses

This year's EA has a total of 231 Members.


Election Procedure:

The council nominates 12 and the BOE nominates 5 for a total of 17 members to be nominated for the Council.

It has been a tradition to nominate the incumbent council members. (This is why Frank Padilla has been on the Council for the past years.)

After the 7 council members, the floor becomes open for BOE nominations. 15 are chosen for the BOE.

What happened this year (2007)?

Tony Meloto (TM), Frank Padilla (FP), and Lachie Agana (LA) resign in February, leaving only 4 members. Because of their resignation, it was deemed by the remaining council members that the 3 will no longer run for the council in the coming June 2007 elections.
Note: TM does not run again.

The BOE has its own nomination procedures. A long list nominated by its members is deliberated on and the final list of 5 names is determined. Frank Padilla was initially included in the long list, but was not included as part of the final 5.


This year only a total of 15 were nominated by both the council and the BOE:

1. Joe Tale
2. Ernie Maipid
3. Joe Yamamoto
4. Lito Tayag
5. Rouguel Ponte
6. Joey Arguelles
7. Melo Villaroman Jr.
8. Delfy Geraldez
9. Mannix Ocampo
10. Joey Mempin
11. Greg Monteclaro
12. Robert Ardiente
13. Pancho Lopez-Tan
14. Jimmy Santiago
15. Rene Rieta

When the list of nominees was released, Frank questioned the Council on why he was not nominated. The answer was simple, he was not nominated because he resigned (why resign only to run again?), and they were not required to nominate him regardless. FP was nominated by the BOE, but his name was not included in the final 5.

Subsequently, FP elevates several complaints to the bishops. According to him, these had to do with the problems within CfC and GK in particular, and the disagreements among certain elders which the 4-man Council failed to address. Also part of his complaints were the choice/list of nominees, expressing his opinion that all 7 (3/resigned & 4/man council) should inhibit themselves from running in the June elections.

The Bishops then sent a letter to the Council, recommending that the elections be postponed.

The Council respectfully notifies the Bishops that they will proceed with the elections in a majority decision of the Elders Assembly.

The Bishops then sent a 2nd letter, strongly recommending the postponement of the Elections.

Here is a background story going around among the Elders Assembly:

FP, dismayed at his exclusion from the list of nominees, wanted the 4-man Council to exclude themselves as well. His contention was, if he was excluded, the 4 should be as well.

The 4 did not agree. FP then offered to add 5 names to the list of nominees (which was an irregular request because it had never been done in that manner, with one individual having the right to nominate his own choices for the council)

With the nominations already complete, the 4-man council had to refuse.

To pacify FP, the 4-man council asked for FP's list of names and told him they will pray about it and consider. FP refused.

There are other issues involving the Bishops but the connection between FP and them will be tackled later.

There were backroom politics that were going on this whole time; between FP and the Bishops on one hand, and the 4-man Council on the other. The politicking led to the 4-day marathon meeting between FP's Easter Group and the Council which resulted in a MOA to be presented to the Elders Assembly as a "proposal", it was signed on the Sunday June 17, 2007.

Here is a draft copy of the MOA:

Page 1

Page 2


This MOA speaks for itself, but in short:

There was an agreement to fill the vacancies of the 3 resigned members in the Council instead of holding the regular elections (where 7 will be elected).

The newly completed 7 man council shall serve the original term that expires on June 30, 2007.

The 7-man council and the 15 member BOE whose terms expire on June 30, will be allowed to serve on a hold-over capacity up to January 31, 2008. Thereafter, the regular elections will be held.

There was also an agreement to present to the Bishops and to the Elder's Assembly.


Wording to note:

"1. This agreement will be presented to ... the Elder's Assembly for approval."

"3. ... this agreement will be presented to the Elder's Assembly for ratification."




At this point, sources say, Joe Tale, in the spirit of the MOA proceeds and in a period of 5 straight days, started to have marathon sessions with members of the elders assembly, presenting and endorsing the MOA to them.

A scheduled Recollection Night for the Elders Assembly was held on Wed, June 20, 2007 (2 days before the election). The EA traditionally holds this Recollection prior to an election. The speaker for the night originally was Bishop Gabby Reyes, but he had excused himself 2 weeks prior due to the turn of events within the CfC leadership. Greg Monteclaro then invited Fr. Mario Sobrejuanite for a talk. After the talk, Joe Tale presented the proposals outlined in the MOA. The EA's deliberation on the MOA was deferred because this was a Recollection night. Joe Tale exhorted the EA to pray and discern regarding what he had presented. (To listen to Part 1 of the Recollection Night audio, CLICK HERE, Part 2 is HERE)

On Thur morning, Bishop Reyes requests Joe Tale to allow him to speak to the EA. It was an incredibly difficult request to fulfill because gathering 231 people on such short notice (roughly 12 hours) was an almost impossible task, especially since this was a CfC anniverersary week with many EA members participating in various activities. Regardless, Bishop Reyes was able to address a small gathering of EA members that were able to make it that Thursday night. He spoke of the proposal and held an open forum.

Friday, June 22- Election Day

A mass was held. Everyone was blessed with holy water by Fr. Paul. Roland Nillas was seen distributing a 'blue paper', containing his letter appealing to all EA members to vote for the agreement.

Joe Tale presented the agreement to the EA. (audio to be uploaded later).There was a deliberation on the floor. Some members started to put forward their own proposals. Due to time constraints, Joe Tale suggested to put to a vote, whether to proceed to a referendum or open the floor for deliberations of other proposals.

What was the referendum all about?

To choose between:
a) Proceed to the holding of Special elections- as contained in the MOA
b) Proceed to the holding of the regular elections (7/man council)

The members of the EA opted to go ahead with the referendum.

Results:
121 votes for the Regular Elections
75 votes for the Agreement/Proposal


Frank and his group walked out soon after the results were called out.

The election proceeds and the new council was elected by the EA.



It is at this point where all the claims of the Easter Group start.

They feel that the agreement was not pushed hard enough by Joe Tale, and that the Easter Group was railroaded. They also say Joe did not convince the EA well enough to vote for the proposal. It was during this time that the term "defiance of the bishops" was coined.

Defiance is such a strong word, when all the EA did was exercise their voting right and choose to go ahead with the regulars elections despite the Bishops' recommendations.


Questions:

What would it be a "defiance" of, exactly? Many in the EA feel that Joe Tale did his best to present the proposal and exhort the EA to vote for it. The EA as a voting body spoke collectively and with their legal authority.

What is also of interest was this: The proposal was actually the brainchild of Joe Tale. Why would he not push his own creation?

The Easter Group also claims that the EA was pre-conditioned to reject the proposal. It was claimed that Fr Mario Sobrejuanite pre-conditioned the EA in his talk, by saying that the elders were over and above the bishops (due to the vatican decree). I will leave that to your opinion, you have to listen to his talk yourself. (Part 1 of the audio posted, part 2 to follow)

Did Joe Tale do his duty to to inform the EA of the proposal? (Check the audio that I will be uploading later)

Now the question to all: Considering what the underlying reasons were, should the elections have been postponed? For that matter, should the Bishops have been involved at all?

Was there a hidden agenda behind the postponement of the elections? What easter eggs were being hatched by the bunnies?

The minutes are ticking, and I think it's time for the Bunnies to reveal themselves.

Next: Closure on some past posts, and The Council Elections.

2nd Council Statement

Coming... the FFL's reaction letters to the Council statements.

Heartwarming....

Friends, I welcome the comments you are all leaving. While I filter out a very small percentage of those that are unbecoming of Christians (I pray that you all find in yourself the strength and will to pursue the truth and find peace in your hearts), the majority of the voices we hear in the commentary are from those who are the people on the ground, the members, the ones affected most by the battles in the leadership echelons. They are the ones that are being called names and labels, being generalized by certain factions, and sadly, being forcibly driven into disunity. It is their families that are being split, being made to choose, and being misled.

Please share more of your experiences, I'm sure there are those of us here who would like to hear how you've come to your decisions and how you're dealing with all this strife. YOU are all more important than the egos of the few.

There are more facts coming up, to help you see the truth, and help DISCERN.

When

Did Couples for Christ become known as CFC-GK?

Ask yourselves what right any individual or group has to start changing how a religious group is officially referred to.

I actually have been wanting to post a lot of things the past couple of days, but I decided to wait it out and see what kind of peace can be achieved.

I guess I was hoping for too much.