Bart Meltzer has resigned from the Board Of Directors. He wrote a long letter of resignation, taking full blame for the snowball effect that led to Ellen’s departure, and stating that it was about power and control. He obviously feels terrible — I can only imagine what this has done to his relationship with Ellen.An exerpt follows:
This is my formal resignation from the board of directors of American Atheists, Inc. and United Secularists of America. I can no longer serve on the boards because of the events that have transpired leading to the departure of Ellen Johnson.Specifically, I was the instigator to Ellen?s departure and caused irreparable damage to the organization and pain and suffering to Ellen and her family. Because of my own self interests, I tried to stop Ellen from doing the Bill Moore walk. Yes, I was concerned for Ellen?s safety but initially I also refused to work with Ellen to try and make this walk as safe as I could. I just wanted Ellen not to do this walk and I refused to listen to her plea to help make this walk safe.That?s what Ellen asked me to do when we first discussed this on the morning of March 6th, 2008. ?Help me make this walk safe? was Ellen?s exact request. I replied that there was no way to make a two week walk safe. Maybe there was no way to eliminate all the risks, but making it a little safer is exactly what I wound up doing anyway. So I should have just done that from the start. The Bill Moore walk WAS a noble cause for Atheism and American Atheists, albeit a dangerous one. However, it did not turn out to be as dangerous as I thought it would.The other (not so minor) issue is that I tried to ?Control? Ellen. I incorrectly assumed that I had that privilege because of our relationship, I was on the board, and this was a safety issue. I tried to force Ellen not to do something she had already made plans to do. I don?t know that I did this intentionally to control Ellen but I did it just the same. Intentional or not, it was wrong.
I can’t say his departure is a surprise to me, and I can’t say it’s the wrong thing to do (it isn’t). However, I think it’s a bit of an overstatement to say this one incident (the Bill Moore March) caused the firing. There were a lot of problems here, and most of them still exist. The Moore March was the final straw. All in my opinion — just applying logic to a very emotional situation.
Dave
Bart’s apology was very sincere. He expressed regret for his actions and took responsibility for the harm caused. I would like to see such sincerity from the other board members. So you say:
Three points: (1) You have said in the past that you are not in-the-loop and are acting only in your capacity as spokesperson. But your post is sounding in-the-loopy to me. (2) If the Moore walk is not the problem then what is? (3) If the Moore walk was the problem and it was Bart that precipitated this mess then when will Ellen be reinstated?
Thank you, Bart. I would still like to hear other people’s views regarding the last few months though. But this piece of information is nice to have.
Dave
I agree with What that you do sound very much “in-the-loop”. If there are other problems that are still present with Ellen gone, and now Bart gone, maybe the whole board needs to be replaced. That would be quite a task, wouldn’t it? In any event, it’s looking more and more like we need Ellen back.
I also agree that Bart’s apology seems sincere and I think he has learned something about himself and his relationship with Ellen in this process. Perhaps the two of them could shake hands, be adults and agree to let bygones be and start fresh?
This is an opportunity to rework what needs to be fixed. Rewrite by-laws if need be. Fix term limits. Set up rules/standards of communication. I don’t know what all needs to be done because you refuse to let us in on what the problems are. I don’t understand why it needs to be such a big secret. Are there ways some of us out here in blogland can help, or does one have to be in the NJ proximity to be of service?
I still believe that the Bill Moore walk had much more to do with an outdated ideal of ending racial segregation (it’s already gone in the US) than eliminating the estabolishment of religion in government affairs or promoting the liberties of atheism in America. Basically, the Bill Moore walk was an uncecessary PR stunt for American Atheists.
The problem with total replacement is a very destructive experience drain that might be difficult to recover from. In fact, that’s the main problem with term limits (especially in small, volunteer-based organizations like this one). I wouldn’t recommend it — even if it could be justified.
So far as the walk is concerned, while I want to see it as best intentions and all that, I never liked the “riding the coat-tails of the segregation” feel of the thing. Sure, Bill Moore had an atheist slant as well, but it doesn’t feel anything but overshadowed by that.
Hi all,
Like I said, I’m not on the board, and I am just applying logic here — I don’t think the board fired Ellen because of one incident. That’s all.
BUT, per request of Bart, here is his entire resignation letter, unedited.
Thanks for the letter, Bart.
The only way I will rejoin AA is if Ellen is reinstated as president.
Forgiveness is such a strange concept anyway. To give it is to place oneself in the absurd position of authority over another — which in my mind should require an apology all by itself. And to request it is kind of like dragging those you’ve wronged down with you. (But never mind my odd philosophies — they’re a work in progress and will remain so by definition of philosphy.)
Better than forgiveness is the restoration of one’s credibility in some measure, and that you’ve earned. Granted, I don’t know you Bart, so your story here dropped you down a fair number of pegs and then raised you up a couple. Funny thing is though, often it’s the upward struggle that matters most.
(While I always have to roll my eyes at the glowing praise ex-crack addicts get for staying sober next to the lack of attention people who never touched the stuff in the first place, it’s worth also noting on occasion that next having been challenged does not a champion make. Sort of like atheists who have never considered why they don’t believe, or that god/Jesus thing never really being in danger or capable of temptation.)
Anyhoo, good call. See a therapist — seriously.
Bart
This kind of apology is rare indeed. You set a good example to be followed not only by the AA board and AA members but for humanity at large. As a member of American Atheists I accept your apology and think your decision to leave the board a wise one.
Cynic
I agree with your perspective on forgiveness.
Bart,
How could someone be Ellen’s partner and not know her any better than this?
In your next relationship you should probably pay better attention.
I think Bart’s candid statement of what went wrong could go a long way toward making things better. And he is right to step down from the board. I don’t doubt that his personal concerns for Ellen’s safety were a driving factor in his actions. That’s all the more reason for him to excuse himself (and suggests to me he probably should have done so sooner), especially if there is a chance to get Ellen back in her post.
What he has done is given the other members of the Board of Directors and Ellen an opportunity to take a deep breath and sit back down to see if this situation can’t be resolved.
Unfortunately, there are now hurt feelings to be mended and bruised egos to be salved. But the situation is far from hopeless. I think if all the parties involved will simply sit down in a sincere effort to reconcile their differences rationally and with mutual respect, a better outcome can be achieved for all concerned.
If those involved genuinely have the best interests of American Atheists at heart, they should have no difficulty reconciling their differences.
And if the claim is now going to be made that “things have gone too far,” then I think the membership of this organization is entitled to a full and candid statement of all the factors that make reconciliation impossible.
My 2 cents.
In the last three years I became involved with activism and member of American Atheists 2 years ago. I now (try to) organize a group of 300 atheists and I have so many questions and things to learn. I once called the Office in New Jersey and to my surprise, I was transfered to Ellen and she was very nice, helped me out and showed genuine interest.
I attended the Conference in Minneapolis, I was excited, so many people to ask questions to and learn from. I attended every meeting, presentation and dinner that I could.
With a few exceptions I often felt like an outsider when it came to the “big names” of American Atheists and doubt that any would remember me if they tripped on my name tag, I didn’t expect hugs and kisses, but I also didn’t expect to hear as a response to a question to be “go read the constitution”.
During the Conf., I asked Ellen a question, she couldn’t answer it at the time and again was surprised to find out a few hours later that she was looking for me with the answer. Bart was also another that didn’t seem “untouchable” and I was very glad to have met him.
Bart’s letter again is the example of the leadership I hoped to find with this Organization. Not so much the actions he admitted to and his involvement, but his ability to accept the responsibility and work for the best interest of American Atheists, I hope the other board members will also reflect on their actions and motives.
I will not infer that the board will not do the right thing for American Atheists, but my concern is the loss of two members that made me feel welcomed and being left with those that left me feeling chilled.
My other cent:
A few of you look at the Bill Moore walk as a publicity stunt and pointless, I disagree. Atheists have a poor reputation in America, which I know isn’t news to you. Bill Moore was an atheist and died for a great cause, he should be remembered. Atheists have too few heros, this walk was to bring recognition to another Atheist in our history and we should embrace that. If all we do is sue, protest, march and complain we will be seen as such, It is up to us to show we are more than that. Showing that atheists always have cared and still do does show that.
Ellen Johnson has been a great spokesperson for American Atheists, Please reinstate her
Crispy Christ On A STICK!!!
What an overly drawn out and discombobulated mess that was!
How was this person even retained on the board in the first place? It’s no wonder AA has been long lacking in any great new ideas or major efforts, and as a result has fallen to the bottom of the barrel as an influential or even respected organization — especially among the atheist community itself. Neither Ellen nor Bart should be reinstated. It’s long overdue for AA to seek a whole new energy and for innovative ideas come to the forefront! In fact, I would welcome other stuck-in-the-mud board members to get the hell out now as well.
As for Bart, he’s obviously got some mental/emotional issues and should seek help. At least he had enough insight to see that resigning was the first necessary step in this direction.
George Ricker
Ditto.
Hallelujah! (pardon the expression)
I questioned this conflict of interest situation earlier, and it turns out to be far worse than I ever dreamed. This is what you get when the president of the organization is sleeping with a member of the board. Great, just great. Fantastic judgment, people.
If Ellen Johnson is reinstated, I will definitely NOT be renewing my membership. Then again, my renewal is in serious doubt anyway if there aren’t some serious and positive changes made. What an embarrassing mess.
I think it’s a good idea for you NOT to renew your membership under any circumstances, Tarpit. You don’t have a clue about what’s going on in AA yet you feel it incumbent upon you to comment on everything, usually against Ellen.
Moreover, your sexual mores appear to hark back to the churchy 1800s. You don’t seem to have a clue that Atheists do not follow the sexual mores of any church or religion or even the prevailing sexual mores of our society that hark back to pre-women’s lib days and male ownership of woimen as property. If you knew anything at all about AA, you’d know that its founder, Madalyn Murray O’Hair was strongly against the bourgeois religious control of peoples’sexuality. Madalyn herself had two children out of wedlock and enjoyed a healthy, roisterous sex life in and out of marriage.
I attended the San Antonio, Seattle and Minneapolis AA conventions and, as an organizer for atheism in NYC, let me tell you, Ellen’s life has always been an open book. She has referred, in many speeches to Bart as her “main squeeze” for years now. You had only to be at the Seattle convention to see Bart and Ellen being very lovey dovey in public.
Why would this relationship be considered a “conflict of interest?” It’s an open relationship between two consenting adults. What a “conflict of interest” is, is when a catholic priest rapes a seven-year-old altar boy. The priest’s interest is in sex, the kid thinks he’s obeying god’s agent. That’s a conflict of interest, kiddo.
We need Ellen. She did the right thing by trying to commemorate Bill Moore, who may be the first martyr of Atheism in this country. You have to know that the right to be atheist in a predominantly religious society is a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE.
To insinuate that the Board has anything more against Ellen than the fracas over the Freedom Walk is wrong and deceitful. There is nobody on the Board of AA who can replace Ellen. THERE IS NOBODY ON THE BOARD WITH ELLEN’S CONSTELLATION OF TALENTS. So please,lay off Ellen.
.
Smartgal
I don’t think Tarma was referring to Ellen and Bart’s marital status and making any judgment on it at all. The conflict of interest comes in with having a Board member being a loved one or family member of the President, which Bart would be considered to be. It puts both him and Ellen in the very difficult position of trying to remain completely objective about decisions while leaving their feelings for each other out of the equation. Obviously, this became impossible to do.
I understand your loyalty to Ellen, but you are letting yourself be driven by emotion. I suggest you step back and get another perspective on the entire situation, and not just look for signs of female persecution. I’m sorry to have to tell you that all your comments here have seemed like seething feminist conspiracy theory rants or ad hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees with you or doesn’t glorify Ellen. I like Ellen, and admire her. I’d like her back. But I know there is more to the story than we’re aware of. So please, think a while before you hit the send button on the next comment you dash off in anger.
To the person who wrote that Ellen’s “Freedom Walk” was a “stunt,” I post again the history of that walk in its Atheist-history context:
Ellen’s “Freedom Walk,” was intended to finish the civil rights mission of Bill Moore’s march to deliver a letter to the governor of Mississippi protesting segregation in that state. Moore never completed that walk 45 years ago because he was shot through the head and murdered on a lonely road–and this ranks for many of us as UNFINISHED BUSINESS in modern atheist history.
You have to know a little history here to know the connection between Madalyn Murray O’Hair and the Bill Moore event. (And yes, I realize that you are too young to know this–you weren’t even born when it happened.)
Bill Moore was a close friend of Madalyn’s, close enough that he slept at her house when he was in Baltimore. Madalyn encouraged him in his walk, and helped him prepare for it, even to the extent of choosing what message was going to be on the sandwich board he carried.
Madalyn was utterly devastated by Bill Moore’s murder. In her autobiography, AN ATHEIST EPIC, she wrote this about Bill: “He introduced me to the writings of Albert Ellis…he was kind, he was happy, he was gentle. I think we all fell in love with him. Garth did immediately. Bill did within hours. Mother was captivated…Bill and I were simpatico and he had it going with the kids. We never even had a disagreement. We got into the damndest in-depth conversations that this world has ever heard. I thought he was a male Madalyn Murray and he thought I was a female Bill Moore…”
Madalyn describes how she learned of his death:
“Bill [Murray, her son] was standing in the middle of the living room screaming at the top of his voice…He was as white as a sheet. “Bill Moore’s been shot.”..The wail came out of Bill, ‘He’s dead!’ Someone had driven past Bill Moore, parked the car on one side and as Bill had walked past, shot him through the brain. He was killed instantly. The man’s fight with Bill had been over Atheism. When it was found out that Bill was not only a ‘Nigger Lover’ but an Atheist too, someone determined to kill him and kill him he did.”
The above quotes are from Chapter 35 of Madalyn’s autobiography,AN ATHEIST EPIC, a whole chapter on Bill Moore.
So you see, Ellen’s Freedom Walk had everything to do with Atheism as well as civil rights. And even now, there is much belief in this country that atheism is a civil rights issue.
Madalyn feared that she too would suffer the fate of Bill Moore because of the rampant hate of Atheists in this country. Atheism was, she felt, a civil rights issue along with racism. And in truth, it is. Though today we have a Black man and a woman running neck and neck for the presidency, both of them have a better chance at that office than an Atheist does. Polls show that no one would vote for an atheist today.
Madalyn did in the end suffer the same fate as Bill Moore. Though she was murdered ostensibly for her money, the fact is, the police did nothing to help her or look for her or protect her or help prevent the crime. For all intents and purposes, the police in Texas were virtual accomplices to the murder of Madalyn and her family.
At the time of Madalyn’s abduction, no one on the AA board of directors did anything that might have saved Madalyn’s life, ostensibly because there was the thought that Madalyn may have indeed flown-the-coop from the country where she was so persecuted. To this day, many board members regret that they did not do so, and wish they had done something, anything, that might have saved Madalyn, Garth and Robin from the brutal deaths they suffered. (Garth’s skull, found in Madalyn’s grave, “did not have an inch on it that was not cracked,” said the IRS agent who was among those who found the bodies–which indicates he must have put up a terrible struggle.)
Ellen Johnson was “like a daughter” to Madalyn Murray O’Hair. There’s no doubt in my mind that Madalyn would have wanted Ellen to be her successor.
And there’s no doubt in my mind that Madalyn would have wanted Ellen to complete Bill Moore’s “Freedom Walk.”
If Ellen can be faulted in any way, it’s that she did not, or could not, explain to the world, and to the Board of Directors, the deep grief she still feels about Madalyn, and her sense of obligation to fullfill Madalyn’s goals. I tried to voice that when I wrote on this blog that I imagined Ellen running down South with tears slipping down her cheeks. I can only imagine the sorrow she must have felt when the bodies of Madalyn and her family were uncovered 7 years ago. I can only imagine Ellen’s emotional need to memorialize, in some way, Madalyn’s life and death.
That is why I weep for Ellen now: I feel she has been as misunderstood by the Board right now as Madalyn’s disappearance was 13 years ago. You can’t do anything anymore for Madalyn, board members, but Ellen is still here with us. Don’t let her suffer alone and isolated now, as you heartlessly punish her for an innocent and well-meaning act that was only meant to commemorate another innocent and well-meaning act 45 years ago.
Ellen was/is a terrific organizer and spokesperson for AA. She was more dedicated than just about anyone.
However, this does not mean she should be reinstated. I know both Ellen and Bart and frankly don’t know what is best for the organization.
I DO know, though, that many of the current board members are aging and perhaps should become board members emeritus and let some younger blood onto the board. The org needs new blood and new ideas. Obviously, a complete turnover at once is impractical.
I disagree that their personal relationship had any substantive negative influence on the org. This is not high powered finance with billions of dollars resting on decisions. I, too, was concerned for Ellen’s safety and told her so at the MN convention. I of course wouldn’t have gone to extremes to prevent her, but was concerned. I can only imagine what Bart, who loves her, must have felt.
I hope the org survives and thrives and find those who threaten to leave or not come back, etc. to be quite juvenile. Grow up, people, things aren’t always perfect or go the way you would like. It is your job to correct/improve them, not abandon them!
Karen wrote:
” I don’t think Tarma was referring to Ellen and Bart’s marital status and making any judgment on it at all. The conflict of interest comes in with having a Board member being a loved one or family member “
SMARTGAL RESPONDS:
Wrong, wrong, wrong. (1) Ellen and Bart are not married. (2) It is not unusual for both non-profits and for-profits to have family members or “loved ones” on the Board. For example, in Bill Gates’ new non-profit charitable organization, Board members and officer include his wife and his father. In the for-profits category, the Lauder family rules on every level in the Estee Lauder corporation.
Presumably, a family member or loved one knows the intent of the president better, is more loyal, has more motivation and is less likely to be doing it for money.
KAREN WRITES: “I understand your loyalty to Ellen, but you are letting yourself be driven by emotion…”
SMARTGAL RESPONDS:
Wrong on count one, right on count two.
1) My “loyalty” is to American Atheists. I am convinced, as a media professional, that Ellen is the best person to represent AA to the world. I have no personal relationship with Ellen Johnson except to listen to her speeches at conventions. They are GOOD.
2) What’s wrong with EMOTION anyway? Would you rather I talk in terms like “fidiuciary?” Religion indulges in emotion all the time with its promises of god love, sin, heaven. You use emotion yourself when you use loaded words like “seething” “feminist conspiracy rants.”
EMBRACE EMOTION. HUMANS NEED EMOTION IN ORDER TO LIVE, UNDERSTAND, LOVE, ENJOY LIFE. Don’t be afraid of emotion. Surrender to it.
3)I never used the word “conspiracy.” That is your word. I don’t think the AA Board is smart enough to be a conspiracy, anti-woman or any other kind. When I was in the Women’s Lib movement along with Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem, we always had to confront women like you who insisted that they were not being discriminated against, that it was all in our heads, and that they, personally, liked having doors opened for them. Betty would often point out that most white people didn’t think there was much discrimination against Blacks, either. You had to confront white people with photos of lynched Black men before they would admit that yes, maybe there was discrinmation. Spare me the tedium of bringing up statistics about women in our society.
I am aware that there are some women, sitting in their trailers chomping on Pringles, surrounded by their cats, typing in comments on blogs, who have never had any anti-female experiences and will swear on a stack of “The God Delusions” that to think the Board might have acted differently with a male than with Ellen is paranoia-ville. And Guantanamo is really a Club Med, right?
Dumbgal,
WTF is the matter with you????!!!! Please, lady, take your meds.
I don’t give a fuck what your dear Miss Ellen’s sexual relationship with Bart is or was…..EXCEPT….she was president of AA, EMPLOYED BY THE AA BOARD, and he was on the board. ERGO, CONFLICT OF INTEREST!!!!
And what’s up with all the stupid comments about “housewives” and “women sitting in trailers surrounded by cats.” You, madam, seem to be the only one around here guilty of misogyny (your favorite word). So sad.
Smartgal
UM, 1) I know, but that doesn’t mean I can’t refer to their “marital status”. Their marital status is “unmarried.
and 2) while it may not be unusual for that set of circumstances, it is nevertheless a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
Smartgal
Smartgal
Maybe this will go through this time.
I have not seen her at conventions, where she is speaking to supporters. I have seen her on TV. In the face of antagonistic journalists, she sometimes gets discombobulated, repetitive, and shrill. As a media professional, I would think you’d have noticed.
There’s nothing wrong with emotion, but there are times when one needs to check it, like when making decisions. or when responding in knee-jerk fashion to posts on a comment board, IF one wants to present oneself as a thoughtful, insightful individual.
I supported women’s lib too, and I worked in the art world when sexual harassment was called doing business. So don’t think I don’t know about how women are treated. But I don’t use that experience to broad-brush all men and expect to find misogyny hiding in every corner.
And for the record, I don’t mind having a door opened for me, just as I will open a door for someone else-man, woman or child. It’s simple common courtesy. Women who get their noses out of joint over the door thing are out of focus.
I must comment – Ellen has been a very articulate and compelling advocate on TV and, while occasionally she, as anyone, is not always perfect, she has never been discombobulated or shrill. Most of these shows give her a 20 second response to a 3 minute rant (or ignore her if she is part of a panel).
Additionally, these posts need to get less personal and toned down several notches. This should be a sounding board for IDEAS and philosophical “proposals” and, yes, comments on what is happening, NOT a forum for personal attacks. At the very least, the personal comments could be a lot more civil.
Tarmac:
I actually agree with you on something (in addition to atheism, of course).
maizie,
Yes, well….if a certain other person didn’t perceive every friggin’ comment on the blog as an attack against all womanhood, it wouldn’t get so deep in here.
It sure would be nice to be able to post a comment on the issue(s) at hand without being personally attacked as being somehow “unworthy” of making a comment. If pushed, I will push back. And no, I don’t live in a trailer, and I don’t eat Pringles – though it is true that my husband and I are the devoted staff for 3 lovely and intelligent cats
Well, Smartgal, concerning Ellen?s reinstatement, yes, we are ?on the same page? with you, and maybe with regard to other matters as well. But it seems like there are at least two motivations on this blog. One, the commonsense desire to get Ellen back–with which Jeanne and I are in total agreement with you?and, two, all the other fulfillments of personal agendas like claims of misogyny; lack of understanding of the location of commas; abuse of old directors; “conflicts of interest” charges; innuendoes about incompetence of other AA members; orders to ?take your meds,? and other irrelevant issues.
We maintain that it would be important to ascertain with confidence, whether or not Ellen wants to return to this organization, and after that, then, please, someone, make a suggestion that does not include any accusation or criticism, but rather is of the form, ?Let?s all . . .?
Gil and Jeanne
Spinfusor,
Thank you (I think?) We probably agree on a lot of things, who knows?
Thanks for being open Bart, that is much appreciated.
Smartgal,
So, sweetie, what is your problem with me, eh?
I am a lifelong atheist, a member of American Atheists, and of above above-average intelligence (if I do say so myself). Last time I checked, this blog was a public forum, and if I want to “comment on everything,” I have a perfect right to do so. In truth (and if you had ever spent much time here you would know this), I comment rather infrequently. On the other hand, I don’t recall seeing comments from you on any other subject at all besides “Ellen,” as an excuse to talk about your misogyny obsession.
You’ve made snide comments about my being a housewife, being unfamiliar with the corporate world, sitting in a trailer eating Pringles and blogging. Even if those things were true, and they’re not, who are you to be making judgments about other women and their lifestyles and accomplishments?
I would have replied in more detail yesterday, but I was busy playing 18 holes of golf at our country club. There, am I more worthy now?
Now, this is flat-out ridiculous. First, of all “atheists” is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized in this context. You do know that it is not the same as being “Methodist,” don’t you? All being an atheist means is that you don’t believe in a god or gods. Got that, sweetheart? Doesn’t speak to sexual mores. At all.
So?
Extremely glad I don’t live in NYC, and the chance of running into someone like you at a convention does not make the prospect of attending one terribly appealing. I guess I’ll stick to more grass-roots activities such as writing letters to newspapers, contacting legislators, speaking up for my views, and, yes, blogging.
Here kitty, kitty, kitty.
Gil and Jeanne,
Let me respectfully submit that what you call your “commensense desire to get Ellen back” is no different than the “fulfillments of personal agendas” you speak of so disparagingly. I do respect your point of view. I just do not share it. I also respect and thank you for your volunteer efforts on behalf of American Atheists in assisting with the editing of the magazine. I have to say candidly, however, that the editing of that publication has been piss-poor. Ellen Johnson was listed as the actual editor of the magazine, so I don’t know where the buck was supposed to stop. All I do know is that the quality of that publication desperately needs to be elevated. You clearly have a vested interest in having Ellen Johnson reinstated. If that is not a personal agenda, then I don’t know what one is.
My opinion.
I gotta go mow the lawn.
I haven’t closely followed the debate on the issue of Ellen’s departure, but it seems that it has caused a surprising amount of rancor.
While I have no complaints against Ellen, I am of the opinion that regular leadership changes are generally a good thing for an organization. The organization’s goals and objectives should be independent of any particular leadership.
Changes in leadership allow for new ideas, growth, and healthy change.
OK folks calm down — we’re on the same side here.
Smartgal is NOT dumb — she’s an activist in this movement.
But she’s wrong — having a board member with a romantic relationship with the president WAS a conflict of interest. Remember the purpose of the board is to keep the president in check, like the Supreme Court and the President of the US. What would we say if G.W. Bush appointed Laura Bush to the Supreme Court (even if Ms. Bush was otherwise qualified)? This situation was analogous and clearly problematic.
I voiced my concern on this subject to Ellen two years ago, and it was acknowledged and dismissed because “Madelyn was president when (her son) John was on the board”.
Dave
I wouldn’t call it a conflict-of-interest but rather a conflict-of-interest waiting-to -almost-assuredly-happen. I think this sort of stuff fairly common place but no less wise.
Tarma, When we volunteered to help with the proofreading and copyediting, it was for the reasons you cite, namely many punctuation and spelling errors, which embarrassed us. Ellen gratefully accepted and appointed us “editorial assistants” but sent us only a portion the articles that were to be printed for our examination. We did not do the entire magazine. We do not know who did the rest.
For you to make the blanket condemnation of the entire publication as “pisspoor” (when in fact the articles that we proofread were highly unlikely to fall into that category) is unfair. We had little or no say in the quality or content of the articles. At times we were sent a compilation of scribbled notes, e.g., the current article on the House Resolution, and were asked to put them into some coherent form. At other times, when we tried to make superficial corrections, some egotistical writers, including some board members said things like, “Don’t change a single punctuation or word! I intended to say that!”
You are also criticizing the worker without knowing who actually did the poor job; in other words condemning the quality of the workmanship of people you do not know. To say we have a conflict of interest in wanting to continue donating and devoting many hours of our time just for the privilege of being insulted by people like you defies credulity.
Gil and Jeanne
Gil and Jeanne,
I apologize for impugning your proofreading skills. As I stated earlier, Ellen Johnson was supposedly the editor of the magazine, and I would have thought that the final responsibility was hers to create a publication that we as members could read with pride. If she didn’t give you that opportunity, that is indeed unfortunate, and telling.
You obviously have a positive personal relationship with Ms. Johnson, and as such you believe that it is “commonsense” to reinstate her, and everyone else’s views are merely personal agendas. Okay. My only personal interaction has been to e-mail her a couple of times to point out a glaring error in one of her videos on the website or to make a comment on the magazine’s content. Otherwise, I have only my observations to go on: the stagnant and error-filled website; her very strange call to secularists to not vote; the questionable (in my mind) Bill Moore walk; a not-very-effective (in my opinion) style in handling television debates and discussions; and, now, the recent revelations about the board and Ms. Johnson’s relationship to it (and to one board member in particular!). To me, as a member, it is not “commonsense” to reinstate Ms. Johnson as president. To me, it would be “commonsense” to appoint some new leadership and to require term limits for both the board and the president.
Again, I apologize for insulting you, and I truly do respect all the volunteer work you have done for AA. Peace?
gjgaudia,
Tarma said:
For some reason you two have chosen to take that as a personal attack, despite Tarma’s qualification that she is not aware of all the relevant details.
All we (the regular members of AA) are privy to is the finished product, up until now we have not known any of the particulars about who edited what. When Tarma states that “the editing of that publication has been piss-poor,” that is the truth. It has.
Just because a few scenes in a film are perfect does not mean that the film as a whole can’t be called terrible.
Since you two apparently are not responsible for many of the articles, it stands to reason that Tarma’s quote should not be taken as a statement on your abilities as editors. Rather than being offended you should have simply stated the facts regarding who was ultimately responsible for the editing. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but this appears to be the first time you’ve mentioned just how much you were responsible for.
You also said this:
That’s ridiculous. Tarma, and now I, were criticizing the finished product. I don’t recall anyone saying “Gil and Jeanne Gaudia are terrible editors.” If anyone did say that, then I will state right now that I don’t agree (simply because I’m ignorant of who did what).
Thank you for enlightening us more about who is ultimately responsible for the final edit of the magazine. Now we are able to better direct our criticisms. Hopefully in the future someone more qualified than Ellen and the individual authors will have the final say. Based on your most recent comment, I would support the two of you taking that post if you chose to volunteer for it.
Dave, any chance you could post the AA constitution and by-laws (or whatever they are called) here on the blog?
I have a few questions that I think would be answered if I read the by-laws. Aside from that, posting them on the blog could make for an interesting and useful (assuming AA is open to suggestions) discussion.
Jeff-R
Good suggestion.
Apologies accepted. By the same token, despite your willingness to withdraw the criticism of us,neither do we want the criticism deflected toward Ellen to protect our own (possibly worthless) hides. Ellen’s job was basically “undoable.” This is what many of you do not understand. We will be very surprised if they can find anyone to do her job for what she received as compensation.
She was not just the editor of a magazine, which is how most of us know her, but has more duties than you all can think of, but she worked her butt off to do them.
Yes, Jeanne and I admit a bias–in fact despite the fact that we have never met her, we love her. She’s the same age as our older daughter, and maybe we have let that color our perception of this entire situation.
Yes there are flaws in the magazine–some, perhaps, because of her. But on the whole, she did an outstanding job.
Often we spoke with her on the phone when there were magazine deadlines, and she had to rush to do an interview with Paula Zahn or some other TV show. She was running ragged and often could not keep up with the traffic. As for criticizing her performance when up against imbeciles like Bill O’Reilly who allowed her thirty seconds and then interrupted her after ten; why blame her? When she was given a chance she spoke quite well for Atheists and many of our acquaintances who knew she was “our boss,” were very complimentary about her TV appearances.
She had the conferences to organize, a column to write and many other duties including, we swear it’s true, clean up the toilets.
Please think of the Native American admonition of walking a mile in the other person’s shoes before taking them to task.
Gil and Jeanne
Tarma:
According to Arthur Brenner (http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/index.php/2008/05/16/president_zindler_answers_questions#c89084), this was being worked on.
The development of a new website is something I think AA’s members should be involved in. How about a design contest where people submit their concepts to be voted on / chosen by the members?
A pleasant surprise that Bart would do the right thing and make an open apology. For years, numerous state directors, office managers, and American Atheist employees have been complaining about him and how his relationship with Ellen allowed him to do whatever he wanted, often to the detriment of the organization. Ellen wouldn’t hear any criticism of her boyfriend and the board was too lazy and dim to care, listen or even consider the problems that Bart and his relationship with the president created. Now they are finally forced to deal with fixing the organization and the membership is not being kept in the dark, as they have been in the past.
Kudos for the long over due transparency, putting the interest of the organizations purpose(s) first, and the candid letters from AA volunteers.
American Atheists is not a feel-good club and social service for atheists, it’s an activist group created for the purposes outlined in the Aims and Purposes. What works in accomplishing the goals should dictate American Atheists actions, not what makes some members feel good.
I would expect a statement from the board and new president on what plans and actions are being implemented to accomplish the goals of American Atheists.
If the O’Hairs disappearance wasn’t a wake up call, maybe the recent events will wake the board out of their slumber and get them to start running an organization with the intent of fulfilling the Aims and Purposes, which means organizing and planning, not waiting to hang out together at the next convention.
Does that include the Society of Separationists Inc., the Charles E. Stevens American Atheist Library & Archives Inc., and the American Atheist General Headquarters Inc. AKA The American Atheist Center????
These organizations and their relationship to American Atheists and it’s board members and officers should not be hidden from members.
Members concerned about the recent events of AAI hierarchy should push their emotional attachments and cult of personality loyalties aside and review the Aims & Purposes along with the AAI Constitution and Bylaws – which are very simple and only suffice in getting non-profit/incorporation status , not in facilitating AAI in running smoothly toward accomplishing it’s goals.
Ellen did an incredible job, but she was overwhelmed with doing so much by herself along with balancing and incorporating aspects and conflicts of her personal life while trying to figure out what to do next with AAI with constantly changing circumstances. The board appears to have been negligent through absence and that there was a conflict of control and Bart obviously complicated this. We all have observations and opinions. However, the facts of these matters are best revealed by those involved.
In a time when our national hierarchy is so incredibly plagued by corruption, lies, fraud, deceit, and the American public is inept about the US Constitution and our democratic Republic (or what that means) AAI members (including the board) should see the irony and work to better understand what AAI is, what it stands & exists for, how it runs, who runs it, how to improve it, and how to make it successful….if they want to be directly involved.
AAI has always been close knit and personal but it doesn’t exist to be a social club.
Members should inquire to know the truth about recent events, question whether actions taken were in compliance with the AAI Constitution and ByLaws and seek what is in the best interest of AAI and it’s goals.
Friends of Ellen should, by all means, make sure to reach out to their friend. But friendship and membership are two different things.
Secular, AAI is commonly used to mean Atheist Alliance International (Margaret Downey’s group). I think you mean AA.
As far as I know, bart was not on the boards of the other orgs you mentioned, and is no longer a board member of any company related to AA.
Thank you, Secular Man, for a well-written and sensible response to all of this craziness.
First, Ellen and Bart’s relationship was/is a clear conflict of interest, as evidenced by the final outcome, and anyone who would deny this is incorrect.
Second, the rancor exhibited on this blog, especially between Smartgal and Tarma is not only unnecessary, but damaging at this point, and I would suggest that they mend fences and come up with some good suggestions rather than harp.
Third, I don’t know Ellen, nor do I know anyone on the Board, but have been impressed by Ellen when I’ve seen her on t.v. From what I’ve read on this blog, it would seem that the Board, in its lethargy, did not do its job adequately, and left Ellen to hang in the breeze, with a lot of responsibility which she, obviously, handled as best she could.
Fourth, I would call for everyone on this blog to ask to have Ellen reinstated immediately, since she seems to be the only individual with enough knowledge to do the job immediately. Otherwise, this organization may go down trying to keep afloat. I think the best long-term goal would be to replace the Board members, one at a time, and that everyone learn some valuable lessons from this debacle.
nancyjensen1213,
I have posted several suggestions in various topics, and a lot of other folks certainly have made excellent comments. Personally, my strong opinion is that Ellen Johnson not be reinstated. It is time to move on. If that makes some people foam at the mouth, so be it.
To repeat some of my other advice (I really do know what I am talking about):
Institute term limits for both the board members and the president. All organizations need new blood and new ideas from time to time. AA desperately needs a transfusion.
Pay the president a decent salary. Ellen’s salary (I understand it was less than $40k) is a joke.
Focus on atheist-specific issues and don’t get sidetracked quite so much with peripheral issues that already have well-funded and effective organizations working on their behalf. American Atheists apparently has little funding and a tiny staff pushed to its limits.
Make a push to improve the quality of American Atheist Magazine and the American Atheist website. These organs are the public’s only view of us in many cases. They should at the very least be professional and up-to-date.
I have no clue how many members AA has, but we need to recruit more new members, with their attendant funding possibilities.
I must say that getting a glimpse of how this organization operates has been, er, interesting. More of this transparency can only be a good thing.
I also thank SecularMan for his reasoned and helpful comments.