When the Board President Defies Her Own Board: Did Rada Andrić Protect Three People from Investigation?

St. Sava Cathedral, Parma, Ohio - November 25, 2025

In the Byzantine world of Serbian Orthodox Church politics, betrayal often comes not from enemies, but from those who claim to be on your side.

On November 19, 2025, the Executive Board of St. Sava Serbian Orthodox Cathedral held an emergency meeting attended by over 30 parishioners. The issue before them involved two separate criminal incidents:

Sunday, November 16: Video evidence shows Dragan Knežević destroying security cameras at the church. Present and watching - but doing nothing to stop the vandalism - were Stanka Nikolić (current Board Vice President and Bishop Irinej's kuma) and Marian Derek (Dragan's son-in-law).

Tuesday, November 18: Dragan Knežević and a monk from Marča Monastery entered the church without Board authorization and removed the antimins and other items.

According to those present at the November 19 meeting, the Board voted to file police reports for two separate criminal incidents: vandalism (the November 16 camera destruction) and unauthorized entry and removing objects from the church without Board approval (the November 18 incident).

Seven days later, on November 25, Board President Rada Andrić went to the Parma Police Department.

What she did there raises profound questions about competence, duty, and who she was protecting.

The "Information Only" Checkbox

Police Report #250067401, filed on November 25, 2025, is a public record available from the Parma Police Department. At the bottom of the station report appears a checkbox with the following text:

"Check this box and initial on line if this report is being filed for Insurance purposes or Information only."

According to the police report, Rada Andrić checked that box.

Below it, in standard police department language, appears this warning:

"NOTE: THIS REPORT OF A POLICE INCIDENT IS BEING TAKEN FROM THE REPORTING PERSON AS A CONVENIENCE. IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD THAT NO INVESTIGATION WILL NORMALLY FOLLOW, BUT THE INFORMATION IN THIS REPORT WILL BE ON FILE FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE IT MAY FULFILL."

Read that carefully: NO INVESTIGATION WILL NORMALLY FOLLOW.

What Does This Mean?

Under Ohio law, there is a fundamental difference between:

1. Filing a criminal complaint - This gives police and prosecutors the opportunity to investigate and decide whether criminal charges are warranted

2. Filing for information/insurance only - This creates a record but explicitly prevents investigation

When over 30 parishioners heard the Board vote to file police reports for two criminal incidents, they understood the intent: let law enforcement investigate and decide what charges, if any, should be pursued.

When Rada Andrić checked "information only," she took that decision away from police and prosecutors. She decided for them: no investigation, no charges, no justice.

Perhaps she didn't understand what that checkbox meant.

Perhaps she didn't realize what she was doing.

Perhaps it was simply an unfortunate mistake.

But the result is the same: justice denied.

Who Did This Protect?

Whether intentional or simply incompetent, Rada's filing protected three specific individuals from police investigation:

1. Dragan Knežević - The perpetrator who destroyed the cameras on November 16 and participated in the unauthorized entry on November 18. Without investigation, he faces no consequences for either incident.

2. Stanka Nikolić - Board Vice President, President of Kolo Serbian Sisters, and Bishop Irinej's kuma. Video evidence shows she was present when Dragan destroyed the cameras on November 16. She watched it happen. She did nothing to stop it. She did not report it. As a Board officer with fiduciary duty to protect church property, her failure to act raises serious questions. Questions that police would ask - if there were an investigation.

3. Marian Derek - Dragan's son-in-law, also present on November 16, also watching, also doing nothing. Like Stanka, he would face uncomfortable questions about why he witnessed a crime and failed to intervene or report it - if there were an investigation.

By checking "information only," Rada ensured there would be no investigation. Therefore, no questions.

Coincidence? Or protection?

Perhaps Rada simply didn't understand that her filing would shield these three individuals from scrutiny. Perhaps she didn't realize that police investigation would naturally ask: "Why did two witnesses - including a Board Vice President with legal duty to protect church property - stand by and watch vandalism occur without intervening or reporting it?"

Perhaps it was just incompetence.

But even if we assume the most charitable interpretation - that she simply made a mistake - serious questions remain:

• Should someone who doesn't understand how to properly file a police report be serving as Board President?

• Why did it take her seven days to file after the Board vote?

• Why hasn't she corrected this "mistake" now that the consequences are clear?

• And most importantly: Who does this "mistake" benefit?

The Legal Framework: Who Has Authority Over What?

To understand why this matters, one must understand the legal structure governing St. Sava Cathedral.

Under the Serbian Orthodox Church Constitution (2008):

Yes, you read that correctly. The Bishop's own rulebook - the constitution that defines his authority - contains these provisions:

• Article 11: Church-School Congregations have Executive Boards with authority over local matters

• Article 27: Executive Boards manage parish property

Under Church Bylaws (Article 4, Section 5(c), adopted April 1, 1985):

"Management and use of the property of the Congregation shall fall directly and exclusively to the Executive Board."

What this means:

The Bishop has ecclesiastical authority over spiritual matters: doctrine, liturgy, clergy assignments. But when it comes to church property, even the Bishop's own Church Constitution says the Executive Board has authority.

Not the bishop. The Board.

Under Ohio Nonprofit Corporation Law (ORC 1702):

• Board officers must act in good faith and in the best interests of the organization

• Board officers must execute lawful decisions made by the Board

• Officers who breach fiduciary duty can be held personally liable

Even the Bishop's Own Rules Say He Was Wrong

Perhaps the most damning detail: Bishop Irinej violated his own Church's constitution.

When Dragan Knežević and the monk entered St. Sava Cathedral on November 18 "on the Bishop's orders," they were violating:

1. Serbian Orthodox Church Constitution (2008) - Articles 11 and 27 explicitly give property authority to Executive Boards, not bishops

2. St. Sava Church Bylaws (1985) - Article 4, Section 5(c) states property management falls "directly and exclusively" to the Executive Board

3. Ohio Criminal Law - Trespass (§2911.21) and Theft (§2913.02) statutes

The Bishop had no excuse. His own constitution told him the proper procedure: go through the Executive Board.

The Church Bylaws told him the proper procedure: go through the Executive Board.

Ohio law told him the proper procedure: you can't send people to commit crimes just because you're a bishop.

He ignored all three.

And when the Executive Board voted to file police reports for the resulting criminal acts, Rada Andrić checked a box that ensured no one would investigate whether the Bishop ordered his subordinates to violate:

• His own Church Constitution

• The parish bylaws

• Ohio criminal law

Perhaps she didn't understand that she was protecting violations of church law, civil law, and criminal law all at once.

Perhaps she simply made a mistake.

But the result is the same: A bishop who violated his own rules faces no investigation. A man who destroyed cameras faces no consequences. And a community is left wondering what laws still apply when everyone who breaks them is protected by a single checkbox.

What Crimes Were Committed:

November 16, 2025:

• Criminal Damaging (Ohio §2909.06) - Destruction of four security cameras

• Estimated damage: $2,000-4,000

• If damage exceeds $1,000, this is a felony

• Video evidence documents the crime

• Two eyewitnesses (Stanka Nikolić and Marian Derek) watched it happen

November 18, 2025:

• Criminal Trespass (Ohio §2911.21) - Unauthorized entry without Board permission

• Theft/Conversion (Ohio §2913.02) - Removal of antimins and other property without Board authorization

• Photographic evidence documents the incident

• Two eyewitnesses saw the unauthorized entry and removal

These are violations of Ohio criminal law. It doesn't matter who ordered them. It doesn't matter what ecclesiastical authority claims to exist. Criminal law applies to everyone, including bishops and their agents.

The Seven-Day Delay

The timeline raises additional questions:

• November 16: Vandalism occurs

• November 18: Unauthorized entry occurs

• November 19: Board votes to file police reports

• November 25: Rada finally files - as "information only"

Seven days passed between the Board vote and the filing. Why?

Was Rada consulting with someone about how to file? If so, who gave her advice to check "information only"?

Was she hoping the incidents would be forgotten?

Was she conflicted about following the Board's decision?

We don't know. But seven days is a long time to delay executing a straightforward Board decision, especially when the Board's intent was clear to over 30 witnesses.

What the Board Can Do

Under Ohio nonprofit corporation law, when a Board President fails to properly execute a Board decision, several remedies exist:

1. Removal from Office The Board can vote to remove an officer who refuses or fails to execute Board decisions properly.

2. Correction by Other Officers Any board member can file a proper police complaint on behalf of the organization. The Board President does not have exclusive authority to represent the corporation to law enforcement.

3. Personal Liability Officers who breach fiduciary duty can be held personally liable for damages caused by their breach.

The question is whether the Board will act, or whether they will allow this "mistake" to stand.

The Antimins: What Was Really Stolen - And What Else?

For those unfamiliar with Orthodox Christianity, context is necessary.

The antimins is not merely "church property." It is a consecrated cloth containing relics of martyrs, signed by the bishop, without which the Divine Liturgy cannot be celebrated.

Its removal without proper Board authorization has two effects:

Spiritual Effect: The cathedral cannot celebrate liturgy, effectively shutting down the church for worship.

Legal Effect: Under Ohio law, unauthorized entry and removal of property is criminal trespass and theft, regardless of who ordered it or what ecclesiastical authority claims to exist.

But here's what should terrify the parish community:

When Dragan Knežević entered the church on November 18, photographic evidence shows him carrying TWO LARGE BOXES. He claimed they contained "candle wax waste."

Do we believe him?

But that's not the most troubling part.

Photographs of the monk's car trunk reveal THREE ADDITIONAL LARGE BOXES already loaded inside.

Five boxes total.

Five boxes removed from the church.

Dragan claims his two boxes contained "candle wax waste." But what about the three boxes already loaded in the trunk? What's in those? Who can verify their contents?

And most troubling of all: What did they remove BEFORE witnesses arrived at the scene?

How much time elapsed between their unauthorized entry and when they were discovered? What else did they take during that window? What else is missing from the church that parishioners don't even know about yet?

This is a man who:

• Destroyed security cameras to hide his actions

• Committed illegal entry into a house of worship

• Removed the most sacred object in Orthodox Christianity

• Did all of this 48 hours after eliminating video surveillance

What else was in those boxes?

What else is missing from the church that parishioners don't even know about yet?

What did he take? What did he plant?

With no working cameras and no investigation, we may never know.

A Dangerous Pattern: What Comes Next?

Consider Dragan Knežević's demonstrated capabilities:

✓ He destroys evidence (cameras) before committing crimes

✓ He plans in advance (48 hours between camera destruction and entry)

✓ He commits illegal entry without hesitation

✓ He removes sacred items without remorse

✓ He carries mysterious boxes and lies about their contents

✓ He operates with apparent confidence that he'll face no consequences

Now ask yourself:

What is his next move?

Who will he target next?

Will he frame peaceful parishioners for crimes he commits? After all, with no working cameras, who can prove what really happened? If he's willing to destroy surveillance and commit illegal entry, what's to stop him from planting evidence to implicate others?

Who can trust this man near the church ever again?

Someone who has shown willingness to:

• Destroy church property

• Violate sacred space

• Remove holy objects

• Deceive about his actions

• Operate under cover of destroyed surveillance

...is someone capable of anything.

And by checking "information only," Rada Andrić ensured this individual faces:

• No investigation into his past actions

• No consequences for his crimes

• No scrutiny of what else he may have taken or planted

• No barrier to whatever he plans to do next

Perhaps Rada didn't realize she was protecting a threat to the community.

Perhaps she didn't understand that someone willing to destroy evidence and commit crimes doesn't stop at one incident.

Perhaps she didn't consider that the man she shielded from investigation might strike again - and next time, who will his target be?

But ignorance doesn't make the community safer.

It makes them more vulnerable to whatever Dragan Knežević does next.

The Questions No One Can Answer

Because Rada filed "information only" and prevented investigation, these questions will never be answered:

• What was really in those two large boxes?

• What else is missing from the church?

• Did he plant anything to frame someone else?

• Who gave him the keys for November 18 entry?

• Who else knew about his plans?

• What is he planning next?

• Who will be his next target?

Police could have investigated. Police could have asked these questions. Police could have searched those boxes, inventoried the church, and determined what else might be missing or planted.

But Rada Andrić checked a box that prevented all of that.

The community is left to wonder: What else did Dragan take? What else might he do? And most troubling of all - who will he try to blame for his next actions?

With no surveillance cameras and no investigation, he operates in the shadows.

And in the shadows, dangerous men can do dangerous things.

Can a Board President Simply Refuse to Execute a Board Decision?

This is not a rhetorical question. It is a legal question with legal consequences.

Under Ohio law (ORC 1702.30), corporate officers have a duty of care and duty of loyalty to the corporation. This includes:

• Acting in good faith

• Acting in the best interests of the corporation

• Executing decisions made by the Board in lawful meetings

When a Board votes unanimously - with over 30 witnesses present - to file police reports for criminal incidents, and the Board President files in a manner that prevents investigation, has she fulfilled her duty?

Even if we assume she simply didn't understand what "information only" means, ignorance doesn't eliminate the duty. A Board President who doesn't understand basic police procedures has failed in her responsibility to competently execute Board decisions.

In Serbian, We Have a Saying

"S kim si, takav si" - "Show me your company, and I'll tell you who you are."

The facts are not in dispute:

✓ Video evidence shows Dragan destroying cameras while Stanka and Marian watched (November 16)

✓ Photographic evidence shows unauthorized entry and removal of items (November 18)

✓ Over 30 parishioners witnessed the Board vote to file for two criminal incidents (November 19)

✓ Police Report #250067401 shows "information only" box checked (November 25)

✓ Seven days elapsed between Board vote and filing

✓ Stanka is Bishop Irinej's kuma (publicly known)

✓ The filing protects Dragan, Stanka, and Marian from investigation (undeniable result)

These are provable, documented facts. The inferences readers draw from these facts are their own to make.

A Question of Duty

Perhaps Rada Andrić faced a difficult choice:

On one side: Her duty as Board President to execute the Board's unanimous decision and allow justice to proceed.

On the other side Stanka would face uncomfortable questions if police investigated properly.

Perhaps she chose friendship over duty.

Or perhaps she simply didn't understand what she was doing.

Either way, the result is the same: Justice denied. Three individuals protected from investigation. A Board decision contradicted.

And a community left wondering: Can we trust our Board President to execute our decisions, or will personal loyalties always come first?

What Happens Next?

The question now is not whether crimes occurred. Video evidence, photographic evidence, and eyewitness testimony document what happened on both November 16 and November 18.

The question is whether these crimes will be properly investigated and whether those responsible will face consequences.

Rada Andrić's filing method attempted to answer that question with a single checkbox: No investigation. No consequences. No justice.

But here's what Rada may not have considered:

Justice need not remain denied forever.

Under Ohio law, any witness to a crime can file a police report. And there are witnesses:

• Two eyewitnesses watched Dragan Knežević destroy cameras on November 16: Stanka Nikolić (Board Vice President, Bishop's kuma) and Marian Derek (Dragan's son-in-law). They watched but did nothing. Either of them could file a proper report - though doing so would require explaining why they stood by and watched.

• Two eyewitnesses saw the unauthorized entry on November 18 when Dragan and Monk Sava removed items from the church without Board approval. Either of them could walk into the Parma Police Department tomorrow and file a proper criminal complaint.

• Over 30 parishioners attended the November 19 Board meeting and heard the Board vote to file police reports for both criminal incidents. Any one of them could file on behalf of the church community.

Any one of these individuals can file a proper criminal complaint - one that does NOT check the "information only" box. One that gives police and prosecutors the opportunity to investigate, to ask questions, to determine what charges are warranted, and to pursue justice.

The question is: Who will step forward first?

Will it be one of the eyewitnesses to the November 16 vandalism - finally willing to do what they should have done immediately: report a crime?

Will it be one of the eyewitnesses to the November 18 unauthorized entry - ready to give police the full story of what was taken and who ordered it?

Will it be one of the 30+ parishioners who heard the Board vote and knows that Rada's filing betrayed that vote?

Rada Andrić may believe that by checking "information only," she closed the door on investigation.

But she only closed one door. There are many others still open.

And somewhere, someone is deciding whether to walk through one of them.

The individuals who destroyed cameras, committed trespass, and removed sacred items may sleep soundly tonight, believing Rada's filing has protected them.

Stanka Nikolić and Marian Derek may rest easy, thinking their failure to intervene or report will never be questioned.

But they should remember: Witnesses exist. Evidence exists. Justice delayed is not justice denied.

It's just justice waiting for someone to demand it.

Epilogue: Questions for Rada Andrić

If Board President Rada Andrić believes any factual statement in this article is inaccurate, she is invited to provide documentation correcting the record.

If she believes she had good reason to check "information only" contrary to the Board's vote to file for two criminal incidents, she is invited to explain that reason publicly.

If she believes her seven-day delay was reasonable, she is invited to explain what required a week to execute a straightforward Board decision.

If she believes the protection her filing afforded to Dragan Knežević, Stanka Nikolić, and Marian Derek was unintentional, she is invited to correct her filing immediately.

The parish deserves answers.

The Board deserves competent execution of its decisions.

And justice deserves better than a checkbox marked "information only."

Documentation Available

• Police Report #250067401 (public record, Parma Police Department)

• Video recording of November 16 camera destruction (shows Dragan's actions, Stanka and Marian watching)

• Photographic evidence of November 18 unauthorized entry and removal

• Testimony of 30+ witnesses to November 19 Board vote

• Serbian Orthodox Church Constitution (2008) - Articles 11 and 27

• St. Sava Church Bylaws, Article 4, Section 5(c) (Board's exclusive property authority)

All factual statements in this article are based on documentary evidence, public records, video recordings, or eyewitness testimony available for verification.

Police Report Reference: Parma Police Department Report #250067401, filed November 25, 2025

"Justice delayed is not justice denied. It's just justice waiting for someone to demand it."