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.
Gil and Jeanne Gaudia, your post (above) of Saturday, June 21, is a fine piece of work. I couldn’t have put it better myself. You have summed up this whole fracas and pointed out to the spineless Board the harm they have done to AA.
And don’t forget, fellow AA members, the injustice the Board has done to Ellen Johnson, who is just coming off the biggest and most successful AA convention in the history of AA. There were 600 attendees there in Minneapolis in March, three times as many as the previous year in Seattle. I don’t think Frank Zindler could have pulled off a success like that–not in a million
years.
What is happening to Ellen reminds me of those wrongful executions our criminal justice system seems to engage in from time to time, in which the verdict snowballs, despite the innocence of the accused, due to an ambitious prosecutor or a lazy judge or an ignorant jury. Sleazy, insufficient, incompetent evidence mounts, interpreted by an overeager prosecutor who wants to add a case to the notches in his belt, and in the end an innocent person is executed simply because no one could stop the bureaucratic snowball.
Well said, Smartgal,
Your analogy with an execution is not only apt, but chillingly close to reality. The executed victim in this case (in our opinion) will be . . . maybe even already is . . . American Atheists Inc. We hope it does not include Ellen as well, but many individuals have seen their professional lives destroyed as well as if they had been executed, by a thoughtless and cruel attempt at what was represented as a reasonable corporate decision.
You have encouraged us to say one thing further about this board?s action. In medicine, oftentimes, a decision has to be made to either use an experimental, unproven, drastic and dangerous procedure or medication, one which may actually kill the patient. In those cases, it is only justified to use that procedure if failure to do so would certainly end in the patient?s death from the disorder. To take that action when the patient has a better chance of survival without it, is unethical and perhaps criminal.
This board had an obligation to improve a situation they deemed to be bad. They took a course that may well spell the end of the organization. They would have been justified in doing so only if their inaction would have resulted in the organization?s destruction. Where is the evidence that NOT firing Ellen would have caused the organization?s demise? There is none. In fact everything points in the opposite direction, and the circumstantial evidence is that there are more ?ego,? ?power struggle,? ?incompatibilities? and other vague alibis, than there were reasons to believe that Ellen?s continuing presidency would have had a life-threatening impact on American Atheists.
American Atheists was in the ascendancy. There was a tripling of attendance at the March convention, which Smartgal has pointed out. The entire movement was surging forward. Dawkins, Hitchins, Harris, Dennett, Ellen and others were being seen more and more frequently and favorably in the media. How has the board?s decision done anything to strengthen and continue this forward progress? If anything they have stifled it.
Smartgal?s analogy with an unjustified execution sounds more and more believable than when we started to write this piece. When you add to this Nancyjensen?s charge that the board had no plan, offered no explanations, and had to be pressured to justify their ?lynching,? the comparison with an emotion-driven, out-of-control, rush-to-judgment is compelling.
Gil and Jeanne Gaudia
Bart wrote on this Blog thread:
“As far as helping Ellen goes, the truth is the truth. Lying about the situation won’t help. Perhaps you would rather I kept all this to myself?”
Bart:
What you wrote in all your emails on this blog is YOUR VERSION OF THE TRUTH.
Unfortunately, this whole fracas seems to be a virtual Roshomon. In case you don’t know what that is: It’s a Japanese film about seven eye witnesses to a murder, and all 7 have entirely different versions of what happened.
Why should we think that YOUR version of the events is the one true version?
I find most of your explanations irrational, petty, unconfirmable, self-absorbed and a bit frantic. You see everything primarily as it relates to you. You do not see the forest for the trees, if you’ll pardon an old saw. Everything is about how it affected you—when you are probably the LEAST important character in this drama; you are only, apparently, the Iago to the Board’s Othello.
I sent your original mea culpa letter to a wise professional man whose gentle opinions I appreciate. He read it and emailed back to me this message:
“Wow! Hate and love are often close together.”
So you may purport to love Ellen but your actions and words suggest other, perhaps subconscious, feelings.
You let Ellen down when she needed you. You virtually destroyed her ability to contribute to the Atheist cause and deprived us all of her work. No excuse you can give will ever allow me to forgive you for that. Ellen belongs to history. I’m sorry to say: You will probably go down in Atheist history as the Iago, the guy who betrayed her.
What a shame, Christianity is floundering and Atheism can?t figure out which direction to go. With what I heard at the convention in Minneapolis and what I can decipher reading between the lines of finger pointing I assume the power struggle is between those on the 5 boards over whether American Atheists should focus on simple separation of church and state or whether the organization should tackle broader issues related to god and religion.
It also appears much of the present internal turmoil grew out of a couple computer hacks mental gardens.
Frank Zindler cannot be fired any more than Ellen Johnson should have been fired. AA needs a charismatic front person which Ellen is and atheistic biblical scholars like Frank are far in between. Computer hacks are a dime a dozen. The insanity of Christianity is in full blossom and we can?t find our way? If AA perpetuates the turmoil and falls back on simple separation issues I?m out of here.
This turmoil exemplifies not just a lack of focus, it more so reveals the lack of democracy within the organization. If there are 5 constitutions and 5 sets of bylaws the lack of focus is obvious. As for democracy, given the fact AA state directors are appointed from the top I say the Godless Americans Political Action Committee has no reason to exist. Until there are democratically elected atheist directors in every state GAPAC is a cart in front of a horse. All that effort should have been directed toward recruiting state directors and groups.
National AA should put together starter packs for new groups. A copy of The Bible Handbook, a copy of The God Who Wasn?t There and a little guidance can go a long way toward creating chapters in every state. Meetup.com is the vehicle and we have to round up the passengers. Once a group is up and running elections should be held the following year. Any state director that does not take the time to put together at least a one day state convention annually should turn the reins over to someone else. Others have offered good constructive ideas here and I suggest it’s time to toss out old paradigms.
A Christian teacher is branding bad boys in Columbus Ohio and the Jehovah’s Witnesses are conducting their convention in Toledo Ohio this fine June weekend. Christians are presently holding hands in prayer circles at gas stations in Toledo Ohio begging god to bring down the price of gas! They forgot their god told the Nazi Bush to bomb Baghdad which doubled the price of gas with no end in sight.
I suggest Toledo Ohio for next years national AA convention. Madalyn O?Hair graduated from high school on the other side of the river from Toledo and maybe this is an opportunity to come full circle in the heartland. Also, no better way to thank Detroit Mi for wasting tax money sprucing up two churches for the NFL Superbowl. Detroit would be able to smell the atheist dollars 50 miles down I-75 and unable to put a penny of it in their economic gas tank.
The convention should not be held during Easter because we are ignored then, no point being reactionary in regards to Christianity. I suggest the summer solstice for the convention so weather will allow those folks who want to stay at local campgrounds. There would be nothing like a bunch of us barbarians standing around drinking cold amber fluid near an open fire with lips flapping about the death of god. Toledo has a downtown convention center, adequate airport, close campgrounds and enough atheists in the area to put it together. Economic conditions necessitate belt tightening. I hope American Atheists is still around next year with Ellens foot on the clutch and Frank deciphering the map. I hope I am still a member.
Oh, and no one has yet explained to me why Blair Scott was not dumped from AA for doing the Freedom Walk.
Now let’s see: Ellen, a woman, was fired for doing the Freedom Walk.
Blair Scott, a guy, was not only NOT dumped FOR DOING THE SAME THING, but he was actually given a promotion to the job Bart previously held, director of the Affliates.
Hmmm, I wonder what makes me keep thinking in terms of SEXISM and MISOGYNY?
But of course I am wrong, am I not, guys? It’s all in my head, right? Yeah, and there were weapons of mass destruction in Baghdad, right?
Ellen Johnson
If you decide to start a new atheist organization just let me know where to send the membership fee plus a little extra to get things rolling.
OK, I see I’m mentioned on this blog (webmaster) and so I should probably clear up a couple of points.
1. The lack of action on the website has nothing to do with Arthur Brenner — he isn’t that important. Simply, my work situation changed drastically several years back, and I now have almost no time for anything else. While I’d love to donate copious amounts of time to the organization, I have a need to pay bills, mortgage, buy food, etc.
2. After it became clear that Arthur Brenner was impossible for me to deal with, I told Ellen that I will no longer have anything to do with him, and she honored my request without argument.
I am not one to complain about this website. It is well put together and any improvements that might be made to it are just that – improvements. The AA organization is in trouble I don’t think this is a time to spend much time thinking about its website.
I have already dropped my support for AA and shifted it to the ACLU and the FRF. The only way that I would support AA again is if all parties, Ellen included, dropped their power struggles and returned to the bargaining table to negotiate a more democratic and accountable structure to the organization. I also want the members to have a vote in the organization and the first ballot to be cast should be concerned with voting for a new president. Ellen’s name must, if she is willing to occupy the office again, be on that list.
To Frank Zindler, Dick Hogan, Conrad:
YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
SO WHY WASN’T BLAIR SCOTT DUMPED FOR DOING THE FREEDOM WALK–AND ELLEN WAS?
Have you no shame, guys?
What:
I like your suggestion that everyone work together. I hope people take it to heart.
Jane: To answer a few of your questions and clear up some misconceptions…
Blair worked for me, not the board. When I was trying to stop Ellen from doing the Bill Moore walk, I told Blair that he would no longer support Ellen in any way. At that point, Blair stopped supporting Ellen. I had no reason to fire him at that point.
Ellen stated she would call off the walk on March 6th. I knew that there was a chance she was just lying and planned to go on with the walk.
To that end, I talked with Blair and Ken Loukinen about supporting Ellen with her walk so she would not wind up doing it alone. I couldn’t bear the thought of her out by herself on a desolated road. So I worked with Blair and Ken in the background incase Ellen decided to go through with the walk.
As it turned out, she did. Blair was there to walk with her for a couple of the days she was out. Ken was there for the entire time. And I walked a few days, about 46 miles total myself. I think I saved Ellen and Ken at least a day on the road.
The motions passed by the board to stop the Bill Moore walk were directed at Ellen. Not anyone else, especially Blair. Ellen violated those motions and several others. No one else did. Certainly not Blair.
Ellen worked with Blair for months on the Bill Moore walk. Blair donated time and his own money to support Ellen. Ken did too. Ellen considers them both friends. You can ask her if you like. In fact, you can ask her about any of this.
Ellen appointed Blair to the Affiliations director job before she was fired. So far, Blair has done a great job at it. Blair would also like to see Ellen come back as would many of us.
The job that Blair was appointed to by Ellen was not my job. I am the director of state and regional operations. Blair is working with Jim Heldburg as the assistant director of affiliations. Dave Kong will take over my position on the 1st of July and will be the new director of state and regional operations.
So if you want to know why I did not fire Blair, it was because blair did nothing wrong. In fact, he did his best to support Ellen and American Atheists to the best of his ability. And that was pretty tough for him for awhile.
Frank and the rest of the board had nothing to with it.
Blair is a tremendous asset to American Atheists. AA would be lucky to have Blair for a long time.
Hope this answers some of your questions.
Bart
Bart and Blair, I appreciate all of you looking out for Ellen’s safety on the Freedom Walk, and I have always been impressed with Blair Scott’s dedication to Atheism, but the fact remains, Blair was treated differently by the Board than Ellen was. He did not even get his wrist slapped. He did not even get reprimanded. Nor did Ken Loukinen, (whom I do not know.)
Their motives may have been different in doing the Freedom Walk, but their actions were the same.
Jane,
The board has nothing to do with State Directors. State Directors work for me. The board can’t fire Blair or any other state director. That would be my job.
Ellen worked for the board. The boards directives not to do the freedom walk were directed to her.
The reason for Ellen’s firing goes beyond the freedom walk. The freedom walk played only a small part in the big picture.
Bart
Blogger “What” wrote:
“I have already dropped my support for AA and shifted it to the ACLU and the FRF. The only way that I would support AA again is if all parties, Ellen included, dropped their power struggles and returned to the bargaining table to negotiate a more democratic and accountable structure to the organization. I also want the members to have a vote in the organization and the first ballot to be cast should be concerned with voting for a new president. Ellen’s name must, if she is willing to occupy the office again, be on that list.”
—————–
“What”: I think I know who you are–your mentioning ACLU is a dead giveaway; and if you are who I think you are, your dropping out of AA IS A REAL LOSS TO THE ORGANIZATION.
You have been one of AA’s oldest and biggest supporters.
Please, hold off from taking any drastic steps at this point. This drama has not played itself out yet.
I suspect the next thing that will happen is that Frank and Dick will throw in the sponge. They will have other excuses of course (I can almost predict what they will be)but I think the truth will be that they cannot keep up with all the work that Ellen did.
The Board has already had to get two people to take Ellen’s place–Frank and Conrad. Ellen did both their jobs quite ably and with flair.
Think of all the splits and fights that the religious organizations have gone through over the centuries and they still have survived for 2,000 years. Organized atheism is fairly young;it deserves your continued support through this adolescent angst.
There were plenty of splits and fights in AA in Madalyn’s day, but of course, she was the ballast that kept the ship together. If you leave now, some of our meagre present ballast will be gone.
Stay.
What you write above in the passage I copied is very reasonable. The Board needs to pay attention to it. And you need to be on the Board.
Smartgal wrote:
But wait, Smartgal, “What” doesn’t have a vagina!!!! Oh, NOES!!!1!!
Smartgal
I’m not who you think I am unless you have some sort of uber-sense. I agree that this has not played out entirely and if at some point AA gets its act together I MAY support it again. But for now it would appear that my money would be better spent elsewhere.
Karen
My I could have an honorary vagina?
My -> Maybe
SmartGal,
I know you would want to be semantically correct, so “ballast” in a metaphor having to do with ships is more about floatation than it is structural integrity. Good try anyway.
Gil
What
I think it would be grand for you to have an honorary vagina. (Actually, I think Smartgal may have an extra one, or two actual ones to give you.) Would you like an honorary uterus and set of ovaries to go with that? Be careful if you take the whole honorary set; then you have to worry about having an honorary pregnancy and the possibility of considering an honorary abortion.
Karen
Just the honorary vagina thank you.
Yes, I am sure that is just how the false mother saw things in the Solomon fable.
Looks like a lot of folks here are abandoning what they perceive to be a sinking ship. Not even the captain was willing to go down with it. How’s that for an analogy?
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.
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