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.
Thank you Frank, for taking time out of your busy hectic life and writing a letter for this blog.
There are a tiny handful of people in the world who have worked as hard for our cause as the past presidents of American Atheists. It’s easy to see why they are heroes to many – they deserve it!
Yet hard work only gets us so far if our strategy and tactics are ineffective. For example, I am concerned that the organization may be favoring 1960′s era protest tactics at the expense of the networking/organizing/group building that has proven far more effective at leading to political change in the modern era. Maybe I’m wrong.
In any case, the debate should be less about the individual chosen for this position and more about the direction we want to organization to take. I think we should…
-make recruitment and growth a top focus.
-have regularly meeting chapters of at least 10 people in every city in the US with a population of more than 100k.
-develop a culture that can compete with what the megacult offers.
-keep a big-tent culture where everyone feels welcome.
kudos to the brave folks who have walked/walk in the AA president’s shoes. it cannot be easy to take the reins of the “evil” atheist empire and be the chief representative of a group despised and distrusted by so many ignorant xtians and other religiously indoctrinated sheeple.
so don’t be so hard on yourself Frank. whether you would be Madalyn O’Hara’s choice or not is irrelevant. you ARE the interim president of AA, so make the most of your opportunity. you may be in it for a while.
some juju has been ordered up on your behalf.
Thank you, Frank, for writing such a clear and forthcoming account of what happened (and continues to happen) between Ellen and the board. In my opinion, honesty (even when the truth isn’t as pretty and shiny as people would like) is a sign of a strong leader, and it seems clear that our organization is in very good hands.
I appreciate this letter, but it’s just too late. It should have been posted forty-eight days ago.
I have to question the judgement of any board member who played a part in the way this situation was handled. That (especially) includes Frank Zindler.
Frank,
Thank you for your letter/blog. I am relatively new to American Atheists and even newer to the internal issues. I have heard both sides of this issues arguments and find it hard to place blame or cause to one side without the other. I think it is very unfortunate that it came to this result. I have a great respect for Ellen and hope she will agree that IF this is what is best for American Atheists and atheists in America then that is what should have happened. I am still holding hope that she can be reinstated, but that is my opinion.
I agree with Chris’ post above in that if there is going to be change, let’s make big changes.
How do we get more members? Social activities, I think are very important, It shows members they are part of something… a family or community if you will.
Recognition and support for affiliate groups, advertising in mainstream media for both the national group level and the local affiliate. Chapters have been replaced with affiliates (and I understand why) but not being close to NJ makes some feel very removed from the national org. While I like the magazine, I can imagine that some people want more for their dues, I realize why dues are needed, but some people want more and I think a sense of belonging to something local that they can attend and be active in would fit the bill.
Embracing and celebrating atheist heros I i am reading
I feel very excited and ambitious for our cause and want to be more involved as I think some of you realize. So my last suggestion is a repeat to the board…
Please, not only look at the state of our organization presently, but prepare it for the future by mentoring and training your own replacements, not that you need replaced now, but I would hate to see new board members having to learn by trial and error, when they could have and should be trained.
Bummer…I wonder if “What” has read Frank’s letter…
So…ego’s are the main reason for AA’s downfall.
Does anyone honestly believe that this would even be a question if Madalyn was still president?
Why did this issue come into play AFTER 13 years of service? Sure sounds like a power struggle took place…
“Salvaged”? Sounds like greedy kids ransacking their parents home. How does something of such value fall into the hands of one individual if they were “salvaging” items for the Library?
As stated in Frank’s letter, the board feels this is a direct violation of the “will” filed. The only way this will be resolved is within a court of law.
Would this be an example of the “higher moral standards” atheists claim to possess?
On what grounds can Ellen even “think” she has the right to keep the diaries?
Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t the board go down to their local dollar store and make some protest signs and picket Ellen’s home?
Trust me…it wouldn’t take as long as the courts…
Did anyone catch the news report about that Ohio fundy teacher that burned crosses into his students arms? WTF???
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/06/report-ohio-tea.html
Ohio fundie sadist story at this link.
Frank
Your letter falls into the “far too little and far too late” category for me.
Offering irreconcilable differences as a reason for a divorce is just shorthand for “We are too immature and angry to state a reason of substance”. Your letter was a rather lengthy and empry one when it comes to shining light on the termination of Ellen from both the presidency and board. Where’s the cause?
What it does sound like is a power stuggle. We are left to merely guess at who the actors were in this power play and therefore who to view with deserved suspicion.
What,
Yes this was a power play, nothing more. The primary “actors” were Bart Meltzer, Dick Hogan (board treasuer), and Frank Zindler.
They never wanted to fire Ellen. Frank says:
They didn’t want to fire her. They just wanted her to submit to their authority (to micromanage her). Unfortunately (for them), Ellen called their bluff.
Now, they have complete control, only there isn’t anyone left to control. What do they plan to do with their control? Frank says:
Think about that for a moment. They fired a perfectly good president, and their only plan is to put an advertisement in their own magazine in hopes of finding a replacement (so they won’t have to do the job themselves).
What incredible hubris!
Arthur Brenner
brenner7@stny.rr.com
“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.”
We would appreciate a clarification of this astounding statement. Would it be correct to assume it meant that Ellen and the Board would come to work together, and she would resume the presidency? What is the meaning of “reconciliation” here?
Gil and Jeanne Gaudia
If we were to follow through on the imbecilic suggestion of “Phreedom” to picket Ellen’s home, you can be sure that whatever AA has lost will be immeasureably increased to insure the complete public derision and demise of AA. Where do we obtain such moronic members?
gjgaudia
Phreedum, the sock puppet, isn’t a member but the hand in the sock is and I know who that is.
Arthur Brenner
Do you know how the three actors in the coup were able to persuade the rest to unwisely exercise their power?
What a pathetic letter, Frank Zindler. What you are saying,if I may translate it into nonpedantic English is:
1)Madalyn Murray O’Hair wouldn’t have been happy to see you as president of American Atheists.
2) Nevertheless, we are stuck with you until the incompetent board can find somebody else to take your place, so deal with it.
3)You know damn well, Frank, that Ellen Johnson was the daughter that Madalyn never had, and to write that Madalyn would have been “jealous of the glamorous and suave woman who captured media attention almost as much as she had” is SHEER SLANDER OF THE DEAD. Madalyn loved Ellen, trusted her, and was big enough not to succumb to petty vanities. You do the memory of Madalyn a disservice by suggesting such a thing.
(Anyway, I don’t think of Ellen as “suave,” which has a slightly pejorative ring to it; I think of Ellen as self-confident, competent, able to hold her own and a keenly perceptive student of the media.)
For all you know, Madalyn would have been cheering Ellen on in everything she did, INCLUDING THE FREEDOM WALK.
In fact, I daresay Madalyn would have marched alongside Ellen in the Freedom Walk, even with her walker. Madalyn would have waved her cane or her walker in every new town she entered. Madalyn never worried about that fiduciary crap any more than Columbus or Lewis & Clark did. Madalyn fought off the Baltimore cops with her bare hands.
4) If you were “increasingly aware,” Frank, of the number of disagreements (“policies, practices and priorities”) between the board of directors and Ellen, WHY THE HELL DIDN’T YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT besides “hoping” that it would be resolved? “Hoping” is a very ineffective thing to do (dare I say a religious thing to do? You are an atheist, Frank, are you not?) Your doing nothing but “hoping” indicates to me what an ineffective president you will be.
Every president needs a team to back him or her! ELLEN NEEDED A TEAM TO BACK HER, to work with her, to support her, to encourage her. You let her down, you bunch of short-sighted, uncommunicative, jealous, unimaginative male-chauvinist idiots!
Eleven guys and 3 women voted Ellen out–and one of those women was your wife, Frank, so she doesn’t really count, leaving it ll men to 2 women.
The FBI must love this Board! It did what the FBI and CIA has not been able to do for 13 years–got rid of the most effective, most charismatic spokesperson Atheism has ever had!
The George W. Bush award for most effective undercover work for the right wing fundamentalist theocratic aspirants goes to…(drum roll)..the Texas board member Dick Hogan who was audibly, visiibly salivating to get rid of Ellen and the ineffective,foot-shuffling Frank (Who ME? president? aw, shucks) Zindler.
You both get the Billy Graham Award for the Most Effective Moves to Set Back the Progress of Atheism for at Least Three Decades.
Well, I am substantially pissed off.
Bart — You screwed up. You are posting private information about Ellen, and I will NOT stand by while her name is sullied. She’s a big girl, and she can stand up for herself if she so chooses. Some of your posts on this thread have been deleted because they included internal or private information.
Arthur — I’ve never had a problem with you until you started posting AA/Internal memos on this blog. They have been deleted as well.
You’re both acting like little children, and you’re placing me in the position of keeping Phreedm’s posts and deleting yours! I haven’t deleted any posts in years! THANKS A F$KING LOT Boys! Now stop, or take it elsewhere!
Jane (and others), your posts have not been touched since you are not insiders. But Please can we stop? This was not a which hunt, this was not a coup. This was a firing. That’s it. 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.
And Finally, and I mean this with the most sincere of hearts: To those who wish to leave American Atheists because Ellen was fired — LEAVE TODAY. You’re annual $35 is POORLY spent with us, since we are an organization about a CAUSE, not a PERSON.
Ellen runs GAMPAC — GO THERE. I’m sure it’s going to be a great PAC. BUT I will warn you, Ellen does not want an organization to be about HER either. Ellen is a patriot and wants to help the cause. GAMPAC is not all-about Ellen either.
American Atheists is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE about one person. Not Ellen, not Frank, and not me. We are trying to fix the country here. Why did you join?
GAMPAC is on our side. Ellen is on OUR side. The FFRF, AAI, and AU are all on OUR side. If you are more comfortable taking your dues somewhere else, then DO IT. The board will not do what they think is second-best for the country in order to save some fair-weather members.
Bart
This isn’t about Arthur. It’s about the AA president and Ellen Johnson. I would appreciate if you would not air dirty and tangential laundry on this blog.
Most of us would like to know what was the cause for firing Ellen. Be specific. This, irreconcilable differences stuff is childish and insulting.
What,
At the time, there were no more than 7 or 8 people on any of the individual boards of directors. So, they only had to convince a couple of people. One factor was that Edwin Kagin had recently been added to the board. (He has been critical of some of Ellen’s decisions.) You could call this “stacking the board against Ellen” but I’m not sure if it was that intentional. Some of the people who support Ellen are spread out over the other four boards of directors.
The firing of Ellen was also sort of a snowball effect. It was initially proposed by Bart who was really only wanting to intimidate her into not doing the freedom march. Bart eventually backed off but not before Dick Hogan had started beating the drum to fire Ellen. Then, it reached a sort of critical mass and Frank joined in. Frank is more of a follower than a leader. He has been critical of Ellen at times, but was definitely not the main force behind firing her. That distinction goes to Dick Hogan.
Again, none of them really wanted to fire her. They were just trying to intimidate her into allowing herself to be micromanaged. The ironic thing is that they have criticized Ellen for micromanaging her office staff (which she has never done).
To answer Gil Gaudia’s question, I don’t think that Ellen will ever be reinstated. Frank probably hopes that Ellen will come back, clean up the mess they have created, and then allow them to micromanage her. That’s just not going to happen.
My only goal is to see that the truth comes out. Some of you want to believe that the firing of Ellen will somehow lead to fresh new ideas and a better, stronger organization. That’s a delusion. I’m sure that American Atheists has plenty of members with fresh perspectives and good ideas. Unfortunately, none of them is on the board of directors. Ellen was the person with the most vision, initiative, and determination, and she has been completely removed from the organization (because she wouldn’t allow herself to be intimidated or controlled).
Bart’s resignation was a good start. Some of the other board members need to follow his example. If you want to help American Atheists, I would suggest that you demand some additional resignations from the board.
Arthur Brenner
brenner7@stny.rr.com
Bart Meltzer, whose side are you on anyway? For someone who purports to love Ellen, you are doing an awful lot to accuse her of various things, including not having the good sense to judge Arthur for herself.
Frankly, I think Arthur makes much more sense than you do, Bart. You seem to be obsessed with your jealousy of Arthur’s good will toward Ellen.
Your logic is confused, Bart. You have done Ellen more harm than any Southern segregationist could have on that Freedom Walk. You need to pull yourself together and figure out a way to undo all the harm you have done to Ellen and to American Atheists.
To Frank Zindler:
I have been excoriated on this blog by some commenters for suggesting that the dismissal of Ellen Johnson may have been influenced by “misogyny.” But the thoughtless words you wrote in your most recent letter, Frank, only give credence to my theory.
You have suggested a situation in your letter in which one woman HAS to be jealous of another woman who is younger, more beautiful, thinner and just as effective (if not more so)than the other.
This is a typically male tactic of subliminally pitting one woman against another.
And since one of the women is dead, I think it is an attempt to infuse the situation with an attitude of “Let’s let the girls fight it out while we men control the organization…”
Your comment also puts forth the idea that the MEN on the Board couldn’t possibly be jealous of Ellen. And of course it has nothing to do with the fact that the imprimatur of Atheism has suddenly risen in value now that the Four Horsemen have caused the nation to bolt upright and pay attention? I say that sarcastically. I.e., the presidency of American Atheists has indeed become more important and prestigious in the last two years, and thus, hmmm?–should it be in the custody of a woman? Hmmm?
Arthur Brenner mentioned a power struggle between the Board and Ellen in his letter and I believe he is right. The difference now is, that the presidency of AA exerts more nationwide power than it ever has before and it stands to reflect more power–voting and influence— as the ranks of unbelievers increases.
Don’t you think that certain people on the Board might envy that power?
Oddly enough, Hillary Clinton and I seem to be of the same mind when it comes to misogyny. Hillary has now accused the whole nation of indulging in misogyny.
I found the paragraphs below in the Sunday magazine section of THE NEW YORK TIMES in the column by William Safire titled “ON LANGUAGE” in the June 8 issue:
MISOGYNIST
Senator Hillary Clinton used a word recently that has been changing its meaning. In charging that she has been treated more harshly in the media because of her gender than Senator Barack Obama has been treated because of his race, she said, “It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by comments and reactions of people who are nothing but misogynists.”
The word misogyny [Safire continues] has since its earliest recording in 1656 meant “hate or contempt for women.” The etymology of misogyny is straighforward: In Greek, miso means “hatred,” and gune means “woman.” A misogynist is a woman-hater. I thought Clinton’s choice of the word was in error, and that the word she meant was SEXIST, meaning “one who discriminates based on sex”–that she had been treated unfairly because she was a woman. When I looked up the word she chose in the Oxford English Dictionary online, however, I noted that the meaning of “misogynist” had changed slightly but significantly. In 1989, the definition was “hatred of women”; in the 2002 revision, the definition was broadened to “hatred or dislike of, or prejudice against women.”
Thus, sexist and misogynist are now in some respects synonymous. Because sexist has been so widely used, apparently misogynist–in the same sense of “prejudice” rather than “hatred”–now carries more force with those who are familiar with the word. Presumably that was the feminist audience that Senator Clinton intended to reach.#
Thank you, William Safire.
wow, this thread is starting to sound like a soap opera. may i make a suggestion that everyone just cool it with airing out their own ‘truth’ of what happened.
frankly (no pun intended) at this point, Ellen’s side of the story (as told by Ellen) is all i would care to hear. this whole discussion has just degenerated to so much he-said-she-said nonsense.
Frank, we have read your material and listened to you speak. We have seen you on rare occasions on television. You are, as you have accurately stated, author, debater, talk-show participant and editor, and yes, possibly ?qualified? to assume the role you have undertaken.
But make no mistake about it. You are no Ellen Johnson. Very few of us could be. In today?s media-driven political and ideological atmosphere, Ellen possesses qualities that make her leadership and representation of Atheists, unique among Atheist organizations. It is no accident that the most popular and listened-to talking heads on television can do more than just think and talk. They have charm, appeal, charisma . . . call it whatever you want, but it is more than just what is produced in the cerebral cortex (although that is important) and as much as we are reluctant to admit it, Ellen?s ?presence? and personality are not replaceable by a routine vote of a dozen or so undistinguished board members.
The mistake this mediocre board made was not so much in the decision to fire Ellen Johnson, but rather, to fail to recognize that what they had as their (and our) ?image? was a singularly compelling force, an unusual individual, who required special consideration because of the special qualities she possessed. Like most unique ?individuals? she probably deserved much benefit-of-the-doubt, and perhaps even some pampering.
Yes, you will find a replacement, but unless you are extremely lucky, you will have to choose from among the pedestrian, the ordinary and the ?usual suspects,? because leaders like Ellen are not mass produced. They come along once in a great while. It is unfortunate for several thousand members of American Atheists, in fact for Atheists everywhere, that the board was unable to recognize this and plunged ahead with their short-sighted and spectacular self-immolation.
American Atheists has a one-in-a-million chance to stave off the tailspin they are headed for by admitting their hasty decision and asking Ellen Johnson to resume her role as a capable and charismatic leader of what is rapidly becoming an insipid conglomeration of malcontents.
Gil and Jeanne Gaudia
David Silverman:
No.
Sure sounds like it was. That internal memo Arthur posted didn’t help.
Support will come to organizations that deserve it. AA doesn’t.
Already done.
)
Obviously, but enough with this “your annual $35″ crap. You know as well as I do that many people unhappy with this situation have donated their time and energy to AA, as well as more than the minimum annual contribution.
I joined to fix the country. That cannot and will not be done through an organization lead by deceptive and incompetent people.
The board has and will do what’s best for itself, not the country.
Dave
This is not about Ellen and never was. It was and is about the behavior of the board and how it put AA into a hole from which it will be difficult to dig out. AA would have been better off if the board had been fired and Ellen left in place. Ah, but you would like us all to MOVE ON. With what? A dysfunctional board and an reluctant president? More power struggles to follow? No thanks.
What I’ve gleaned from all of this is that it was a power struggle, the reasons for Ellen’s firing were really weak, and there was no post-Ellen plan.
For me to rejoin, Dick Hogan and Frank Zindler would have to be removed from the board, Ellen reinstated as president, and an apology issued from the remaining board members.
As none of those things have any chance of happening, I hope AA closes its doors and that the Library is acquired by another atheist organization.
Spinfusor
That about sums it up.
I read and interpret one thing; somebody else reads the same thing and concludes differently. It reminds me of discussing the bible with a Xtian.
The board had issues with the President and removed her ? period, done with over. Whether you agree with the decision or not, it is time to move on. Many people have come forward and have given us many more details than ever would be given in the corporate world. We all have a picture in our minds now of what went on. Whether we think it was a right decision or a wrong one is now a mute point. They are not going to reinstate Ellen, which has been made perfectly clear. Get over it. Let?s work together with the board to make this a strong organization.
Very interesting series of posts to this blog recently.
First, the very fact that the Board did not plan appropriately for the dismissal of Ellen Johnson proves that this was an emotional, and impulsive action. Otherwise, a plan would have been in place for Ellen’s successor, and there would have been a smoother transition. Also, the fact that the Board did not see fit to immediately explain to Atheists the reasons for their decision, and had to be pressured, on this blog, to do so, speaks volumes about the lack of professionalism, etc.
Second, it seems that Arthur Brenner’s posts are more credible than others.
Third, Bart played both ends against the middle, it would seem.
Fourth, the only way this will ever be completely understood is if Ellen herself makes it clear exactly what happened here. So far, Ellen has been incognito. Maybe that, in the final analysis, says it all.
One final comment:
Ellen Johnson was/is a shining example…an exemplary representative of Atheism. She presented, for the public to see and hear, a professional mien, a rational and calm persona, an intellect that seems to be missing in some of the Board members, and a pleasing physical appearance, to say the least. It will be difficult, if not impossible to replace her. Sadly, the Board has not even given this much thought. They will surely regret this decision.