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.
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.
For Smartgal:
FYI, though you may think so, you don’t have the monopoly on feminist issues. And name-dropping (“Betty used to say”) is indicative of (maybe) an insecurity issue. Though you seem to know a lot about AA, it would be so much more productive to offer some worthy suggestions to this group of bloggers.
Tarma:
Good suggestions. I’m new to all this, and appreciate all that I’m learning about this very necessary but obviously troubled organization. Maybe now that everyone has vented, bloggers will move on to suggestions which might work, and finding a way to get the Board to say more about what the problems were/are. Then members, who are obviously interested and invested, can offer their suggestions and advice.
nancyjensen1213,
Well, I am certainly new to all this exposure to the behind-the-scenes workings of the organization. Having retired a couple of years ago from a nonprofit with a few eerily similar problems, I’ve been both bemused and somewhat alarmed to keep hearing more and more disappointing details leak out. It can all be turned around, however. Of that I am certain.
I’ve stated several times that the best thing about AA is this blog. There are many intelligent, experienced, and caring people posting here. Hopefully the board is taking notice.
Tarma:
I agree with you…this is a group of very bright, motivated, and invested individuals who can offer what they’ve learned from their life-experiences and advice/guidance in this struggle.
You’ve had experience with non-profit organizations, Smartgal is in publishing (maybe she can offer her voluntary services to the magazine) and I’ve had a psychology practice for the past 22 years. Surely some of us can offer our ideas, based on our experience, to assist in this new transition, whatever it may be, going forward.
I do think, as you do, that the organization should focus on what it needs most…getting new members and money to invest in staffing, as a start. I’m amazed at what the board paid Ellen, who obviously worked very hard.
My Apologies for any confusion caused by my use of the acronym AAI when referring to American Atheists Inc. It is the same acronym used by American Atheists Inc in it’s Constitution and ByLaws and after reading through the American Atheists Inc. Constitution recently, the acronym used in it’s content stuck in my head.
I should have seen that AAI could be confused for Atheist Alliance International. (Or Arab American Institute, Adam Aircraft Industry, or Acute Alcohol Intoxication depending on what circles you run in)
I’ll be sure to use “AA” in the future when referring to American Atheists on this blog.
I hope that people such as Tarma, will offer lessons learned from other organizations to improve AA.
SecularMan,
Every time I use “AA” I think of Alcoholics Anonymous. Definitely not a good association
First,
Would anyone who has ever threatened to quit the organization unless they get their way please quit now. We need your $35 a lot less than we need some unity, rational discourse, and civility.
Second,
Those of you getting into ad homenim high school flame wars must be amusing to the xians who monitor this site. If there were atheist commandments, one of them would need to be thou shalt argue logically no matter what!
Third,
David is probably right about how a conflict of interest underlies this whole issue. Let me add that if there was not such a shortage of people willing to do the hard work, AA wouldn’t have to enlist whole families. So quit leaving emotional nasty-grams on this blog and get to work doing something productive!
I think it was courageous of Bart to let us all in on his personal turmoil regarding the situation. Resigning was the correct thing to do. I also think it would be very uncomfortable for Ellen to remain on the board after being fired in such a manner. I like both Ellen and Bart. I wonder what this has done to their personal relationship together. Whatever endeavors they pursue after this, I wish them success. They will be an asset to any organization.
At this point in time the board needs our constructive observations and suggestions. Everybody has vented, now it is time to get back to the work of Atheist activism.
I think on any forum, personal attacks between posters are not productive. We are all adults, so act like one.
Acute Alcohol Intoxication or Alcoholics Anonymous. Either way we’re a bunch of drunks…
Chris B:
Unity around what? An organization lead by dishonest and incompetent people?
I quit because the handling of this situation was unbelievably poor. AA’s members were lied to and then told to sit down and shut up (that this hasn’t outraged some of you is baffling to me).
It’s been over a month since Ellen’s firing was announced and there haven’t been any signs of progress. Aside from Bart, there haven’t been any apologies for mistakes made. There hasn’t even been a single sign that AA is heading in the right direction. I’m done waiting.
Smartgal would be a heathen.
Personally, I would prefer to see new leadership including changes to the Board that would result in a more open, more professional, and less “family-run” type non-profit.
I truly applaud and appreciate the job that Ellen and the Board have so passionately performed. However, every group eventually becomes less effective and even dysfunctional over a long period in time. It’s just a fact based upon the dynamics of group behavior.
Reading this blog, it’s obvious that there’s too much baggage associated with the current leadership to expect that they can work together effectively.
Being a member for just three years, I don’t know who might make a good President or Board member; however, I believe news ideas and voices are needed. I hope the Board is wise enough to recognize that changes are needed and that they themselves might need to step down.
I hope that Ellen, Bart, and any others that leave the organization continue to support it and provide their advice to the new leadership. I also hope to see more civility among the membership and on this blog.