Inquisitor

MISAK’S ‘FIEFDOM’ THE STORY OF MISAK’S VENDETTA WHAT THE CLIQUE DID NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW COLLAPSED CAIA ONCE AGAIN OPEN - TO CLAN MEMBERS THE TRUTH OF THE TRIBUNAL On Friday 21st January 2005 CAIA’s doors were shut to its members and users after a number of directors sacked all of CAIA’s permanent staff. The Centre has been open on and off since then but not in the same capacity as before. Many members have reported that they have gone to Hayashen and seen Misak Ohanian and his close friends and family at the Centre, yet predominantly it remains closed to its members and service users.The gates are often locked and in some instances the gates are open and there are clearly people inside but no one would answer the door. It is a tragic loss to all Armenians when a small group of individuals decide that their own personal agendas and vendettas are more important then the fulfilment of the principles on which CAIA was built – serving our community, for the benefit of all. In January 2003,Misak and Diana Ohanian were suspended on full pay from the CAIA. After an investigation by the Management Committee they were dismissed in March 2003 for Gross Misconduct and mismanagement. Some of the reasons for Misak's and Diana's dismissal included: 1. Bullying, intimidation, and unacceptable behaviour towards staff (all staff gave statements stating the Misak bullied, intimidated, and humiliated them). 2. Mr Ohanian failed to stop Mrs Ohanian from pocketing the income from interpretation work, which should have been paid to the CAIA. 3. There were discrepancies between cash receipts and cashbook entries. Falsification of cash receipts and documentation. 4. The Ohanians used the CAIA telephones to call family members (including to ones in the USA and Canada).These large costs were not repaid. They used of the Charity's resources for their own personal benefit. 5. Inadequate accounting. No audit trails. 6. Significant discrepancies in the assets register. 7. During a 6 month period,when an independent account was kept of the bingo money, of the £1,000 collected, only £500 was registered.The member of staff was then told to stop keeping independent records of the cash receipts. 8. Fraudulently opening of a secret bank account which was used to receive a £85,000 legacy. This account was kept secret from the Treasurer and was only discovered because of the financial investigation started by the Directors. 9. Failure and refusal to provide the Directors with basic information or to carry out basic tasks. 10. Charging personal expenses to the Charity. In May 2004 Misak and Diana Ohanian took CAIA to an Employment Tribunal, where Misak tried to get £58050.00 in compensation from the CAIA for his dismissal and Diana £37090.15! If they had won, they could also have claimed compensation of over £50,000 in legal bills. Unfortunately for them, the Employment Tribunal saw through their lies. They stated “It has also led to a porosity in the Second Applicant’s (Misak Ohanian) mind between the finances of the Respondent organisation (CAIA) and his own and his wife’s.” and “The Ohanians have treated the organisation as their own private fiefdom and they have treated the Management Committee with contempt.” Past documents from previous Trustees show that Misak had shown this pattern of behaviour towards previous members of staff and Trustees/Directors.He had even received written warnings from previous Management Committees for his behaviour. Finally, the members should ask the Directors; How many new funders they have secured over the last 5 months. • One funder, who wished to provide £20,000 per year for a General Manager was turned away. This would have provided the majority of the funding for the new full-time centre manager. It is also a funding requirement, by the majority of the services provided by the centre, to have a general Manager. Funders make additional payments to the centre to cover this cost. • Mr Shahe Gulian, one of the Directors of the CAIA, offered to personally fund any one member of staff. His offer was rejected by the Pro-Misak Directors. No doubt, when this is all over, they hope to approach some of these funders to pay for Mr Ohanian’s salary. Another “miraculous” source of income? The “independent” Auditors/Solicitors One piece of information that the Directors of the CAIA have failed to mention is the amount that they have paid to these independent services. • The cost for the report from the misinformed auditors was over £3,500. • The cost of advice on how to dismiss the staff is over £15,000 and rising. The question is that if the CAIA is in such a bad financial situation, then how can it afford to pay for these services, to dismiss the very staff that bring in these incomes? Why have they not pursued Mr and Mrs Ohanian for the cost of the Tribunal, or to recover the thousands of pounds that they misappropriated? The answer, based on the evidence, is that they are lying. • They are using up the funds for their own private agendas and vendettas. • This is why the majority of the funders have refused to release the February amount owed. • The CAIA Directors were relying on these funds. This is why they have, like shameless beggars, been asking you for your money. That is why the deficit, that they created, is rising. As for the overspending on the building project, the CAIA’s own records show that the previous directors inherited this overspend from Mr Misak Ohanian and former chair, Mr Ovannes Koundarjian. You may have recently heard the rumour that Mr Misak Ohanian has been exonerated by the tribunal, this is yet another of Mr Misak Ohanian’s lies; Both Mr and Mrs Ohanian were found to have conducted themselves inappropriately by all three Independent Tribunal Judges. Mrs Diana Ohanian was found to be 100% responsible for her own dismissal from CAIA and Mr Misak Ohanian was found to 90% responsible for his own dismissal from CAIA by two of the three Tribunal Judges and 100% responsible by one of the three Tribunal Judges. The Tribunal Judgement stated that “in the Tribunal’s view, to a porosity in the Second Applicant’s [Mr Misak Ohanian] mind between the finances of the Respondent [CAIA] organisation and his own and his wife’s”.This basically means that they viewed the CAIA’s income as their own income. Finally, the centre is not running smoothly. If you don’t believe me, call them and ask for a visit from the Health Officer, or ask for advice about a legal residential problem, or just call them to ask for answers to the many questions raised in this letter. By: Sebouh Sarafian Andre Beglarian Dear Members, By now you should have received a letter from the Directors of the CAIA stating the reasons why they have dismissed the staff, closed the centre for most of the time, and staffed the centre with unqualified “volunteers” when open. These are, of course, all lies and in fact they had already dismissed all permanent members of staff when they wrote to you on the 22nd January 2005. Six of the Directors who have been running the CAIA were all elected, we believe, for one purpose: To reinstate Mr (and possibly Mrs) Ohanian. Everything they have done to date has been with this in mind: Dismissal of Staff All staff that testified in court that Mr and Mrs Ohanian abused, bullied, humiliated and intimidated them have now been dismissed. Reason While they were there, Mr Misak Ohanian could not be reinstated. Method There is strong evidence to show that they engineered a financial crisis at the centre in order to find an excuse to do so. 1. They did not renew any funding for these staff. 2. They have not sought new fundings. 3. They misinformed the auditors about the financial situation at the centre. They hid all information of income coming in from funders in order to persuade them that there were insufficient funding. As an example of what they did. A member of staff brought £45,000 per year into the organisation. The salary and expenses of this member of staff was around £25,000 per year. Despite this, they dismissed her. The funder of this member of staff has therefore stopped all payments. Another example of what they did. Most of the CAIA’s funders make payments 3 months in arrears. This means that funding covering the November, December and January expenditures were due to be paid in February.The income from the funders should have been disclosed to the auditors. This is a basic accountancy principal called “matching”. This was not done. The Pro-Misak Directors kept quiet about the £45,000 income that was due in February but emphasised the costs incurred. They therefore misrepresented the financial situation to the auditors. It follows that as an additional bonus for them, this will also allow them to “miraculously” save the centre by re-instating Mr Misak Ohanian, who will “find” this extra, undeclared funding. Another example of their actions. They also stopped the CAIA staff from providing translation services. This alone brought in an income of £1,500 per month. Note: When Mrs Ohanian was employed at the centre, the income from the translation services she provided went straight into her pocket. THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL’S DECISION:FACTS AND REALITIES REF:MR M OHANIAN & MRS D OHANIAN We believe it is important to restate the basic realities: Mr and Mrs Ohanian were dismissed for “gross misconduct” on 20 March 2003. Subsequently they brought an “unfair dismissal” case against CAIA claiming large sums of money as compensation. The Employment Tribunal took place between 24th-28th May 2004 [inclusive] and 2nd June [in Chambers]; its decision was published on 21st June. Regarding Mrs Ohanian the decision states that her “complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded”. The reason given is that CAIA “did not act reasonably in procedural terms” [Decision 1]. Thus not all dismissal procedures were followed correctly, which is actually a technical matter. Consequently the Tribunal’s Decision states that EVEN IF THE “PROCEDURAL DEFECT HAD BEEN RECTIFIED, INCLUDING ITS REFUSAL OF AN APPEAL, IT WOULD HAVE MADE NO DIFFERENCE TO THE DISMISSAL OUTCOME”. [Decision 2]. Thus, the dismissal was correct. In fact Mrs Ohanian was so fundamentally in the wrong that the Decision’s Section 3 reads as follows: “The first applicant’s [Mrs Ohanian] dismissal was caused to the extent of 100% by her own conduct and it is therefore just and equitable that no compensatory award be made under s123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996”. [Decison3]. The Tribunal’s final Decision regarding Mr M Ohanian is the same as Mrs D Ohanian with one minor exception. In this respect, the Tribunal’s Decision states that: “The conduct of the second applicant before his dismissal was such that it was just and equitable, under s122 (2) Employment Rights Act 1996, to reduce his basic award by 90%” [Decision 8]. Thus, it was correct to dismiss him. He was in effect 90% in the wrong. Therefore, he could claim only 10% compensation. Let us go through the Tribunal Document with some details, to highlight the legal facts and to illustrate the points. This, additionally, will bring to light the spirit of events and the atmosphere at CAIA during Mr and Mrs Ohanians’ reign: Regarding Mr M Ohanian’s behaviour towards CAIA’s staff the Tribunal highlighted a number of cases. For example in March 2002 “he was violently angry and abusive towards Elise Kalemkaryan [Health Worker] during her staff appraisal…reducing her to tears”. [Para. 11]. Furthermore, the staff stated, “we the full-time and part-time staff in unison will resign should you decide to reinstate Mr and Mrs Ohanian in any capacity as none of us are able to go through the nightmare of their constant bullying, mistreatment, disrespect and humiliation at the workplace.” [Para. 12]. The Tribunal also accepted that the Management Committee experienced him [Mr Ohanian] as RUDE, BULLYING, INSUBORDINATE AND RELUCTANT TO SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT RUNNING THE CENTRE.” [Para. 14]. Regarding Mr M Ohanian’s financial manipulations the Tribunal’s Documents hark back to many years. For example, it states, “the auditors in 1991 wrote about their concerns at failures to keep proper accounting records and the slack control of cash transactions” [Para. 10]. In the case of Mrs D Ohanian, it is noted that she made “secret personal profit from translation and interpreting work, which should have been paid to the respondent organisation [i.e. CAIA] and by keeping the difference between donations made by donors and the amounts entered in to the office receipt book.” [para.32]. At this point, it is important to note that her husband Mr M Ohanian, who was her manager, did not stop these practices thus becoming an accomplice to these illegalities. The Tribunal concluded that she should have been dismissed because “the evidence that she had made personal gain from translation and interpretation work was clearly documented” and that “her explanation for the donor receipt discrepancies… put by her in evidence before the Tribunal,were frankly incredible”! [Para. 37] In other words, she pocketed the funds of the charity and the excuses she gave for her wrongdoing was categorically refused by the Tribunal as unbelievable. As far as Mr Ohanian is concerned the Tribunal accepted that he was “beyond the control of the Management Committee” despite the fact that the committee recognised his many years of service. Further “his refusal to disclose information to the Management Committee about his management of the Centre and his decision making without reference to them, for example in relation to the £85,000 Bequest [Mrs Wells’ will] and his wife’s interpretation and translation work on her own account” [Para 41]. The Tribunal added that this LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY showed “his failure to recognise the legal structures of an incorporated body which is also a registered charity and constraints and realities of his status as its employee”. This state of affairs “also led, in the Tribunal’s view, to a porosity in the second Applicant’s [Mr M Ohanian’s] mind between the finances of the respondent organisation [CAIA] and his own and his wife’s, and a corresponding failure of proper accounting procedural boundaries between the two” [Para 42] – In other words… ! In fact, the Employment Tribunal’s Decision was so conclusively against Mr & Mrs Ohanian that they did not even bother to appeal. THE POST TRIBUNAL PERIOD During CAIA’s AGM of 9th October 2004, nine directors were elected. Six of these were well known to be Mr Ohanian’s ardent supporters. Their election success is, in general, credited to Mr Ohanian’s proxy vote gathering efforts. Up to that point, our charity was performing well providing the appropriate services to our community through our professional and dedicated full-time and a number of part-time staff. On 24th November, the six directors who effectively control the charity appointed Mr Ohanian as an “unpaid consultant” to CAIA. Thereafter the charity began to collapse. GRANTS AND FUNDS REFUSED As directors, the six intentionally omitted to claim the funds that were already allocated to our charity. They also actually prevented Tony Kahve who knew most of the funders well from approaching them. Unbelievably they also refused an actual offer of a substantial grant from Mr Shahe Gulian to fund one or two of the posts! A substantial credit balance of the charity began to be eroded. The six declared that the charity had no funds and that the staff would have to be sacked. CASH FLOW ISSUES A secondary cash flow issue was presented as a financial crisis. It was necessary to come to an amicable understanding with the staff. The six of course were unwilling to do so After all the staff in question, were the same personnel who had given evidence or were willing to do so against Mr and Mrs Ohanian during the Tribunal. At the beginning of 2005, our multilingual and professional staffs of many years experience was dismissed. Consequently, the funders suspended the fundings. As a result professionally provided charitable services collapsed. VINDICTIVE Presently the usual Ohanian clan mainly frequents the charity. It remains predominantly detached from our community. As the situation stands this sad state of affairs will remain as long as the Ohanian clan remain in control and it is fair to say that no organised group in the past has acted so vindictively against our community. S Gulian T S Kahve B B Nazarian CAIA Director CAIA Director CAIA Director

I watched too much Monty Python when I was young. Hence the phrase "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisitor" stayed in my mind. One of my other call-signs is "The Fool", because I continue to believe.

LRAPER Church Bulletin 19/03/2005 Armenian Patriarchate TR-34130 Kumkapi, Ýstanbul Licensee: The Revd. Fr. Drtad Uzunyan Editors: The Revd.Dr.Krikor Damatyan, Deacon Vagharshag Seropyan Press Spokesperson: Attorney Luiz Bakar T: +90 (212) 517-0970 F: +90 (212) 516-4833 E-mail: lraper@lraper.org REGARDING ADL PARTY'S PRESS RELEASE In the course of history, our people have had incumbents on hierarchical and royal thrones who have been worthy of their vocations. Also we have had honorable religious and lay pioneers, benefactors and intellectuals who, even in times of great duress, have laboured to contribute to the spiritual and cultural heritage of our people. Unfortunately, besides them, there have also been the unworthy ones who have always hidden behind their thrones, embellished titles, status or fortune in order to be able to continue their dark dealings. May the Lord God protect our people from such religious and lay evil doers. The Central Committee of the ADL Party, with its well known president who is the personally employed secretary of the chairwoman of the AGBU Central Board of Directors, has published a second press release aimed at the incumbent of our Patriarchal See - a press release full of falsification and ill-natured deceitfullness. To see the ADL Party and the AGBU stoop to such a level is a pity indeed. The issue here is not international relations, nor has it anything to do with the relations between our patriarchal sees, or the preparation of future clergy - matters with which the ADLP/AGBU group attempts to cloud the issue. Who in the whole world has not yet clearly understood that the ADLP/AGBU's main reason to be in such an unseemly commotion is simply this: These people seem unable to present an account of the Melkonian Will which they had received from our Patriarchal See in 1925. What occurred to the Melkonian fortune which was worth about 3,5 million US dollars in the 1920s? If it has been properly invested hitherto, then why is that the AGBU has taken a decision to close down the only Armenian senior high school within the borders of the European Union and sell all its lands and buildings? Do our people not reserve the right to inquire, especially when, according to the members of the Cypriot Armenian community, the land and the properties of the Melkonian Educational Institute are worth not less than 120 million US dollars? The ADLP/AGBU group uses an old and cunning method when it attempts to transfer a simple national education issue into the realm of international and ecclesiastic affairs. When any group that pursues vain and bankrupt policies or that defies, despises or condescends to people - the very people who are the sole reason for its existence - such a group's pitiful state is simply self-inflicted. No distraction is needed: With regard to the AGBU and all those ADL members involved, in the name and memory of the magnanimous benefactor Garabed Melkonian and on behalf of Patriarch Zaven of blessed memory and the supporters of the Melkonian Educational Institute around the world, for the second time we say publicly, `give an account of thy stewardship.' (Luke 16:2). May the Lord bless the memory of his servants, the great benefactors of our nation, Garabed and Krikor Melkonian brothers. May the love of Christ permeate the hearts, and minds, and souls of all those who have been tempted to misuse these benefactors' good memory and wealth, especially in these days when we contemplate the selfless passion of our Lord and Saviour. May they all turn from their questionable ways to the compassionate and forgiving bosom our Heavenly Father. DIVAN OF THE ARMENIAN PATRIARCHATE 19 March 2005, Istanbul

The article attacking Archbishop Mutafian appears in the "Ramgavar" paper. What is their motivation for such an attack? Why haven't they attacked his "conduct" and "suitability" before? Maybe it's because he is fighting to stop the sale of the Melkonian School. In the past, it was the "Ramgavar" party that controlled the Melkonian legacy through the AGBU. If it was discovered that some, if not most of the legacy, went "missing" during their watch, they, the leaders of the "Ramgavar" party would be personally liable for the loss (under US law). I suspect that the closure of the School would let them off the hook. I also suspect that the current AGBU "asset strippers" would welcome the remaining money to cover the losses they made in the great Enron collapse. I don't see the Noyan Tapan interview on this web-site, where Archbishop Mutafian comments on the motivation behind this personal attack. Perhaps someone will be kind enough to post it?

I think the document supports the facts I presented. Thank you for posting the URL.

I’d like to help you out here, but I think you need to get rid of those chicken bones. I WAS going to post a URL today. Readers would then have been able to download the full ruling of the Tribunal. Unfortunately the web-provider has, so far failed to post the pdf file on the web-site. Watch this space. For those impatient readers, Mrs O is to receive no compensation, because the Employment Tribunal unanimously ruled that her dismissal was justifiable. The majority of judges ruled that Mr O should only be awarded 10% of the compensation for loss of earnings he asked for, and a minority of judges were of the opinion that he should not receive any compensation. Neither Mr or Mrs O are to be re-instated. The compensation can be reclaimed from the CAIA’s insurers but, because the amount is so small, it might actually be more beneficial in the long run to make a payment out of the CAIA’s funds in order to stop any increases in the annual insurance charges. Finally, I would like to thank bellthecat for his postings. People in authority should be challenged otherwise they can get complacent.

You were implying that I was a member of the "Pro-Misak camp". Which in your eyes is probably even worse. Or am I one of those "vunerable members"? You are again trying to put words into my mouth. I was implying that for an “innocent” bystander, you seemed to have a significant access to the “Misak” spin machine. I was suggesting that you checked your facts via independent sources before making up your mind. I stated from the start of all this that I cannot be considered an “independent source” because I am married to one of the Directors. I did not hide this fact from you. I started by pointing out the flaws in Mr Kevorkian’s article. I have yet to see you challenge or point out any flaws in the arguments I have posted except at an emotional level. If what I am saying is wrong, point out the flaw of my argument. The “vulnerable” members of the CAIA are members who rely on the services provided by the CAIA. They are the ones who are vulnerable to intimidation. I am not in any "camp". This "if you are not with us then you are against us" attitude is very disapointing - and I am not just refering to your "camp" here! Again, you are putting words into my mouth, which I do not agree with. Unless I know otherwise, I can only consider you a reasonable person who can check the facts independently before coming to a conclusion. That conclusion may support Mr Ohanian based on your experience. That doesn’t mean we are in different “camps”. If you were in the UK, I would urge you, your friends, your family, etc, to join the CAIA in order to broaden the membership base of the CAIA and stop small cliques from taking over. If there were 80 votes cast, and over 40 of those were proxy, then that implies that less than 40 people were present. I think this dismally low number has been the normal figure for previous agm's. I don't know the exact membership of the caia (I expect it is somewhat inflated at the moment since each "camp" has been busy for over a year stuffing it with their own supporters.) But let us assume 600 members in 2002. I.e. less than 5 percent of the members voted in person, and only just over 10 percent voted at all. I would say, on that basis, that no one on the Management Committee have any truely democratic mandate. I agree that the number of people voting is disappointingly low, but this has always been the case. One of the tasks over the next few years is to increase the membership of the CAIA. Maybe if we scrapped the £7 membership fee, or allow 5 year memberships. This will make the centre more democratic. Something to consider. Also, I believe the membership numbers are around 350 (I don’t have the exact figures). Over the last 3 months, there have been 20 new members. Some of these new members have admitted that they had been contacted by Mr Ohanian and persuaded to join the CAIA. Never the less, their membership was accepted. Our estimate is that of these 20, 12 are pro-Misak, around 4 are anti-Misak, and the remaining 4 are neutral. We would have prefered it if they were all neutral. Again, let me emphasise that every application for membership has been accepted. I would be interested if you could name one, just one person who’s application has been rejected. The inherent flaw in the caia's electoral system is that it can be controlled by a tiny clique of people (and the current situation can be seen as two cliques fighting it out for control, regardless of the cost to the caia). Removing proxy voting would make the situation even worse, reducing the posible voting numbers even more. In the current situation a 100% postal vote is the only way the wishes of the membership could be addressed. Postal voters can also suffer from “undue influence”. Most of the vulnerable members receive services from the staff of the CAIA. It would be very easy for the staff to collect these postal votes using “undue influence”. In the same way, they can, if they were dishonest, do the same for proxy votes. This is why we involved the ACCC to monitor, administer, and run the next AGM, to ensure a fair election. I hope this explains why we feel that the only fair way is by secret ballot at the centre. It used to be that several months had to pass (six?) before a new member could vote - were the four responsible for changing this to allow anyone who has paid their membership fee to vote? The rules are that new members cannot vote for 3 months. This is still the case. Have you managed to check any of the facts I have provided? If so, please can you post your finding with your next reply.

She'll be calling me a "Turk" next. Is't that the usual Armenian way of dismissing things that they would rather not discuss? Oh, grow up! When a person starts to lose an argument, they no longer state their position but state the alleged position of their opponents. I have never called you a “Turk”. I have pointed out to you independent ways by which you can confirm the information I have given you. These independent sources also demolish the arguments put forward by the Misak spin machine. Why don't you check them out? It's actually interesting that she confirmed what I had written about the event that kicked off the whole saga - the "official management meeting on the 27th of January". I had my suspicions that only the "gang of four" had attended it, but I never knew it for a fact until now. Actually, I have been informed that the meeting was held on the 29th of January. The events that kicked off the whole saga started in November and December of 2002 when Mr Ohanian was given a verbal and then a written warning about his intimidating and abusive behaviour towards the other CAIA staff and the Directors. It continued into early January when he tried to disrupt the management meeting where the Chairman was replaced. Some would argue that the whole saga started in 1991 when he was given his first written warning about his behaviour. This was the first of many he received by various Trustees over the next 12 years. On point 6 - will she tell us the number of CAIA members who attended the AGM that elected her husband, the number who actually voted for her husband, and the percentage of that number compared to the total membership. (I'd also love to know how many of those who voted for her husband and his pals were related to them - but she ain't gonna reveal that!). Again, you are trying to guess at what I may or may not do. I would love to give you these detail, but I don’t have those figures available. I suggest you contact the CAIA directly for these numbers. What may be of interest to you is, as far as I can remember, Mr and Mrs Ohanian controlled over 40 proxy votes at the meeting and there were less than 80 votes cast during the elections. Note: The “four” have been campaigning to limit the number of proxy votes that a member can wield, but any change to the constitution needs to be passed by 75% of the votes cast. This is an inherent flaw in the CAIA electoral system, which makes vulnerable members of the CAIA susceptible to undue pressures for their proxy votes.

Yawn, I really have better things to be doing than this, however, since I started the thread: I am sorry to bore you with some facts that do not fit your conspiracy theory, but:- >>>The “four directors” are, I understand, Dr Manook Soghomonian, Siranoosh Carmen-Riggs, Karineh Sarafian and Liza Keoshgerian. So we can assume that the writer of the above post is the wife of Dr Soghomonian. They apparently forced a fifth director, the then chairman, Ovaness Koundjarian, to resign in January 2003, thus giving themselves a 2/3rds majority in the Management Committee. 1) The Chairman, Ovaness Koundarjian, was not dismissed. There was a vote of no confidence in his chairmanship and he was replaced as the chairman. This was within the rules of the CAIA. >>>Regarding “Fact 1” Misak Ohanian’s job title at the CAIA (Centre for Armenian Information and Advice) was “General Secretary”. Essentially, he ran the organisation, and has run it since its foundation in 1986. Back then it was just a tiny upstairs office in Acton. He was also the principal founder of the organisation. Over those years, as the CAIA has grown to become a far tastier prize to control, it seems that he has made, rightly or wrongly, a number of enemies. In recent years he also seems to have been way too interested in rubbing shoulders with "the great and the good" and getting his picture in the press, and involving the CAIA in Britain's financially lucrative "illegal immigrant industry" (sorry, that should be "advising the thousands of poor, oppressed, innocent, always 100% honest, asylum seekers fleeing certain death in Armenia"). Misak did significantly contribute to the setting up and running of the CAIA. He was an excellent fundraiser and PR representative. His skills will be missed. [Praise where praise is due] >>>Regarding “Fact 2” It is my understanding that only the above named four directors attended this meeting, and that its decisions were not conveyed to the remaining three (or should that be two). 3) All the Directors were invited to the meeting. Three of the Directors chose not to attend. They knew of the meeting and sent written votes for some of the items discussed during the meeting. There was a quorum (minimum of 3). >>>Other points: The Management Committee quickly advertised for someone to fill Mr Ohanian’s job as General Manager. The closing date was April 4th 2003. Salary was £24,000 a year. That's about 45 thousand dollars. Tasty. 4) Mr Ohanian’s salary was significantly more than £24,000. His wife’s salary was also near this amount. >>>I may be wrong, but I do not believe that the CAIA has ever had 8 salaried full-time employees. 5) I suggest you get your facts straight. I suggest call the CAIA on 2028 992 4621. >>>The job title of the “seven members” is the “Management Committee”. They were elected by the small number of CAIA members that bothered to attend the AGM on the 18th May 2002. They should have been either re-elected or dismissed 12 months later. However, there has been no further AGMs held since May 2002. 6) This is like saying that the present Members of Parliament in the UK (MP) are not real MPs because only a small number of electorates bothered to vote from them at the election. Get real! They were Directors of the company as well as its Trustees. The Directors formed the Management Committee, which is similar to MPs forming a “Cabinet”. 7) Furthermore, if you contact Companies House, a government body that keeps a register of all companies and their directors, for £2.50 you can get a list of Directors of the CAIA, past and present. I suggest you get your facts straight. >>>Regarding “Fact 3” There is no such thing as an “illegal EGM” – to convene an EGM all that is needed it for 25 members of the CAIA to request in writing to the Management Committee that one should be held. Cancelling a properly called for EGM, however, would be illegal. The EGM for 8th February 2003, called to replace the Management Committee, was cancelled by four members of the Management Committee on the 31st January 2003, on the dubious grounds that it was “not properly authorised” since it had been authorised by the chairman, Ovaness Kounjarian, before he had been removed. A legitimate reason for this cancellation, such as a legal explanation why the EGM was considered to be “not properly authorised” was never conveyed to CAIA members. 8) The illegal EMG of February 8th was not called by the members of the CAIA. It was called for by Mr Ohanian and Mr Ovaness Koundjarian, the replaced chairman of the CAIA. They did not have the right to call an EGM. The Directors of the CAIA can only call an EGM by voting for it during a properly convened meeting. This was not the case. Mr Ohanian and Mr Koundjarian knew what they were doing was illegal. I suggest you get your facts straight. 9) The EGM held on the 12th of April was called by the members of the CAIA and their request was honoured as per the rules stated in the Companies Act 1987. >>>Regarding “facts 42 - 44”. The four committee members have been very active in “muddying the water” with regards to the Ohanian’s. For example, on 14th February a letter stated that the reason for Misak Ohanian’s suspension was “lack of co-operation, refusal to carry out instructions and non-disclosure of important information”. No specifics were given. In February 2003 they sent out letters to all members telling them of an “full internal audit and investigation” that they were carrying out had “highlighted” a “discrepancy” in cash donations. The obvious implication being that the recently dismissed Mr Ohanian was responsible for this “discrepancy”. In a letter dated 20th March 2003 the reason cited for Mr Ohanian’s dismissal (in January, remember) was for “gross misconduct” due to “financial and other irregularities” that had emerged “following an internal investigation”. Theft of money (see her fact 22) is NOT a civil matter, it is a criminal matter. The police, after investigation, found no evidence of any crime having being committed. 10) The internal audit was carried out by independent auditors (and qualified Chartered Accountants). These auditors were not Armenians, related to any Armenians, married or connected to any Armenians. I am sure that any member requesting a copy of the audit report can get a copy from the CAIA. 11) Mr and Mr Ohanian were suspended on the 31st of January 2003, on full pay, so that an audit of the books could take place without any interference. They were invited by the Directors to a meeting to discuss the finding of the audit and they refused to attend. They were invited again, and they initially stated that they did not recognise the authority of the Directors, and when this failed, they stated that they were too ill to attend to explain the discrepencies. 12) They were not too ill to hold rallies against the “four”, or attend meeting with the future “Pro-Misak-Directors” to explain their position, or to call elderly members of the CAIA and ask them to call for an EGM on the 12th of April 2003. 13) Mr and Mrs Ohanian were dismissed on the 20th of March 2003. Until then, they were suspended on full pay. >>>It is important to stress that the justification or not of the dismissal of Mr Ohanian is not the central issue in all these events. The issue is the control of the CAIA, the Ohanian’s were removed because they opposed the four committee members and were active in organising moves that would lead to the dismissal of those members. Nor did these events start in January 2003 – there will have been years, probably decades, of dissent bubbling just under the surface, unknown to anyone outside the numerous dark little cliques that seem to infest Armenian diaspora society. 14) This is the Misak line of argument. The “conspiracy theory”. The issue was the future well-being of the CAIA. 15) There has not been a single word of how the “four” would have benefited from controlling the centre. The Directors of the CAIA are all unpaid. The majority of the grants are restricted to specific projects. Over the last 18 months, all 4 Directors have incurred significant personal and financial costs in supporting the CAIA. 16) There “four” do not belong to any political party (Dashnak, Ramkavar, etc). They are not from the same country. They come from Iran, Armenia, UK and Burma. There is no religious or socio-political ties between them except their commitment to the Armenian community and the staff of the CAIA. 17) Before you go there, the “four” are not related to any of the current staff at the CAIA. 18) The only people that stand to gain anything from this sorry state are the armchair conspiracy theorists and the Ohanians (a big fat monthly salary, and the chance to earn additional income through their control of the CAIA). Before you shout libel, I suggest you wait until after the Tribunal hearing when more details will be made available (within a week). >>>Regarding “fact 11” – the EGM of 12th April. It is not correct to say that “The Directors that dismissed Mr Ohanian were “replaced” in an EGM of the 12th of April 2003”. That EGM (or rather, its results) were challenged by the 4 members, who petitioned the Charities Commission to set aside the vote results because the voting process had been procedurally incorrectly handled. The Charities Commission eventually decided that the results of the April EGM should be set aside, and that a new EGM should be held as soon as possible, organised by the Electorial Reform Society”, and that until then the old committee (those that dismissed Mr Ohanian) should remain in place. There are no such people as the “Pro-Misak-Directors”. The same Management Committee remained in charge, with the four directors I named at the start making up the majority. They had full control of the CAIA, the building, the staff, the services, and its financial assets. 19) The “direction” of the Charity Commission was ignored. I also suggest you contact Companies House and get a list of the Directors of the CAIA. 20) The PMD held several meeting with Misak before the elections of the 12th of April 2003. After they were elected, Misak was in secret contact with some of them and was instructing them on what to do (emails presented at the Tribunal hearing). 21) Misak attended several meeting that they held while they were in charge of the CAIA. 22) As for your statement that the “four” had full control of the CAIA, I suggest you speak to whoever gave you your information and ask them, Who were the cheque signatories of the CAIA between April 12th 2003 and March 24th 2004? And, Who were the registered Directors of the CAIA during this same period? Both questions can be answered from independent sources, if you can be bothered to do so. 23) If you bother to check your facts, you’ll see that the PBM refused to let the “four” become signatories (see ACCC meeting notes from March 2004) and Mr Vache Gulbenkian even persuaded the Tribunal that he was the Chairman of the CAIA when the case first went to court in February 2004. 24) There are no documents signed by any of the “four” as Directors of the CAIA during the year in question, but there are many documents signed by the “Chairman” of the PMD. 25) Finally the PMD numbered 8 (7 after one of them resigned), plus 2 of the former Directors made their numbers to 9. I cannot see how four vs 9 can be considered a majority of the 4. I suggest you brush up on your maths. >>>I’m not exactly sure how the Management Committee managed to put back that “as soon as possible” to the 12th June 2004, the date when an AGM was set to take place. I have no idea what she is talking about when she says the four directors were “appointed” by the Charities Commission in May. The Charities Commission cannot “appoint” anyone. 26) The Charity Commission, after a section 8 investigation, can suspend and appoint Directors/Trustees to a charity under section 18 of the Charities Act. I suggest you get your facts straight. >>>The much anticipated 12th June 2004 AGM was cancelled by the management committee only 5 days before it was due. No reason was given for the cancellation. No date for any future AGM has been given. It is now over 2 years since one has been held, two years in which a “Gang of Four” have ruled like despots over their little domain. The CAIA became a registered Limited Company in the year 2000. Under the Companies Act, and article 6 of the Articles of Association of the CAIA, there has to be a General Meeting held every calendar year, and each annual general meeting must take place within 15 months of the last one. 27) The AGM has been delayed until after the results of the Tribunal become available. The former PMD having been spreading the slanderous accusations written in Mr Andy Kevorkian’s article in their campaign to be re-elected. They then hope to re-employ Mr and Mrs Ohanian. In order not to jeopardise the case, the current Directors of the CAIA have had to keep quite about the facts to the case. Once the Tribunal’s finding are known (within the next week), the Directors of the CAIA will inform the members of the CAIA of the facts of the case. Until then, I leave you to wallow in your conspiracy theory. It is interesting that you have so much of Mr Ohanian’s spin at your disposal. I suspect that you are in fact in contact with either Mr Ohanian, or one of the former PMDs. I suggest you check the spin that you have been told against the hard documented facts available.

The author of this reply to Mr Kevorkian’s article is married to one of the “four” Directors. >In January 2003, four members of the seven-member board of the CAIA staged >what can best be described as a coup, and, unbeknown to the other three >members, arrived at the CAIA building (Hayashen), with a lawyer and a >policeman and evicted - summarily and without notice-CAIA's founder-director >Misak. Ohanian and his wife Diana, who was employed there as an advisor and >councillor. Facts: 1) The seven members were in fact the Directors and Trustees of the CAIA. They were elected to their position by the CAIA members. As such, they were personally liable for any acts of negligence of their duties as Directors and Trustees. 2) The Directors /Trustees held an official management meeting on the 27th of January to discuss the continued refusal of Mr Ohanian to carry out their instructions. 3) The Directors were also aware that Mr Ohanian was using the facilities of the CAIA to send emails and make phone calls to CAIA members slandering the Directors he did not approve of. He was also trying to gather proxy votes from the elderly CAIA members under his care, during his work hours, in his campaign to replace the Directors of the CAIA via an illegal EGM that he had called. When the Directors instructed him to cancel the illegal EGM, he refused. 4) Following the meeting on the 27th, the Directors sought the services of an employment lawyer. This employment lawyer did accompany the Directors to the CAIA building on the 31st of January in order to advise the Directors of their rights. 5) Mr and Mrs Ohanian were not Directors of the CAIA. They were the two senior employees of the CAIA (which, at that time, had 8 full-time employees). 6) The police were called 1 hour after the Directors entered the CAIA offices, after Mr and Mrs Ohanian refused to accept their suspension, on full pay. >During the 17 years, under the Ohanians' the CAIA had expanded its services to >the community ……. Facts: 7) The Ohanians were part of a larger group that helped to expand the services. 8) Mr Ohanian was/is a very good fundraiser. >As a registered charity, it was supported by more than a dozen annual and multi->year grants ranging from 1000 pounds ($1800) to 250,000 pounds ($450,000). It >had embarked on a building expansion when the rump group decided that it >could do better. All it seems to have succeeded in doing is spend CAIA's hard->earned money, and may even have misdirected some of the grant money. This >last point is now the subject of an official audit by the Charity Commissioners. Facts: 9) There is no official audit of the books by the Charity Commission. This is a lie. 10) Since their dismissal, Mr Ohanian has been in contact with the CAIA’s funders. He has been asking them to stop funding the CAIA. 11) The Directors that dismissed Mr Ohanian were “replaced” in an EGM of the 12th of April 2003 (see later). The new Directors, who were connected to Mr Ohanian, were in charge of the CAIA up until the 24th of March 2004 (let’s call them the Pro-Misak Directors PMD). 12) The PMD controlled the bank accounts, signed the cheques, were responsible for producing the accounts for the CAIA, were responsible for renewing grants, and were responsible for producing the reports needed to renew the grants. They failed to produce or upkeep the accounts, produce records, or renew grants. 13) The “replaced” Directors helped the staff (unofficially) to renew their grants and helped them to produced the required reports to their best of their constrained abilities. 14) Mr Ohanian was the fundraiser of the CAIA. The PMD refused to fill in the fundraiser position of the CAIA because they wanted to leave the post clear for his return to duty. The “replaced” Directors did not have the power to fill this position. 15) The charge that the “replaced” Directors misdirected the grant money is slanderous and untrue. The PMD were in charge of the bank accounts for over a year. The only money the “replaced” Directors spent during February and March 2003 was in getting legal employment advise regarding Mr and Mrs Ohanian >It is unlikely that the new group has succeeded in being awarded more than one >or two new grants. Fact: 16) Without a Fundraiser, this is very true. Despite the restrictions, the “replaced” Directors helped the remaining staff, none of whom were fundraisers, win 2 small grants. >After the takeover, staff salaries were increased to give the appearance of a >continuing operation - one person's tripled. Lawyers (apparently friends or >relatives of the new group) were hired - and paid for out of CAIA funds. The >CAIA now has no registered qualified advisor on welfare, housing, immigration, >etc. The Carers' Project has ceased. The Health Advisory Service has ceased. >The newspaper is no longer published. There is no Library staff. There was >no "April 24" program at the two boroughs in 2003 and 2004. There was no >remembrance of the Armenian Genocide at the annual HMD this year. Most >funding has stopped. Facts: 17) Mr Ohanian, as a fundraiser, had applied for and received a 3% increase in grants for the various projects undertaken by the CAIA. These included a 3% rise for staff salaries. These increases were not passed on to the staff, in violation of the terms of the grant. The "replaced" Directors corrected this situation. 18) 1 member of staff had their salary effectively doubles because she went form working part-time to working full-time. This change had been agreed in early January 2003, before Mr Ohanian’s suspension. 19) The Lawyer hired was not related to any of the Directors. Mr Lancaster is not even related to any Armenian or anyone married to an Armenian. This is another blatant lie. 20) Mr Lancaster was hired to provide legal advise regarding the CAIA’s employment issue. None of the Directors had a legal background and were aware that the CAIA could be sued if they violated any employment laws. 21) The CAIA does have a qualified advisor on welfare, housing and immigration. There is still a Health advisory service. The library is open and staffed. 22) Several projects nearly ceased because the PMD Directors failed to renew the grants while they were in charge of the centre. Despite their failure, the “replaced” Directors helped the staff to salvage the situation. 23) The quarterly newspaper was not published by the PMD. The Directors that dismissed Mr and Mrs Ohanian cannot be blamed for the lack of action by the Pro-Misak Directors. >How can they get away with this? Easy. Ignore the rules, do your own thing, call >in the police. Ostensibly, the CAIA must adhere to the strict rules that govern >charities and which are overseen by the Charity Commission, which has been, to >date, ineffective. As an aside, so inefficient is the Charity Commission that it is, >itself, the subject of a Parliamentary investigation that may come up with a >major overhaul. Facts: 24) Because of the inaction of the PMD, and their dubious election during the April 12th EGM, the Charity Commission suspended them as Directors on March 24th 2004. They replaced them with the Directors that had dismissed Mr and Mrs Ohanian, plus one other Director from the PDM team who had, since his appointment, seen the case against Mr and Mrs Ohanian, and opposed their readmission into the CAIA. 25) The Directors that dismissed the Ohanians kept, and have kept, strictly to the rules. The Charity Commission’s chapter 8 investigation of the CAIA prior to their reassignment found that they had acted for the benefit of the CAIA. The Charity Commission suspended the Pro-Misak-Directors because, in their view, they threatened the assets of the Charity. >Thus, though the Commissioners have tried to get the "four" out, have tried to >get the "four" and the "three" to get back together, have tried to get a new Board >elected, have tried to have an Annual General Meeting (AGM), have tried to get >an Extraordinary Annual Meeting (EGM). It has been thwarted by the obstinacy of >the "four" and the Commission has shown itself less than wise in its decisions. >However, there was an EGM on April 12, at which the "four" lost by 129 to 40. >They did not accept their defeat, and appealed to the Charity Commissioners, >who intervened again. What is remarkable about this defeat is that the "four" had >been accepting new members selectively, i.e., based on whether they >were "friends". The Commissioners' latest decision is that there must be an AGM >before June 10. Facts: 26) The EGM was held on April 12th 2003. 27) Thankfully, there was an independent journalist present who video-ed the meeting. Copies may be optioned from him directly. 28) The video confirms that the votes were not counted before “victory” was declared and that there were gross irregularities during the elections. 29) The Charity Commission, the governing body for UK Charities, based on their own investigation, agreed that the elections were flawed and recommended that the PMD step down in November 2003. They refused to step down. 30) Every Armenian living in the UK can become a member of the CAIA, with the exception of convicted criminals. Every single Armenian that has applied to become a member of the CAIA since January 2003 has been accepted as a member, including the families of some of the Pro-Misak-Directors, who vehemently opposed the “four”. 31) Mr and Mrs Ohanian are still voting members, as are Mr Ohanian’s brother and sister-in-law, mother, Mrs Ohanian’s mother, and many of their relatives. 32) The statement that the “four” have been selective in their acceptance of new members is slanderous and a lie. >In addiction to being a Charity, the CAIA also has registered as a Company. >Under the "four", no financial accounts have been submitted to Companies >House, which oversees the activities of all companies. Thus, the new CAIA has >been fined by the government - which has been (or will be) paid out of CAIA >funds which should be going to good causes. Meanwhile, the. Ohanians even >offered to suspend their legal action in the hopes of an agreement. There being >none, their hearing - for unfair dismissal and, possibly, other charges - before a >Tribunal will commence on May 24. Facts: 33) As stated previously, the “four” have not been in control of the CAIA since April 12th 2003. The Pro-Misak-Directors failed in their duties to produce the accounts for the CAIA, and failed to submit accounts to the Companies House. Since their appointement in may, the "four" Directors have completed the accounts and submitted them to Companies House. 34) The CAIA has not been fined by the government, or any other organisation. 35) Mr Ohanian was made offered an out of court settlement but turned it down. Mrs Ohanian was not offered an out of court settlement. 36) The Directors of the CAIA are confident that the Employment Tribunal will find in their favour and are confident that the demands by Mr and Mrs Ohanian to be reinstated will be rejected. >On May 1, the members of the CAIA had tried to hold a meeting in the building, >but their rental money was returned and their request denied. To show their >apparent disregard of those who oppose them, the "four" then informed the >police who had a presence as the 60 members held a silent protest outside the >building. The local newspapers had a field day. Facts: 37) The pro-Misak members wanted to hold a meeting at the CAIA. Given the volatile situation, the Directors decided not to allow any contentious meetings at the CAIA. This was within their powers as Directors. They also abided by this decision and have not used the premises or the assets of the CAIA for propaganda purposes. 38) The Directors did not inform the police when the group met to protest. Why would they involve the police in any peaceful protest? 39) The number of people attended cannot be confirmed as neither the “four”, nor the staff were present on the day. Saturday is not a working day at the CAIA. >I will spare the reader the grisly ins and outs of the machinations, but suffice it to >say that even other Armenians have been called in to see if something can be >done to resolve the matter amicably. The Armenian Community and Church >Council (ACCC) and the Primate of the Armenian Church in Great Britain, His >Grace Bishop Nathan Hovanissian, have been involved in meetings. At one >meeting called by the ACCC and the Bishop, none of the "four" even bothered to >attend. Local Members of Parliament have even tried to intervene. Facts: 40) After the PMD were suspended by the Charity Commission, the PMD approached ACCC to try to act as a mediators. The ACCC only gave the “four” 1 days notice of the meeting and set various preconditions. The “four” asked for a postponement which could not be given, so they could not attend. 41) The “four” have since asked the ACCC to run the CAIA’s AGM in order to ensure free and transparent elections. >But there is one even more unpleasant item. The "four" accused the Ohanians of >fraud, and the pair was taken to a police station and, under "Caution" (a legal >warning, so to speak) interviewed individually, after spending several hours in >separate police cells. After a month, they were told that there was no case to >answer and that there would be no charges brought. To make matters even >worse, the "four" apparently even included some eld erly Ohanian supporters in >their charges, and some of them were interviewed by the police in their homes. >Needless, to say, no charges were brought against the elders, either. Facts: 42) The “four” did not contact the police. A member of the CAIA contacted the police and filed an official complaint. 43) The police did interview the Ohanians but decided there was insufficient evidence to charge them. 44) They also stated that the charges against the Ohanians were a Civil matter. This was one of the reasons why Mrs Ohanian was not offered an out-of-court settlement. The CAIA did not wish to be stopped from any future litigation against Mrs Ohanian. 45) The elderly lady had claimed that she had been injured in a bus accident and that she had used a taxi to attend events at the centre. Mr Ohanian confirmed this in writing. She received compensation from the transport company. The CAIA log showed that she had been given lifts to the centre by the CAIA’s minibus, together with the other Armenian ladies at the residential home she stayed at. This was not part of the original complaint made to the police. >No one from the "new" CAIA was available for an interview, and one contact said >simply, "No Comment". A previous attempt to get an interview, shortly after >these events.began, also resulted in a refusal for a meeting. Facts: 46) None of the Directors remember being contacted by Mr Kevorkian for an interview. 47) The Directors have, on legal advice, been told not to jeopardise the case against the Ohanians, so have refrained from making the facts of the case public. Once the Tribunal case over, they intend to make full disclosure. 48) This has not stopped supporters of Mr and Mrs Ohanian from making slanderous allegations and telling bare-faces lies. Finally: a) CAIA Directorship is an unpaid position. None of the "four" have claimed any expenses or received any money from the CAIA, even thought they have been entitled to some (travel expenses etc). c) Some of the PMD have claimed expenses from the CAIA between April 12 2003 and March 2004, as they were entitled to. d) Mr and Mrs Ohanian were well-paid employees of the centre. e) All 6 remaining members of staff signed statements that Mr and Mrs Ohanian bullied, abused, and intemidated them. f) The problem started when the Directors tried to stop Mr Ohanian's abusive behaviour. They themselves then became the target for abuse. g) Mr Ohanian received a verbal, and then a written warning about his conduct. This preceipitated Mr Ohanian's call for an EGM to dismiss the Directors (the illegal EGM on February 7th 2003). h) The PMD insisted that they were in charge of the CAIA and persuaded the Employment Tribunal to accept them as the "true" Directors of the CAIA because they were the cheque signaturies. i) As the CAIA's representatives, they refused to hire the services of a lawyer to defend the CAIA at the Tribunal. This was another reason why the Charity Commission suspended them as Directors. j) The PMD used mis-representation to become the cheque signatries of the CAIA ("Cheque" in the UK = "check" in the USA). k) The Employment Tribunal in the UK is bias towards employees. Despite this fact, the Directors of the CAIA are confident that they will not rule in favour of the reinstatement of the Ohanians because of their abusive behaviour, and will not grant them the £200,000 compensation they are asking for. l) During 2003, Past Directors/Trustees contacted the "four" Directors and supplied them with documents that showed how, over a 12 year period, Directors/Trustees of the CAIA have been dismissed in snap elections when they fell out of favour with Mr Ohanian. They also supplied them with copies of written warnings that they have given to Mr Ohanian for his rude behaviour just before they had been dismissed.