3abn Confirms Real Estate Transaction, & Hints of Piano Sale Besides Options

[Fran]

sw smthng smlr nc whr thy tk wy ll th vwls nd t ws qt sly nderstd.

I thought I was the only one who did vowel-less notes! "Vry Gd mssg"! I got it.~

Good to see you back. Can we resume our posting? I never got a reply previously. You went away. I would like to address other items on the Property Tax Lawsuit. Of course, my questions are basically financial or managerial. You seem to be quite knowledgeable in these areas. My interest is not about the findings or about the ongoing appeal, but with bylaws and job descriptions and financial questions which have nothing to do with a property tax decision.

Are you OK? I hope you were not ill.

[Snoopy]

Fair Market Value is subjective. Always will be. If you ask 10 different real estate agents to give independent valuations of a piece of real estate, you will get 10 different values - that are hopefully all in the same ball park.

Fair Market Value is what a willing buyer and a willing seller, who are independent and disinterested parties, are willing to pay/receive for an asset. While this piano deal is a related-party transaction, it does not necessarily mean that one party was enriched at the other's expense.

Assume the piano's FMV was appraised in the range of $2,500 - $4,000 and 3ABN gets two offers to buy the piano. One offer is $2,500, but stipulates that 3ABN must pay for transporting the piano to its new destination and transportation costs are about $750. The second offer is $2,000. And there are no other offers in part because the piano has a major defect.

What would you do?
sw smthng smlr nc whr thy tk wy ll th vwls nd t ws qt sly nderstd.

Good points, Shiny Penny! Just curious - what was the piano's "major defect"?

[Pickle]

Here is what a friend just wrote me about Walt's collusion with Danny over the real estate deal: "If those three don't know it what they did was a form of theft and if they don't confess it and make the necessary restitution then they are going to hell." That's stronger than the way I would put it, but I wonder what will happen after all their shenanigans are brought to light.

Remember what Walt said on that Feb. 15, 2007, broadcast in which they announced that they were going to sue? How Walt said that all the board members are honest to a fault? And in violation of IRS regulations Walt participates in signing over a 3ABN property to Danny at 3ABN's loss? Huh?

Now get this: I asked Linda about it all as ShinyPenny suggested, and she told me that she had told Gailon that he needed to put this out in a balanced way so that it doesn't look so bad. She said that the board purposely chose to keep the salaries low because donors would get concerned if they received big salaries. And that puts the real estate deal in a better light, she thought. It was a gift from 3ABN because they had low salaries and no pension plan.

Someone could say Linda has an ax to grind, and so I tend to take what she says with a grain of salt, but since she honestly thought that the above scenario made the situation look better, I think I can take her comments and run with them: The board wanted the salaries to appear low, and so while the donors think 3ABN only paid the Sheltons less than a combined $95,000 in 1998, 3ABN in essence paid them more than $220,000 (combined salary + profit from the sale of Lot 6).

And that $220,000 doesn't include the free $30,000 worth of 18 acres the Sheltons received from a strong 3ABN supporter that very same year.

And 3ABN apparently hid the transaction from the IRS by reporting the "gifted" property on the 990 as a loss from a sale rather than as compensation to the Sheltons.

Rather than putting the real estate deal in a better light, I think Linda's comments suggest that Walt's claim is false that every board member is honest to a fault.

This post has been edited by Pickle: Jun 16 2007, 09:55 PM

[Snoopy]

Here is what a friend just wrote me about Walt's collusion with Danny over the real estate deal: "If those three don't know it what they did was a form of theft and if they don't confess it and make the necessary restitution then they are going to hell." That's stronger than the way I would put it, but I wonder what will happen after all their shenanigans are brought to light.

Remember what Walt said on that Feb. 15, 2007, broadcast in which they announced that they were going to sue? How Walt said that all the board members are honest to a fault? And in violation of IRS regulations Walt participates in signing over a 3ABN property to Danny at 3ABN's loss? Huh?

Now get this: I asked Linda about it all as ShinyPenny suggested, and she told me that she had told Gailon that he needed to put this out in a balanced way so that it doesn't look so bad. She said that the board purposely chose to keep the salaries low because donors would get concerned if they received big salaries. And that puts the real estate deal in a better light, she thought. It was a gift from 3ABN because they had low salaries and no pension plan.

Someone could say Linda has an ax to grind, and so I tend to take what she says with a grain of salt, but since she honestly thought that the above scenario made the situation look better, I think I can take her comments and run with them: The board wanted the salaries to appear low, and so while the donors think 3ABN only paid the Sheltons less than a combined $95,000 in 1998, 3ABN in essence paid them more than $220,000 (combined salary + profit from the sale of Lot 6).

And that $220,000 doesn't include the free $30,000 worth of 18 acres the Sheltons received from a strong 3ABN supporter that very same year.

And 3ABN apparently hid the transaction from the IRS by reporting the "gifted" property on the 990 as a loss from a sale rather than as compensation to the Sheltons.

Rather than putting the real estate deal in a better light, I think Linda's comments suggest that Walt's claim is false that every board member is honest to a fault.

Oh my. Oh my. Oh my. I SO hope that is not true. I do not know Linda at all, but if what she says is true it sure makes that whole real estate deal make more sense. Oh my. I wonder who the CFO was then??? Couldn't the whole board be held liable (NOT libel!)? I thought somebody on the board was supposedly a fraud expert! None of the other employees there get a pension plan - will all the employees be taken care of so well with these little bonuses?? Do they get to pick their real estate??

I wonder what Lisa Madigan (Illinois Attorney General) would have to say about that!! I know of others who will be very interested. And I'm REAL curious to know what Shiny Penny might think!!

~~Disgusted Snoopy~~

This post has been edited by Snoopy: Jun 16 2007, 10:21 PM

[Pickle]

Well, Snoopy, why don't you call up Lisa Madigan on Monday and ask her what she thinks about it? And report back and let us know what she says.

I do not recall whether Linda mentioned the lack of a pension plan or not. I think I heard that from two people other than her. She did call the property a gift.

She also justified it in part this way: The place was bought for around $65,000, and Danny fixed it up a bit, which is why it increased in value.

I asked her if Danny or 3ABN paid for the materials, and if Danny fixed it up on company time. If 3ABN paid for the materials, then that doesn't help. And I guess whether Danny did it on company time or not is irrelevant. Either way the "gift" of the house is still compensation.

[Snoopy]

Well, Snoopy, why don't you call up Lisa Madigan on Monday and ask her what she thinks about it? And report back and let us know what she says.

I do not recall whether Linda mentioned the lack of a pension plan or not. I think I heard that from two people other than her. She did call the property a gift.

She also justified it in part this way: The place was bought for around $65,000, and Danny fixed it up a bit, which is why it increased in value.

I asked her if Danny or 3ABN paid for the materials, and if Danny fixed it up on company time. If 3ABN paid for the materials, then that doesn't help. And I guess whether Danny did it on company time or not is irrelevant. Either way the "gift" of the house is still compensation.

Well I might just do that. This is getting out of hand.

Where is Fran???

[Pickle]

Snoopy,

What I hear is that if you call Lisa Madigan, she will refer you to a unit in Chicago that deals with non-profits.

[Snoopy]

Snoopy,

What I hear is that if you call Lisa Madigan, she will refer you to a unit in Chicago that deals with non-profits.

That's fine. Actually, it was a conference official who suggested I contact her as she has a reputation for going after alleged charity fraud. I just didn't want to believe any of this I guess, but the time may have come.

[Pickle]

Gailon says that this particular situation is a civil issue rather than a criminal issue. I think it has to do with statute of limitations having run out. But it will be interesting to see what Ms. Madigan says.

Yes, why not contact her first and see if she directs you elsewhere.

[runner4him]

Gailon says that this particular situation is a civil issue rather than a criminal issue. I think it has to do with statute of limitations having run out. But it will be interesting to see what Ms. Madigan says.

Yes, why not contact her first and see if she directs you elsewhere.

If the situation is now a civil issue...then could the donors make a case against 3abn for using the donations improperly? It seems criminal to misuse the funds and then deliberately cover their tracks to keep the donors in the dark.

So sad...we sacrifice to help the ministry and then wake up years later to see all this. I was like the rest of those...asleep at the wheel.

[Snoopy]

If the situation is now a civil issue...then could the donors make a case against 3abn for using the donations improperly? It seems criminal to misuse the funds and then deliberately cover their tracks to keep the donors in the dark.

So sad...we sacrifice to help the ministry and then wake up years later to see all this. I was like the rest of those...asleep at the wheel.

Great question! I'm right there with ya, runner4him!

This post has been edited by Snoopy: Jun 16 2007, 11:40 PM

[Daryl Fawcett]

As all these things unfold, it only makes things look worse and worse for 3ABN.

If donations continue to drop over all of this, then they only have themselves to blame.

[watchbird]

Two random thoughts on the recent comments on this thread.

1) One has to wonder how a supposedly "conservative Adventist" environment could be built with such a total disregard of basic business ethics that even after being out of it for three full years, Linda seemingly can still not see even the illegalness of their actions... much less the ethical issues concerned.

2) Has it occurred to anyone that when Shiny Penny gives her interesting "speculations" about what "could have happened" that she just might be giving us glimpes into the stories that were told to the board.... which caused the board to accept Danny's course of action?

.................. .................

[Pickle]

1) One has to wonder how a supposedly "conservative Adventist" environment could be built with such a total disregard of basic business ethics that even after being out of it for three full years, Linda seemingly can still not see even the illegalness of their actions... much less the ethical issues concerned.

Either Linda was an evil accomplice, or she believed whatever Danny and others told her.

I haven't made up my mind which it is, but for her to make those comments to me thinking that it made the situation look better makes me lean toward the latter possibility. And there have been other comments and situations that likewise make me lean that direction.

[Richard Sherwin]

I think that if enough people tell you that you are anointed by God then you might get the idea that whatever you do is justified and/or you deserve whatever perks you can get because God has chosen you. And if you are married to a person who believes that then you will go along with whatever he says and believes himself. Delusions of grander or shades of Waco and David Koresh?

Richard

Either Linda was an evil accomplice, or she believed whatever Danny and others told her.

I haven't made up my mind which it is, but for her to make those comments to me thinking that it made the situation look better makes me lean toward the latter possibility. And there have been other comments and situations that likewise make me lean that direction.