Imam Aly Leyla
served as the religious leader of the Islamic Association of Greater Detroit
(IAGD) since 2007. He was the spiritual
leader during a period of turmoil when insurgent candidates were elected and
took control of the IAGD Board of Directors (BOD) in late 2012 based their
opposition to what they and the majority of the IAGD General Body (GB)
perceived as an expensive and wasteful expansion plan of the masjid driven by
the Board of Trustees (BOT). The insurgent
candidates represented the voice of the GB members of IAGD who did not
appreciate the unelected BOT’s unilateral decisions regarding the scope, design
and cost for the expansion project without the GB’s consent. Understanding the circumstances behind this
conflict is essential to understanding why Imam Aly Lela was unceremoniously
dismissed on August 21, 2019.
In late 2012, the
BOT made public statements about their willingness to work with the new
directors, but privately met with city officials to push their expansion plan
through. During the next election cycle, the BOT publicly supported the
democratic process, but privately attempted to subvert the process by buying
votes. When their vote buying scheme was thwarted by the insurgent BOD (iBOD),
the BOT sued IAGD and members of the iBOD in their personal capacity. The court immediately threw out the BOT’s
case because under the Eccleastical Abstention Doctrine, the courts are not
permitted to make rulings on the internal management of religious organizations. Thus, the BOT’s reliance on their poorly
conceived and completely inadequate IAGD Constitution and Bylaws--that lack
dispute resolution procedures (among countless other provisions)--finally
backfired. Nevertheless, the BOT
publicly agreed to participate in a dispute resolution process through
arbitration, but privately made the decision to resolve nothing except to drag
out the process for 2.5 years until they could implement a four-part plan to
reestablish control over IAGD.
Part 1: Tricking
the iBOD into Closing the Arbitration. First, they convinced the iBOD to close the arbitration proceedings for
which the BOT obstinately refused during the entire 2.5 year process to produce
a single document, respond to a single question or provide a single witness. The BOT, who did nothing but stonewall during
the entire arbitration, told the iBOD that the process is going nowhere and
convinced the iBOD to agree to end the proceedings. The iBOD, having made a good faith effort by
actually producing documents, responding to questions and providing witnesses,
reluctantly agreed. Immediately after
the proceedings were closed, the BOT sent a communication celebrating the end
of the conflict and declaring that the iBOD’s terms had expired and that new
elections would be held to replace them.
The BOT finally revealed their tactic and the iBOD was stunned. The BOT never intended to participate in the
arbitration process in good faith. They
only wanted to drag the process along until they could declare the iBOD’s terms
as expired. The BOT’s action was
contrary to a court-ordered stand-still agreement that effectively froze all
the terms of the elected officers. The
iBOD could have fought the BOT over this deception, but neither they nor the GB
were interested in prolonging the conflict.
Part 2: Transfer
of all IAGD Property to Four BOT Members.
Next, four of the BOT members secretly
established a new organization on May 4, 2016 called IAGD Foundation. The foundation members named themselves
sole members for life and transferred all IAGD property to themselves. The IAGD Foundation members and their
surrogates may claim that all filings for the foundation were made
publicly. This is a deceptive statement because
their Foundation could only be discovered if one were to search for it in the
Rochester Hills Register of Deeds. Did
the four foundation members inform or seek the consent of the IAGD General
Body? No. Did they inform or seek the consent of the
IAGD BOD? No. They had no intention of revealing this
masterstroke to anyone because all they cared about was maintaining control
over IAGD, regardless of the wishes of the GB, by any means necessary.
Part 3: Suing the
iBOD (again) to force them to bend to the BOT’s will. Less than three
weeks after secretly transferring all IAGD property to themselves, the BOT
filed another lawsuit against the iBOD May 23, 2016. Recall that the first lawsuit brought by the
BOT against IAGD and the iBOD was because the iBOD prevented them from buying
votes to influence the outcome of the IAGD elections. This second lawsuit brought by the BOT was
for the iBOD spending IAGD’s money defending against a lawsuit that the BOT
themselves initiated—for spending IAGD’s money pursuing evidence that the
trustees themselves actively blocked.
Recall that the BOT sued the iBOD AND
IAGD, yet the BOT took issue with using IAGD funds to defend IAGD in this
lawsuit brought by the BOT. The BOT used this second lawsuit as
leverage against the iBOD to force them to agree to the BOT’s terms during
negotiation of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to finally resolve the
conflict between the boards. The message
was simple: “Agree to our terms or we
will force you to defend yourselves against another frivolous lawsuit.”
Part 4:
Fraudulently procuring “unity” through the MOU. In June 2016, the
BOT, knowing that they secretly transferred ownership of IAGD to themselves,
pretended to participate in drafting a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to
once and for all put the dispute with the iBOD to rest. As mentioned above, despite the secret
leverage the BOT gave themselves with the IAGD Foundation the BOT compromised
on almost nothing. They held the
baseless lawsuit they recently filed over the iBOD’s heads threatening the iBOD
that they would push forward with the suit if the iBOD failed to agree to the
BOT’s demands. Among the things on which
the BOT refused to compromise was any change to the IAGD Constitution that
would prohibit buying votes to win elections.
The weary iBOD agreed and the BOT won their meaningless “unity.”
Having secured an
agreement and established so-called unity through fraud, the BOT planned a
fundraising dinner to celebrate the fake unity and raise money to continue
their vanity expansion project. Days
before the fundraising dinner, members of the iBOD learned of the IAGD
Foundation. The iBOD President privately
met with the BOT Chairman to let him know that the iBOD knew about the
Foundation and gave the BOT Chairman the opportunity to explain his
actions. That deserves repeating: Despite twice being sued by the BOT Chairman,
being tricked into closing the arbitration proceedings, and being forced to
agree to the unjust terms of the MOU, the iBOD president did not immediately
run to the community and tell them about the BOT Chairman’s secret
foundation. The iBOD President gave the BOT Chairman the opportunity to secretly
close the foundation that he secretly opened and maintain his dignity. The President told the Chairman that if
he did not dissolve the Foundation that he would have to inform the GB. The Chairman refused and iBOD sent a message
to the community informing them that all masjid property is now owned by the
four trustees who sold it to themselves for one dollar.
Imam Aly Lela was
outraged. He avoided taking sides during
the 3-year conflict, but he could remain silent no longer. He publicly denounced the Foundation and
declared that IAGD had become a dictatorship.
The BOT, concerned how the Imam’s response to their actions might affect
attendance and donations for their fundraising dinner, immediately met with
Imam Aly privately to remonstrate with him.
Imam Aly would not budge. He
refused to assent to the trustees secretly forming the Foundation and
transferring IAGD property to themselves.
He unequivocally demanded that the foundation be dissolved or he would
no longer serve as Imam at IAGD. The BOT
reluctantly gave their verbal assurance that they would dissolve the Foundation
to ensure that Imam Aly would be present and endorse their fundraising
event.
The BOT, however,
did not keep their word and failed to immediately dissolve the Foundation as
they had promised. Imam Aly kept asking
them repeatedly if they had shut down the Foundation and the BOT would
repeatedly let him know that they were about to do it. Imam Aly’s pestering the BOT to do the right
thing set the wheels in motion for the BOT to have him removed.
At the time the
issue of the Foundation was raised, Imam Aly did not have an active employment
contract. The BOT will likely argue that
the Imam’s contract was in the hands of the iBOD and lay the blame for the lack
of a contract on the iBOD president.
Anyone who has any experience working with the IAGD leadership over the
past four decades knows that the founders of IAGD and the man they empowered
who served as the BOT Chairman had exclusive control over the Imam’s
contract. They would never let anyone
other than themselves have any authority over such an important matter. The IAGD founders and the Chairman count on
the GB’s ignorance and it has served them well.
Firing the Imam
when he didn’t even have a contract would prove difficult for multiple
reasons. First, the optics of having him
removed shortly after he denounced the IAGD Foundation would obviously appear
retaliatory. Second, having just
successfully vanquished the iBOD who were elected by the will of the GB, the
BOT’s support within the community was, at best, tenuous. Third, without a contract, the BOT did not
have any clear grounds for removing Imam Aly from his position. Thus, the BOT determined that the least
provocative way to have the Imam removed would be to draw up a new contract
with the Imam and not renew it after the contract expired. The Imam did not suspect a thing because along
with repeatedly asking about the dissolution of the Foundation, he also
repeatedly asked the BOT when they would finally provide him with a new
contract. By giving Imam Aly a new
contract, the BOT found a way to kill two birds with one stone. It gave the BOT the means to both shut the
imam up about his lack of a contract and to dispose of him when the contract
expired. Imam Aly’s new contract had an
effective date of September 1, 2017 and would expire on August 31, 2019.
Many rumors
circulated about the reasons for Imam Aly’s termination, including his conflict
with the youth director, his conflict with the Director of Quranic Studies
(DQS), his failure to adhere to the terms of his contract, etc. To those circulating such rumors, ask them a
few simple questions: 1) Were the Imam’s
purported shortcomings ever formally documented and presented to him during a
performance review? No. 2) Did he ever receive a formal performance
review? No. 3) Did he ever receive any formal feedback on
his self-evaluation that he performed as required under his contract? No.
Given the IAGD
leadership’s disregard for governance, it should come as no surprise that they
do not take employment contracts seriously.
In fact, Imam Aly was without an employment contract for at least 3
years during the 12 years he served as Imam at IAGD. His not having a contract or the contract
expiring in the past meant nothing. He
was expected to continue serving in his position regardless of whether or not a
contract was in place. In fact, the DQS
operated without a contract for a decade receiving a salary and benefits with
no contractual obligations. But now that
the IAGD leadership wanted to get rid of Imam Aly, they suddenly started taking
contracts seriously.
On August 21, 2019,
about one week after Imam Aly returned from Hajj, he was summoned to attend a
meeting with the BOD, BOT and Imam Liaison Committee (ILC). The ILC includes an “at large” GB member who
happens to be the former BOT Chairman and lifetime member of the Foundation
that Imam Aly publicly denounced. Was
this meeting to welcome Imam Aly back from Hajj? No, but he brought dates for them anyway. Was it to provide him a formal performance
review for the first time in his 12 years as Imam at IAGD? No. It
was to tell him with 10 days remaining on his contract that his services were
no longer needed and his contract would not be renewed after it expired. It was payback for the public denunciation
from three years earlier. It was payback
for repeatedly asking the at large GB member if he dissolved the Foundation
like the at large GB member said he would.
One day after
informing Imam Aly that his services were no longer needed at IAGD, the
leadership sent a message to the GB informing them of the same. This message sparked shock and outrage from
the IAGD community. Late that same
evening, concerned about what Imam Aly might say about them during the Jummah
qutba the next day, the IAGD leadership sent Imam Aly an email stating that as
of August 21, 2019, they no longer considered him Imam at IAGD and that he was
to no longer lead prayers, which was his primary obligation as imam. Thus, the IAGD leadership was not content to
simply let his contract expire as they claim.
With 10 days remaining on his contract, Imam Aly was terminated from his
position.
The IAGD President
stated during the BOD meeting on September 8, 2019 that the decision to
terminate Imam Aly was considered for several weeks. Yet, this decision was sprung on Imam Aly 10
days before his contract expired. As
mentioned above, this was not the first time the imam’s contract had
expired. Previously, the gap between the
imam’s contracts was one and a half years.
Based on the disorganized, chaotic manner in which the IAGD leadership
conducted its affairs, the Imam had nothing to be concerned about because of
the impending expiration date of his contract.
The IAGD leadership had proven time and again that they care little for
such formal processes. Also, as
mentioned above, the Imam had never received a formal performance review from
the IAGD leadership. The leadership kept secret, like they did with the
formation of the IAGD Foundation, that the day Imam Aly signed his contract on
September 1, 2017 that they would use that as a basis to terminate him when the
contract expired. They knew, like they
did when they entered Arbitration with the iBOD, that they would wait for a period of years to spring
their trap against their victim. They
did not want Imam Aly to have a dignified transition out of his position where
he could find another without a dark cloud hanging over his head affecting his
future prospects because he was fired.
They wanted to punish him for his insolence in speaking out against
injustice. They wanted to shame him in
front of the IAGD community and the larger Muslim-American community by leaving
it to everyone’s imagination as to why he was terminated because they would not
provide reasons to him nor anyone else.
They wanted to destroy his reputation to keep him from securing another
position while they innocently shrug their shoulders saying that they simply
let his contract expire. They could have
told Imam Aly of their decision months earlier and given him the opportunity to
have a runway to search for and find a new position with dignity. Instead they pulled the rug from under him
dismissing him immediately in the most humiliating manner. Yet, the IAGD leadership has the hubris to accuse
Imam Aly’s supporters of hurting his future prospects by expressing their
displeasure and outrage while it was the IAGD leadership that robbed the imam
of his dignity. This is classic
gaslighting.
To any
organizations looking for an Imam to guide their community, Imam Aly Lela was not terminated for alleged poor
performance. He was terminated for
taking a principled stance against injustice.
To any individuals looking to become involved in a vibrant community led
by principled leaders, do not waste your time with IAGD.
The IAGD leadership
will argue that there is another side to the story. What is the other side to their four-part
plan to destroy the iBOD? What is the
other side to their giving selective importance to employment contracts? What is the other side to their using
baseless lawsuits to force others to bend to their will?
Make no mistake,
the August 21, 2019 meeting with Imam Aly was an ambush. When public humiliation of the community’s
imam is allowed to be treated as routine process by an organization, our
silence makes us as guilty as the IAGD leadership that we empowered.
No comments:
Post a Comment