‘Remonstrance in Queens’

The Ganesha Temple conflict in Flushing, Queens, is not about “religious freedom” but an attempt by the temple’s management – none of whom have any religious training – to eternalize their exclusive control [“Remonstrance in Queens,” Editorial, July 28, 2004].

No religious disputes exist. First, in 1970, Alagappa Alagappan submitted the temple’s bylaws to the IRS to get tax exemption, certifying under penalty of perjury that they were duly adopted.

They set up a typical corporate structure ensuring accountability and member participation in the temple. But the management suppressed them and became increasingly authoritarian, leaving congregation members out in the cold and shrouding temple affairs with total secrecy. Frustrated Hindus finally felt compelled to resort to courts.

Second, The New York Sun refers to Mr. Alagappan’s “indication” to someone about the temple’s board being self-perpetuating. But he never said so in court in the 4-yearold litigation, despite being the first respondent. He never disowned the 1970 bylaws or disputed their binding nature. To avoid his deafening silence, the management had him dropped from the case.

Third, we got these bylaws from the Internal Revenue Service. The management’s assertion that the bylaws were never duly adopted is astoundingly irresponsible. Did Mr. Alagappan lie to the IRS? Obtain a tax exemption for the temple fraudulently 34 years ago? This assertion, if true, would have staggering consequences. The temple has collected tens of millions of dollars from the public based on this tax exemption.

Fourth, the management had always encouraged temple membership, and thousands of Hindus responded. For example, in prospectuses for bonds filed with the United States Securities and Exchanges Commission – also certified under penalty of perjury – the management proclaimed large memberships, e.g., 14,500 members just in the first five months of 1997. But when Justice Joseph Golia ruled that members have certain rights, the management promptly changed course. They now asserted that the temple had no members at all, and hence no membership records.

We know from past temple personnel that such records did exist. And if management had no records, what was the basis of their statements in the SEC filings? Were they simply fabricating numbers?

Fifth, Justice Golia did not take the 1970 bylaws “as a mandate”; five judges of our appellate court unanimously ordered him to. New York law requires a specific procedure to be followed for amendment of bylaws, including proper notice to all members and a supermajority vote. Otherwise, religious organizations can be readily misused for collecting money from the public and converting them into private fiefdoms with no accountability to anyone. The management ignored long-standing New York law, which Justice Golia is enforcing now.

Sixth, the assertion that New York law and the temple’s certificate of incorporation provide for a self-perpetuating board of trustees is wrong. New York law permits this – if duly adopted bylaws so pro vide. The Beckett Fund contends that New York law requires this – in other words, no religious corporation can have periodic elections even if it wanted to. This turns the First Amendment on its head.

Seventh, the management has refused to permit inspection of the temple’s books and records, despite a court order to do so. An exasperated Justice Golia warned them of severe sanctions for continued disobedience. Nevertheless, their disobedience has continued, and contempt of court proceeding is now pending. The temple collects about $4 million in cash from public donations every year. Just what is management trying to hide?

No right-thinking person can disagree with Justice Golia that this continued recalcitrance raises suspicions of financial shenanigans and improprieties. Indeed, his patience in the face of an arrogant, disobedient litigant is remarkable.

Don’t besmirch John Bowne’s great name. This dispute is neither religious nor ecclesiastical; it is the anguished cry of thousands of Hindus for participation in the temple, built over three decades with their efforts and funds, but which has become a small group’s fiefdom.

KRISHNAN CHITTUR
Manhattan
Mr. Chittur is the attorney for the petitioners.

---

‘Opposition to Boycott Recount’

While monitoring elections in Venezuela, President Carter, the so-called human rights president, heartily endorsed the violence and corruption of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez. Mr. Carter’s pronouncement of an honest and fraud-free Chavez victory is a travesty and tragedy for democratic Venezuelans [“Opposition To Boycott Recount,” Eli Lake, Foreign, August 19, 2004]. Mr. Carter travels the world purportedly representing the American ideals of liberty and justice, but instead making an utter mockery of these ideals. He nefariously undermines America’s national interest, empowers our enemies, and extends the misery of those in bondage. Mr. Carter has handed Mr. Chavez a democratic mandate, urging the poor Venezuelans cheated out of their freedom to “accept the results and work together for the future.”

CYRILLE ROGACKI
Manhattan