Asi Hearings Re: 3abn, Proposed Conditions Options

[sister]

At the suggestion of a member of Maritime, who requested not to be named, I am posting the following topic here at BSDA. It should prove to be quite an interesting read.

Gailon gave his permission for this to be posted. (at Maritime)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Proposed Foundation for hearings in re: 3ABN.
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:59:31 +0000
From: (G. Arthur Joy)
To: (Harold Lance, Esq)
CC: (Linda Shelton), (Gregory Matthews)

Harold Lance, Esq:

This is Linda's response to Gloria's initial inquiry. It is Linda's position that certainly some issues would be best addressed by a fair and honest panel, to achieve clarity and an open understanding by those who continue to wonder just what was the story? The process should be conclusive and cathartic and therefore available for all to SDA's everywhere to see, hear and read. Only this open process will bring closure to this festering issue.

This is to begin discussions...any thoughts, concerns, additions or just observations are clearly welcome. Linda's team and I have serious concerns regarding your neutrality and need clarification regarding your position, particularly as you have served as a past ASI President during the history of support for 3ABN.

There have also been certain representation by Danny and Walt that would suggest ASI and yourself are not as "neutral" as we would prefer you to be. This should be addressed and clarified for the record. If this process is a waste of time then we need to move on.

We are certain that the record will exonerate Linda and indict Danny, in some cases 3ABN as an entity, other cases 3ABN's board, and in at least two cases, ASI policy relating to the governance and accountability as well as the taking of tithes by ASI members. These issues need to be resolved for the best benefit of the church, ASI and SDA members everywhere. To pretentiously close the door to continued discovery and
the open provision of certain documentation is an "obstruction of due process" and in some cases is a violation of their 501©3 Non-profit status as an entity that solicits funds from the public. Therefore, we would request that some items, such as board minutes and financial data are available for immediate viewing. Other information and inquiries should continue to be simply answered.

Also, the "purported evidence" that is the basis for 3ABN allegations nearly three years ago should be made fully available as quickly as possible in the process for the defender to prepare a proper defense. I am certain you understand the need for this fairness doctrine as a matter of due process. And it is the minimum requirement for the process to go forward. I just don't know what it is they are finding so essential to hold under lock and key, but perhaps you could act as an "in camera" magistrate on this "purported evidence" that has so mystified so many for so long and Mollie Steenson purportedly controls.

3ABN and Linda both have claimed to be proponents of openness and transparency and the hearings should meet this fundamental standard or there is simply no purpose to the process. Every SDA has a vital interest in the outcome, as does ASI and it's membership. They are entitled to have access to the record, the findings, the recommendations and to know the implementation of those recommendations, particularly as it affects the "stock-holders in the pews" and the future of SDA Media ministries.

We await your responses with baited breathe in anticipation of an ecclesiastical process that will work for all the party's in interest. If you have any inquiry of Linda, her e-mail address is listed above and feel free to communicate any questions directly to Linda. You will find her hospitable and a woman of great faith. Worthy of communication!!!

Legend: Red is the proposed additions by Linda's team;
Blue are the recommended deletions by Linda's team;
Black italics were the recommended changes by Gloria
The other is apparently transcriptions of Gloria to Linda on behalf of ASI or yourself.

Gloria's proposal with Linda's proposed changes is presented below:

The italics part was my [Gloria's] suggestion, but in talking to Harold the second time, he said that he felt my suggestions could be incorporated without stating them as I did. He especially felt that if any non-Christians were interviewed, they might not want prayer. That seems reasonable to me. If God wants the prayer times spelled out, He can intervene. I've seen that for sure.

ASI has been asked to develop a process for addressing issues between 3ABN and some of its personnel, past and present, specifically including, but not limited to, the appropriateness of the divorce of Danny Shelton and Linda Shelton and the remarriage of Danny Shelton. The matter has been addressed by the ASI Executive Committee who has authorized the further exploration of the possibility for its involvement in the process. The Committee has asked that Harold Lance explore further and report back (by what date?) with recommendations. What do you envision the timeline for this process, what additional issues will be included, and how much time do you intend to set aside for this tribunal?

The following are some preliminary proposed considerations for a process of inquiry to be discussed by the ASI Executive Committee and later to be submitted to 3ABN, Danny and Linda Shelton (and what other parties?) for their consideration:

1. A five person panel shall be selected from a pool of qualified panelists to be presented by the ASI panel to the parties for consideration and background inquiry (voir dire questions) regarding potential conflicts or bias (group of five persons to consider the issues will be selected by ASI, with input from the parties,) and will not include the current or past officers, directors or leadership past or present of ASI.

The gender representation of the group will have no more than 3 men and no less than two. The same is true for women. The persons chosen will be selected for their reputation of fairness, integrity, spirituality and their lack of any stake in the outcome. When first selected, each person of said group will be set aside in a prayer of anointing for wisdom, discernment and power over evil, in full measure by the Holy Spirit. Each person is to verbally and in writing accept the
responsibility (and confidentiality) as outlined herein. He/She will pledge to pray daily until the meeting takes place for personal purification and baptism of the Holy Spirit.

2. The place of the meetings to be at a neutral site in the "area." (we need a definition of "the area")

3. The costs associated with the process will be paid by 3ABN.

4. 3ABN, Linda Shelton, and Danny Shelton and other parties will be contacted for their input on the process and on basic ground rules prior to selecting a panel for the issues to be addressed; Also need clarity regarding what issues the panel will be allowed to hear, who will be defining the complaints to be discussed and for what period of time?
5. Each side will state in writing what they consider the
complaints to be addressed, (issues are) and that need resolution and a brief (their belief) as to the facts related to those charges, allegations, concerns or issues and the damages or proposals to be considered, and will self discover and make available any evidence to be brought into the tribunal with an explanation of it's import or relevance to the specific issue being addressed with the brief or as discovered thereafter but not more than fifteen days prior to the hearing on the matter?.

6. Each side will state in writing what they think would be a proper outcome on the issues.

7. The meetings will start with a group prayer of all persons
involved: each party, witnesses and ASI (Group) PANEL members. The meetings will be conducted in a closed door session when appropriate under the executive session rules, however, in keeping with the rule of openness and transparency a written report of the issues, evidence, facts established and findings with recommendations and actions taken to implement those proposals or ecommendations within 30 days of the completion of the hearing on an issue or issues and shall be made available for public review. A transcription by recordation shall be available to each party upon completion of the hearings. (The meetings will be private, not recorded nor open to the public.) The members of the (Group) Panel may take notes. (Said notes will be purged after completion of the process.) The parties will not be involved in a process of public discussion, through email messages, news releases or announcements on matters related to the process during the hearings. Only the entire report, findings and recommendations of the panel can be referenced after the hearings by any party. A copy of report of the issues, evidence, facts established and findings with recommendations and actions taken to implement those proposals or recommendations and the transcript by recordation, shall be available to each SDA college / university heritage room 30 days after the completion of the hearings. This is essential to guarantee the objectivity and fairness of the panel, it'**s findings, its recommendations and that the church may be satisfied or clearly dissatisfied that the recommendations were properly implemented and can carry forward whatever discipline is deemed necessary based upon the actual record. This is in keeping with the principal of openness and transparency and is vital as the entire SDA church has a substantial interest in the matters being considered.

8. Each side may have a representative(s) present during the taking of information. Only panel members may be present (but not) during the Panel'**s (group'**s) deliberations. The representative will not be a lawyer or one acting as an advocate but as presenters, counselors and a facilitator(s) of the various issues and the process and will be identified to ASI in advance in writing by the party. The person selected will be the person who will work with Harold Lance, on behalf of ASI, in arranging the details of the process. (No volunteers orintermeddlers will participate in the meeting processes involved in making arrangements.)

9. There will be prepared in advance a defined schedule for the
proceedings and the sequence of the process with input from the parties.

10.The questionings of persons or witnesses brought in for information on issues will be done first by the representative, party or presenter to introduce the matter at issue, the testimony of the witness and the supporting evidence, then can be questioned by the other representative or party to the issue and then by the panel by the ASI Group moderated by its Chairperson, (not by the parties or their representatives). Clarification rebuttal questions may be asked by the presenter and the respondent in that order following completion of the panel's questions.

The panel can then ask questions relating to the clarification questions raised. The parties or their representatives will have opportunity to submit to the ASI group written suggestion areas of inquiry. (And what if the panel has no idea what to ask or decides not to ask the questions proposed by a party? Just what appellate process would preserve the integrity of the process?)

11. Any party wishing to furnish written documentation for consideration should do so with the delivery of their written statements. Any additional information should be made available as soon as practicable for each issue to be considered but must be presented not less than fifteen (will have seven) days in advance of the meeting to furnish a copy to ASI for distribution to each party. (Is any other information treated as In Limine evidence? And what if an issue is raised by surprise at the hearing, by what process is the right to challenge the surprise to be preserved?)

12. Before the scheduled meeting, each party will submit to the Group a list of persons they plan to present and a factual summary of expected information. The Group will pray with each party and "witness" for clarity of mind, pureness of heart and openness to God before his testimony is heard. (Will witnesses be "sworn in" and under oath?)

13. The purpose of the process will be to bring clarity and truth founded upon the principal of openness and transparency based upon factually accurate information, to publish findings of facts, to make recommendations and to preserve the record of the hearings and do so with perceived guidance from the Holy Spirit. The meetings will not be as a court trial.

----------------------------------------------------

When all parties are done presenting their information, the Panel (Group) will have prayer for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and begin deliberations. Upon completion of the process, the Panel will promptly issue a written statement to ASI and the parties as to its factual findings and upon those findings define suggested recommendations for the "parties," as ASI recognizes it does not have authority to order or award anything. The value of the process for the parties will be that an independent, fair-minded panel will give its best judgment as to the truth of the matters under consideration and recommendations for resolution of the issues.

(So we are avoiding binding arbitration on the issues here? Again, what is the purpose and value of this process if there is to be no change based upon the "recommendations" and the respective parties do not need to comply with the findings? Is this a wise process if it is not to be final and binding upon the parties? Don't we already have a load of "statements" "recommendations", including "ecclesiastical" declarations that are completely out of order!!! And why would 3ABN waste the time and money upon such a process that is not binding and how is it of value to the SDA Church body?)

Frankly, I am concerned with the value of this process and would like real clarity of just what the 3ABN board has specifically authorized -- i.e.: I would like to see the actual request from the 3ABN board to determine their purpose and intention, including actual intention regarding recommendations and breadth of topics to be considered.

I am also not certain you have any grasp of the number of issues we had requested that ASI take into consideration. It would probably be wise to brief you regarding the issues we intend to address, and you could better consider the value of the process and to what issues you feel it would appropriate for the ASI Panel.

Gailon Arthur Joy on behalf of Linda Shelton

BE IT KNOWN TO ALL INVOLVED that God alone is the "Restorer of the Breach." By accepting this assignment as "liaison," ASI is but a tool in the hand of God to accomplish His purpose. May His name be exalted as a result of this process

======

Post reformatted for easier reading. Also changed the colour from light blue to blue, also for easier reading. - Daryl

Edited by Daryl Fawcett (Yesterday at 09:34 PM)

[Brenda]

"We are certain that the record will exonerate Linda and indict Danny, in some cases 3ABN as an entity, other cases 3ABN's board, and in at least two cases, ASI policy relating to the governance and accountability as well as the taking of tithes by ASI members. These issues need to be resolved for the best benefit of the church, ASI and SDA members everywhere. "

Is it wise to state the anticipated outcome of an enquiry before it has run its course?

Just wondering, I have no vested interest either way and considerable sympathy for Linda and all she has gone through.

[sister]

"We are certain that the record will exonerate Linda and indict Danny, in some cases 3ABN as an entity, other cases 3ABN's board, and in at least two cases, ASI policy relating to the governance and accountability as well as the taking of tithes by ASI members. These issues need to be resolved for the best benefit of the church, ASI and SDA members everywhere. "

Is it wise to state the anticipated outcome of an enquiry before it has run its course?

Just wondering, I have no vested interest either way and considerable sympathy for Linda and all she has gone through.

I have had contact with the Invesgative team and in my opinion, the above supposition is based upon evidence that has been gathered from a number of sources and the lack of evidence provided by Danny Shelton to support his allegations.

[Johann]

"We are certain that the record will exonerate Linda and indict Danny, in some cases 3ABN as an entity, other cases 3ABN's board, and in at least two cases, ASI policy relating to the governance and accountability as well as the taking of tithes by ASI members. These issues need to be resolved for the best benefit of the church, ASI and SDA members everywhere. "

Is it wise to state the anticipated outcome of an enquiry before it has run its course?

Just wondering, I have no vested interest either way and considerable sympathy for Linda and all she has gone through.

These are merely the base issues that need to be dealt with. Why go around the bush?

[Brenda]

These are merely the base issues that need to be dealt with. Why go around the bush?

I have no problems with stating the issues explicitly. I just wondered whether the outcome should be presumed before the process is complete - whether or not the opinion is based on perusal of the evidence.

[awesumtenor]

I have no problems with stating the issues explicitly. I just wondered whether the outcome should be presumed before the process is complete - whether or not the opinion is based on perusal of the evidence.

I don't believe the outcome has been presumed so much as confidence has been expressed that an objective examination of the record will lead to the conclusion noted...

BTJM.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Johann]

I have no problems with stating the issues explicitly. I just wondered whether the outcome should be presumed before the process is complete - whether or not the opinion is based on perusal of the evidence.

Would you prefer a diffuse opinion? All secret? No report - like some have suggsted?

This post has been edited by Johann: Nov 30 2006, 12:35 PM

[Brenda]

Would you prefer a diffuse opinion? All secret? No report - like some have suggsted?

In a hypothetical situation, if I heard someone with knowledge expressing a strong opinion about the outcome of an investigation, I would have some queries about the impartiality of the process. If J Bloggs on the street with no inside knowledge states an opinion, clearly that is just it - his opinion.

I believe the aim in this investigation is to reveal facts and end -in so far as possible - the mudslinging and such behaviour, and to let 3ABN get on with its work, and to let Linda get on with her life.

My statement is just my opinion - but I would not like to see the credibility of the findings of this group/panel/tribunal reduced because there are purported reasons to doubt its impartiality. And if the findings are favourable to Linda and less than flattering to the other parties, there will not be any shortage of persons wanting to denigrate the integrity of the investigation.

That is how I read it - not trying to be alarmist, just realistic.

[inga]

In a hypothetical situation, if I heard someone with knowledge expressing a strong opinion about the outcome of an investigation, I would have some queries about the impartiality of the process.

I believe you are not understanding this post:
Gailon Joy is not acting as an impartial party but as an advocate of reform and an advocate of Linda. He stated his opinion of the outcome of the investigation, based upon the evidence he has gathered. Note that the remarks you quote are in the introduction to the proposal, not the proposal itself.

I believe the aim in this investigation is to reveal facts and end -in so far as possible - the mudslinging and such behaviour, and to let 3ABN get on with its work, and to let Linda get on with her life.

My statement is just my opinion - but I would not like to see the credibility of the findings of this group/panel/tribunal reduced because there are purported reasons to doubt its impartiality.

The proposal is intended to insure the impartiality of the investigation and full disclosure. Please read the proposal itself, noting that it is a separate document from the introductory remarks of Gailon Joy who is not now impartial, any more than Danny is. That neither Danny and his advocates nor Linda and her advocates are "impartial" has nothing to do with the impartiality of the investigation. If both Linda and Danny were "impartial," no investigation would be required.

This post has been edited by inga: Dec 1 2006, 07:16 AM

[simplysaved]

What you have posted is a contradiction to impartiality and fairness....Brenda has spoken well; in order for there to be fairness and impartiality one has to be open to hearing all of the facts without a bias--much the same as jury duty.

Gailon Joy can be a reporter and have a bias, but not IMO be a true objective investigator to the facts, based on what you have stated in your post.

I believe you are not understanding this post:
Gailon Joy is not acting as an impartial party but as an advocate of reform and an advocate of Linda. He stated his opinion of the outcome of the investigation, based upon the evidence he has gathered. Note that the remarks you quote are in the introduction to the proposal, not the proposal itself.
The proposal is intended to insure the impartiality of the investigation and full disclosure. Please read the proposal itself, noting that it is a separate document from the introductory remarks of Gailon Joy who is not now impartial, any more than Danny is. That neither Danny and his advocates nor Linda and her advocates are "impartial" has nothing to do with the impartiality of the investigation. If both Linda and Danny were "impartial," no investigation would be required.

[awesumtenor]

What you have posted is a contradiction to impartiality and fairness....Brenda has spoken well; in order for there to be fairness and impartiality one has to be open to hearing all of the facts without a bias--much the same as jury duty.

Gailon Joy can be a reporter and have a bias, but not IMO be a true objective investigator to the facts, based on what you have stated in your post.

This from one who has consistently demonstrated being either unwilling or unable to look at any of this situation objectively.... to such an extent that you've advocated ignoring the allegations, even if true...where, exactly, was the impartiality and fairness in that?

In His service,
Mr. J

[awesumtenor]

In a hypothetical situation, if I heard someone with knowledge expressing a strong opinion about the outcome of an investigation, I would have some queries about the impartiality of the process. If J Bloggs on the street with no inside knowledge states an opinion, clearly that is just it - his opinion.

You've obviously never listend to the opening arguments for a jury trial in America then... where both sides express strong opinions about the outcome of an investigation... that is, ultimately, what juries do... they examine and investigate the evidence presented before them and attempt to come up with a collective conclusion... would you say, then, that by both the plaintiff and the defense's stating for the record what they believe the evidence will show and what conclusion they believe the jury should come to based on the evidence that will be presented that the process is irrevocably made subjective?

If you have read the letters from Walt Thompson and the emails from Danny, both have stated unequivocally that if one knew what they knew, he would believe what they were saying... how is that any different that what Gailon Joy has stated? Have not both sides made the same claim... just as one would find in a jury trial?

In His service,
Mr. J

[Observer]

My comments are not in response to one post, but to several that have been made:

1) GAJ began his search for truth believing that Linda was guilty, at least to some degree, and that Danny was Biblically correct in divorcing her. In his search for truth, he changed his mind. He now takes a different position. Because he has clearly taken a position, as have I, and others, it can be truthfully said that he (we) may not be objective, and may have a bias. I understand that position, and I do not debate it. But, in this mess that are a lot of people, on both sides, who are in the same situation. But, it should be remembered that if we are not objective, and if we do have a bias, we still may be on a search for truth, and we may very well be willing to follow in whatever direction that truth leads us.

NOTE: The dictionary does not define "bias" in a manner that says it is inflexable, and not subject to change.

2) I think sometimes we underestimate the effort that is required to bring the various sides to this mess to a common meeting where progress can be made in resolving the isseus. Here are some of what all involved parties must agree upon:

a) The issues to be considered.

The several parties have differing ideas as to what would be proper for any resolution panel to consider. On the simplist of illustrations: Should it be limited to marital issues, or expand beyond those? Actually this issue is much more complicated than I have mentioned here.

The aim.

Is the aim to establish facts, and issue recommendations, or is it to issue a binding decision as to how reconcillation may be accomplished? Part of this is a second question as to whether or not the parties should be allowed to take their issues to other bodies to include civil authorities. This issue is critical, and one aspect of it is whether or not there are issues that need resolution that can be resolved by this process. Actually there are parties on several sides of this mess who believe that some issues can only be resolved by civil autlhorites.

c) The process.

In simplicy, this is simply the question as to how any body would conduct its business as it fulfills its aim, whatever that may be.

NOTE: I believe that there are honest and sincre people on all sides of this mess. I believe that I cannot automaticly assume that one who objects to something in this discussion is simply attempting to obstruct the process. The above three questions are critical, and honest people may differ on the answers to those questions. It issue simply is: Can a process be crafted in which all parties can agree?

The discussions as to how to impliment a process to resolve issues must go on in private, and cannot become a public discussion. I do not intend to get into such. I am only speaking here in generalities in an attempt to help you to see that it is exceedingly complex. In my personal relitationship to the process (I am involved.) I have gone through the following stages:

1) I have beleived that an agreement could be reached by which some benefit could be gained. However, I did not believe that everyghing could be resolved. I have questioned as to whether or not agreement could be obtained by all involved parties.

2) I have been cynical in regard to anything being accomplished.

3) I have been encouraged to see people, on all sides of the issues, continue to work very hard to come up with some kind of an agreement that would be of some benefit. As a result, I have not given up hope that good may be accomplished, and I wait to see how it developes.

Folks, people are working very hard with people who differ with them to come into an agreement.

[Brenda]

OK, each has a different take on this. And I have not listened to the opening addresses in American trials - or Australian for that matter, I was just writing from my perception. If these posts represent the way the majority reads this issue, so be it.

The important thing is for an investigation seen as fair and impartial to proceed.




(And where is that little guy retiring behind the couch with his blankey, when I need him? )

[simplysaved]

Agreed.

OK, each has a different take on this. And I have not listened to the opening addresses in American trials - or Australian for that matter, I was just writing from my perception. If these posts represent the way the majority reads this issue, so be it.

The important thing is for an investigation seen as fair and impartial to proceed.
(And where is that little guy retiring behind the couch with his blankey, when I need him? )

This post has been edited by simplysaved: Dec 1 2006, 01:00 PM