-------- Original Message --------
||G. Arthur Joy
||Re: December 6 posting msg to 3ABN BOD members
||Fri, 15 Dec 2006 00:14:40 +0000
Answers in Red:
An ASI Board member forwarded fyi what purports to be a message from you
addressed to several 3ABN board members re mis management of 3ABN, Tommy
Shelton removal etc.
Answer: We are still working on the language for
a response but in summary will remind you that it is either 3ABN,
you and/or ASI that has limited your jurisdiction to the marriage,
remarriage, et siq. We have a firm belief that there are several
issues that have been brought to the boards attention at various
points that have been inappropriately handled or ignored. If
ASI has opted out, and they clearly have, then there should be
little concern by ASI as we continue to address those issues.
Or maybe their should be plenty of concern, but not concern over
the messenger but rather the content of the message.Wouldn't
that be different!!!
I am also a firm believer that an educated constituency,
just like an educated electorate, is the best guarantee that
administrations will be accountable, open and transparent.As
you know, I would like to see 3ABN all the above.
Also included was a copy of Bob's recent message to Ron Debbie
Was this your message sent by you December 6.
Answer: Probable, but the URL would be the proper
determinate...I would be happy to ratify that by sending one
if you have their e-mail address. Why would that be of concern
Is it your belief that we can proceed with consideration of
the process with
ASI while continuing this kind of interchange?
Answer: Let me reiterate, someone on your
side has made it clear that ASI is limiting it's jurisdiction
to the marriage, remarriage, et siq. We are not going to discontinue
our probe and walk away from the other 22 issues you have identified
that we have because ASI is hand-cuffed... something I am sure
3ABN would clearly prefer. In fact we have an e-mail from Danny
that makes it clear he is only willing to put his eggs in one
basket, believing that if he can get by the marriage issue then
he is exonerated on all other issues. Pardon my paranoia but
I am deeply concerned that any process that is not open and transparent
and within 3ABN's sphere of influence could be "problematic"
and spun by Danny and co any which way to sunday in much the
same way he torpedoed Nicholas Miller when challenged within
the board. If the 3ABN board would like to expand the mandate
to ASI we would consider that, but given your stated position
I do not believe they would be approached effectively.
However it would probably make better sense that the 3ABN
board just meet with us and we can spell out to them what the
issues are, they can answer our questions and we can explain
our perception and why we feel so firmly it is time for a change.
We would be happy to do so, but they have not seen fit to do
that with us or several others. ANd if they had, again, you and
I would not be talking. In fact, I would be happy to include
Linda and Alyssa so they can finally hear the other side and
query them, within reason. And if you wanted to be there and
referee, I am sure that would also make good sense. Then the
panel would be only a necessary alternative if they feel it
essential to determine the marriage issues. (of course that may
be better left to BRI) Now that's a process that would make good
sense and we would consider -backing off- if they would continue
to answer our questions so we can be fully prepared for such a
meeting. That would require they be forthcoming with "the evidence"
so we can plainly and appropriately answer their allegations
and correct their view of some of this trash they have been fed.
And isn't this what they should have done two and one half years
ago regarding the marriage?? And again with Miller over a year
ago?? And regarding the remarriage issue in January 2006???
That approach would allow us to put aside this positioning
and bantering regarding "the process" and just sit down across
the table, the way men ought to, discuss the issues and ask them
to investigate themselves and take the proper steps to eliminate
the "issues" that will plague them over the next six months or
so. ASI can mediate such a discussion but there cannot be a time
limit, and if it takes us three days, so be it.If it takes thirty
days so be it. I just want to see the board act responsibly and
actually pro-actively and not just accept the word and dictates
of Danny Shelton. I just have never heard of a Chairman of the
Board being afraid of the officers. Downright ludicrous in my
3ABN is an important ministry and our purpose can be summed
as simply as "remove the tumor" but keep the patient alive and
well. We are committed to that process and if you find that unpalatable
or unacceptable in some way, then once again we simply disagree.
If this concept appeals to you, let me know as soon as possible
and save me a whole lot of typing in our response to -round three-.
Thanks in advance for your guidance.