Answers Typical of a Dictatorial Mindset: Disingenuous Demagoguery

From the recent Parish Council FAQs:


Q4. What about the survey conducted in 2007?
A. The 2007 survey was conducted informally and was non-binding. The purpose was to take the pulse of the community, and determine whether the community desired to initiate a change at that time. It is important to note that while 1,325 surveys were sent out, only 427 were returned. The vast majority of those in our community (68%) expressed no opinion.


Q5. What about the meeting held on October 24, 2010, at which 97% of those voting desired to remain one parish?
A. The meeting that was conducted at the Sheraton hotel on October 24, 2010 was not a Church sanctioned meeting. The meeting was not called by the Parish Council of the Greek Orthodox Church of Greater Salt Lake, was not attended by either of the Proistameni, and was not held on Church property. It should also be noted that while there are more than 1200 families in the combined parish, only 347 individuals registered to participate in the meeting. The majority of the Parish members chose not to participate. It is also unclear what percentage of those in attendance are members in good standing of the combined Parish.


"People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote - a very different thing." - Walter H. Judd, physician, missionary, daily radio commentator, lecturer on international relations and government


This parish council has become utterly tone-deaf; maybe that's what happens when you turn your back on your community, its glorious forebears and its honored traditions. Between them these people surely have several years of higher education, yet simple mathematics and statistics, to say nothing of honor and ethics, still seem to elude them.


We've discussed this at length before. Once again, folks, a 20% sampling will provide you with a 95-99% confidence level of accuracy with between a 3-5% margin for error. (Don't you watch elections?) At that rate even if the 68% who did not answer the survey had responded, they would have, with 95-99% accuracy, voted along the same lines. The results might have differed between 3-5% either way - not enough to tip the survey the other way.


As for non-binding, let's consider shall we, how "non-binding" that survey would have been had the results been reversed! The difference is, we who embrace unity would have accepted the outcome as the will of the people, and it would have met the provisions of the 1968 resolution! Have we stopped at all to consider that this "non-binding" survey showed that those who wanted this separation could only muster 57 votes!


As for the October meeting: why was it was held? The voice of the majority in this community has been ruthlessly squelched for YEARS due to parliamentary fiat at several general assemblies, clerical interference in parish council nominations and elections for several election cycles, along with a variety of other low tactics, culminating in outright treachery, reminiscent of the political arena and not the ecclesiastical. And, of course, our parish council and the clergy simply presented it as a fait accompli, a done deal, τετελεσμενο γεγονος, with no fall general assembly to mess things up! Yup, that's theocracy for you!


The ultimate outrage was that this parish council, representing only a TINY MINORITY, knew it did not and would never have the votes to effect the split they demanded. So they betrayed this community, betrayed the memory of our forefathers, living and dead, and kept silent for months in order to claim a further share of the festival income, conspiring to effect a land grab, under circumstances that can only be described as despicable. Are we really expected to believe that the PC knew nothing all these months? Please.


Finally, an issue is made as to what percentage of those attending the October 24th meeting where "only 347" attended are stewards in good standing. We presume this will also be said of the 500+ members who have signed the "Call to Action" petition. We would remind the Parish Council that they sent out surveys to 1,325 persons. Are we to believe that all who received surveys were stewards in good standing? We know better. The ultimate irony, of course, is that one of the "incorporators" is not on the stewards list as of October 25, 2010. Apparently, this standard is allowed to shift and slip when it serves the needs of our unelected, fiscally and morally challenged parish council.