The matter of “fairness”.
Whose definition of “fairness” are we to use when addressing this issue? This is one
time John quoted me correctly; my priorities were as identified in my letter of
November 2013. I’ll take my second concern first; the issue of security for tenants on
the ranch. I also said “if the ministry was to continue the ranch should be kept intact and
we should be willing to do whatever it takes.” I don’t believe it was my letter or our plan
that troubled John so much as it was losing private control of the check book. Dorothy
is treasure of the corporation and our plan would mean moving the books back to the
Freedom Ranch corporate office in town. John would still have had access to the books
and the checking account but he would no longer be able to use corporate funds to
buy personal items without our permission. Any board member of a corporation has a
fiduciary responsibility to other board member and John is no exception. On the
upside, John would then be able to devote his full attention to the ministry. Where is
the downside if John no longer needs to worry with coming up with the ranch
payment? Remember he said I am not interested in developing some plan to continue
Freedom ranch by generating enough money to pay the mortgage each month. Maybe
he has forgotten he WAS interested in generating enough money to pay the mortgage
when it was his plan. Does the Cracker Cowboy Experience come to mind? When the
Glenn’s are threatened with loss of control, they circle the wagons. So by John’s refusal
to consider our plan, he put the tenants in jeopardy. My first priority; the continuance
of the ministry, was disallowed by the J&J plan as addressed here. But to reiterate, the
Okeechobee County Building department will not allow the plan.
