Ten Years Later - What Has Changed?, An Article from the LA Times Options

[Johann]

A couple of years ago a concerned officer of our General Conference confided in me that he felt the Church would have great problems as long as the self-appointed pope of the church - Mr. Danny Shelton - is given his power to rule by his wealthy supporters.

I challenge you to read the whole article in Adventist Today that YogusB refers to here a few posts back. It touches just the surface, and gives credence to what kind of battle is going on.

He added that this battle can not be fought by elected officers but has to be fought by people like you and me. So where is our responsibility?

BSDA is but one vehicle, but an important one.

This post has been edited by Johann: Jan 6 2008, 02:40 PM

[princessdi]

Oh, I read the entire thing hoping for it to be longer, and it not end with GC evoking some loophole to get Danny in as delegate to represent nothing but his own interests.

With all due respect, WB, I am also getting kind of tired of the "something is just about to happen" hype. I am sorry, but I expect more from those in authority and so does God. Now what really needs to happen is that we recall the entire lot of them. And I am sorry but my tithe paying gives me authority to recall them, and if more of us recognized that, more would get done. 3ABN and ASI recognize that fact, much like Judas was the only one who really understood who Christ was, but wanted to use His power for the wrong reasons. If enough people stop that tithe flow, and fat salaries were in jeopardy, I know some changes will happen. They can't kick out everybody(and quiet as it is kept they don't put out everybody for "holding" thier tithes now. I know many of non ethnic church that has done so to build their new church and/or school, with aboslutely no repercautions. So we are still talking about a game being run and it is who ya' know). However, too many of us a just sheeple just following along behind leaders who don't even bother to have a "form of godliness", except when scaring the rank and file into keeping those tithe, mission, special project dollars following. At some point God will hold us accountable for not doing what we should and could do to striaghten out this mess. He does not intervene, becuase it is something we need to stand up and do for ourselves. What good would it do for us to stand back and God to intervene, only for us to still be lacking and discernment and backbone, to elect some just as bad as the first crooked lot? He really did give us common sense to use, even within our church. We are only to be like sheep when following Him. He is the only one Who can be trusted with such faith. I am sure we must see that by now. These are NOT men of God, they are men of the world who have learned how to make their fortunes from the men and women of God. They count on "us" to be too christian to put thier mess on blast when they are clearly not christian at all......and it works wellf or them.

If something is about to happen, WB, then you and whoever else are working behind the scenes need to get with it. The article in the OP was ten years ago.........approximately 6 years later Danny is doing anything he thinks he is big enough to do to influence a church that new denies in court papers, and our leaders are HUGE wimps(that is the nicest way I could put this at the moment). We need to realize that the enemy does not always tempt us to do something, he also tempts us to do nothing, something too little and too late. I think the article of ten years past gives anybody with any power to act enough ammunition. Get with it people, or let it go and just admit, you are NOT smarter than a 5th grader and keep following these crooked leaders. However, never, ever say another word about the wrongs they do because you must really like it, because you have absolutely nothing about it, but sit and wait.

A couple of years ago a concerned officer of our General Conference confided in me that he felt the Church would have great problems as long as the self-appointed pope of the church - Mr. Danny Shelton - is given his power to rule by his wealthy supporters.

I challenge you to read the whole article in Adventist Today that YogusB refers to here a few posts back. It touches just the surface, and gives credence to what kind of battle is going on.

[Johann]

Ian - God has given you the ability to fight!

Make use of your talents to take part in a real spiritual fight for God and to refine His church. What you are doing now is but making a few dents here and there that will soon recover and the cause grows much stronger than ever before.

Jesus is coming back soon. We need to be on the right side, and support what is right. Not a self-appointed pope who has desperately tried for years to keep things under his control.

The Holy Spirit must cleanse the church and fill it with power to proclaim the real gospel and prepare people for the end of this world's history. Mammon is not our goal. It is the eternal kingdom of our Savior and Creator.

That is what we are here for.

It is not too late for you to get into the right saddle and ride on to victory! In the name of Jesus!

We must not look back - only forward.

Perhaps we need to support the new leaders at 3ABN to turn in the right direction?




This post has been edited by Johann: Jan 6 2008, 03:08 PM

[GRAT]

So PrincessDi, what do you suggest we do? Would an email blitz each day to the GC or 3ABM possibly make a difference? Should we let them (GC) know that we are withholding our tithe if that is our choice? I have emailed both the GC and Jim Gilley at 3abn and never received an answer from either. I know you don't have all the answers but it is frustrating to have this go on year after year and not feel you can do anything about it. There is apathy in the friends I have talked to about this. One said she just doesn't have the time or inclination to look into it. She doesn't watch 3abn. My mother does and I see it from time to time. Someone (maybe Ian or FHB) mentioned that when they read the negative stuff about DS it makes them feel like they need a bath. I have a reaction every time I see him (DS) and it was reading that post that made me realize that that is exactly how I feel looking at him, like I need a hot shower to clean the dirt off me.

[princessdi]

First thing is we need to organize as they apparently have. You don't get he results they have haphazardly. Frankly, I am not even sure there are enough even out there who will stand up. I know for a good portion in the Black SDA community 3ABN is not even an issue, because they dont' watch. Some do but are like the others who 1) believe they will be attacking the lord's annointed by stading up, and 2) which is more of a black thing. They are older and have a difficult time coming again whites in authority. Especially within the Remnant, and what they believe is God given authority. Now that it is clear that "special interst" had taken possession at GC( I always thought that close proximity to our nation's capital could indeed be problematic), I dont' know what to think or what can be done, I know that something can be done, and those who claim to have to inside track on what is being done have more than enough ammunition to act. The fact that is article, with fesw changes in names and situations, could have been written yesterday should be enough. The other thing that kills us is exactly what the article says, our reluctance to ge the authoriities ourside of the church involved. As long as that exists, we are in trouble. Wit linda dn other wives who go quietly away for the "sake of the ministry" and others who think all is good by whatever means necessary, as long as We are gett het "The Message" out, we have little or no hope of anything getting better.

So PrincessDi, what do you suggest we do? Would an email blitz each day to the GC or 3ABM possibly make a difference? Should we let them (GC) know that we are withholding our tithe if that is our choice? I have emailed both the GC and Jim Gilley at 3abn and never received an answer from either. I know you don't have all the answers but it is frustrating to have this go on year after year and not feel you can do anything about it. There is apathy in the friends I have talked to about this. One said she just doesn't have the time or inclination to look into it. She doesn't watch 3abn. My mother does and I see it from time to time. Someone (maybe Ian or FHB) mentioned that when they read the negative stuff about DS it makes them feel like they need a bath. I have a reaction every time I see him (DS) and it was reading that post that made me realize that that is exactly how I feel looking at him, like I need a hot shower to clean the dirt off me.

[Shepherdswife]

Seems to me that made both McGarbage and McCement trucks but I could be wrong.

-bear

bear, I believe you are McRight...

[inga]

So PrincessDi, what do you suggest we do? Would an email blitz each day to the GC or 3ABM possibly make a difference? Should we let them (GC) know that we are withholding our tithe if that is our choice?

That is one option, if enough people take it.

I have emailed both the GC and Jim Gilley at 3abn and never received an answer from either.

With so few hard-copy letters being written nowadays, such letters have way more impact than they used to have. Emails get trashed more easily.

I have a reaction every time I see him (DS) and it was reading that post that made me realize that that is exactly how I feel looking at him, like I need a hot shower to clean the dirt off me.

Yup. Me too.

[watchbird]

[color="#006400"]Oh, I read the entire thing hoping for it to be longer, and it not end with GC evoking some loophole to get Danny in as delegate to represent nothing but his own interests.

With all due respect, WB, I am also getting kind of tired of the "something is just about to happen" hype. I am sorry, but I expect more from those in authority and so does God. Now what really needs to happen is that we recall the entire lot of them. And I am sorry but my tithe paying gives me authority to recall them, and if more of us recognized that, more would get done.

Di, you have, in this and your next post, written at least four very good posts. The problem is....as it is with this whole thread... the issues involved are so homogenized that it is difficult to tell when you are speaking of the 3abn problem specifically, or with the whole church structure... especially at GC level... in general.

They are related problems, to be sure.... but they are not synonymous... nor is the 3abn problem any where near the whole of the church administrative problems.

Having said that... let's look at the 3abn problem first... and I'll return to the church problem later.

For starters, I have never said "something is just about to happen". What I have consistently said from the very beginning.... very often in the context of lamenting with the souls under the altar in Revelations.... "How long, O Lord, How long??? And also from Revelation... and from the Psalms.... passages referring to the "patience of the saints" and admonitions to "wait upon the Lord". I have also never advocated merely sitting back and waiting passively.... unless that was all that some person in their individual situation could do.

What I have also pointed out is that while "the wheels of justice grind exceeding slow".... they also "grind exceeding fine". What that translates to is more waiting... watching.... speaking out when and where appropriate and restraining our fingers on the keyboards much more than we allow them to type out "all that we know".

At the beginning I shared the opinion that many still seem to have.... that if the "church"... meaning GC leaders.... would merely step up to the plate and make certain announcements.... take certain actions.... that all the mess at 3abn could be cleaned out in a relatively short time... if not instantaneously. It did not take very long for me to realize that when spokespersons for the GC.. or various other levels of the church... said that they "could not do anything about it".... that it was NOT, as I had originally thought, merely a euphonism for "we won't do anything about it", but that the problems were so deep and widespread that it really was... and is... impossible for the church to take the matter under their control and do what needs to be done.

Is it partly their fault.... have they themselves laid the trap for their own feet and bound their own hands so they cannot now step up and act? Yes, that is true. But blaming them now for past actions can do no good, and can do harm. The facts are that the past is past.... and the facts also are that there were always things beyond their control such that there was no point in time when they could have taken over the reins and brought the situation under their guidance and control..... And this is true whether or not one believes that had they done so things would have been any better. It didn't happen. It could not have happened. So moaning because it didn't happen is worse than a waste of energy and emotion.

There ARE those in these United States who DO have the power to clean out such messes as we know exists at 3abn.... but they will do so only if their own interests are threatened and there is some advantage to them to do so. And I speak, of course, of the Federal Government Law Enforcement Agencies..... which... for the first years of their investigations, we did not even dare speak of openly on the boards... and even had to appear publicly to divert attention away from such suggestions. Now that they have decided they have "enough of a case" to openly investigate.... with no attempt to keep the primary offenders from knowing that they are doing so... we can speak a bit more freely.... at least we can say that they ARE interested and they ARE investigating.... AND... though we know nothing of the details of their progress, we can assume with some assurance that they would not still be actively investigating after all this time unless they were finding enough to justify a continuing investigative process.

I have been bemused by comments made on BSDA through the years which have claimed that it was impossible they should be involved.... "since if the IRS has something against someone they move quickly". For while that may be true if there is a simple matter of tax evasion on one or a few counts... that is NOT true if there is a complex case... and to some extent the length of time they spend on a case may be in exact proportion to the seriousness with which they are taking it.

3ABN and ASI recognize that fact, much like Judas was the only one who really understood who Christ was, but wanted to use His power for the wrong reasons. If enough people stop that tithe flow, and fat salaries were in jeopardy, I know some changes will happen. They can't kick out everybody(and quiet as it is kept they don't put out everybody for "holding" thier tithes now. I know many of non ethnic church that has done so to build their new church and/or school, with aboslutely no repercautions. So we are still talking about a game being run and it is who ya' know). However, too many of us a just sheeple just following along behind leaders who don't even bother to have a "form of godliness", except when scaring the rank and file into keeping those tithe, mission, special project dollars following.

Running the church into bankruptcy... with all of the personal grief it would give those who depend upon their solvency for their employment or retirement sustentation... would not be any solution to the problems of administration. And attempting to "scare" admins into doing something different than what is being done is not only wrong but it would be ineffective. The only long term solution lies with those both in administration and laity who have right motives and a sincere heart to effect whatever change needs to be made.

At some point God will hold us accountable for not doing what we should and could do to striaghten out this mess. He does not intervene, becuase it is something we need to stand up and do for ourselves. What good would it do for us to stand back and God to intervene, only for us to still be lacking and discernment and backbone, to elect some just as bad as the first crooked lot? He really did give us common sense to use, even within our church. We are only to be like sheep when following Him. He is the only one Who can be trusted with such faith. I am sure we must see that by now. These are NOT men of God, they are men of the world who have learned how to make their fortunes from the men and women of God. They count on "us" to be too christian to put thier mess on blast when they are clearly not christian at all......and it works wellf or them.

I agree with this... in principle. We need to be involved and we need to each individually do what we can to facilitate change. And increasingly individuals who are concerned about these things are getting together and spreading the message and seem to be having some effect, though certainly not as much as is needed.

If something is about to happen, WB, then you and whoever else are working behind the scenes need to get with it.

I have never pictured myself as "working behind the scenes"... other than in the sense of observing and communicating and reporting. I have no power to "get with it".... whatever "it" may turn out to be. I recognize the need for a thorough cleansing of the camp... not only 3abn, but other church entities as well.... but finding the solutions will take more wisdom and ability and power than this ol' bird possesses. I do, however, believe that God is still alive and still "in charge" and though he sometimes delays... for purposes known much better to Him than to us.... that He will.... through the human agencies he has appointed in this world (whether secular, clerical, or individual) work to bring justice, peace, and cleansing to all that is needed.

The article in the OP was ten years ago.........approximately 6 years later Danny is doing anything he thinks he is big enough to do to influence a church that new denies in court papers, and our leaders are HUGE wimps(that is the nicest way I could put this at the moment). We need to realize that the enemy does not always tempt us to do something, he also tempts us to do nothing, something too little and too late. I think the article of ten years past gives anybody with any power to act enough ammunition. Get with it people, or let it go and just admit, you are NOT smarter than a 5th grader and keep following these crooked leaders. However, never, ever say another word about the wrongs they do because you must really like it, because you have absolutely nothing about it, but sit and wait.

There are, I believe, wimps and crooked leaders among our church leaders. I also think that standing firmly at one's post of duty may look as though one is "wimpish" from the outside, but in fact be heroic... and doing nothing in the face of many conflicting demands may in fact be the best thing that can be done at the moment. And I do not think that at this time we have enough information on the various actors and supporting cast members to make a judement on who is wimpish and who is heroic. Time, I think, will reveal much more than we know now.

All I am really sure of is that God will eventually reveal all. When that will be I cannot say. I do doubt however, that it will be any time within the next year.. the chances get a little better, IMO, each year following this one.

[Panama_Pete]

Would that be the same donor that decided who should be NAD president at Toronto per reporting by Adventist Today? Here

Are we seeing a pattern here?

-bear

I went to the Adventist Today link and read this:

Nomination Process of NAD President Appears "Less Than Clean"
July 15, 2000 - 9:30am - Editors

http://www.atoday.com/magazine/2000/07/nom...rs-less-clean-0

"Seven different sources (all nominating committee members) told AT’s one anonymous source that Jan Paulsen told the NAD nominating committee members when they were in caucus that if they nominated Chuck Sandefur for NAD president, a prominent member of the Adventist Laymen’s Services and Industries (ASI) would oppose that nomination on the floor and present incriminating information regarding the partnership of the Adventist hospitals in Denver with Catholic hospitals. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's another link on the general subject on Adventist and Catholic hospitals in Denver located here. Whether the two articles (above and below) are related to each other in any way, I do not know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://ourworld.cs.com/adventistalert/ninty/six-od.htm

A LEGAL OPINION -- RE: CENTURA HEALTH AGREEMENT --

(A letter to Mr. Garwin McNeilus from Donald G. Juhl, P.C., dated April 17, 1996.)

At your request, I have examined the following doc-uments for the purpose of summarizing their respective salient features:

1) A November 16, 1995 draft of a proposed agreement between PorterCare Adventist Health Care and Sisters of Charity Health Services Colorado consisting of 55 pages; and

2) A memo dated February 12, 1996, from Charles Sandefur, President, Mid-America Union, directed to "Church Leaders, North America Division," consisting of an attached two page letter and an additional four page attached document captioned "Questions and Answers about the PorterCare Partnership."

You have asked that I review the draft of the Agreement and, initially, compare the Agreement with the interpretation and explanation published by President Sandefur and secondly, point-out any additional legal concerns that I might have regarding ary provisions of the Agreement.

I am compelled to say at this juncture that all of my comments are referenced to a draft of the document dated November 16, 1995, which I am advised was not the final draft that was actually executed by the parties, but which was modified only slightly prior to its execution, according to information furnished me.
Throughout this letter, I will refer to PorterCare Adventist Health Care and PorterCare Facilities as "PorterCare" and Sisters of Charity Health Services Colorado and Sisters of Charity Health Services Colorado Facilities as "Sisters of Charity."
The draft document dated November 16, 1995 will be referred to as the "Agreement" and the corporation created by the Agreement, known as Centura Health, will be referred to as "Centura."
I have intentionally omitted any comments on the Agreement from a Biblical or E. G. White perspective, as I do not purport to possess any specialized knowledge in that area, over and above any other church member. I might say in passing, however, that the Agreement gives a whole new slant to Paul's admonition that we should not be unequally yoked together!
Perhaps the best way to organize this writing is to refer to President Sandefur's comments first, then to the Agreement for a discussion of whether or not his comments are supported by the actual terms of the Agreement.
At the outset, however, I want to point your attention to President Sandefur's prolific use of the word "Partner" or "Partnership" in his document captioned "Questions and Answers about the PorterCare Partnership." In the first three pages of the four page document, President Sandefur uses the word "partner" or "partnership" no less than twenty-five (25) times.
While accountants and lawyers may know that a large number of partnerships might consist of any number of partners, each possibly owning unequal shares, I respectfully submit that the vast majority of lay-persons in our Church - or any other segment of society would automatically assume that a "partnership" consists of two individuals or entities each owning an equal 50 percent of the assets, each sharing the profits and losses equally, and each having an equal voice in management decisions. Furthermore, I believe that most lay-persons believe that anyone involved in a partnership can dissolve the partnership at any time and go their separate way.
I have serious concerns regarding President Sandefur's repeated characterization of Centura as a
"partnership," as the Agreement does not create an entity that even remotely resembles a partnership as that term is used by the vast majority of lay-persons, nor does the Agreement create any type of legal partnership that I recognize.
The Agreement creates a perpetual (lasting forever) non-profit corporation under the laws of Colorado which can only be terminated pursuant to Article XIV of the Agreement which will be discussed later. The Agreement obligates PorterCare to remain a participant for as long as the perpetual corporation exists. (Sec. 2.1, p. 8; Sec. 2.3 (b), p. 9)
Furthermore, as alluded to above, this "partnership" is anything but equal. Centura's initial envision of assets and division of cash flow is 70/30 - 70% to Sisters of Charity, 30%o to PorterCare. (Sec. 1.366, p. 7; Sec. 7.2, p. 29) An additional provision allows Sisters of Charity - and only Sisters of Charity - to unilaterally increase their ownership interest by bringing in other Catholic
p 3 -- hospitals and health care facilities which could dilute PorterCare's interest to a minimum level of 20 percent. Any increase in capitalization by PorterCare can only be made if both parties agree. (Sec. 7.3, p. 30).
Of even greater concern is the unequal balance of power that exists with the body that controls Centura, the Board of Trustees.
The Agreement provides that Centura's business and affairs shall be managed by a Board of Trustees consisting of 17 members: 12 appointed by Sisters of Charity and 5 by PorterCare. Moreover, the Agreement states that the President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Centura shall be an exofficio member of the Board with voting rights, but the senior Adventist executive shall be an exofficio member without voting rights. (Sec. 3.4, p.14-15).
Furthermore there is a provision which allows the Board to designate as few as 3 board members as an Executive Committee which will have all authority and all powers normally exercised by the full Board unless otherwise reserved for the full Board of the Agreement or state law. Only one member of the Executive Committee must be a PorterCare Trustee. A majority of the Executive Committee (any 2 of the 3 trustees) constitutes a quorum for the conduct of business. In other words, 2 non-PorterCare trustees can essentially "run" the entire system. (Sec. 3.4 (d) (1), pp. 15-16).
A quorum exists for the full Board if only 50% of the members attend - 9 out of 17 - and only 1 of
the 9 must be a PorterCare trustee. The Agreement further contains the rather unusual provision that if the Board has attempted to meet on 3 previous occasions, but was unable to obtain a quorum because no PorterCare Board members showed up, the 9 Sisters of Charity Board members would constitute a quorum for the conduct of business and a majority vote would be sufficient to pass any measures, resolutions or take other action. (Sec. 3.4 (i), p.18).
Turning now to President Sandefur's February 13, 1996 letter, I note that paragraph two begins with these words: "PorterCare is still a completely Adventist health-care system . . ." the fundamental purpose of the Agreement, however, is the creation of an "Integrated Delivery System" or "IDS". This is defined in Section 1.26 of the Agreement as "...the integrated health care delivery system to be formed by the Parties, their respective IDS Participants, operating units and programs for the development and operation of IDS Activities, which IDS will be vertically and horizontally integrated, able to assume financial risk for a defined population and will offer a comprehensive spectrum of community health services."
Centura will be the organization that totally manages and directs the health care facilities owned by Sisters of Charity and PorterCare. Centura will be in charge of the finances, the marketing of services, the decision of which facility will be used for what services, the formulation and marketing of any Health Maintenance Organizations that may now or in the future be owned by the parties or affiliated with Centura, and all dealings and transactions with physicians, clinics and health insurance companies. "Porter Hospital" may still be the name over the door and PorterCare will still have a separate, all Adventist Board of Directors, but the only meaningful activity of the PorterCare Board will be the election of the 5 of 17 members of the Centura Board that will actually run the new integrated system. True, PorterCare will still hold legal title to the existing assets, but it will retain no control over how those assets are utilized. It will, of course, continue to remain responsible for all existing PorterCare debt.
The document does provide that each party and its facilities may retain its particular religious orientation, which, I presume would forbid the installation of a statue of the Madonna in the lobby of Porter Hospital. However, the statement that Portercare is still a completely Adventist Health Care system is 180 degrees from the stated purpose of Integrated Delivery System created by the Agreement and the new management company, Centura.
Much of the language used by President Sandefur to justify the "partnership" - as he calls it - with Sisters of Charity in lieu of a non-church related health care system is the statement that both PorterCare and Sisters of Charity are mission oriented, mission motivated and mission driven, as opposed to profit motivated.
True, the Agreement pays lip service to the historic medical mission of both the Catholic and SDA Churches. However, the driving force of Centura and the wide ranging powers of the management corporation are aimed squarely at improving the financial performance and economic viability of the institutions governed by it.
The visions and goals of the IDS as stated in Sec. 2.2 of the Agreement are definitely economic in nature, with the last two stated objectives being
p 4 -- unity and enhancement of the historical commitment of both churches to care for the whole person through pastoral care, charity care, community education and care of the indigent. (As a practical matter, I am not aware of any hospital, public, private, profit or not for profit, that does not address these concerns to a greater or lesser degree.)
Section 4.4 however, leaves no doubt that financial performance is central to the Agreement. It sets forth precise financial performance expectations that will be measured by various financial indexes published by Standard and Poors and Moody's, which are used to measure and evaluate a hospital's financial performance. The Agreement further sets forth the corrective action that will be taken, and the powers of Centura to take that action, as well as the consequences of non-performance.
Moreover, Section 7.12 deals with "Removal of Distressed Assets" and states as follows: "(a) If the board determines in its reasonable discretion that any JDS Health Care Facility cannot be operated as part of the IDS in a cost effective manner, CMC [Centura] shall be entitled to direct that such IDS Health Care Facility cease its operations, upon the expiration of a reasonable period of time..," (emphasis supplied) The party whose institution is not "cost effective" does have the right to remove the failing institution from Centura management, without penalty, but its survival on its own would certainly be questionable if it could not make it under the Integrated Management System to begin with.
While Mr. Sandefur states in his letter that "each system will retain ... its assets," that statement does not completely address the entire ownership issue, as Sec. 7.8 of the Agreement states that, unless modified by mutual agreement of the parties, any assets funded by Centura after the qualification date will be titled in the name of Centura, not PorterCare or Sisters of Charity. The new asset would then be owned in the 70/30 ratio.
President Sandefur's letter concludes with the statement that "The President of PorterCare will always be a Seventh-Day Adventist, as well the on-sight managers of the PorterCare institutions." In my opinion, I do not believe that the agreement requires this result, or even promotes this result.
Section 3.6 (a), Management, first states that the President of Centura shall be the CEO of Centura and the initial individual to hold that position shall be the present head of Sisters of Charity, Mr. Gary Susnara. Any replacement shall be recommended by a search committee, with no particular specified qualifications or religious affiliation.
Section 3.6 (b) goes on to state that the Centura CEO shall appoint a (meaning "one") PorterCare nominee as an executive officer of Centura with senior level operating responsibility, which individual shall be acceptable to both the CEO and the PorterCare Board. All executive officers of Centura shall serve at the pleasure of the CEO, in other words, he or she has sole discretion to hire and fire at will. The 17 member Board of Centura and its 12 to 5 composition selects the CEO and the CEO in turn selects the senior executives responsible for operations. Sub-section © states that the CEO has the authority to select the senior executives responsible for the PorterCare Facilities after consultation with and subject to approval by PorterCare." I find no language whatsoever in the Agreement that requires all senior executives of PorterCare facilities to be members of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church.
The question and answer sheet published by President Sandefur is more significant for what it fails to state than what it does state. His answer to that question "Is this a merger?" states correctly that the Centura Board is appointed by the respective existing Boards, but fails to mention the 12 to 5 ratio of the Board or the 70/30 ownership ratio of newly acquired assets and distribution of cash flow.
The second question relating to mission and identity includes, among other things, a statement that PorterCare will retain "Adventist Management." A later answer on page 2 of the President's Questions and Answers also states that "the on-sight managers of the PorterCare institutions are all Seventh-Day Adventist, and these positions will always be held by Seventh-Day Adventists." (emphasis supplied). As set forth in the above discussion, the terms of the Centura agreement simply do not require this or guarantee this. Indeed, the President and all the Board members of PorterCare (not Centura) may always be Seventh-Day Adventists, but as stated previously, this Board is now devoid of management powers and its only meaningful function is to elect its 5 members of Centura's 17 member Board and rubber stamp the executives named by Centura's CEO to run the PorterCare facilities. I choose the phrase "rubber-stamp" with caution but with confidence. To do anything else would "gridlock" the entire system and thwart its underlying purposes.
Another one of the President's comments states that
p 5 -- "a unique feature of this Agreement is that a portion of Centura Health's net gain each year will return to the separate sponsoring Boards as 'tithe and offerings' for additional ministry activities." I find no such provision for a return of "tithe and Offerings" in the Agreement.
Several comments made by President Sandefur indicate that if PorterCare is unhappy with the "partnership," or if it just "doesn't work out," PorterCare can simply walk away from it all and go back to its previous form of management. The final remark in the President's document does in fact mention that if PorterCare withdraws "not for cause, it would be assessed a penalty. No amount is mentioned by the President, or even alluded to.
Section 14.2 (b) governs termination without cause and is, in my opinion, absolutely shocking from a legal and economic standpoint, without mentioning any religious, moral or ethical concerns.
I quote the provision:
"(2) If PorterCare terminates this Agreement without cause S.C. Health Services Colo. [Sisters of Charity] in its sole discretion, may elect one of the following options:
(i) To require PorterCare to pay liquidated damages of twenty-five ($25m) million dollars and grant a right of first refusal to [Sister of Charity] to purchase PorterCare's Denver assets at a value to be established as of the date this Agreement terminates if PorterCare enters into an affiliation with any other person within five (5) years following the date of termination.
(ii) To sell S.C. Health Services Colo. 's [Sisters of Charity's Denver assets] to PorterCare at a premium." (emphasis supplied)
While I am not intimately familiar with Porter Care's present financial position, other than President Sandefur's comments that economic survival requires the "partnership," I believe I can predict with a reasonable degree of certainty that withdrawal without cause would bankrupt PorterCare forthwith. Moreover, if PorterCare attempted to withdraw for cause because of an alleged breach by Sisters of Charity, the legal fees and other costs of litigation would probably produce the same result.
Point © of the General Conference's guidelines for affiliations such as this, as set forth in the conclusion of President Sandefur's communique, requires "Control and governance of material balance sheet assets by Church recognised entities, includinq the ability to withdraw." The language used by our G.C. makes no distinction between cause and non-cause withdrawals and certainly the intent of the provision is to provide for withdrawal for any reason. I cannot believe our G.C. guidelines embrace payment of a 25 million dollar penalty or the purchase of all the Catholic hospitals and nursing homes in the Denver area at a premium, as the price that must be paid for severing the unequal yoke.
Furthermore, the G.C. comments on retained control of material assets does not mesh with Sec. 4.9 of the Agreement which forbids sale, transfer or disposal of material assets of PorterCare without Centura approval. If you can't sell it, you don't control it.
An interesting provision allowing termination for cause is contained in Sec. 14.2 (a). This allows Sisters of Charity to terminate the Agreement at any time, without penalty, if Sisters of Charity or any of its assets are later determined by the Catholic Church to be subject to Canon Law. Canon Law is defined in Section 1.6 as "...the universal law of the Catholic Church as found in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, as amended from time to time, or any successor Code of Canon Law."
Assuming the obvious, that the Catholic Church and its hierarchy is the ultimate interpreter of its own law, anytime the Catholic Church may choose to state that its hospitals are subject to its Canon Law, Sisters of Charity may terminate the Agreement and go its separate way without penalty.
The Agreement does not contain a similar provision that PorterCare may terminate if the G.C. or Mid-American Union later determines that the Agreement violates guidelines or that the PorterCare assets are subject to our "Church Law," whatever that might be, now or in the future.
Not only does President Sandefur's communique neglect to mention the cost of "getting out," it conspicuously fails to mention the cost of "getting in."
Sec. 7.3 of the Agreement requires each party to contribute their pro-rata share (70%, for Sisters of Charity, 30% for PorterCare) of the start-up capital required to fund Centura and, presumably, get it off to a "running start." This contribution must be in cash and must be paid on the date that Centura qualifies as a tax exempt organization. The actual amount shall be the smaller of the following: (a) an amount later agreed to by the parties, (b) an amount that does not adversely affect the credit rating of either party or exceed an amount autho-
p 6 -- rised by any mortgage holder or creditor of either party who has a right to object, or © $100,000,000. That's One Hundred Million Dollars. PorterCare's share would be $30m.
Of course, I have no idea what the eventual figure was or will be, and because of the final provision I shall address, neither you nor I will probably ever learn, unless the amount is so nominal that it precludes embarrassment or criticism by the laity.
As a practicing attorney, citizen of the United States and member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, I have long believed that any business arrangements we enter into with anyone, when that arrangement involves the use and management of assets or funds that have been placed with us to oversee, the entire arrangement should be open to public scrutiny, or at least the scrutiny of the individuals who are members of the organization. Porter Hospital and the other Denver area facilities did not just descend down from Heaven. They exist solely because thousands of loyal church members, as well as other benefactors and the organised SDA Church, cared enough to sacrifice and provide the funds to get the facilities out of the ground and running. It would seem only fair that the present day church members should have the right and privilege to know the details of the legal and financial arrangements-the yoke, if you please - that now binds SDA and Catholic health care facilities together in the Denver area.
Unfortunately, the Agreement speaks directly to this point as well. Sec. 11.7 states in part as follows: "Confidentiality. Each IDS participant shall hold in confidence terms and conditions of this Agreement ..."
In other words, each party is legally bound by the Agreement itself to keep its provisions secret! What better excuse can anyone have for keeping the terms of the Agreement from the general church membership than the response: "I'm sorry, I cannot disclose that information because to do so would be a definite breach of the Agreement itself and subject us to the possibility of severe sanctions."
This provision is probably the most unfortunate of all. It's price tag cannot be calculated, as it breeds mistrust and suspicion - with or without good reason - it encourages criticism of our church leaders - with or without just cause and it fosters discouragement and discontent among the loyal brothers and sisters of our church family. Finally and hopefully least important of all, it provides a fertile environment for those very few op tunists who may or may not be in our ranks, promote their own financial interests at the expense of PorterCare, the Mid-American Union and the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and its members. I sincerely hope and pray this will not happen.
To summarize, the Centura Agreement
-- is not a partnership;
-- is a perpetual corporation that the Roman Catholic Church can withdraw its assets from without penalty if the Church decides the assets are subject to its own church law;
-- does not contain a similar provision for withdrawing SDA assets;
-- does not allow the SDA member to withdraw for a non-cause without a devastating penalty;
-- requires an apparently substantial cash start-up contribution from PorterCare that could be as high as $30m;
-- provides for a minority ownership share of the new management corporation and all assets it may acquire in the future - 30 percent with the provision that the Sisters of Charity can unilaterally force it down to 20 percent by bringing tp other Catholic health care assets;
-- provides for minority representation on the Board of Trustees (Board of Directors) - 5 to 12,
and 1 of 3 on the executive committee that will, in all probability, make most of the critical management decisions;
-- provides that the CEO, who is elected by the Centura 12 to 5 Board, has authority to appoint all other managers and executives with the additional requirement that executives of PorterCare be subject to approval of the PorterCare Board;
-- does not provide that all future managers and executives of SDA facilities must be SDA church members;
-- makes numerous references to the requirement that all Catholic activities will strictly conform to Catholic Canon Law and Directives, which is a detailed body of written law similar to government statutes, while the similar provisions for PorterCare only make reference to the "mission and vision of Adventist Health Systems" and the "values of the Mid-America Union of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and the Adventist Health System" - whatever that amorphous definition might entail from time to time;
-- results in total, 100 percent surrender of all management functions to Centura, including the right to dispose of existing assets;
-- provides that Centura will hold legal title to all new assets acquired with Centura funds;
-- is primarily performance and profit driven; and
-- requires all individuals employed by or
p 7 -- involved with the Centura organization, to keep the ms and provisions of the Agreement confidential. That means secret.
Finally, it is my opinion that the Agreement that I have examined does not legally satisfy the third requirement of the SDA Church's guideline for affiliations such as this, namely, that the Agreement provide for "Control and governance of material balance sheet assets by Church recognized entities, including the ability to withdraw."
I would be happy to re-evaluate my opinion if I were furnished a true, attested copy of the final draft copy that was actually executed by the parties. Of course, I will be happy to re-examine my position on the document I have reviewed if I have overlooked or misinterpreted some provision and my error can be pointed out to me.
In closing, I cannot resist the temptation to do a little crystal ball gazing and engage myself in my own question and answer session regarding this unprecedented arrangement
(Q) Will the arrangement be economically successful?
(A) Of course it will. The vast majority of Catholic hospitals are well managed, well funded
institutions. Their management expertise can only benefit PorterCare.
(Q) Will the Sisters of Charity try to impose their Roman Catholic religion on the management, staff and patients of PorterCare?
(A) Of course not. No one has ever accused priests and nuns of being stupid. Any attempt of the Catholics to impose their religious views on PorterCare would, in fact, be a definite breach of
the Agreement and would allow PorterCare to escape without penalty. No, the Madonna will never grace the lobby of Porter Hospital.
(Q) Will Adventists continue to hold respon-sible positions within Centura and PorterCare?
(A) Maybe, but probably not many. Only those managers and executives who can demonstrate superior management skills will survive. Their religious affiliation will have no bearing-Catholic or
SDA.
(Q) Will the Sisters of Charity ever attempt to get out of the Agreement?
(A) Never. The very name they have chosen - Centura - is from the Latin word meaning "century." But that's not the real reason. There are too many Make it as colorfol advantages for them. Catholic controlled hospitals as possible! and clinics - PorterCare - can now perform abortions, tubal ligations, vasectomies and whatever else the Pope has declared illegal. Just send them over to Porter.
But perhaps the greatest advantage to our "partners" will not be seen for a few years - but it will happen. It's a Biblical imperative. Some day we will hear this compelling invitation: "Come now, my Protestant children, be reasonable. Look at how well we have gotten along with the Seventh-Day Adventists in Denver. Why, it was only a few years ago they were accusing me of being the Beast of Daniel and Revelation! Certainly if we can get along with the SDA's, we can get along with anybody! Don't be afraid. There is nothing to fear. We can all be one big happy family of Christians."
And so a mighty arrow is added to the ecumenical quiver. --- (1996 -- Special -- A LEGAL OPINION -- RE: CENTURA HEALTH AGREEMENT -- Part 2) --- End --- TOP ©Copyright 2002

This post has been edited by Panama_Pete: Jan 7 2008, 04:02 AM

[princessdi]

WB agian with all due respect, I can understand where you are ocming from with this. However, it is still a long post saying, to wait. Well the whelels of justice will definitely grind slowly, especially if they have no information to "move" on. The abuses mentioned in this article are illegal in the world, and folks caught in them pay the consequences. These people hide their under the guise of religion and get away with it while we sit backa nd wait for God to send them to hell......one day.

Di, you have, in this and your next post, written at least four very good posts. The problem is....as it is with this whole thread... the issues involved are so homogenized that it is difficult to tell when you are speaking of the 3abn problem specifically, or with the whole church structure... especially at GC level... in general.

They are related problems, to be sure.... but they are not synonymous... nor is the 3abn problem any where near the whole of the church administrative problems.

Having said that... let's look at the 3abn problem first... and I'll return to the church problem later.

For starters, I have never said "something is just about to happen". What I have consistently said from the very beginning.... very often in the context of lamenting with the souls under the altar in Revelations.... "How long, O Lord, How long??? And also from Revelation... and from the Psalms.... passages referring to the "patience of the saints" and admonitions to "wait upon the Lord". I have also never advocated merely sitting back and waiting passively.... unless that was all that some person in their individual situation could do.

What I have also pointed out is that while "the wheels of justice grind exceeding slow".... they also "grind exceeding fine". What that translates to is more waiting... watching.... speaking out when and where appropriate and restraining our fingers on the keyboards much more than we allow them to type out "all that we know".

At the beginning I shared the opinion that many still seem to have.... that if the "church"... meaning GC leaders.... would merely step up to the plate and make certain announcements.... take certain actions.... that all the mess at 3abn could be cleaned out in a relatively short time... if not instantaneously. It did not take very long for me to realize that when spokespersons for the GC.. or various other levels of the church... said that they "could not do anything about it".... that it was NOT, as I had originally thought, merely a euphonism for "we won't do anything about it", but that the problems were so deep and widespread that it really was... and is... impossible for the church to take the matter under their control and do what needs to be done.

Is it partly their fault.... have they themselves laid the trap for their own feet and bound their own hands so they cannot now step up and act? Yes, that is true. But blaming them now for past actions can do no good, and can do harm. The facts are that the past is past.... and the facts also are that there were always things beyond their control such that there was no point in time when they could have taken over the reins and brought the situation under their guidance and control..... And this is true whether or not one believes that had they done so things would have been any better. It didn't happen. It could not have happened. So moaning because it didn't happen is worse than a waste of energy and emotion.

There ARE those in these United States who DO have the power to clean out such messes as we know exists at 3abn.... but they will do so only if their own interests are threatened and there is some advantage to them to do so. And I speak, of course, of the Federal Government Law Enforcement Agencies..... which... for the first years of their investigations, we did not even dare speak of openly on the boards... and even had to appear publicly to divert attention away from such suggestions. Now that they have decided they have "enough of a case" to openly investigate.... with no attempt to keep the primary offenders from knowing that they are doing so... we can speak a bit more freely.... at least we can say that they ARE interested and they ARE investigating.... AND... though we know nothing of the details of their progress, we can assume with some assurance that they would not still be actively investigating after all this time unless they were finding enough to justify a continuing investigative process.

I have been bemused by comments made on BSDA through the years which have claimed that it was impossible they should be involved.... "since if the IRS has something against someone they move quickly". For while that may be true if there is a simple matter of tax evasion on one or a few counts... that is NOT true if there is a complex case... and to some extent the length of time they spend on a case may be in exact proportion to the seriousness with which they are taking it.


Running the church into bankruptcy... with all of the personal grief it would give those who depend upon their solvency for their employment or retirement sustentation... would not be any solution to the problems of administration. And attempting to "scare" admins into doing something different than what is being done is not only wrong but it would be ineffective. The only long term solution lies with those both in administration and laity who have right motives and a sincere heart to effect whatever change needs to be made.
I agree with this... in principle. We need to be involved and we need to each individually do what we can to facilitate change. And increasingly individuals who are concerned about these things are getting together and spreading the message and seem to be having some effect, though certainly not as much as is needed.
I have never pictured myself as "working behind the scenes"... other than in the sense of observing and communicating and reporting. I have no power to "get with it".... whatever "it" may turn out to be. I recognize the need for a thorough cleansing of the camp... not only 3abn, but other church entities as well.... but finding the solutions will take more wisdom and ability and power than this ol' bird possesses. I do, however, believe that God is still alive and still "in charge" and though he sometimes delays... for purposes known much better to Him than to us.... that He will.... through the human agencies he has appointed in this world (whether secular, clerical, or individual) work to bring justice, peace, and cleansing to all that is needed.
There are, I believe, wimps and crooked leaders among our church leaders. I also think that standing firmly at one's post of duty may look as though one is "wimpish" from the outside, but in fact be heroic... and doing nothing in the face of many conflicting demands may in fact be the best thing that can be done at the moment. And I do not think that at this time we have enough information on the various actors and supporting cast members to make a judement on who is wimpish and who is heroic. Time, I think, will reveal much more than we know now.

All I am really sure of is that God will eventually reveal all. When that will be I cannot say. I do doubt however, that it will be any time within the next year.. the chances get a little better, IMO, each year following this one.

[SoulEspresso]

I've thought better of my post. Not ashamed of it. But ...



"It wouldn't be prudent at this juncture ..."

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Jan 14 2008, 10:49 AM

[Daryl Fawcett]

Isn't there something posted somewhere that the GC had given instructions that would distance the SDA Church from 3ABN?

[Denny]

Even if 3ABN did not exist the GC bureaucracy is still a problem they need to vote the structure out of existence in 2010, move the HQ to another country or go down the congregationalist route.

[Johann]

Even if 3ABN did not exist the GC bureaucracy is still a problem they need to vote the structure out of existence in 2010, move the HQ to another country or go down the congregationalist route.

Even if I do not immediately agree with you I believe you have the right to present your arguments, but probably in a different forum.

[PeacefulBe]

Isn't there something posted somewhere that the GC had given instructions that would distance the SDA Church from 3ABN?

Have you read something along those lines somewhere?