In Service of the Cause of ReasonFrank R. ZindlerMadalyn Murray O?Hair would be quite astounded ? indeed, a bit dismayed ? to see me occupying the president?s chair of American Atheists, Inc., an office she herself first filled when she created the organization back in May of 1987. I say this because even though Madalyn was like a second mother to me and to my wife Ann, it was always clear that she expected the organization to be ruled by a dynasty of which she was the progenetrix. Indeed, the presidential mantle fell quickly upon the shoulders of her younger son Jon Garth Murray. There was ever the expectation that the third-generation president of American Atheists, Inc. would be an offspring either of the never-married Jon or of her granddaughter and adopted daughter Robin Murray-O?Hair. (Robin was the daughter of Madalyn?s estranged elder son William Murray, Jr.) Mind you, it is not that Madalyn would have felt me to be unqualified to hold this office. She would have known that I have been a member since 1977 and was elected to her board of directors in the early 1980s. She would have known that I was the author of several Atheist books, over fifty articles in American Atheist, and I had taken part in over 400 commercial radio and television talk-shows and debates against priests, creationists, theologians, religious apologists, enemies of the ?Wall of Separation between State and Church,? and Right-to-Single-Cell-Lifers. She would have known that for thirteen years after her death I had served faithfully as managing editor of her beloved American Atheist Press, publishing newsletters, magazines, books, and Atheist ephemera. No, she wouldn’t think I was unqualified (except perhaps because of my age) to be Acting President; but she probably would not be entirely pleased. I suspect that Madalyn would have been less disappointed when Ellen Johnson took the helm of her flagship, although I suspect that ?the most hated woman in America? would have been more than a trifle jealous of the glamorous and suave woman who captured media attention almost as much as she had ? certainly more effectively than had her son Jon Murray in his prematurely terminated tenure in office. Perhaps because my occupation of this office will be brief, there is something slightly surreal about my present status. Can I really ? in any significant sense ? be a successor to Madalyn Murray O?Hair? How could two people of such different temperaments and talents fill the same office, serve the same purpose, pursue the same goals? Are not the needs today of American Atheists different in many ways from those satisfied by the Murray-O?Hair family? Are not many needs the same as well? Would it be wise ? or prudent ? for me to imitate their practices in the face of changed circumstances? It is hard for me to grasp my successor status in large part because I never sought it and had little warning that it was imminent. I never seriously expected that Ellen Johnson would ever be removed from office. I always had hoped (and expected) that the increasing number of disagreements ? concerning policies, practices, and priorities ? between her and the boards of directors of the five affiliated American Atheists corporations would be resolved and that Ellen would be their president until the end of my life. Alas, that proved not to be the case. During the two weeks leading up to April 29, 2008, duly noticed special meetings that had been requested by majorities of all five boards of directors of the affiliated corporations were called by the Secretary for the purpose of ?ironing out? the differences. A decision had to be made, for example, whether or not the boards of directors were the controlling authorities of their respective corporations (as mandated by all five constitutions and bylaws) or not. A seemingly irreconcilable difference of opinion concerning who controlled American Atheists had to be resolved. But even more important was the question of who should be held most responsible for what American Atheists does ? or doesn?t do. The president or the board? Board members felt that under the constitu?tion and bylaws their fiduciary responsibilities were decisively greater than those of the president. For reasons of which I am unaware, Ellen did not participate in either meeting. Then, on the evening of April 29, 2008, a joint-session telephone conference was held by the boards of directors of American Atheists, Inc.; American Atheists General Headquarters, Inc.; Charles E. Stevens American Atheist Library & Archives, Inc. (CESAALA); Society of Separationists, Inc.; and United Secularists of America, Inc., with Ellen Johnson participating by cell-phone. Of the eleven men and three women comprising those directorships, constitutionally mandated majorities considered it their fiduciary duty to remove Ellen Johnson from the office she had held for thirteen years. I was among that majority. It was one of the most painful decisions I have ever had to make. Minutes later, I was nominated and unanimously elected Acting President of the five corporations. Thus began the surreal sensations that I still experience. It should be noted that the resolutions passed by the corporations effectively terminating Ellen?s presidency sought to respect her dignity by giving her 72 hours in which to submit a resignation ? failing which she would be removed from office. Public notices needing to be given before the deadline were deliberately nonspecific as to whether she had resigned or been fired. No resignation was forthcoming. Let me make it absolutely, bluntly clear: Ellen had done nothing illegal or even close to being illegal leading up to her termination from office. Nevertheless the many issues in dispute were substantial and of great importance if American Atheists is to remain secure, stable, and positioned for growth. As I have observed in reply to several letters I have received concerning the circumstances of the separation, it is like a divorce ?for irreconcilable differences.? Just as such divorces can nevertheless often be anguished and painful, so too is the present split. But it is also the case that even bitterly fought divorces can often lead to reconciliation after wounds have been healed by time. We earnestly hope that will be the case here as well. There is, however, a remaining area of dispute of which readers should be made aware. The Board of the Atheist library corporation CESAALA is asking Ellen to return diaries of Madalyn Murray O?Hair and other memorabilia salvaged from the Murray-O?Hair home back in 1996 after the murder of the ?First Family of Atheism.? According to the terms of their joint will, all such personal property was to become the possession of CESAALA ?with the stipulation that the library shall forever have the purpose of finding, preserving, and keeping Atheist and related books for research and enlightenment of Atheists.? The Board of Directors considers obtaining the diaries of its corporate founder a fundamental fiduciary duty. As this issue of American Atheist goes to press, no response from Ellen on this issue has been received. What, then, is the plan for my pro tempore presidency in succession to Madalyn Murray O?Hair? Perhaps because I am serving without salary and the job is extremely difficult, my plan is quite simple: to put myself out of office as soon as possible and to be succeeded by someone of whom Madalyn might be more proud. The boards of directors have asked me to publish an advertisement in this issue of American Atheist soliciting applications to fill the office of president. I am confident that we will receive applications from at least several men and women of whom not only Madalyn would be proud but ? more importantly by far ? you will be proud.
You have said this before and many of us have already done exactly that.
The board did not act in the interests of it’s members let alone the country. It acted in the interest of power-testing and power-hungry board members.
Dave, I spoke with you on the phone yesterday and you seemed to be a rational and considerate person. So I am surprised to read these judgmental and dictatorial statements by you like “LEAVE TODAY” to and about some of us who have contributed far more than $35 in dues to the organization. Why are we being called “fair-weather members,” and ordered to take our dues elsewhere? How does a Life Member take his dues elsewhere? Even at minimum wage, Jeanne and I have contributed the equivalent of thousands of dollars in professional services to AA as I am sure others, perhaps you as well, have done. Why are we to be considered “rebels” or less entitled to be heard than you? This is perplexing to me and I would appreciate clarification from you about why those who disagree with the board’s decision to fire Ellen are being considered irresponsible or unworthy of membership. It sounds like the Republicans telling people who oppose Bush’s war that they are unpatriotic and undeserving of citizenship.
Gil Gaudia, Ph.D.
“It sounds like the Republicans telling people who oppose Bush’s war that they are unpatriotic and undeserving of citizenship.”
bingo! Sounds like the your-either-with-us-your-against neocons are in charge here.
Dave, I have been disappointed in your letting the ad hominem remarks go through. I brought up an IDEA–that Sexism and/or Misogyny may have something to do with Ellen’s firing. You allowed various people on this blog to make vicious comments about my anatomy, my mental state, etc.
This only proved to me that Sexism is alive and well and being actively touted and defended on the Internet, even by a few women.
At one point on this Blog, bloodied by the whiplashings, I backed down and said, “Well maybe Misogyny–which means hatred of women–was too strong a word.”
I take that back. Judging from the comments you have allowed on this blog, misogyny is NOT too strong a word. THE HATRED IS PALPABLE.
And those who point out the discrimination, like me, are hung, lynched, drawn and quartered by ignorant sickos.
Poor Hillary. I can only guess what she went through in the Bible belt. But who would have thunk it would crop up on an Atheist blog?
Misogyny lives.
Dave Silverman wrote:
“But Please can we stop? This was not a which hunt, this was not a coup. This was a firing. That’s it.”
DAVE, IT’S NOT OVER TILL IT’S OVER.
Dave Silverman wrote:
“We’re not publishing the private reasons (and neither are Bart and Arthur). The word is MOVE ON. It’s been over a month you know. Some support would be nice.”
YOU MEAN THERE ARE INDEED “PRIVATE REASONS”?
THAT’S INTRIGUING. WE DESERVE TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE, DAVE.
THE ONLY REASON I CAN UNCOVER FOR ELLEN’S FIRING IS HER FREEDOM WALK.
OR ARE YOU REFERRING TO “PRIVATE REASONS” SUCH AS THE JEALOUSY OF CERTAIN BOARD MEMBERS?
Smart — you READ the private reasons to which I was referring before I deleted them.
Gil — when we spoke I said the same thing. I said that members who leave because they are attached to Ellen, and not the cause and not the organization, can and should leave. IN fact, I believe I said that quite strenuously. I always did say it, and WHAT took my advice. Also, it’s not fair to translate your time donated to the organization into money. How much of MY time, as a 10-year activist, would you have considered I donated? Should we compare? No, we should not. We should just press forward until we succeed. The movement owes us nothing – that’s why they call it “Charity”
WHAT — Too bad. Bye.
You are all picking fights among your friends, and it’s wasteful behavior. You are wasting time on a dead issue. You are trying SOOOooo hard to be angry over the simple fact that Ellen pissed off the board (and vice versa) SO MUCH AND SO OFTEN that they fired her. Anyone care to give that an ounce of thought?
I am NOT suggesting “you’re either with us or you’re against us”. I’m saying if you think we’re a bad organization, or if you think Ellen as a person is more important than our cause, then go find some other organization. I only ask you stay within the movement.
Yes, this was badly timed (there is no good time), but it was necessary. Ellen can post here any time she wishes, and has chosen not to. She knows too much is at stake here to F-it up with egos and hatespeak. She’s running GAMPAC, and I am very confident she’ll be a dramatic success and play a significant role in the movement’s future. I’ll help her if I can.
I’m going to start helping Ellen by not dragging her name through the dirt. She deserves better, and I personally respect her too much.
We are trying to take the high road here folks. Maybe you could give it a try.
I think the pot and kettle are staring at each other blank expressions just about now.
You have said that she has done nothing illegal. So what are doing now? Are you trying to cast some doubt on what you have previously stated by implying that there is “mud” involved. That’s a Rovian tactic if I have ever seen one.
That’s What not WHAT. I wont be leaving this blog just taking my money elsewhere. If you want to play the authoritarian in an organization of atheists you will not get far. I will be here to remind you of the fact that a perfectly good organization was gutted due to pettiness.
I don’t know that I would either if I were in her place? She’s more like the true mother in the tale of Solomon. Dave, you are too willing to split the baby in half.
If they do think about it they will realize that most of the people who were unwilling or unable to cooperate, compromise, and work together are still running AA. And they’ll realize the one person with proven leadership skills is gone. That hardly inspires confidence in what’s left of the organization.
Jeff, they’ll (hopefully) realize that one of the players is gone, and it may just have been the right person to go.
They’ll also realize the board is evolving, adding 4 new members (Arlene, Edwin, Kathleen, and myself) and losing two (Bart and Ellen) in recent times. Hopefully they will see that as a positive change.
What — your analogy is flawed. It’s two babies, not one, and they must be separated by law if either is to survive anyway.
I’m glad Bart posted that long diatribe. It points out the heart of the problem that led to Ellen’s dismissal: ego.
In the course of doing my job, I was unable to avoid stepping on several of the rather substantial egos in the American Atheists organization. My only fault is that I was determined to improve the efficiency of office operations. I was focused on Ellen’s goals of improving customer service, gaining more members, and accomplishing more with the donation dollars that we were already getting.
Ellen’s fault was putting me in charge of projects that I had already demonstrated an ability to do well. Actually, Ellen was very careful to protect the fragile egos of the people who might feel that my efforts were stepping into their “territory.”
Nonetheless, I sometimes had to put my foot down and insist that things be done in a certain way. Ellen did her best to mediate these situations but often felt the need to put her foot down, too. This was complicated by the fact that many of the people we relied on were volunteering their time.
Ellen handled these ego issues very gracefully and often erred on the side of postponing the work. I learned to clear my requests with Ellen before sending them to the person in question.
I must say that Frank Zindler was generally very appreciative of my efforts to help with the Amazon.com sales issues that he had previously been forced to handle on his own.
Bart is right when he says that Ed Gauci (our volunteer webmaster)sometimes resented my requests for certain work to be done on the website. Bart is right when he says that this is the explanation for some of the “stagnant” parts of the website. Ellen and I were always playing a balancing game: The more we asked for, the less we got.
However, my interactions with Frank Zindler and Ed Gauci were only a small, indirect part of what led to Ellen’s dismissal.
The big problems were with Bart Meltzer and Dick Hogan.
“Smartgal” is right about Bart’s jealousy of my “good will toward Ellen.” Ellen and I have worked together very well. Ellen respects my ideas and I respect hers. I’m sure that has felt to Bart like a violation of his “territory.”
More importantly, I stepped into Bart’s territory when I became involved in the final implementation of the new membership database that he had worked so hard to develop. I was always focused on what modifications might need to be made to make the database a useful part of an efficient office.
Bart didn’t see it that way. It was his pet project. If I asked for too many changes, he began to get very defensive. He was afraid that I was stealing his glory. That’s what it was about: ego. He wanted to be the big hero and save the day with his new database. Everybody wants their work to be appreciated, but this became something more than that. We all appreciated the work that Bart had done, but to Bart, that appreciation was diminished by the fact that I asked him to make some modifications to his original design. To him, that meant that I was taking his place as the hero.
Bart has held a grudge about this and badgered Ellen about it (asking for an apology from me) for over two years. This is important because I think it contributed to his need to be Ellen’s hero by “saving” her from the (imagined) dangers of the freedom march in Mississippi.
My other interaction that contributed to Ellen’s dismissal was with Dick Hogan. Dick and I both had the goal of using QuickBooks to set up a more detailed internal bookkeeping system (to replace the accountant that we had been paying to do bookkeeping). I first talked to Dick about this at the 2007 convention in Seattle. As board treasurer, he was very interested in and supportive of the idea.
Early this year, Dick heard that we were actually implementing this QuickBooks bookkeeping idea. He asked to see some reports. I called him to explain that we were still getting things set up and could use his help. He offered to help set up the tracking of expenses (while we continued working on the income side of things).
I was excited and hopeful that we would be a good team. Unfortunately, Dick wasn’t able to help us. However, he kept demanding better bookkeeping and reports. Eventually, this evolved into one of the issues cited in Ellen’s dismissal.
At first, I found this very confusing. It just seemed like impatience. Dick saw what we were doing and wanted it done faster (or so it seemed).
Eventually, it occurred to me that this might be similar to what happened with Bart. I think that Dick wanted to be the hero. He wanted to be the one to save the day by setting up a better bookkeeping system. Again, I was stealing someone’s glory just by doing my job. It makes sense. That’s why Dick was reluctant to work together with us, as a team. He didn’t want to share the credit. As board treasurer, he had been intending to do this project for years. I messed it up for him.
Every time I talked to Dick, he was very supportive of my work, but I kept hearing from Ellen that he was still planning to come up to New Jersey and do the job himself.
Dick eventually started doing the same thing to Ellen: making demands for her to send him financial records (receipts, invoices, etc.). When he couldn’t tell her exactly what he wanted, he started accusing her of withholding information from him.
This became part of a list of complaints that Dick submitted to the board to justify Ellen’s dismissal:
(SNIP — ARTHUR I DON’T LIKE BANNING PEOPLE FROM THIS BLOG, BUT I AM NOT A BABYSITTER. YOU ARE EFFECTIVELY BREAKING THE LAW WHEN YOU POST INTERNAL MEMOS. ONCE MORE AND YOU’RE OUT. TAKE YOUR PETTY GRUDGE ELSEWHERE)
Arthur Brenner
brenner7@stny.rr.com
SMARTGAL I am not a babysitter. You make allegations, and people will challenge you back. That’s not ME, Smart, and I am not going to delete every mildly offensive post on this blog. I’ve never been your adversary, but you seem to be making one of me. What’s your deal? Call my cell if you wish to discuss.
Solomon swung his sword and the baby is dying. Without democratic cauterization both AA and GAPAC don’t deserve to live. If Ellen was the right person to go, Arlene was the wrong person to arrive.
I find it suspicious that Dave was appointed to the board shortly after Ellen’s departure. Dave was becoming increasingly visible as a spokesperson for AA – a duty that was almost exclusively Ellen’s. Now, surprise, Ellen’s out and Dave is in. How long has Dave been with AA?
Dave wrote
“SMARTGAL I am not a babysitter. You make allegations, and people will challenge you back. That’s not ME, Smart, and I am not going to delete every mildly offensive post on this blog.”
————-
Dave,
I think there should be a bit of civility on this Blog. When a guy writes that I should stick my head up my vagina, I don’t think that is something that adds anything to the discussion, is enlightening to the
Board, deals with the issues or is anything you would want your daughter to read.
I don’t believe in censorship, but it seems to me that something that gross, unnecessary and in bad taste deserves that you ask the writer to take some time out from the Blog. Surely you have to have some standards for the blog.
George Carlin, though he broke a lot of icons, never hurt any individual people.
You have apparently deleted some of Bart’s and Arthur’s posts for a lot less than that.
I am trying to deal with a concept–that of discrimination against women. Disagree with it, if you will. But a verbal lynching is just not fair.
What:
AA has had an official spokesperson for all of the 8 years that I’ve been a member. It was Ron Barrier when I joined. A few years ago he decided to go off and become a rock star or something and Dave took his place.
I don’t think Dave had any part in the power struggle between the Board and Ellen. As it was playing out he appeared to be about as clueless as the rest of us.
Anyway, the struggle is over. The Board won, Ellen’s gone, and that’s not going to change.
Correction: The board lost, AA lost, America lost.
Jeff wrote:
————————————–
“Anyway, the struggle is over. The Board won, Ellen’s gone, and that’s not going to change”
————————————-
Jeff, 1) Nothing is ever “over” until it’s over.
2) The Board “won” doodly squat.
3) Ellen is not gone. She is sitting in her apartment in New Jersey, and I think she is heartbroken. You can’t give 13 years of your life to something and then not be heartbroken when you see it go down the drain.
I think Ellen felt an obligation to Madalyn to keep AA going. Perhaps the Freedom Walk was her swan song. The board was giving her grief for at least a year before the Walk. The question is why, and the question is, why didn’t those Board members DO SOMETHING TO FIX IT. It’s a lot easier to destroy something than to fix it.
4) Jeff, what makes you think it “is not going to change?” Do you know something we don’t know?
If one thing is certain in this world, it is change.
What, I think you might be right. The pressure is sure on the Board to prove you wrong. I wonder if they can feel it?
The organization seems to have fundamentally changed. Up to now it has always been run a strong president and the Board was fairly passive. Now the Board is running the show and after reading the advertisement for the presidency (on atheists.org), I think they want to keep it that way. If you read the ad you see they are looking for more of an office manager than a leader and decision maker.
I wonder if any organization can be run effectively with a weak president and with all the decisions being made by the Board of Directors? I can’t imagine a for-profit company being run that way. In most cases the president has the responsibility of making all but the most crucial decisions.
The Bill Moore walk is a good example. To me that’s something Ellen should have been able to decide on by herself without the Board’s approval. It wasn’t expensive, and despite what Bart might have conned the other Board members into believing, it wasn’t all that risky from either a personal safety or liability perspective.
SmartGal:
I’m no insider. I’m just a regular dues paying member (though I was going to let my membership expire even before all hell broke loose).
However, in my efforts to get AA to refund the $200 I donated specifically for the Bill Moore walk (something they haven’t done yet despite repeated promises that they will, and a direct order from Frank to cut me a check), I had some a little bit of contact with both Ellen and Frank and a couple of others. I got copied on a couple of e-mails that I wasn’t supposed to see. I was left with two impressions…
1) The current leaders of AA (or at least the ones that seem to have the most power and influence) are absolutely, unequivocally convinced that firing Ellen was the right thing to do.
2) Ellen is not cooperating with them at all, and that just convinces them all the more that they were right.
In order for Ellen to come back, Frank and rest of the Board would have to come to the conclusion that they made a mistake, and I don’t see that happening. At least not for many years when the consequences of Ellen’s firing become clear.
I could be wrong. I’m wrong about stuff all the time and it doesn’t surprise me, but in this case I’d be shocked.
Smartgal wrote:
“The question is why, and the question is, why didn’t those Board members DO SOMETHING TO FIX IT. It’s a lot easier to destroy something than to fix it.”
They apparently did do something – they fired Ellen. And it doesn’t seem like the organization is automatically destroyed just because Johnson is out.
I never liked her, anyway. I thought she came across as shrill, angry, and confused when she was on TV and her convention speeches were lame. I also didn’t like it that until she was fired, she was apparently some sort of president-for-life that wasn’t accountable to the general membership (I don’t think there’s been a membership meeting for years and I wonder why).
I don’t know what’s going to happen to AA now, but after 13 years, it was past time for Johnson to move on. Now maybe AA can finally get over it’s cult-like devotion to Madalyn O’Hare and get some real, meaningful work done. If that happens, and they get a charismatic, competent president, I might rejoin AA. I quit AA because it seemed to be be doing nothing other than dwell on the past.
Chet
Jeff- you are correct in most cases.
What, actually, I heven’;t been doing much on TV for a while because Ellen wanted to do it and I was travelling a lot. You only see me more often now because I’m here and Ellen’s gone.
Smart, I am sorry you get pissed off at some of the posters, but I only delete those that convey true hate (not just insult), and personal information and the like. This will not change. People are going to insult you here — get used to it or don’t, but don’t blame me or call me hateful. That stuff hurts coming from you.
No kidding. Funny how that worked out.
I haven’t seen or heard of a thing Dave has done on TV or other media.
You may want to keep tabs on the appearances and list them in the magazine, like Ellen used to do. That way, everyone can compare differences, (improvements).