|
|
| |
| Mon, Sep. 8, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
State Supreme Court hears arguments in Buddhist temple dispute Friday, Feb 29, 2008 By John Lyon Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - A Sebastian County circuit judge crossed the line of separation between church and state when he determined who could vote in a 2006 election at a Buddhist temple in Fort Smith, an attorney argued Thursday before the state Supreme Court. An attorney for the opposing side in the case argued that the judge acted within his authority and based his ruling on legal, not ecclesiastical, issues. The state's highest court heard oral arguments Thursday but did not immediately rule in a challenge to the validity of the Sept. 10, 2006, election of seven people to the board of directors of Wat Buddha Samakitham. Circuit Judge James Marschewski, now a U.S. magistrate, ordered the temple to hold the election to resolve a lawsuit over who should control the temple. A group of temple members filed the suit in 2005, alleging that another group had seized control in violation of the temple's bylaws. A cross complaint by then-Abbot Phra Sagob Parisanto and 11 others alleged it was the plaintiffs who violated the bylaws and that the bylaws cited by the plaintiffs were not valid. Marschewski ruled that the bylaws favored by the plaintiffs were valid, and he ordered the temple to elect a new seven-member board of directors. He appointed Fort Smith lawyer and former Justice Brad Jesson to oversee the election. After the two sides in the case disagreed over who should be considered a temple member and therefore eligible to vote, Marschewski ordered both sides to submit a list of names and said the people on both lists would be eligible. The election resulted in the plaintiffs' candidates obtaining every position on the board. Shortly after the election, the new board fired the abbot and nine monks and ejected 41 members. Marschewski later denied a motion by the defendants to vacate the election results, and the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. James Dunn, attorney for the defendants, argued Thursday that the election results are void because it is unconstitutional for the state to determine members of a religious organization. "It's none of the state's business, I'm sorry," he told the high court. Brian Meadors, attorney for the plaintiffs, said the definition of a member was not clear in the temple's bylaws, so Marschewski made the determination by looking at evidence of how the temple governed itself. The court "did not pry into ecclesiastical matters," he said. Meadors also noted that people who were not on either list of eligible voters were allowed to cast provisional ballots. Even if their votes were included in the election totals, the outcome would have been the same, he said. "All errors by a trial court are moot if those errors are harmless," Meadors said. Dunn argued that the outcome might have been different if more names had been on the official voter list. People whose names were not on the list "had no expectation that their vote would count," he said. "I thought both parties submitted names to the list," Justice Annabelle Clinton Imber said. Dunn said the defendants submitted a mailing list to the court, but many who qualified as members under the temple's bylaws were not on that list or any other list. The bylaws state that anyone who has visited and prayed at the temple is a member, Dunn said. Dunn said the election resulted in a fundamental change to the temple, which he said has gone from being affiliated with the Dhammayut denomination of Buddhism to being a non-denominational temple. Meadors said Wat Buddha Samakitham was established as a non-denominational Buddhist temple. "If you look at the articles of incorporation, there is no mention of the Dhammayut denomination," he said. Dhammayut is a Thai denomination, and the temple's membership is 90 percent Laotian, Meadors said. |
