Home > Testimonials > Revival and Reformation > Response to Prayers for Revival > Atlantic Union Conference - Feb. 9, 2011, update > Atlantic Union Conference - Sept. 24th update >
Letter to Dan Jackson - Sept. 22, 2011

Letter to Dan Jackson

North American Division 

Please Pray for our church leaders
  The power of united prayers
                                                                                                    Sept. 22, 2011
Dear Dan Jackson:
    The Atlantic Union Conference Executive Committee met on Wednesday, Sept. 21st and did not resolve accusations that Don King, Carlyle Simmons and Leon Thomassian have willfully neglected their duty resulting in professional misconduct. There are also other accusations of violations which I did not specifically describe in the documents I sent them since July 28th but fully intended to describe if they had contacted me about them even once since July 28th
   Now that the Executive Committee has failed to follow the process described in Working Policy L-60 section 15 and the matter failed to be addressed by the Executive Committee – I am informing you that the process has failed and I am referring this matter to the administrators of the next higher level in the church organization in accordance with Working Policy L-60 section 15.
The old adage attributed to Clement Atlee that “He who controls the agenda, controls the meeting” was proved again at yesterday’s meeting. I have learned that the Atlantic Union Conference Executive Committee does not allow new business to be introduced from the floor by a motion and second. Members are only allowed to discuss business that is on the agenda prepared by the three people who are accused of misconduct.
   Therefore, the Union Administrators have prevented an investigation of the charges of their own misconduct by just not putting it on the agenda of the meeting.  As you know, I was concerned that this would happen and contacted members of the executive committee to make them aware that there are accusations of misconduct that need to be addressed by the executive committee.  Unfortunately, the concerned members of the committee were unable to bring the matter to the floor for discussion.
The writers of Working Policy L-60 probably foresaw this situation and have written a ‘new’ process into the section 15 policy so that a failure of the process does not bring an end to the matter. In the ‘new process’ the Administrators of the North American Division are given the duty and the authority to call a meeting of the same Executive Committee to deal with these accusations of misconduct and you are responsible for chairing this meeting. The Officers of the NAD are also responsible for meeting with the AUC Executive Committee in an effort to resolve the matter.
I point out that only the members of the Executive Committee that I was able to contact are aware that the Union Administrators did not include accusations of misconduct on the agenda – the process described in L-60 section 15 has failed, and it is now up to you to safeguard the integrity of the Administrators and restore the accountability process to the Executive Committee.
I plan to contact the members of the Executive Committee that I can contact to ask who actually considers it questionable conduct to cause a working policy to fail in this way.  It is also possible that there have been other charges that have been prevented from being investigated in a similar way and I will share this information with you if the executive committee members give me permission to do so.
This situation reveals a flaw in the practice of NOT allowing members to introduce new business from the floor, I assume when the practice was introduced – it was probably not presented as the way that accused administrators can prevent an investigation into charges of their misconduct by keeping the matter off the agenda. This aspect of the practice was probably not considered when it was introduced – but should be a subject worth discussion by NAD policy makers.
Since the three Atlantic Union Administration Executives are accountable to the Executive Committee, this situation may cause you to realize the downside of this practice when the new business is about accusations of misconduct by the people who are preventing an investigation into their own conduct. Members of the Executive Committee may not clearly understand the actual accusations of professional misconduct because details have not been provided, however, I hope that they will become more concerned about these accusations now that they that they have been prevented from investigating the charges. I hope that you share my opinion that it is questionable conduct to cause a working policy designed to investigate and reveal misconduct by Administration Executives, to fail in this way.
I send you this message because I expect you to do the duty that your own working policy assigns to you in this situation. I also expect to hear from you soon, because you knew this was coming for a month and certainly when Carlyle Simmons wrote his decision on Sept. 1st - -  
   There are many concerned Adventists besides myself who will be praying that you will follow your own Working Policy even if others will not follow this NAD policy.  .  .
On September 5th we published an OPEN LETTER to the members of the Atlantic Union Conference Executive Committee, to make them aware that accucations have been made and the Union leaders still will not do their duty in accordance with Working Policy L-60 section 15.  Fifteen members of the Executive Committee were contacted directly.
  Return to - Update October, 22nd