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

[Shepherdswife]

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.

Since I have never met either Danny or Linda and didn't ever watch 3ABN, I have no emotional or relational dog in this fight, but I have been uncomfortable all along with the perception I sense from some on this board that Danny is totally at fault and Linda was a meek, unsuspecting little victim who knew nothing. She may not have known everything, and she may have ignored a lot of things that she suspected--to keep the peace or to "focus on the mission" (which can be used as a cop-out), but even if she just ignored warning signs, as vice president and spouse, she holds some responsibility. I suspect she feels some of that responsibility now and might do things differently if she had it to do over--or I would like to hope that--since I have never talked to her, I would not know.

That said, her current take on this "gift" is very telling, in my opinion. The "entitlement" mentality that creeps in when someone is giving their all to a project is insidious and can be cloaked in very righteous robes, if we are doing "God's work". And even if you believe that they deserve that kind of money for their work, to do it in such a way as to hide it from the donors, so they don't get any flack from them, is extremely troubling to me. The jet is another example--once we start deciding that we are entitled to this or that because of all our sacrifice for God's work, or because it will help us do God's work better, (which are legitimate issues) along with a lack of accountability from people whom you will allow to get in your face, disagree with you and hold you accountable, this stuff starts happening. The fact that they felt the need to "spin" their compensation package--and to me, that is all it is (put this out in a balanced way so that it doesn't look so bad)--suggests that they knew their donors would not be comfortable with it. And when you are asking for $10 a month from people's fixed income, knowing that they may only have a few hundred coming in, it is troubling to me for the perks to add up to tens of thousands of dollars. To not set up a pension fund but then to use that lack to excuse to un-accounted for, un-reported perks here and there just looks questionable at best and shady at worse.

When you are put way up on a pedestal like they were/are, the danger of beginning to believe that you deserve all the praise and the perks you are getting is huge. I really liked one of the quotes that I saw on another topic--"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

[runner4him]

Since I have never met either Danny or Linda and didn't ever watch 3ABN, I have no emotional or relational dog in this fight, but I have been uncomfortable all along with the perception I sense from some on this board that Danny is totally at fault and Linda was a meek, unsuspecting little victim who knew nothing. She may not have known everything, and she may have ignored a lot of things that she suspected--to keep the peace or to "focus on the mission" (which can be used as a cop-out), but even if she just ignored warning signs, as vice president and spouse, she holds some responsibility. I suspect she feels some of that responsibility now and might do things differently if she had it to do over--or I would like to hope that--since I have never talked to her, I would not know.

That said, her current take on this "gift" is very telling, in my opinion. The "entitlement" mentality that creeps in when someone is giving their all to a project is insidious and can be cloaked in very righteous robes, if we are doing "God's work". And even if you believe that they deserve that kind of money for their work, to do it in such a way as to hide it from the donors, so they don't get any flack from them, is extremely troubling to me. The jet is another example--once we start deciding that we are entitled to this or that because of all our sacrifice for God's work, or because it will help us do God's work better, (which are legitimate issues) along with a lack of accountability from people whom you will allow to get in your face, disagree with you and hold you accountable, this stuff starts happening. The fact that they felt the need to "spin" their compensation package--and to me, that is all it is (put this out in a balanced way so that it doesn't look so bad)--suggests that they knew their donors would not be comfortable with it. And when you are asking for $10 a month from people's fixed income, knowing that they may only have a few hundred coming in, it is troubling to me for the perks to add up to tens of thousands of dollars. To not set up a pension fund but then to use that lack to excuse to un-accounted for, un-reported perks here and there just looks questionable at best and shady at worse.

When you are put way up on a pedestal like they were/are, the danger of beginning to believe that you deserve all the praise and the perks you are getting is huge. I really liked one of the quotes that I saw on another topic--"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

Great post Shepherdswife! Definitely agree!!

[Pickle]

Shepherdswife,

I told her when I spoke with her that she could end her explanation, if she gets asked, with, "That's my signature on those documents, and so I take full responsibility." So whether she fully knew what she was doing was wrong or not, really, that's the only way to end the explanation, whatever the explanation may be.

You write about folks getting the idea that they are entitled to benefits because of sacrifices in God's cause. Desire of Ages gives us an example of that, doesn't it?

Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if this were the only real estate-type transaction that is alleged to have occurred.

[PeacefulBe]

Shepherdswife,

Thank you for your thoughtful perspective on this land deal.

I think many of us are wondering just how much Linda was involved in this obvious attempted manipulation of not only the donors but also of the U.S. tax code. There is no way to rationalize away the many levels of dishonesty apparent in this transaction. That a ministry purporting to represent Christ would participate in such a "working the system" scheme further casts suspicion on the leadership of that ministry, IMO.

I am, however, pleased that Linda is at least willing to be open with the thought process behind this deal.

Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if this were the only real estate-type transaction that is alleged to have occurred.

Bob,

This is the problem in a nutshell! It begins to appear that there has been a tendency towards dishonesty all along.

[Observer]

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?

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

Well, I want to respond. NOTE: I have not communicated with Linda prior to responding. And, I am responding to more than Wacthbird.

Legality: Some of the actions that are being criticized are not illegal as such. A couple of days ago I responded to a statement made to me about what "X" may have done. I went on to say that There was nothing illegal about doing such, as long as the governing Board had the facts and knew about it prior to the action being taken. Some issues are ethical ones, even when it is not criminal.

Issues for consideration often have involved issues of ethics, when they were not criminal.

Linda: Yesterday I mentioned an issue which has been raised to another person. Her response was: Greg, if what you say is true, Linda is complicit. My response was that Linda was complicit. Then we discussed this further.

We who defend Linda have never presented her as perfect. I do not claim perfection in her. Yes, she does have some defenses to some of the issues. But, this is not the place to raise those.

I am going to leave the issue of Linda and expand a little.

In my opinon, Seventh-day Adventists who lead the church often do not have any real understanding of ethics.

I will suggest that our mentality may tend to foster a disregard of ethics.

I once published a statement to the effect that Danny Shelton was underpaid. I stilll support that statement.

Denominationally we have pastors serving congregations in some areas where they cannot afford to live, and some live 100 miles from the congregations that they serve.

This occurs because the denominational organizations cannot afford to pay the pastor a wage high enough to allow the pastor to live near the congregation.

This results in several things happening:

a) The organization may pay the pastor additonal benefits over and beyond those that are typically given.

The pastor either with or without permission, may take a part-time job.

c) The pastor may find ways to take additional income out of the church. This can even be placing a family member on salery what does not perform the service for which they are paid.

People who are underpaid look for ways to incerase their income.

Out of this comes a mentality that says: 1) I have a need. 2) I am entitled to have tha need met. 3) Here is a way that I have developed to have the need met. i.e. The end justifies the means. There is no paper trail. The governing board does not need to know.

Folks, we need to clean up aspects of our denominational pay system.

Back to Linda:

Yes, she was not perfect. Yes, her signatrue went on documents that she possibly should not have signed, or it should have been done differently.

Linda today is learning. She has been baptized by fire, and more may come. It is changing her, and she is growing, and maturing. She would not do today everything that she has done in the past. It is likely that she has more growing to do. It is likely that in the future she would understand some issues better.

Linda has been in the past more trusting than she should have been. She is learnign some hard lessons. This may still be an aspect of her. But, she is growing.

[Richard Sherwin]

Sometimes we become convinced that our wants are our needs. We try to justify our wants by making them into needs. Thus we donor ministries with 6 million dollar jets.

I would hope we would never jeopardize the investigation into Danny and 3ABN because we are trying to protect Linda, to do so would be unethical in it's self.

Richard

This post has been edited by Richard Sherwin: Jun 17 2007, 10:53 AM

[lurker]

Danny may have been underpaid according to the world's standards for CEO's but based on the combined salaries of Danny and Linda, I hardly think that such actions were based on needs but rather on wants. If they thought what they were doing was ok, why go to such great lengths to hide it? Any justification takes a lot of rationalization and still comes up short.

Richard, we must have been writing at the same time and had the same thoughts. I agree with you 100%.

This post has been edited by lurker: Jun 17 2007, 10:55 AM

[LaurenceD]

Good point, lurker.

I keep wondering what might have happened with D&LS if the property tax lawsuit had gone the way they all believed (and prayed) that it should have gone. Sure, there were other factors developing such as family relations, but I keep thinking about Linda's testimony during that hearing. At one point she changes her story. Here's the quote...

In addition, there is discrepancy in the testimony of Linda Shelton. She stated she did not receive royalty payments for the CDs (Tr. pp. 595, 617) and later admitted that she did (Tr. p.619).

Suppose she had been taking advice on how to testify, then suddenly had a change of heart and decided to tell the truth instead. She begins to realize how the game is being played and wants no part of it. Between the spring of 2003 (the lawsuit), and the spring of 2004 (when she separates from DS) everything falls apart.

When you're teamed up with someone it's so easy to fall under their influence and go along with the way the other person is doing. When people are in positions to think and act as individuals, they may do things quite differently.

Maybe I'm way off, but I couldn't help but notice the timeline, 2003-2004, when things begin falling apart in a bigger way.

[Richard Sherwin]

Great points lurker.

If Danny was making 50 grand a year that works out, based on 40 hour work weeks to about $25 an hour. How many of the donors are making 1/4 that amount and supporting their families? How many of the members on here are making $25 per hour? Rhetorical question of course but the point it that a donor supported ministry should not be paying a worldly amount to their officials. Their reward should not be of this world.

Richard

Danny may have been underpaid according to the world's standards for CEO's but based on the combined salaries of Danny and Linda, I hardly think that such actions were based on needs but rather on wants. If they thought what they were doing was ok, why go to such great lengths to hide it? Any justification takes a lot of rationalization and still comes up short.

Richard, we must have been writing at the same time and had the same thoughts. I agree with you 100%.

This post has been edited by Richard Sherwin: Jun 17 2007, 12:08 PM

[daylily]

I have no trouble believing that Linda might not have known the implications of what she was signing. I don't understand all that stuff and I would have turned to someone I trusted, i.e. my husband, to tell me it was OK to sign. Now, I believe I would find an expert and talk to them before signing.

Daylily

[Shiny Penny]

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.

Hmmm...Interesting. "Put it out in a balanced way?" What does that mean? The way I read it was not balanced at all. Danny and the board did everything so devious, but there was no "Linda regrets anything" about the transactions. If the house transaction was so bad, why did Linda agree to it in the first place? Of all of the evil boardmembers, why wasn't Linda (and she was a board member then) a lone voice in the wilderness saying this isn't right and refuse to sign the documents?

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).

(from another post) 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. Is Linda saying here that 3ABN bought the house for $65,000? and then later sold it to her and Danny? Or is she saying that she and Danny bought the house for $65,000?


There is just too much unknown, to determine what really happened. If Linda and Danny received a house and did not include the gain in their tax return then both of them should be shaking in their boots, because the IRS will not look favorably upon failure to disclose income or gains. And I mean both of them. Failure to remember is not an excuse. So perhaps Linda should start to prepare a revised tax return and save for the taxes due, penalties and interest and hope that they don't thow her in jail. Ditto to Danny.


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.

Gifts taxes are paid by the giver, not by the recipient of the gift. So you should check "strong supporter's" tax returns to see if he/she paid the gift tax.

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.

You don't know this for sure, because you don't know the details about the transaction.

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.

[Pickle]

SP,

I said "apparently hid," didn't I? That suggests I don't know for sure.

What we do know for sure about the transaction is that 3ABN reported it to the IRS on the 990 as a sale, correct? They reported it on the 990 as a sale at a substantial loss, correct? They didn't report it as compensation to the officers/directors who were personally benefiting from the sale, correct? It was a sale that was far below fair market value, correct?

[Observer]

Suppose she had been taking advice on how to testify, then suddenly had a change of heart and decided to tell the truth instead. She begins to realize how the game is being played and wants no part of it. Between the spring of 2003 (the lawsuit), and the spring of 2004 (when she separates from DS) everything falls apart.

There is another posibility: Perhaps she had been decieved, and with the passage of time learns the truth and so changes her testimony.

Folks, the bottom line is that the idea that these issues need settlement in a court of law, where people are compelled to testify, under oath.

If that can happen, it just may be that Linda will be vindicated on some issues.

And if may be that on others she will be seen to be complicit and to trusting for her own good.

Linda's postition is: Let the truth come out, in full. Her reputation can not be damaged by the truth more than ithas been damaged by falsehood. That is true even if she is shown to be imperfect.

[mozart]

WARNING: this might need some digesting so open those great minds you all have. my mind is tired from writing it so i'll just let you all chew on it for a while, while i go take a nap.

the first thing that bothers me about this is Linda's point that it looked better to the viewers if they made a small salary. i have heard them say on air that they made about the same as school teachers. if that is true, that sounds more than fair, modest in fact for what they are doing. salary is relative. that being said, D & L, work hard and they should get paid a decent wage. but what bothers me is the part where she alledgedly says, "it made it look better that they get a smaller salary". now that is deceitful and i'm thinking that someone other than D & L was manipulating that PR. maybe it was DS, maybe it was LS but very possibly, and i'm sure many of you would agree, there are others staging these scenarios creating "a well-oiled machine". (GMc comes to mind, but i bet there are more purse-strings that are planting the ideas as well) personally, i don't believe for a minute that D or L were "all knowing" in the business that they were in the middle of. there are professionals for that and there are the moneybags. all have a say and things are very complicated. i don't expect D or L to know all that went on as far as it being ethical or legal. there are many facets to this. one facet is the corruption of power, another is being in a situation bigger than you are and another is trusting people. i think a lot of what they did, they were persuaded to do by others "in the know" who should have known better or thought they knew enough to cover themselves.
i have no way of knowing if L is totally innocent, but i do think (and i could be totally wrong) that she trusted those around her to do things the right way.
how many times have we as individuals signed documents without reading every word or understanding every word. normally, i think most people trust their attorney or their real estate agent or their accountant more than themselves. not that we should, probably not, but if we knew all that was needed for such dealings then we wouldn't need the professionals now would we?
also i think we need to consider what i mentioned above about the moneybags. there is a lot of DS bashing done here and there and maybe he absolutely deserves it but also, maybe, it's a bit too all-encompassing. are we ourselves being naive or vengeful in painting him as a megalomaniac? is he capable of all we discredit him for? maybe others feeding him and directing him have had something to do with this path? none involved are squeeky clean, but i think we should look deeper and even deeper still.
you know it's not unusual for control freaks to control other control freaks. sometimes they control each other thinking they are the "ONE" who's really in control. it's all a viscious circle of manipulation.
what the person signing the papers has to decide before signing is: are they convinced that what this one is saying will work or is true or profitable or honest? is it ethical or moral or safe?. how that is answered is according to the motives of the one signing the papers and their motives are often "persuaded" by their own faults or the faults of others. they would like us to think they are totally guided by God, but the mind has a way of deceiving itself when it opens the window of temptation and we are all guilty of that at one time or another. don't misunderstand me. i'm not making excuses for anyone or saying that these things should not be addressed and dealt with. hang in here with me on this.
when we see these big corporations fall, many people are at fault.
i think we here do ourselves and "the cause" a favor by looking deeper into who guides those who sign the papers and not just expecting those 2 to know and understand everything and also not making those 2 out to be evil con-artist. i don't think it's that simple. the truth is an elusive thing, especially now-a-days when big money and slick lawyers can make things a maze of complication, covering up things as fast as they start to appear. honesty is soooooooooo much simpler but that's not the big world we live in. it might be our little world but it's not the world "out there".
there seems to be no way to get these issues resolved with 100% honesty because none of the players are 100% honest.
it seems to be more about "what we can get away with".
as much as we want to say our independent ministries and the GC, etc., etc. are ministries & churches, much is big business and there is no way around that and it seems that wherever there is big business, greed and dishonesty usually follow.
this is 2007 and the diciples are not walking around in robes with a book and a loaf of bread in their bag. it is a never ending struggle of scrutiny that we, as Christians, are going to have to deal with and deal with it we must, but let's not be short-sighted. i think much more investigation needs to be done in the direction of those who influence those who sign the papers.

[Observer]

SP: You correctly tell us that gift taxes are paid by the donor, and not the one who recieved the gift. However, you neglected to remind us of the restrictions that the IRS places on what constitutes a gift that does not need to be declared by the one who recieved it. If I am the pastor of a local chruch, and one of my members gives me a vaulable gift, the IRS is going to tell me that I am required to declare it as it does not qualify as a gift that does not need to be declared. Rather, the IRS will tell me that it is actually compensation recievd due to my ministry in the congregation, and to that member.

Therefore, it is likely that vaulable gifts recieved by officers of 3-ABN from contributors to 3-ABN, and/or members of the listening audience, must be declared as income to those officers as they do not qualify as gifts which do not need to be declared.

Of course, I do not have the knowledge of the specifics to know if this is true in the issues mentioned here. In addition, I do not imply that any such people did not properly delcare such gifts that they may have recieved.

I am posting here due to your failure to tell us the whole truth.