a fine video and news story on the sale of ULC
here. The silence of the Board and the President of MNS is nothing short of stunning. It's like deja vu with the Issues, Etc. fiasco, where Synod execs stonewalled for a number of days. Chaplain Gard notes that this sort of behavior only increases the distrust of the district and its officials. Once again I say: David Kind for President of MNS!
Having been in broadcasting for several years before seminary formation, I will say that the silence on the part of Minnesota South District is not surprising and is also wise on their part. Real Estate transactions are to happen in executive session. What goes on in executive session is not talked about publicly, except to state that a decision was made. It doesn't change the fact that this is a frustrating decision by the District Board of Directors. The silence should not be a surprise.
ReplyDeleteYes, done all nice & legal like. But as a supposed public servant of the church, Prez. Lane Seitz needs to comment on this publicly. If our church leaders can hide behind executive session as an excuse for not addressing these issues, even if they're doing it legally, then we might as well stick a fork in this Synod.
ReplyDeleteWith show of right...
ReplyDeleteAs always...FOLLOW THE MONEY! The board would not be electing to sell this asset unless some or all of the board members directly or indirectly were "making coin" on the transaction...very similar to Classic 99.1 FM sale here in St. Louis...This has "Kick Backs" written all over it...a thorough investigation of every board members personal finaces should be conducted both in Minnesota and here in St. Louis...even if it requires a "colonoscopy"..
ReplyDeleteI've heard that President Seitz is planning not to run again next year. Apparently, according to some who have called the MNS office, he is currently on vacation. I've also heard that Peter Meier is talked about as a "successor" to President Seitz.
ReplyDeleteIt's Time... to have turn around on the district level now too. This is even more critical, as we can see.
George -- if that was the case, WHY would they state publicly the minimum amount they would sell it for? Have you ever in your life had a seller tell all buyers the minimum amount, when there was one offer on the table already for a figure so close to that?
ReplyDeleteNorm, were you replying to my comment or someone else's? Because I can't figure out your comment if it's in reply to mine. Thanks.
ReplyDelete