Worshippers look to court for decision

Stacy J. Willis

Friday, May 28, 1999 | 11:12 a.m.

About 50 members of the Thai community filed into the Clark County District Court Thursday morning seeking the resolution to a dispute about control of the Buddha Pavana Temple in northwest Las Vegas.

Monks wearing robes tiptoed in late.

The group of worshippers is asking the court to stop President Songvuth Charoen Banpachon from controlling the temple's corporate affairs and force him to allow an open election of new officers.

Banpachon is similarly asking the court to stop the group from interfering in the temple management.

Each side claims that they are the legal officers of the nonprofit corporation; Banpachon currently has control of the finances.

Due to the withdrawal of a court translator who was scheduled to assist in examining certain witnesses who speak only Thai, the court heard only a portion of the scheduled testimony Thursday. The preliminary injunction hearing will continue on June 14.

But Thursday's testimony shed light on the knotty business of starting and running a religious organization under the nonprofit corporation laws.

It raised questions not only about the sticky differences between officers, members and worshippers at a church, but also about the sometimes inordinate amount of good faith people rely on when forming a religious organization. "Thai people are very easygoing. We don't care very much about (incorporation laws). We're friends. We wanted a temple to go to ... but this country's law requires (incorporation), so we did it," Watana Pongpan, a Thai businessman who was among those who originally raised money for the temple, said.

"We were friends ... We just filled out the (incorporation) form the easiest way." Banpachon was one of five original names listed as officers on the articles of incorporation. Since that time, three have left and not been replaced. The fourth supports Banpachon as the unilateral leader of the temple.

The opposing side says that they meant for the temple to be run as a congregation, so that each member would be allowed to vote in annual elections of officers. Accordingly, they want a new election for leadership positions; Banpachon resists such an election.

In February, the group held elections at the temple and more than 300 people voted for five new officers; Banpachon does not recognize the election as binding.

The two sides differ about the original intent of the articles of incorporation; their lawyers differ about the role of the law in resolving the issue.

On Thursday several witnesses who were present when the temple formed in 1985 testified that they didn't fully understand the terms in the law when they set up the corporation -- the differences between presidents, directors, or trustees.

"I am an American, and I read the (laws) and I tried to understand as much as I can," Winston Kam, a Hawaiian who was present at the founding of the temple, said. "But the Thai people don't understand ... So you're trying to run something that you don't even understand." And to be sure, the law is confusing even for those whose command of English is lifelong -- perhaps more challenging to those whose first language is not English.

For example, on the State of Nevada's articles of incorporation form, a question asks whether the corporation will be "styled as directors or trustees." But a statute that governs nonprofits says, " 'Directors' and 'trustees' are synonymous terms.' "

Some members of the temple testified Thursday that they think all members of the temple should have a vote in electing officers to run the corporation. But when pressed to define "members," most were uncertain.

Many are unclear whether there is a difference between "members of the corporation" and "members of the temple."

Is everyone who walks in the door a voting member of the corporation and a member of the temple? Or only those who have donated a certain amount of money? Or only those who were present when it was founded?

Banpachon's attorney Charles Lybarger questioned witnesses on the stand Thursday trying to determine what their understanding of the term "member" was when the temple was founded.

"There is no set guideline to say who is a voting member then, correct?" he asked Tony Holdip, who was present when the articles of incorporation were drawn up.

"Yes," Holdip said.

Nevada law, which addresses the corporate side of a nonprofit religious organization, defines "members" this way:

"...Unless otherwise provided in the articles or bylaws, the word 'member' means, without regard to what a person is called in the articles or bylaws, any person who on more than one occasion has the right pursuant to the articles or bylaws to vote for the election of a director or directors.

A person is not a member by virtue of any rights he has as a delegate or director or any rights he has to designate a director or directors."

"It can be confusing," said attorney Phillip Varricchio, an attorney who has represented members of the Thai community in other actions over the last 15 years but is not representing anyone in this case. "But if you're a church in the U.S., you must become a non-profit, which means you then have lay administrators."

Buddha Pavana is a 3,000-square-foot temple resting on 10 acres of land at Simmons and Gowan streets, estimated to be worth more than $1.5 million. The nonprofit corporation is said to have another $130,000 in its bank account.

The plaintiff group of worshippers alleges that Bonpachon is not taking proper care of the temple and not proceeding with plans to expand the facilities. Additionally, they say, he has expelled a monk and attempted to stop an election of new church officers held on the temple grounds.

Lybarger said that Bonpachon is taking good care of the facility, has done so for 15 years and has the right to keep doing so.

Thus far, the attorneys have steered fairly clear of addressing the question of church and state: Is the way a church chooses to govern itself -- whether it chooses to operate in a hierarchical or congregational manner -- a religious issue, or a business issue?