Statement Regarding Ellen JohnsonA specially called, and properly noticed, meeting of the five Boards of Directors that together comprise American Atheists, was held on April 29, 2008.All members of the five boards were personally present via telephone at that meeting, including the President Ellen Johnson.By a majority vote of the Board of Directors of American Atheists, Inc, and by a unanimous vote of the Board of Directors of two of the other four corporations, Ellen Johnson was involuntarily removed from the office of President of American Atheists, Inc. and from the office of President of the other four corporations.The bylaws of each of the five corporations permit the removal of the President by a majority vote of the Board of Directors.Out of deep respect for Ellen Johnson?s many services to American Atheists, in deference to her privacy, and with the desire that her Presidency be remembered favorably by history, American Atheists asks that this statement be accepted without calls for further explanation. Be assured that the action taken was in the best interests of the organization and of its membership.Frank R. Zindler, Acting PresidentAmerican Atheists, Inc.; Charles E. Stevens American Atheist Library & Archives, Inc.; Society of Separationists, Inc.; United Secularists of America, Inc.; and American Atheists General Headquarters, Inc.
This is pretty self-explanatory. Once again Ellen is welcomed to post on this blog any time.
In the mean time, we are looking forward and looking up. Change is in the air.
Sorry, no can do.
Why was there a post saying that Ellen left ‘for personal reasons’ and now there is a post saying that she was ‘involuntarily removed’?
Those two statements strike me as mutually exclusive.
is Ellen still on the board?
The word is she found God.
I find it a bit hard to feel “assured” when the person doing the assuring previously posted that Ellen left for personal reasons… still, out of respect for Ellen, I’ll refrain from asking any more questions.
So we should accept your word on faith?
That doesn’t seem very atheistic to me…
“Someone” who chomochone? We like sources here.
cjn
Wow…it appears that American Atheists is in as much disarray as the democrat party….
My first guess would have been a power grab because of the “majority” vote within AA. However, with the other two voting “unanimously” for her removal, it makes me wonder if there wasn’t something much more serious which occurred…
But the dues paying members will never know. Instead the powers at be would rather have their troops speculate instead of knowing the truth…
Wow…it appears that American Atheists is in as much disarray as the democrat party….
My first guess would have been a power grab because of the “majority” vote within AA. However, with the other two voting “unanimously” for her removal, it makes me wonder if there wasn’t something much more serious which occurred…
But the dues paying members will never know. Instead the powers at be would rather have their troops speculate instead of knowing the truth…
Sorry for the double post…the AA server appears to have hiccuped…
Yah the older statements were vague just to protect everyone from complications that can arise when a relationship ends. Now it’s a little less vague.
But this is pretty easy to read. The President and the Board had major issues and the Board terminated the relationship according to the rules of the organization. Ellen was aware and an active participant in the proceedings. It didn’t work out. It happens, and it sucks.
Ellen is still on the Board. Whether she stays is anyone’s guess.
I really like Ellen, as do most Atheists I know, but she’s not the President anymore. Frank is (for now), and he will take us in the direction that is more agreeable to the board (or they’ll remove him too).
She did NOT find religion Chomo. Please do not spread such rumors, even if you are trying to be funny.
I’m not sure which is more eyebrow raising — the repeated references to AA in terms of a corporation, the or the professed desire for history to be seen for what they’d rather it be, rather than what it is.
The need or want for privacy in this matter is understandable and justified. I think you’ll find, though, atheists are far more of a “warts and all” sort of bunch in general, even if it “isn’t their business”. So much has been concealled in the name of wanting to alter history.
It all depends on who we’re viewed, right? If this were a government, we’d have a right to demand it. If this were a corporation, the board members could demand it, the shareholders could demand it. But the customers and the lower employees could not.
Of course, the “customer/employee” paradigm concept isn’t accurate in this case since in function, they’re one in the same.
I’m not assured. I’ve yet to hear what this “new direction” is that apparently couldn’t be accomplished with Ellen at the helm. I’m all for new blood and fresh ideas, but I’d like to think we could trust the AA representatives to be open and honest about what’s going on. So far, I don’t get that impression. I wouldn’t want to think we atheists are being told to “sit down and shut up and not ask questions” by other atheists.
Gee Karen…couldn’t you have been a bit less inflammatory? After all, Dave is the communications director and simply trying to calm the waters…
I agree Karen. Are we going to hear from CNN first?
This could be nothing, or it could be something.
Rumors are never a good thing.
I am going out on a limb here. I saw her in a couple of interviews and was not impressed. She seemed quite an angry person. Never met her in person so cant’ say I know her personally but my opinion is we don?t need another Madeline O?Hair.
Seems there are quite a few well known Atheists out there that are very level headed and can handle the pressure. Very likable people that make their arguments strong and respected. Not emotional. Richard Dawkins is one in particular.
My guess would be Ellen was canned not because she found Jesus, but because she encouraged atheists not to vote. I’ve heard some felt she really messed up on that comment and since she was the president some took it as she was speaking on behalf of the entire AA organization. I heard a whole lot of members got pissed and sent emails in complaining.
American Atheists also use to be the premier organization for atheists, and some felt that Ellen represented the old guard, so the push for new ideas is to get AA back in the mainstream, and not viewed as a personality cult of O’Hair (much like Rand and her followers). The not-voting comment was the icing on the cake, I’m sure.
A lot of members feel, I think, that there is a lot potential for this organization that just hadn’t been utilized. Though it may not have the numbers like FFRF, it is definitely in a place to become that, if it played its cards better. AA is pretty much a household name, or at least it was when O’Hair steered the ship. I think the members want that again, but just not all the drama associated with it. I think the Board knew if it didn’t take action, especially since the take off of the New Atheism, AA would be overshadowed by groups like AAI under the leadership of Downey.
Sometimes the deck has to be shuffled a bit.
Shady123,
I like your theory. I was very dismayed about the “don’t vote” comment.
I think shady123 may be on to something. Atheism has become a lot more hip in the last couple years and is even beginning to approach mainstream, yet AA seems to have been left in the dust amid all the hype. At least that’s been my impression. I have no idea how much that has to do with Ellen’s leadership, but it seems like a plausible reason for AA to consider a new direction.
I think Zindler is awesome, or at least his articles are awesome. Looking forward to new era.
phreedm
Hehe. Well, at least it isn’t in as bad a shape as the Republican Party.
Dave
This is not acceptable. I am sick of opacity in our government and I wont accept this authoritarian posture from AA. If we do not get all the facts with respect to the firing then I will drop AA in favor of one of the other free thought organizations.
Eh, I never much cared for Ellen that much anyhow, just kind of a mediocre president in my not-so-humble opinion. What!? So crucify me already!
Seriously though, Frank will probably do something spectacular in his presidency.
Okay, I didn’t mean that. Actually, I stand corrected, I guess she’s done some great things for AA that I didn’t even know about until I went to the AA website. I guess she’ll be missed.
Well, it remains to be seen if Zindler will be a better spokesperson than Johnson. I have never seen him, so for the moment I have no judgement.
However, I think it would be a better policy to have fixed terms and maybe term limits, if that is not the case now.
There would be less controversy if at the end of a term, a new person was chosen.
This is the best blog on the web,as long as things can be aired out anyway we want I can deal with it.The waiting is the hard part.
Apparently most of you were not at the convention, as I was. Ellen did NOT tell people not to vote. What she did say was that atheists should band together as a group with lots of voting “power” and THREATEN not to vote if our views are not heard. She explicity said we should vote, but threaten not to. This may be somewhat duplicitous and some may not like it, but these are the facts.
Also, Ellen is far from an angry person and nothing like O’Hair. To the contrary, not only is she warm and friendly and funny, she has done a great deal to unite all the atheist groups and IS a uniter not a divider! (pardon the reference!)
What is the point of all the above speculation as to why this and why that when none of you have any facts and have no idea why this happened. Many of you are making comments re people’s behavior and personality while, sometimes admittedly, have never met anyone involved. And, likely, don’t participate in any AA activities.
I have great fondness for Ellen personally, think she has done a great deal for the organization. This does not mean it is not time for a new person. Frankly, I don’t know, but it would be nice to know what the Board’s thoughts are.
Also, for the record, if AA wants to take a new direction, Frank Zindler, while a very dedicated atheist. is not, in my opinion, the person to do it. If change is in order there needs to be much younger blood with new ideas.
Dave Silverman would be a perfect example of this type of new leader. There are many more like him in the organization, all over the country.
please ignore the droll….
I am also with Karen…..open honest integrity is an attribute I would like to find in AA….Religion offers none….the media, especially Fixed Noise, has none….
I appreciate the truth in all that it is…..
My question, Is Ellen still on the board?, has not been answered….
“Ellen your fired, but you can stay on the board if you want”….hmmmmm
Frank-
I’d say it’s time to put up or shut up. Obviously, we’re aware that a difference in vision existed and that a power struggle took place.
Who do you think you’re dealing with, anyway – sheeple?
You’re acting president – not the Pope – so don’t insult us with this, “…accepted without calls for further explanation” crap.
I suggest that A.A. come clean and publish the list of grievances it had against Ms. Johnson.
If this represents a change in direction for the organization, a revised mission statement is also in order – pronto.
maizie,
Maybe that’s what she said at the convention, but in a video posted on the American Atheists website 2/5/08 she very specifically said that she didn’t vote on Super Tuesday, and she also very specifically encouraged secular voters to stay home during the general election. Nothing about threaten – just don’t vote, period, which was a ridiculous thing to say, in my opinion.
However, if the board was so upset about that particular comment, seems like they would have said something many weeks ago. It’s got to be something more complicated and/or more serious than that.
The board is under no obligation to reveal the specific details of Johnson’s dismissal. Indeed, I would be surprised if they do so. Am I curious? Sure. But this is a private organization, not a publicly elected government agency. Legally and morally, Johnson’s right to privacy trumps our curiosity.
The very nature of this organization imposes upon it an obligation to conduct such business IN THE OPEN.
If the reasons for Ms. Johnson’s dismissal are valid, that validity should also be self-evident.
Bottom line – The board wants to make some changes in the organization. As a member(?), I’d like to know its plan.