Can One Defy The 3abn Board & Get Away With It?, Linda, Tommy, Danny, & Brandy Options

[Pickle]

A new page has been posted at http://www.Save3ABN.com/. http://www.save3abn.com/danny-shelton-ethi...y-the-board.htm

A couple issues appear to be raised on that page, based on a statement by Dr. Walt Thompson:

• Linda was terminated for defying the board, but in what way she defied the board remains unclear.
• Danny has apparently defied the board on more than one occasion, and is still employed by 3ABN.

Two examples regarding the latter are given:

• After the board voted not to pay Brandy Elswick, Danny funneled money to her anyway through another non-profit.
• After the board determined that Tommy could no longer work at 3ABN in the early 1990's, he got to work for them anyway on a contract basis.

I think there are three sources for the first example, since Brandy did not keep it a secret what was going on.

Anyone have any information that would help counter this latest material from http://www.Save3ABN.com/? Any examples of board directives that Linda defied? Copies of board minutes authorizing continued "employment" by Tommy Shelton? Copies of board minutes authorizing funneling of money to Brandy Elswick through that other non-profit?

By the way, how does one get copies of the board minutes? I've been wondering that for a long time. In a church setting, you just ask the church clerk and she would get them for you, but I don't know what to do in this situation.

This post has been edited by Pickle: Mar 28 2007, 05:45 PM

[Noahswife]

By the way, how does one get copies of the board minutes? I've been wondering that for a long time. In a church setting, you just ask the church clerk and she would get them for you, but I don't know what to do in this situation.

I was not sure about the answer so my quick research confirmed what I thought was true...

Q: Do we have to open our board meetings to the public?

A. No. Private nonprofit corporations generally are not subject to state open meeting and record laws, typically known as "sunshine laws," that apply to governmental or quasi-governmental bodies, such as school boards. Such laws do not cover nonprofit corporations that are public charities and not controlled by a government entity.

http://www.probonopartner.org/publications...te%20Governance

I have not researched this extensively but I doubt they are required to produce them.

However, the same website also says the following about another issue that has been discussed here regarding duel roles:

Q. IS the Executive Director of our organization allowed to sit on the board of directors?

A. There is nothing per se illegal or impermissible about an executive director also serving as a member of a not-for-profit’s board of directors. Under such circumstances, however, it is highly advisable that the organization have a conflict of interest policy to ensure that the no director (including the executive director) will participate in any votes on issues where she, her relatives or related entities stand to benefit. Many organizations choose to avoid the issue all together by having a policy prohibiting the executive director from serving as a voting board member. Under these circumstances, the executive director is usually invited to attend all board meetings in her staff capacity and to keep the board apprised of all important programmatic, financial and administrative developments but has no right to vote and can be excluded when the board goes into executive session.

This post has been edited by Noahswife: Mar 28 2007, 08:39 PM

[Seraphim7]

However, the same website also says the following about another issue that has been discussed here regarding duel roles:

Q. IS the Executive Director of our organization allowed to sit on the board of directors?

A. There is nothing per se illegal or impermissible about an executive director also serving as a member of a not-for-profit’s board of directors. Under such circumstances, however, it is highly advisable that the organization have a conflict of interest policy to ensure that the no director (including the executive director) will participate in any votes on issues where she, her relatives or related entities stand to benefit. Many organizations choose to avoid the issue all together by having a policy prohibiting the executive director from serving as a voting board member. Under these circumstances, the executive director is usually invited to attend all board meetings in her staff capacity and to keep the board apprised of all important programmatic, financial and administrative developments but has no right to vote and can be excluded when the board goes into executive session.

Hmmm, interesting...

[Noahswife]

Hmmm, interesting...

It does make me wonder even more about the book purchase and distribution among other things.

[PeacefulBe]

NW,
This IS very interesting. It also makes complete sense in that it allows a board of directors to keep their decisions focused on the health of the business instead of getting tainted by the personalilty or personal problems of the Executive Director.

[wwjd]

A new page has been posted at http://www.Save3ABN.com/. http://www.save3abn.com/danny-shelton-ethi...y-the-board.htm

A couple issues appear to be raised on that page, based on a statement by Dr. Walt Thompson:

• Linda was terminated for defying the board, but in what way she defied the board remains unclear.
• Danny has apparently defied the board on more than one occasion, and is still employed by 3ABN.

Two examples regarding the latter are given:

• After the board voted not to pay Brandy Elswick, Danny funneled money to her anyway through another non-profit.
• After the board determined that Tommy could no longer work at 3ABN in the early 1990's, he got to work for them anyway on a contract basis.

I think there are three sources for the first example, since Brandy did not keep it a secret what was going on.

Anyone have any information that would help counter this latest material from http://www.Save3ABN.com/? Any examples of board directives that Linda defied? Copies of board minutes authorizing continued "employment" by Tommy Shelton? Copies of board minutes authorizing funneling of money to Brandy Elswick through that other non-profit?

By the way, how does one get copies of the board minutes? I've been wondering that for a long time. In a church setting, you just ask the church clerk and she would get them for you, but I don't know what to do in this situation.

There are 4 people involved who will testify to the fact that is a huge lie. The person that made that allegation to begin with was shown the proof otherwise but since he was removed he has to have something to stir the pot. I hope I am around when you have to prove this as well as other statements that you and joy have made that are totally false. Either you need to quit spinning or get some more credible sources, because the ones that you and sister keep coming up with are really falling short.

By the way, how does one get copies of the board minutes? I've been wondering that for a long time. In a church setting, you just ask the church clerk and she would get them for you, but I don't know what to do in this situation.

Have you actually resorted to advertising for information on the net? Sad. You just might get to hear the board minutes but it won't be in a church setting.

[Clay]

There are 4 people involved who will testify to the fact that is a huge lie. The person that made that allegation to begin with was shown the proof otherwise but since he was removed he has to have something to stir the pot. I hope I am around when you have to prove this as well as other statements that you and joy have made that are totally false. Either you need to quit spinning or get some more credible sources, because the ones that you and sister keep coming up with are really falling short.
Have you actually resorted to advertising for information on the net? Sad. You just might get to hear the board minutes but it won't be in a church setting.

where is their testimony? Your track record ain't much better brother wwjd.... haven't seen or read any independent testimony of the things you claim....

[Observer]

I was not sure about the answer so my quick research confirmed what I thought was true...

Q: Do we have to open our board meetings to the public?

A. No. Private nonprofit corporations generally are not subject to state open meeting and record laws, typically known as "sunshine laws," that apply to governmental or quasi-governmental bodies, such as school boards. Such laws do not cover nonprofit corporations that are public charities and not controlled by a government entity.

http://www.probonopartner.org/publications...te%20Governance

I have not researched this extensively but I doubt they are required to produce them.

However, the same website also says the following about another issue that has been discussed here regarding duel roles:

Q. IS the Executive Director of our organization allowed to sit on the board of directors?

A. There is nothing per se illegal or impermissible about an executive director also serving as a member of a not-for-profit’s board of directors. Under such circumstances, however, it is highly advisable that the organization have a conflict of interest policy to ensure that the no director (including the executive director) will participate in any votes on issues where she, her relatives or related entities stand to benefit. Many organizations choose to avoid the issue all together by having a policy prohibiting the executive director from serving as a voting board member. Under these circumstances, the executive director is usually invited to attend all board meetings in her staff capacity and to keep the board apprised of all important programmatic, financial and administrative developments but has no right to vote and can be excluded when the board goes into executive session.

You raise a very important issue here. In seccular society the Board controls the direction of the company. The CEO (or Director) is the agent who carries out the direction of the Board. Typically, the Board will set the general, overal goals and direction of the company. It will typically neither consider nor get involved in the details as to how the company is managed. If it objects to the manner in which the CEO (Director) is running the company, that person will be replaced. But, short of replacemenet, the Board will not micro-manage the company.

That model is in contra-distinction to the typical situation that exists in the SDA Church, from the Conference level (or higher) on down to the local congregation. On the Conference level, the Board will often simply "rubber-stamp" the agenda brought to it by the Conference President. In this situation, the Board may not even control its agenda. Typically Conference Boards get involved in such stuff as voting to move pastors. Such is micro-management that would not happen in a typical secular Board, which would not be involved in employment decisions that involved people below the Executive level.

On a local level, we see this in situations where the Board votes whether or not to pay the electric bill this month, and/or the pastor's long distance telephone bill.

This situation gives local pastors, and Conference Presidents the power of a King--they control the Executive Board.

While I have no first-hand involvement in the workings of the 3-ABN Board. It appears to me that it is organized in the manner of the typical denominational Board. That is to say that it serves to rubber-stamp the agenda of the CEO--Danny Shelton. It does this rather than setting long-term goals and mission.

If I am correct, is this good, or is it bad? Well, people will undoubtably argue over this. I can well immagine that denominational leaders will support what I see as the typical mode of operation in the SDA Church. In any case, if I am correct, the 3-ABN Board is simply following the norm for SDA organizations, in my opinon.

Personally, I believe that there is a better way, and that better way is modeled by the seccular model that I have mentioned. But, the problem, in my thinking, is that such a model would give up control. For, as long as the CEO complies with the direction (mission) of the Board, the Board will not bother that person. e.g. The Board will not discuss the CEO's telephone bill, and/or the CEO's travel expenses, and a whole lot more.

Well, just my thinking.

[Pickle]

There are 4 people involved who will testify to the fact that is a huge lie. The person that made that allegation to begin with was shown the proof otherwise but since he was removed he has to have something to stir the pot.

Good. There is proof that that is false. Please get the proof ASAP so that we can lay this one to rest.

My understanding is that there were three different sources for that story. But of course they could all be wrong. And proving that they are would be a great blessing.

P.S. On second thought, you didn't specify what you were talking about. Which issue were your referring to? Linda defying the board? Brandy getting paid anyway? Tommy getting to work for 3ABN anyway on a contract basis? Which one is false?

[LaurenceD]

Personally, I believe that there is a better way, and that better way is modeled by the seccular model that I have mentioned.

Good post, Observer (and nw). Makes one wonder when relgious organizations will come up to the standards of secular organizations (more specifically, gov't). Probably depends on how "above board" they'd like to appear. It's really too bad that gov't has gotten so far ahead of religion, like with their "sunshine laws," but maybe it's typical for religion to lag far behind (thinking of Gallileo and the Church).

[caribbean sda]

where is their testimony? Your track record ain't much better brother wwjd.... haven't seen or read any independent testimony of the things you claim....

Know what, Clay? Like the old people say in the Caribbean, "ah gon' res' dem to de foot ah deh cross." That''s my resolution...to leave the 3ABN defenders, offenders, even the pretenders, at the foot of the cross.

[inga]

That model is in contra-distinction to the typical situation that exists in the SDA Church, from the Conference level (or higher) on down to the local congregation. On the Conference level, the Board will often simply "rubber-stamp" the agenda brought to it by the Conference President. In this situation, the Board may not even control its agenda. Typically Conference Boards get involved in such stuff as voting to move pastors. Such is micro-management that would not happen in a typical secular Board, which would not be involved in employment decisions that involved people below the Executive level.

Rubber-stamping can only occur if board members fail to do their homework and choose to be rubber stampers. Admittedly, that is often, if not usually, the case. But if folks who are board members took their position seriously, this need not happen.

Otoh, the "micro-managing" is done because administrators in the Adventist church are not supposed to have "kingly power," with the board having input on all significant decisions. The way our organization is set up gives our adminstrators less power than the typical CEO.

When things don't function as they should, it's because board members fail to exercise their perogative in the face of a strong leader. That is not the fault of the system.

On a local level, we see this in situations where the Board votes whether or not to pay the electric bill this month, and/or the pastor's long distance telephone bill.

This situation gives local pastors, and Conference Presidents the power of a King--they control the Executive Board.

Again, the "power of a king" is at the discretion of the church board. If board members take their responsibility seriously, the pastor is not allowed such control.

I'm speaking from the experience of many years of being a board member on various church boards. I can assure you that no pastor excercised undue "kingly power" while I was on the board. Some pastors are fine with that -- relieved, actually. Other pastors get quite distressed. But that is their problem, no one else's.

As I understand it, the difference with the 3ABN board is that it is not a board elected by its constituents, as are the boards at the conference and local church levels. A board appointed by the CEO naturally does not have the same powers as the local church boards and the conference boards and/or conference committees.

While I agree with Gregory on most issues, on this one I quite disagree.

[Observer]

Rubber-stamping can only occur if board members fail to do their homework and choose to be rubber stampers. Admittedly, that is often, if not usually, the case. But if folks who are board members took their position seriously, this need not happen.

Otoh, the "micro-managing" is done because administrators in the Adventist church are not supposed to have "kingly power," with the board having input on all significant decisions. The way our organization is set up gives our adminstrators less power than the typical CEO.

When things don't function as they should, it's because board members fail to exercise their perogative in the face of a strong leader. That is not the fault of the system. Again, the "power of a king" is at the discretion of the church board. If board members take their responsibility seriously, the pastor is not allowed such control.

I'm speaking from the experience of many years of being a board member on various church boards. I can assure you that no pastor excercised undue "kingly power" while I was on the board. Some pastors are fine with that -- relieved, actually. Other pastors get quite distressed. But that is their problem, no one else's.

As I understand it, the difference with the 3ABN board is that it is not a board elected by its constituents, as are the boards at the conference and local church levels. A board appointed by the CEO naturally does not have the same powers as the local church boards and the conference boards and/or conference committees.

While I agree with Gregory on most issues, on this one I quite disagree.

Inga, I expected disagreement.

Even where you have disagreed with me, there is some truth in what you say. But, I do not believe that truth makes what I have said wrong.

Perhaps this is the question: Does the view presented by Inga, or that of Gregory more faithful to reality? That question recognizes that both positions exist, and only asks which is normative.

[LadyTenor]

You raise a very important issue here. In seccular society the Board controls the direction of the company. The CEO (or Director) is the agent who carries out the direction of the Board. Typically, the Board will set the general, overal goals and direction of the company. It will typically neither consider nor get involved in the details as to how the company is managed. If it objects to the manner in which the CEO (Director) is running the company, that person will be replaced. But, short of replacemenet, the Board will not micro-manage the company.

That model is in contra-distinction to the typical situation that exists in the SDA Church, from the Conference level (or higher) on down to the local congregation. On the Conference level, the Board will often simply "rubber-stamp" the agenda brought to it by the Conference President. In this situation, the Board may not even control its agenda. Typically Conference Boards get involved in such stuff as voting to move pastors. Such is micro-management that would not happen in a typical secular Board, which would not be involved in employment decisions that involved people below the Executive level.

On a local level, we see this in situations where the Board votes whether or not to pay the electric bill this month, and/or the pastor's long distance telephone bill.

This situation gives local pastors, and Conference Presidents the power of a King--they control the Executive Board.

While I have no first-hand involvement in the workings of the 3-ABN Board. It appears to me that it is organized in the manner of the typical denominational Board. That is to say that it serves to rubber-stamp the agenda of the CEO--Danny Shelton. It does this rather than setting long-term goals and mission.

If I am correct, is this good, or is it bad? Well, people will undoubtably argue over this. I can well immagine that denominational leaders will support what I see as the typical mode of operation in the SDA Church. In any case, if I am correct, the 3-ABN Board is simply following the norm for SDA organizations, in my opinon.

Personally, I believe that there is a better way, and that better way is modeled by the seccular model that I have mentioned. But, the problem, in my thinking, is that such a model would give up control. For, as long as the CEO complies with the direction (mission) of the Board, the Board will not bother that person. e.g. The Board will not discuss the CEO's telephone bill, and/or the CEO's travel expenses, and a whole lot more.

Well, just my thinking.

Good post, Observer (and nw). Makes one wonder when relgious organizations will come up to the standards of secular organizations (more specifically, gov't). Probably depends on how "above board" they'd like to appear. It's really too bad that gov't has gotten so far ahead of religion, like with their "sunshine laws," but maybe it's typical for religion to lag far behind (thinking of Gallileo and the Church).

As I understand it, the difference with the 3ABN board is that it is not a board elected by its constituents, as are the boards at the conference and local church levels. A board appointed by the CEO naturally does not have the same powers as the local church boards and the conference boards and/or conference committees.

This is exactly the point that many here are missing.....

Know what, Clay? Like the old people say in the Caribbean, "ah gon' res' dem to de foot ah deh cross." That''s my resolution...to leave the 3ABN defenders, offenders, even the pretenders, at the foot of the cross.

I'm with you on this one...as I said in another thread in this forum, we may never get to the truth in this lifetime....

[Panama_Pete]

As I understand it, the difference with the 3ABN board is that it is not a board elected by its constituents, as are the boards at the conference and local church levels. A board appointed by the CEO naturally does not have the same powers as the local church boards and the conference boards and/or conference committees.
While I agree with Gregory on most issues, on this one I quite disagree.

I see both your points, Observer and Inga.

If the CEO appoints them, wouldn't the 3ABN board members be as influential as a pork roast at a Jewish Bar Mitzvah?