Facts

Church members filed a lawsuit to compel a vote with regard to the continuing tenure of Antonio Alfred, a pastor for the St. John Missionary Baptist Church of Bakersfield, a religious nonprofit corporation. Many congregants had become disillusioned with his leadership and a church petition was circulated, where allegedly 113 church members signed calling for removal of Pastor Alfred. The signed petition was attached to an e-letter and sent to the Board of Deacons, Chairman of the Board, Pastor Alfred, and others, requesting that a vote on removal of Pastor Alfred be announced at church services and then held, per the corporate bylaws.

Respondents Pastor Alfred and James Hoyle, Chairman of the Board, resisted putting a vote before the congregation. Following a church meeting, Pastor Alfred purported to terminate the meeting and left. Some of the remaining members continued the meeting and a motion for the termination of Pastor Alfred was put to a vote of the Deacons.

Six petitioners filed a lawsuit, which was supported by seven respondent Board members but opposed by the remaining nine individual respondents, who were against allowing a vote.

The petition requested, the court order that a vote take place, that the vote be announced at church services beforehand, and that a special master be appointed to officiate at the announcements, the voting, the vote count, and certification of the vote, and that the result of the vote be carried out.

The opposing respondents moved to quash the petition, and to dismiss for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction, which the petitioners and supporting respondents opposed.

PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS:
The petitioners and supporting respondents contended that they had attempted to have the Board of Deacons set up a vote for removal of Pastor Alfred according to the prescriptions of the bylaws, but had been thwarted in every such attempt by Pastor Alfred and those closest to him on the Board of Deacons. Petitioners claimed that Pastor Alfred and Hoyle wouldn't allow discussion of the vote at the meetings of the Board of Deacons, at which voting members attempted to bring it up. When church members attempted to announce the vote in church services, based on the bylaws, Pastor Alfred and James Hoyle squelched those attempts.

Petitioners claimed that the motion to terminate Pastor Alfred was carried by the required quorum. The vote was given no accord or recognition by Pastor Alfred and James Hoyle, who had installed four new deacons in training to vote on all ongoing motions of the Deacon Board.

Petitioners contended that the court had jurisdiction of the matter and could order such a vote, according to the corporations code and bylaws, and that the procedural hurdles had all been exhausted or were excused, such that the court should order the vote to take place.

The petitioners and seven supporting respondents claimed that Pastor Alfred had become an ersatz dictator, making unilateral decisions, and had packed the Board of Deacons with four deacons in training, against the bylaws, so that he would have a majority of voting Deacons on the Board.

RESPONDENTS' CONTENTIONS:
The nine opposing respondents argued that the court did not have jurisdiction to reach into the internal workings of an ecclesiastical organization, and that the church bylaws had been lawfully amended to modify the requirements for notice of such a vote by the congregation and pre-vote screening process by the Board of Deacons. They also argued that the prospective vote had been broached at the Deacons' Board meeting, and had been lawfully rejected. Further, respondents contended that the Board of Deacons had not been packed, that the new deacons had completed more than two years of training, been voted on by the church and were entitled to vote on all Deacon Board matters.

Damages

The petitioners and the supporting respondents sought equitable relief, i.e., that a vote on removal of Pastor Alfred be ordered, along with safeguards of fairness, such as a special master to supervise the vote and notice processes, with the imprimatur of the court.

Result

The court granted the petition in its entirety, ordering the vote, its deadline, two announcements during church services, and a special master to conduct the vote, count it, and certify it to the court, with deadlines for compliance with the result of the vote. The court denied opposing respondents' motions.

Other Information

The court made no findings regarding the legitimacy of the four newest deacon board members who remain on the Board of Deacons as members with full voting rights.