February 8, 2007
To: Whom it may concern
From: Tom Gow
Subject: An Unholy Mix: Christmas Message Gone Awry
Last December, Jack McManus wrote the Council to wish them a merry Christmas. His letter included thoughts about the significance of that Holy day and of the nature of offense and atonement.
But Jack didn’t leave it at that. In the middle of a Christmas message, he chose to insert unsubstantiated optimism regarding the Society’s future. And he further enclosed a document attempting to justify the coup he helped instigate of a year earlier.
In his letter, Jack wrote: “The past year has been a very trying one, yet a time for optimism. Our beloved Society is securely on track. There are many opportunities for it to grow and become the kind of force needed to reverse the disastrous course being chartered for our nation.”
Did Jack have his fingers crossed when he wrote that the Society was securely on track? How can he say that? What track? Does he even know, as he lives in Massachusetts and throughout the years has only infrequently participated in the Society’s leadership?
Glib assurances roll easily off of the pens of the Society’s current title holders. In a March 10, 2006 letter to selected donors, JBS CEO Art Thompson wrote: “Let me assure you that the Society has not been taken over, but is in the care of those who have served it the longest, who love its principles, and who will continue the legacy of our founder, Robert Welch.”
“... love its principles ... continue the legacy of our founder....” What blatantly dishonest lip service! A few months earlier, Jack and Art conspired to overthrow the authority structure Mr. Welch had put in place. And less than a year later, they refuse to republish the Blue Book! If members want the Blue Book they are now being told they have to download it from the JBS website.
No, the Society is being run by a few people more concerned about their paychecks, their titles, and their job environment than the freedom fight. Opportunities for the Society to grow do exist, but they will not be seized by leadership with such misguided priorities.
Nor will that leadership be readily fixed within the subverted structure where Jack is now virtually unaccountable to anyone.
Jack concludes his message to the Council with this postscript: “The enclosed ‘Ten Points....’ may be useful. Don’t hesitate to share a copy as the need arises.”
Incredibly, Jack fails to identify the author of the “Ten Points.” Nor does the document itself identify an author or even a publication date to establish a point of reference. Yet Jack is suggesting that the men on the JBS Council take a leadership role in quieting the troops based on what is stated therein.
In the weeks following, “someone” expanded several of the “Ten Points” and added two more. The “Twelve Points” version, with another cover letter signed by Jack, has been sent to selected members who have contacted JBS headquarters as a result of the Rickert, Ruckel, and Van Buskirk letters.
Those who have seized power at JBS are increasingly being called to account for their deeds. “Twelve Points” is one defense. More reaction from the takeover team appears on the front page of the February 2007 JBS Bulletin. Unfortunately, these reactions to member concerns are disappointing, if not surprisingly — the coup leaders steadfastly continue to defend their irresponsible actions with more of the same — distortions, misrepresentations, self-serving accusations, and invented history.
With such leadership firmly ensconced, we see no hope for JBS. That’s why we have reluctantly announced our intention to move on and form a new organization to give leadership in the freedom fight.
Nevertheless, for the record and for the member wrestling to get at the truth, let’s take a look at the document entitled “Twelve Points to Consider About the 2005 Changes in Leadership at JBS.”
Note: The author of “Twelve Points” is still not identified, although it is obvious to those familiar with Jack’s stylistic proclivities that he was involved in the editing of both versions. (The expanded “latest” version also carries no publication date.)
“Twelve Points to Consider About the 2005 Changes in Leadership at JBS” by the JBS Takeover Team (specific author not identified)
Rebuttal by Tom Gow (02-08-07)
“1. The Board of Incorporators (BOI) did not remove Mr. Smith and Mr. Gow from their positions, nor did it remove Messrs. Rickert, Ruckel and Van Buskirk from the Executive Committee. They all resigned.”
That’s like an accused arsonist claiming that the fire he started didn’t kill the people who jumped out of a fifth story window to escape the resulting raging inferno. In reality, the arsonist insists, it was the fall — which his victims undertook voluntarily.
The Board of Incorporators had made clear its intention to pull the authority to choose the Society’s leader away from the Executive Committee and was only hours away from doing so when these men resigned. In the days leading up to this event, the coup leaders had insulted Messrs. Rickert, Ruckel, and Van Buskirk and refused to let the Executive Committee exercise its well established responsibility to deal with the complaints, as it was scheduled to do in Orlando.
The coup leaders had conjured up a phony crisis to undermine the resistance of the Council to this unprecedented intervention by the Board of Incorporators. The doomsayers insisted that the Board of Incorporators couldn’t wait even eight days to see how the Executive Committee would handle the complaints.
Realistically, Jack and Art knew they had to act if they wanted to seize the leadership for themselves, so they created a climate to smooth the way with many on the Council (at least temporarily) for their unprecedented, self-serving action.
1. continued: “They were not ‘forced out’ via an illegal ‘coup’ as has been claimed. The JBS Bylaws, created and approved by Vance Smith, explicitly state in Section 1 that ‘all authority, rights, powers and duties shall be possessed by, vested in, and exercised exclusively by the Board of Incorporators....’”
Here, the author seems to admit (as he confirms in point #2) that we were “forced out,” but he now implies that overturning the succession structure established by Mr. Welch was legal, even okay, because of corporate authority found in the JBS Bylaws.
We are not asserting that the Board of Incorporators’ action was illegal. And neither are we affirming that it was legal. Over the years, Mr. Welch had helped build a membership organization, and obtained financial support for it, with the explicit understanding that the Executive Committee of the Council would choose the leader. Members were never asked to join an organization ruled by a Board of Incorporators, nor were members of the Council recruited with that understanding. The actual public commitments and understandings and the established procedures also carry weight in determining what is legal.
What we are asserting, however, is that, legal or not, the action by the Board of Incorporators was an irresponsible, unconscionable violation of trust. Just because something may be legal doesn’t mean it’s right. Suppose, for example, that the Board of Incorporators could “legally” decide that the Society was no longer interested in the freedom fight and vote to shut down the Society and disband it. Such action would clearly be irresponsible and an incredible betrayal of those who had supported it.
Had former Society president Thomas N. Hill, Robert Welch’s closest confidant and right-hand man for 25 years, still been alive, we are absolutely convinced that Jack McManus would never have gotten away with his Incorporator coup. At the time of Mr. Hill’s passing in October of 2003 (two years before the coup), Mr. Hill was a member of both the Executive Committee and the Board of Incorporators.
It is true that the JBS bylaws were amended in 1993 under the leadership of G. Vance Smith. But the changes reflected the advice of counsel and had the unanimous support of the entire Council and the Board of Incorporators at the time.
In trying to justify their irresponsible takeover, the coup leaders have variously suggested that Mr. Welch wanted the Board of Incorporators to serve as a watchdog over the Executive Committee (although they can produce nothing in writing from Mr. Welch to confirm their contention) or that this authority stemmed from actions Mr. Smith undertook in 1993. They should not be allowed to have it both ways. Or either way, actually.
For more comments regarding the Board of Incorporators, please also see my responses to points # 4 and #7, below.
“2. The Board of Incorporators would have removed Mr. Smith if he hadn’t resigned because the Society’s senior staff and many Council members were prepared to offer their resignations if he wasn’t replaced.”
The intention of the Board of Incorporators is undisputed, but the reason given as justification here is fabricated history. This claim has never been established. It is correct that several senior staff members were persuaded by the coup leaders to call for Mr. Smith’s resignation. However, if senior men were truly prepared to offer their resignations, it was only because the coup leaders had callously led them to that point in order to have an alarming pretext for their backdoor route to gain power for themselves.
It’s conceivable that those calling for Mr. Smith’s resignation may have felt that such action would have cost them their jobs, but they never stated their intention to resign to anyone who communicated it to us prior to October 20th. However, in contrast to these unverified claims of impending resignations, several veteran staff members actually did resign as a result of the Board of Incorporators’ coup.
Other “senior” staff such as Gary Benoit and Tom Gow went on record in opposition to the coup tactics. An obvious plan of the coup leaders was to orchestrate a crisis that would appear to demand immediate action. So for several weeks they worked long and hard to persuade selected employees to write letters of dissatisfaction and others to resign or provoke Mr. Smith into firing them. We were well aware of the latter tactic and refused to bite.
Even after the takeover, Alan Scholl continued the tactic and persuaded/coerced a majority of home office employees to sign a letter stating that they would resign if Mr. Smith were reinstated. With perhaps one or two exceptions, none of these office employees were even aware of the crisis that was brewing until a few days before the leadership change. They certainly weren’t part of the demand for a change. Yet after the takeover, Alan managed to make it appear that they, too, were on the verge of resigning. Similarly, we suspect, the coup leaders, following the tactics of the left, orchestrated a greatly exaggerated appearance of mass demand for a change in leadership among the field.
The allegation regarding the Council is even more suspect. There were plenty of discussions with Council members during October of 2005, and while several suggested that Mr. Smith resign, we never heard one threaten to resign or even that one had so threatened should Mr. Smith not resign.
In fact, the allegation regarding the Council is pretty absurd on the face of it. Most Council members were as unaware as we were of the brewing storm and had no personal grievances. A few had decided to become advocates for what they had been told by disgruntled employees. But no threats of resignation by Council members, even by key coup leaders Art Crino and Cliff Wasem, were ever delivered.
2. continued: “All were painfully aware that the Society wasn’t growing and had lost influence.”
The revolutionaries who are at pains to justify what they did to The John Birch Society are again inventing history. Whom is the author referring to with his impressive sounding “all”? Grammatically, it appears to be “the Society’s senior staff and many Council members.”
Undoubtedly, the Society’s senior staff and its field staff were aware that the Society wasn’t growing. Mr. Smith’s office was supplying them with the numbers and the graphs, and Mr. Smith himself was trying to help them set goals and do something about it.
The statement, however, is cleverly calculated to imply that these “all” placed the blame on Mr. Smith for this lack of progress. It should be pointed out that many of the coup leaders among the staff were themselves part of the team responsible for the growth rate.
No one was more determined to help the Society grow than Mr. Smith. Growth in recent years was a tough assignment, as every Chapter leader must know. Some initiatives, such as the Single District Coordinator program made great sense in principle but were stymied because of internal staffing problems.
But Mr. Smith never gave up trying to find a better formula, whereas too many of his subordinates were content to coast along with methods that clearly weren’t working or to redefine their jobs so that growth was not even an objective. It’s hard to imagine that growth was prominent on the radar screen of these individuals.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. It would be interesting to know what growth rate the Society has enjoyed since October 2005 now that the management team is supposedly so “committed” and happy. Or perhaps, the coup leaders have decided to blame us for their lack of success. Immediately prior to our resignations in October 2005, we predicted among ourselves that the new “leaders,” whoever they might be, would look to use us as scapegoats for their lack of success. For in order to gain power, the coup leaders were clearly overselling what they could expect to accomplish.
The Society’s influence was an issue with a few. Some staff felt the measure of our influence was how many times Jack was on C-span or how many talk-show hosts, newsletter writers, or “leaders” of DC beltway organizations would recognize us. Although headquarters could and should do some PR to help give the Society a national presence, a radio show is no substitute for the influence of Chapter members working in their communities to build an organization of patriots.
And precisely because of Chapter members working in support of our campaigns, the Society continued to enjoy amazing credibility with congressmen despite our disappointing growth rate.
“3. Solid reasons for replacing Vance Smith as CEO were actually noted by Mr. Rickert, Mr. Ruckel and Mr. Van Buskirk in their letter sent nationwide on October 16, 2006. They stated: ‘During the George W. Bush years, the organization had become stagnant. It certainly wasn’t growing at a rate that would stop the advance of the Conspiracy.’ They noted that the loss of member strength was evident ‘right before our eyes’ at ‘Council Dinners and other Birch gatherings.’ Mr. Smith had been given his post in 1991 and these three former Executive Committee members could have made a change in JBS leadership, but they didn’t act. They even stated that after Mr. Smith had served ten years at the helm, they were aware that field staff personnel ‘were simply doing maintenance work with Birchers who had been around for years.’ In the corporate world, a change in leadership would have been called for, but Mr. Rickert and his companions did little but note the Society’s slide.”
Growth of a principle-based organization that seriously challenges the Conspiracy is a vital, but tough nut to crack. Society leaders have been grappling with the challenge since Mr. Welch’s day (see, for example, the Project W.I.N. (W)ith (I)ncreased (N)umbers campaigns during the early 1970s).
For most of the 14 plus years Mr. Smith served as the Society’s CEO, the Executive Committee also included Dr. Philip E. Binzel, Jr., Joseph P. Grinnan, and former JBS President Thomas N. Hill. Both Thomas Hill and Dr. Binzel passed away in mid-to-late 2003 (only two years before the coup), and Mr. Grinnan only two months before the coup. So when the authors of the “Twelve Points” criticize Mr. Rickert, Mr. Ruckel, and Mr. Van Buskirk for not acting to make a leadership change, they are also criticizing those veterans, as well.
None of the coup leaders, including Jack McManus, sat regularly in these Councils, until Art Crino was appointed to the Executive Committee in 2004 (a year before the coup). In any event, during his one year as a participant on the Executive Committee, coup leader Art Crino made no effort at its meetings to rock the boat. And few of the coup leaders, particularly those with the union “local 770” mentality, have a clue about how the corporate world runs.
So it is arrogance, to say the least, for the employee who writes this drivel to put himself up as authority above the former Executive Committee: Criticize these men when you have walked in their shoes and have led the Society to the real and spectacular growth it needs. And be certain that, in the process, you have not altered the solid character and tough mission of the organization.
And don’t pat yourself on the back simply because your underhanded tactics succeeded in replacing the authority of the Executive Committee and two of the officers who led the JBS for 14 years with the absentee leadership of Jack McManus and Art Thompson. Is that the needed change in direction you are so proud of?
When the author states that “these three former Executive Committee members could have made a change in JBS leadership, but they didn’t act,” he must mean they didn’t act to install Jack and Art as the Society’s new leaders and that they didn’t agree that the Board of Incorporators was justified in taking the responsibility away from the Executive Committee for choosing the Society’s leader.
At the time of their coup, the coup leaders had no track record of dealing with or even inclination to deal with the serious problems they now feign great concern over. These were hardly their complaints at the time, and it is blatantly self-serving for them to suddenly suggest that these should have been reasons for the properly constituted authorities to have replaced Mr. Smith.
3. continued: “When others saw the need for change, these three men resisted and launched a divisive campaign full of misrepresentations and falsehoods, even personal attacks against anyone involved in bringing a new direction to the Society.”
“When others saw the need for change?” [Emphasis added.] This is an audacious euphemism for “when a few paid employees decided to organize a mutiny and seize power for themselves!”
The primary issue here isn’t really whether there was a basis for some people to question Mr. Smith’s performance or even whether others had better ideas on how the Society should be run. The issue is whether a few paid employees, including some with less than honorable motives, were justified in making a unilateral decision to overturn the Society’s organizational structure to install themselves as its leaders.
Simply put, those responsible for the October 21, 2005 change employed less than honorable tactics to defame Mr. Smith and undermine his support while they overturned the Society’s organizational structure [its constitutional structure, if you will] — all in order to obtain the leadership change they wanted.
Mr. Welch absolutely rejected the revolutionary expedient that good ends justify foul means. He further observed that there are a lot of differences of opinion in this world as to which ends are good.
The unilateral decision of the employee revolutionaries to install themselves by coup d’etat was both irresponsible and wrong. Not only have they failed to repent for those actions, but this latest after-the-fact justification demonstrates a continued, arrogant disregard for the truth.
So, we must ask, who is now going to see the need for change and take action? Although Jack and Art have seized power, they have abdicated leadership to Alan Scholl and newcomer Chris Bentley, supported by two non-Birch marketing and PR professionals (one of whom has since been fired). Surely by their own standards, someone should be involved in bringing about a new direction. With the precedent they have established they had better watch their backs.
“4. The Executive Committee possessed what has been properly referred to as ‘revocable’ power granted to it by the BOI.”
The Executive Committee exercised power that according to the 1993 revised JBS bylaws could be revoked by the Board of Incorporators. But the Executive Committee was never granted that power by the B of I, anymore than the States were granted their sovereignty by the federal government in Washington.
Prior to 1993, the Executive Committee enjoyed sovereign power to choose the Society’s leader. That authority was given to it by Mr. Welch and enhanced through precedent. The change in 1993 occurred because the Executive Committee had stepped in several years earlier, during a time of financial and leadership turmoil, to assume the role of an additional Board of Directors.
After legal counsel warned of future dangers arising from that structural change, a compromise was worked out with the resurrected Board of Incorporators. This compromise followed a very shaky period in the Society’s history and addressed several concerns. In particular, it attempted to reconcile the procedures established by Mr. Welch (whereby the Executive Committee would choose the Society’s leader) with the statutory authority granted to the corporation’s boards spelled out in the bylaws in conformance with the articles of organization and State of Massachusetts requirements.
With the adoption of the new bylaws, it was expected that the Incorporators would continue to respect the trust given them by Mr. Welch and carry out the statutory requirements in the background. At the time, it was further acknowledged that the Board of Incorporators was not qualified to choose the Society’s leader and that if the B of I were ever to contest for that role it would do major damage to the Society by alienating the Executive Committee and the essential confidence of many.
The only justification ever discussed for Board of Incorporator intervention based on statutory authority was the hypothetical event that the Society were hijacked by some wealthy Council member and taken off course from its mission. If that were to happen, it was reasoned, then perhaps the B of I could regain control of the JBS name and membership lists, but it was also understood that the Society would be greatly damaged by any such battle and would undoubtedly have to be rebuilt from the bottom up if such a battle were ever to occur.
It was never suggested that the Board of Incorporators hold veto power or say grace on the decisions of the Executive Committee, as the B of I was not privy to the information for such decisions and its members had not been selected for that purpose or for their wisdom in choosing a leader.
4. continued: “When one member of this Committee (Mr. Crino) started asking questions about the condition of the organization in mid-2005, he was speedily removed by the Rickert-led faction.”
This is simply more after-the-fact fabrication designed to excuse those who, while purporting to rescue the Society, created the very crisis the Society now faces. Nobody outside a very small group in October 2005 believed the Society needed the kind of surgery they instituted.
“Speedily removed” for merely asking questions? This is absolutely not true, and it is insulting to the other members of the Executive Committee who often asked tough questions, received answers, and continued to serve and provide financial support. This blatant attempt at self-serving revisionism omits the fact that Art Crino, far from merely asking questions, was an active participant in a sub rosa campaign to generate a tide of opposition to Vance Smith, which tide Jack and Art were able to ride into power.
It is not clear how Art Crino got pulled into this role. A year or so earlier, Mr. Crino had attended several days of staff training meetings in Appleton, following which he claimed that he was pleased with what he saw.
Even so, Mr. Smith did not wage a vendetta against Mr. Crino. Mr. Crino was removed from the Council over this episode, but not from membership. In fact, within days of his removal from the Council, Mr. Crino was contacted and, to his credit, agreed to continue his planned speaking tour, walker and all (due to a skiing accident) — with Mr. Smith’s complete approval.
Moreover, in 2005 there were no factions on the Executive Committee, let alone a Rickert-led faction. As recently as 2003, the veterans on the Executive Committee also included Dr. Philip E. Binzel, Jr., Joseph P. Grinnan, and Thomas N. Hill. These men worked well together, but they each had strong opinions. Accordingly, the hidden actions of newcomer Art Crino, revealed in late 2005, came as a total surprise to all. The idea of factions is merely an invention of those who wanted the power to choose the Society’s leader for themselves.
4. continued: “When another Executive Committee member (Mr. Clark) learned that Mr. Crino had been removed, that a key member of the Council had been ousted from its membership, and that a member of the JBS Board of Directors had been removed without the hearing called for by the legally binding Bylaws, he resigned from the Executive Committee.”
This is more rewriting of history to justify an irresponsible coup. For months, Ray Clark had begged off from attending Executive Committee meetings because of extreme business pressures, even asking to be excused from Committee membership. The turmoil he was thrust into in October of 2005 may have played a role in hastening his resignation, but, to our knowledge, he has not stated as much.
In any event, it is unlikely that Mr. Clark reacted to “a member of the JBS Board of Directors” being removed without following proper procedure. Actually, two members of the JBS Board of Directors — Jack and Art — were both removed at the same time, at the same meeting, following the same procedures. If there were a problem with those procedures no one objected to them at the time. This allegation, also made in court documents, is undoubtedly an invention of the same attorneys who squandered so many scarce resources in the RWU contest. Their allegation of improper procedure has never been tested in court.
4. continued: “This left only the three (Messrs. Rickert, Ruckel and Van Buskirk) and they refused to act.”
Even the first part is technically incorrect, as Mr. Smith was also a member of the Executive Committee. And filling the unfortunate vacancies, which included a seat left vacant by the death a month earlier of Joe Grinnan, was a high priority.
But contrary to the claim, the members of the Executive Committee had all decided to act and were acting. They met in Appleton for the better part of a week to deal with the crisis and consulted with many Council members. However, Jack and Art were likely concerned that the results of their orchestrated protest would not lead to Jack and Art being appointed to the top spots.
And properly so. The closest Jack had and has come to a leadership role in The John Birch Society, as opposed to holding a title, was as publisher of The Review of the News for a few weeks in 1986. Despite his other talents, Jack really has no history of leading. No one should imagine that actor George C. Scott could have led the Third Army’s successful assault on the Nazi occupation of fortress Europe just because his performance in a motion picture as General Patton earned him such wide acclaim.
In any event, the Society desperately needed more leaders, especially new young leaders to come up through the ranks. Since both Jack and Art were aging, since neither lived in Appleton, and since neither had shown leadership promise, as opposed to speaking ability, they could hardly expect the Executive Committee to hand them the top roles. Even less so, since the Executive Committee was well aware that Jack and Art were using a whispering campaign of smear tactics to create pressure for a leadership change under the gun. The last thing Jack and Art wanted was a sit-down discussion in an atmosphere conducive to deliberation by the men responsible to make such a decision.
What the coup leaders mean when they accuse the Executive Committee of refusing to act is that the Committee would not act to replace G. Vance Smith with Jack McManus and Art Thompson.
“5. Mr. Smith had created an agenda for the October 29th, 2005 Council Meeting that totally ignored the concerns of the senior staff personnel and Council members who were requesting that he step down. As is evident from the agenda he had crafted for that meeting, he intended to use the meeting to launch an attack on anyone who would question his stewardship or who would suggest that he resign. In addition, he had just added several men favorable to him to the Council in hopes of having additional support should the topic of his resignation actually arise at the meeting. These and many other reasons encouraged the Board of Incorporators to proceed with their plan to remove him from his post (which as noted above became unnecessary because of Mr. Smith’s resignation).”
Jack has rightly been on the defensive to explain why his Board of Incorporators did not allow the Council to address the issue in Orlando, as planned. Incredibly, this flimsy excuse provides further evidence that Jack is not really on top of even what is published in his defense. Jack has left it up to uninformed lackeys in Appleton, who have drawn conclusions after looking at files they misunderstand, such as a boiler plate agenda for the next Council meeting.
Wayne Rickert and Keith Van Buskirk personally assured Jack in phone conversations that the allegations against Vance would be the top agenda of the Council meeting in Orlando. Likewise the entire Council was informed of that plan and a two-thirds majority asked Jack to back off with his Incorporator card. Yet Jack stubbornly insisted on going ahead.
This charge includes another of those irresponsible, wild statements that have become a hallmark of the new “leadership” that wishes to claim Mr. Welch’s banner of truth and careful research. Since first becoming aware of a brewing mutiny in September of 2005, Mr. Smith had added only one, not “several men” to the Council — Michael Grinnan, the son of Executive Committee member Joseph Grinnan, who had just passed away. The two prior appointments to the Council were in the previous calendar year — John F. McManus in early 2004 and George B. Wallace in late 2004. Neither supported Mr. Smith in the battle over control that occurred a year later.
So the allegation reduces to this: In order to achieve a more favorable COUNCIL discussion, Mr. Smith was allegedly trying to pack the Council with his one appointment of Michael Grinnan. Contrast these “concerns” with what actually happened, supposedly as necessary steps to prevent this potentially unfair discussion from occurring:
On October 21st, Jack’s Board of Incorporators intervened to neuter the Executive Committee, alienate key supporters, and overturn the succession structure established by Mr. Welch. On October 21st, Jack’s Board of Incorporators chose an entirely new Board of Directors, which immediately acted to appoint what was undoubtedly a pre-determined slate of new officers from among the coup leaders: Jack McManus as president, Art Thompson as CEO, and Larry Waters as VP. One can imagine how much discussion occurred when this obviously packed Board of Directors met to make its pre-programmed decision.
But of course these self-serving appointments, the earlier underhanded smear tactics, and the resulting structural upheaval were all necessary to save the Society. We should be thankful that the authors of this upheaval were insightful enough to recognize the impending crisis. And we should all be grateful that they were willing to put on their cloaks, combine secretly in the dark of the night, and come to the Society’s rescue. Give us a break!
“6. Completely ignoring the precedent followed by three CEO predecessors (Messrs. Barker, Armour, and Bubolz), Mr. Smith resigned as CEO of JBS but not from all of the posts he had been given. When each of the previous CEOs had been appointed JBS Chief Executive Officer, it was rightly assumed by those making the appointment and everyone else that the single appointment included appointment to each of the Society’s related corporations. Later, when each of these three former CEOs resigned, they resigned from the one post and it was rightly assumed that they were stepping away from all of the Society’s related corporations. But Mr. Smith ignored this precedent and resigned from his JBS post selectively while determinedly refusing to resign from Robert Welch University and several other entities.”
Each of Mr. Smith’s predecessors, with the exception of Mr. Welch, had been selected by the Executive Committee of the Council with the approval of the Council. That was Mr. Welch’s plan and the precedent that was broken when Jack’s Board of Incorporators intervened to appoint, in effect, Jack as the Society’s president and Art as its CEO.
Never in the Society’s history had its officers ever been appointed, directly or indirectly, by the Board of Incorporators. Never in the Society’s history had the Board of Incorporators challenged the authority of the Executive Committee to choose the Society’s leader, which authority stemmed from Mr. Welch. And never in the Society’s history had the Board of Incorporators tried to pull a “legal” stunt to force out the Society’s leaders. The Executive Committee and Society leaders were certainly under no obligation to import this revolution into corporations where the JBS Board of Incorporators did not hold even a pretext of authority.
Moreover, none of the corporations ever had an independent payroll and mission prior to a leadership change, as did RWU in October 2005. Having the same leaders (as opposed to control) is not necessarily in the best long-term interests of the two organizations. The plan for RWU had always been that it would grow to where it would need a separate staff, including officers.
RWU was to be kept in the JBS orbit through the men sitting on RWU’s Board of Trustees — men who were drawn from JBS staff and from the Executive Committee. The unjustified intervention of the JBS Board of Incorporators broke that chain of control. The two organizations could still have worked together, and perhaps eventually can, were it not for the hate campaign against Vance orchestrated by Alan Scholl and other coup leaders.
In reality, the revolutionaries at JBS are merely unhappy with their own failing — they hadn’t done their homework before they acted — they hadn’t thought their Board of Incorporators’ revolution through. And if they truly believe that the two organizations must have the same leaders, Jack’s Board of Incorporators can accomplish that at any time — just roll back the clock.
“7. Mr. John Fall is the only remaining member of the Board of Incorporators appointed by Robert Welch. He has capably pointed out in his history of the BOI, that Mr. Welch deliberately and quietly kept this board in place so that it could act if needed. Once the Society was functioning, he could have abolished it, but he did not. (Mr. Fall’s important history of the BOI is available upon request.)”
Mr. Fall’s self-serving “To Whom It May Concern” letter (July 11, 2006), undoubtedly put together at Jack’s behest and with Jack’s assistance, has now been elevated here (by Jack?) to the status of an “important history!”
Mr. Fall, a former head of the membership department in Belmont days, who supported Jack during the October 2005 coup, had earlier arranged for Jack to become an Incorporator — just as the Belmont office was getting ready to close in 1989. Shortly, thereafter Jack boasted to G. Allen Bubolz, the new CEO of JBS at the time, that Jack could deliver the Incorporator vote if Alan needed it (see my August 23, 2006 letter analyzing Mr. John Fall’s claims).
Mr. Fall is clearly under Jack’s sway. As an example, in his “important history,” Mr. Fall writes:
“... Jack, through his extensive travels and appearances throughout the country, to my mind, exhibited more than anyone else that dynamic personal leadership Mr. Welch has said was so important.”
Jack has certainly been popular and has sought and cultivated many fans (for himself personally), and John appears to be one of them. But John Fall shouldn’t confuse the size of Jack’s fan group with personal dynamic leadership. Even if Jack had a track record of making leadership decisions, which he does not, and even if he were inclined to make such decisions, how could he give the Society the leadership it needed while based in Wakefield, Massachusetts?
Mr. Fall’s letter was written well after the deed to justify, in the face of criticism, what Jack McManus, John Fall, and Larry Waters had done, as Incorporators, to overturn the long-established authority structure at JBS. Other than the assertions of John Fall and Jack McManus, there is no evidence that Robert Welch ever intended for the B of I to be able to supersede the Executive Committee when and if the B of I decided unilaterally that such action was needed. The coup leaders can produce nothing in writing from Mr. Welch to support their contention. In fact, there is much evidence among the writings of Mr. Welch to the contrary (see, for example, Mr. Welch’s comments re the Council in later editions of the Blue Book).
And Mr. Welch certainly didn’t deliberately leave the Board of Incorporators in place for the purpose of acting as a check on the Executive Committee. The Board of Incorporators was part of the corporate structure created to satisfy the statutory requirements for incorporation in Massachusetts. Whereas many corporations are started by a board of incorporators that survives only briefly (a day or two) until control by stockholders can be established, this was not Mr. Welch’s plan.
Mr. Welch made clear in subsequent editions of the Blue Book and in the Bulletin what his plan was. The Executive Committee, with the approval of the Council, was to select the leadership for the vitally important membership organization that Mr. Welch had founded and was building and which he hoped would last for hundreds of years. The caliber of men Mr. Welch recruited for the Council was truly impressive. In introducing the Council in a subsequent edition of the Blue Book, Mr. Welch wrote: “And we believe that both the growth and the effectiveness of the Society will be greatly helped by the experience, ability, and resolute purpose of so strong a governing body.” [Emphasis added.] After setting up the Council, Mr. Welch certainly did not intend to have the head of the membership department and his secretary choose the Society’s leader.
If any other leaders in the Society recognized the “BOI” as so significant, why was it allowed in the late 1980’s to shrink to just two members?
7. continued: “Mr. Smith knows that the BOI’s ultimate authority existed, and he had even pointed to it as the Society’s ‘ace in the hole’ should a need for change arise. Similarly, Tom Gow knew about the BOI’s power and even explained it most accurately in his June 15, 1990 letter to a member. He stated that the BOI possessed ‘ultimate legal authority’ to control the organization. Further, both Mr. Smith and Mr. Gow know without question that it was Robert Welch’s decision to have the BOI be the final authority. Which is why these two men resigned before the BOI took any action.”
More self-serving distortions of the record! In further response to “Mr. John Fall’s memo about the BOI’s history,” please see my August 23, 2006 letter analyzing Mr. John Fall’s claims.
And for the real reasons why we resigned, see our response to the next allegation (#8).
“8. The financial condition of the Society at the beginning of 2005 was more than acceptable with $887,000 in the bank. By September, this figure had shrunk to $80,000. When Mr. Smith and Mr. Gow resigned on October 21, 2005, the total in the Society’s bank account was $36,000 (not enough for meeting one payroll). It was the deficient Smith regime that had allowed the JBS coffers to be drastically depleted, not the regime that took control in October 2005.”
Wow! Two years ago, I never would have imagined that my former colleagues would be capable of writing such deliberately distorted nonsense. In 1989, when the Society moved its headquarters to Appleton, there were no reserves. At one point in 1990, the IRS had the Society on a payment plan, because the Society had no money to pay the part of employee wages deducted (on paper) from each employee’s paycheck.
The Society was still living hand to mouth, when Mr. Smith conceived and led a successful campaign to persuade dedicated members to help purchase two headquarters buildings in Appleton. For many years, it was very unusual to have any reserves and we were constantly fighting to make payroll and pay our creditors in a timely manner. Welcome, new leaders, to the real world!
The unusual reserves in question were the result of contributions from the estates of thoughtful members, not the result of contemporaneous fundraising. Often, the member loyalty that led to such contributions had been developed decades earlier. All Mr. Smith and “his regime” could take credit for was that they put some of these unusual gifts aside to tide us over during slumps. Unfortunately, due to rising costs and an aging organization, more and more of the JBS operating income was dependent on estate gifts, which, as readers can understand, were of irregular frequency.
This was not a satisfactory budgetary situation. On top of that, fundraising for 2005 was, by the fall, several hundred thousands of dollars below the level for 2004. The person directly responsible for correcting that shortfall was Art Thompson, our supposed Director of National Development.
Vance and I were very concerned about the shortfall. We had been formulating plans for budget cuts. But before cutting staff, we were trying to address the problem by increasing revenue. In fact, we were both working to help Art’s fundraising team by equipping them with an exciting case for a new round of contributions to an expanded FTAA campaign. Art was in Appleton precisely for that purpose on the day when Art confessed his role in the developing mutiny against Vance and the Executive Committee.
At that point, all new fundraising plans were put on hold by default, while we were forced to spend our time countering the letters and whispering campaigns of several previously trusted employees who were carrying out their campaign while still on our payroll. In effect, for several weeks we were paying them to undermine us and strangle our effectiveness to lead the organization. And they were attempting to maintain their jobs by alleging that Vance fired all who disagreed with him.
When that situation became untenable and we saw our ability to provide positive leadership at a standstill, we knew we could not maintain sufficient confidence in our leadership to stand up to an extended legal dispute with the Board of Incorporators. So rather than watch the Society stagnate under our reign and lose all support in the process, we decided to resign.
Leading up to the coup, the public attacks were directed primarily at Vance Smith. There was no criticism of a “Smith regime.” The coup leaders only wanted one villain. Of necessity, they had to criticize the Executive Committee as under Mr. Smith’s thumb in order to pave the way for their Board of Incorporators’ coup. But at that time their public criticism of Wayne, Walt, and Keith by name was restrained.
Nothing was directed at me, at the time, and there is little doubt that I would have been permitted to stay, had I chosen to do so and had I been able to work with them. But I realized that working constructively for or with these men was no longer possible. Moreover, it would have been wrong (an affirmative validation that their campaign and what they had done was somehow okay). No one could reason with them. They were hell-bent on their course, and no one could protect these irresponsible fools from their own folly.
As I have observed many times since, they were acting like a bunch of kids who were angry with their parents for not allowing them to stay up and watch late-night TV. So they plotted to get rid of their parents. With that accomplished, they could now stay up as late as they pleased. But surprise — there was no one to pay the electric bills, so none could watch any TV!
8. continued: “Mr. Smith and his team had no plan to address the Society’s needs for the rest of 2005 and into the future – other than to lay off a significant portion of the staff. This tragic situation had to be addressed by the Society’s new and more responsible leadership.” [Emphasis added.]
What crass audacity! Such incredible poppycock! Art, our supposed Director of National Development, had been under pressure for months to meet his fundraising goals, and plans for both new revenue and cutbacks had been a focus of discussion for months. If Art and his fundraising team had been coming anywhere close to meeting their own modest goals for 2005, there would not have been this drain on resources. Even so, the situation was far more manageable than in years past.
(Since Art did not do well in fundraising under our leadership, it would be interesting to know how the new Executive Committee rates Art’s fundraising performance now, as the Society’s top fundraiser — the CEO.)
Whoever wrote the assertion that “Mr. Smith and his team had no plan” to deal with the Society’s financial situation “other than to lay off a significant portion of the staff” could qualify for a position with Pravda. As one example, Mr. Smith conceived the Reclaiming America Seminars, and carried the lion’s share of the workload for the project.
Eighteen of the seminars had been held, and more than a dozen more were scheduled when Vance’s leadership was interrupted by the coup. A key objective of the afternoon seminar (patterned after the successful seminar program of years past) was to help the field staff (including the fundraising team) to help selected members develop the interest of their financially substantial friends.
And let’s not forget the $10 million capital campaign that Mr. Smith had conceived for RWU. $2 million of that was earmarked for the Society! Mr. Smith had an outstanding track record of success with such plans and had the interest of significant donors who were key to getting such a campaign off the ground. Although that plan had to be put on hold when the Director of RWU resigned prematurely, it is pure malicious fantasy to suggest that the “Smith team” was content to play the violin while Rome burned.
In what way can the new leadership claim to be “more responsible”? In mid-2005, the Society was widely regarded to be in good hands. The new team destabilized that situation by trumping up a personnel crisis ostensibly requiring immediate action to replace the leader who had guided the Society successfully for 14 years. In the process, the staff lost several key leaders, several key donors were alienated, and the aged individuals who assumed the vacant titles could not even move to the Society’s headquarters to fill the leadership vacuum the “new” team had created.
And once they were successful in stealing the leadership of the Society through leftist scare tactics, they could not even focus their attention on the enormous responsibility they had inherited. Incredibly, during his first day on the job as the Society’s new president, Jack devoted his attention to gaining control of RWU!
Through Alan Scholl the new “leadership” at JBS continued to agitate the personnel at RWU, one of whom resigned immediately. Another had to be fired, whose subsequent actions even caused Art to write a disclaimer of responsibility. Despite their allegedly desperate financial situation, the “new and more responsible leadership” paid off their campaign debts to Alan Scholl and promised him a job even before he was fired at RWU. And they hired the RWU employee who had quit under Alan’s influence.
But the worst was yet to come. Rather than acting as responsible professionals in the best long-term interests of both organizations, the new officers at JBS refused to cooperate at any level with the officers of RWU. Instead, they enlisted Alan Scholl, with one of Alan’s attorney friends, in a plan to take control of RWU by force.
Putting that plan into operation, they organized a break-in at RWU headquarters, changed the locks, set up round-the-clock vigils with JBS employees equipped with sleeping bags, and represented themselves as the new leaders at RWU, while purporting to fire four of its employees. In the process, they also promoted Alan Scholl to VP of RWU.
Pushed to the wall again, this time our team fought back through the courts to defend against the actions of irresponsible individuals who had clearly violated the law. Although the JBS was not directly involved in the case, the violators abused their leadership positions at JBS again to use JBS resources to shield their personal liability. The resulting legal battle cost both organizations dearly in resources that could have been much better used in the freedom fight. This fight undoubtedly caused many JBS members to sit on the sidelines with their contributions.
When the Scholl team was ousted from RWU under court order, the “new and more responsible leadership” at JBS managed to invent a position for him, so that Alan could continue a war against RWU while on the JBS payroll.
It would require another long story to adequately describe the fruits of this new leadership at JBS during the past year. But, as a prime example, consider that the Coordinator staff has been decimated and the field volunteer organization is receiving virtually no leadership for growth. Meanwhile the staff in Appleton, under Alan Scholl’s leadership, apparently rejoice that they can come to work in a permissive environment without pressure. And they have the poor sense to tell the membership how motivated and determined they are now that the big, bad wolf is gone.
More responsible? Nonsense. Responsible individuals try to estimate the consequences of their acts — before they act. There is no evidence that those who led the coup at JBS ever made the effort to do so.
“9. Virtually the entire COUNCIL and the Executive Committee drawn from its members are heavily supportive of the change that occurred in October 2005. They do not want to restore to the post of CEO a man whose poor leadership was dragging the Society down, and they likewise see no reason why three Executive Committee members who resigned should be returned to the posts they abandoned through voluntary resignations. Since resigning, the three dissident Executive Committee members (Messrs. Rickert, Ruckel, and Van Buskirk) have conducted a disruptive campaign by issuing a series of letters full of misinformation to JBS members across the nation. To send their letters to JBS members, they even used without any authority the Society’s proprietary mailing list.”
We strongly suspect that the purported unanimity of Council support for each of the above-mentioned points is an exaggeration. We certainly know that Alan Scholl loves to orchestrate the appearance of unanimous support, as he did when he the collected signatures of hourly employees for his infamous union “local 770” letter. And we know that two Council members, former JBS CEO G. Allen Bubolz and Brig. General Andrew J. Gatsis, U.S. Army (Ret.), vigorously objected to the McManus takeover. And another Council member, Brett Favero, resigned from the Council in protest. (On January 26, 2007, a little more than a year after the coup, General Gatsis also resigned from the Council.)
Some Council members undoubtedly have an investment in error, having sided with the coup leaders in 2005. Four “friendly members” have been appointed by the coup leaders since the coup. (Does this constitute “packing” the Council?). And still others who perhaps believe that a mistake was made and that the Society is in trouble apparently don’t feel qualified to intervene.
Even though many Council members almost worshiped Jack, because he is such a gifted speaker, they should know that Jack is not qualified to lead the Society nor is he even attempting to do so. And with what has been written and discussed, they all know why Jack stepped down as the Society’s president at the end of 2003. They have been made fully aware of Jack’s ego-driven statements at religious gatherings that were putting the Society’s long-held positions in jeopardy.
So the members of the Council should also realize that the takeover in 2005 would not have occurred had not Jack decided to climb on board the coup train for personal reasons. He clearly was driven by ego, wanting to regain the prestige associated with his lost title. Sadly, Jack acted without regard for the broader interests of the Society and the freedom fight. We regret that more members of the Council have not been willing to stand up and work to correct the damage done.
We should add that, under Jack and Art’s “new and more responsible leadership,” the Council is more dependent than ever for its information on what they are told by Jack and Art. Traditionally, Jack, based in Massachusetts, has been largely out of the loop. And, from our experience, Art has difficulty getting his facts straight, even when he tries.
Nevertheless, we saw some indication in a letter from Art a couple of months ago that the Executive Committee was not satisfied with the information they were getting and were insisting that at least one meeting a year be held in Appleton, where they could speak with others at the home office.
We can understand that Jack and Art would prefer that Messrs. Rickert, Ruckel and Van Buskirk not rock the boat while the Society fades into oblivion due to the damage Jack and Art have inflicted. But true leaders and patriots do not keep their mouths shut, while egos, misjudgment, and ambition sabotage the prime opportunity offered by the Society to change the course of history and preserve freedom.
Regarding the charge that the Rickert, Ruckel, Van Buskirk mailings are full of misinformation, we can only say that without offering specifics, it is a very easy charge to make and difficult to disprove. But in a contest over accuracy, there is no doubt in our minds which side in this dispute would lose.
Regarding the alleged use of proprietary mailing lists owned exclusively by the Society, it should be known that, until the split resulting from the JBS takeover, some lists were managed to the common benefit of several corporations and foundations in the JBS family, including RWU. In 2003, RWU began to develop its own lists when it launched operations at a new site with its own staff and computers.
But most importantly, Jack McManus knows, and if he doesn’t Alan Scholl certainly knows, what we had in our possession as disclosed during discovery under oath and what as part of the July “Stipulated Agreement and Release of Claims” we were allowed to keep and use by mutual agreement sanctioned by the court.
“10. The court ruling in mid-2006 awarding Mr. Smith and his team Robert Welch University resulted from their suit filed against several JBS officials. In their suit, they actually sought over $700,000 in damages from JBS officials. After an initial ruling favoring the Smith-Gow takeover of Robert Welch University, a settlement was reached in the Wisconsin Court that voided numerous claims for damages but awarded them the University.
Talk about misleading by omission! The suit filed by Mr. Smith and his team was in response to the illegal break-in, seizure, and occupation of RWU by force by several misguided JBS employees at the behest of the “Society’s new and more responsible leadership.”
The entire “Twelve Points” is simply riddled with errors and misleading statements. For example, the statement that “a settlement was reached in the Wisconsin Court that voided numerous claims for damages but awarded them the University” is incorrect and misleading. The settlement had nothing to do with who controlled the University — that had already been decided by the Court in our favor when we entered into negotiations over damages.
The damages we initially requested reflected not only what was incurred as a direct result of the break-in but also what it had cost the University to gain the final verdict from the court and the costs the defendants inflicted through their counterclaim. Although the costs were very real and continuing, our request for damages did provide sufficient leverage to settle the later JBS legal suit (see below) outside of court and bring the expenses of this unfortunate legal battle to an end. All requests for damages were waived in the settlement.
Moreover, there was no “Smith-Gow takeover of Robert Welch University” in October of 2005. But this characterization is typical of the intentionally misleading statements that laced the dissidents’ court filings, but were calculated more to play to members.
Mr. Smith and I had been officers of RWU for more than a decade. Alan Scholl likes people to think that he and the few who labored on behalf of RWU for three years in its new building to get the online program off the ground were the real leaders of RWU. Actually, Alan was not even assigned to that program — he was supposed to be responsible for the youth camp program, which, under Alan’s tutelage, greatly inhibited the early development and launch of the online degree program. Alan chooses to ignore the fact that only through the leadership of G. Vance Smith would there have even been an RWU building, an RWU staff, and funding for an RWU online program.
10. continued: "A later suit filed by the Society contested the placement of two JBS headquarters buildings in a restrictive covenant (a trust) controlled by Messrs. Rickert, Ruckel and Van Buskirk. This incredible on-the-way-out-the-door maneuver was accomplished by Mr. Smith 24 hours before he resigned as the Society’s CEO. His appointment of the three trustees was similarly made 24 hours before each of them resigned from the Council and its Executive Committee. Knowing how thin their defense of this vengeance-laden maneuver was, the three trustees eventually removed their names from the covenant and it is now controlled by loyal Society officials.”
A few months after their break-in at RWU, that same “new and more responsible leadership” initiated a suit on behalf of JBS, with “Mr. Smith and his team” as defendants. That hastily constructed suit was later revised to include more than 120 allegations replete with errors and alleging, in very general terms hard to disprove, all kinds of wrongdoing. In essence, the “new and more responsible leadership” was accusing us of anything and everything, hoping something might stand up under later discovery. This tactic would drive up RWU’s legal expenses to respond to the nonsense.
Only a small portion of that lawsuit dealt with the restrictive covenant. The balance of the JBS lawsuit was dropped as part of the settlement negotiations over damages when “Mr. Smith and his team” won their lawsuit over control of RWU.
The restrictive covenant was put in place by the outgoing officers in October 2005 to prevent the “new and more responsible leadership” from squandering the building assets below the surface of public attention. It was feared that while the incoming officers grappled with their ineptitude, they might strive to create a false illusion of prosperity by consuming the equity in the buildings, even though the illusion of prosperity could not last.
If establishing the restrictive covenant was a “vengeance-laden maneuver” on our part, isn’t it strange that it had the complete support of then JBS Director Gary Benoit, who now works for the “coup leaders?” (The coup leaders are very careful to avoid mentioning Mr. Benoit’s support.)
And how was the purported vengeance to be extracted? On the front page of the February 2007 JBS Bulletin, members are assured that “the leaders and corporate structure of The John Birch Society have no intention of mortgaging the Society’s headquarters buildings, now, or in the future.” Or perhaps we should ask, how about in the past, while the new leaders were making drastic cuts in the coordinator staff? And, if it were such a silly idea, why pursue a lawsuit to get it overturned, without first even attempting to negotiate the matter with the Trustees involved?
It appears this remaining legal dispute has now been settled, when Messrs. Rickert, Ruckel, and Van Buskirk voluntarily relinquished their control of the covenant to the current Executive Committee. They explained their reasons for doing so in a widely circulated letter dated December 28, 2006.
Although the merits of the legal dispute are now moot, the unreliability of what the new JBS leaders are disseminating is not. Regardless of who the actual author of these polemics is, it is clear that he doesn’t understand the legal issues and can’t even state them correctly. For example, a restrictive covenant is not “(a trust).”
Jack, in particular, never even understood the legal case they were involved in, anymore than he understood the proper role of the Board of Incorporators or what happened in 1993 with the change in bylaws. Jack is certainly smart enough to understand those things, but he simply doesn’t care enough about such matters to get up to speed.
With regard to the claim that our defense for the “restrictive covenant” actions was thin, please note that the coup leaders have also predicted victory in court in the past and those predictions have been proven absurdly wrong.
“11. Innovations and a changing atmosphere since October 2005 have stimulated a wave of enthusiasm throughout the Society.”
This claim reminds me of the Communist spin on Castro’s takeover in Cuba in 1959. I can recall one socialist speaker at UCLA claiming that the entire population of Cuba experienced what amounted to an instant spiritual revival. Ask the Coordinators who lost their jobs in 2005 how enthusiastic they are about the new innovations and changed atmosphere.
If there were truly a wave of enthusiasm throughout the Society would it not be evidenced in increased recruitment, new Chapters, and increasing magazine circulation? We suspect that the “new and more responsible leadership” has forgotten that Mr. Welch’s vision of The John Birch Society was a growing body of members in the field, not a group of satisfied employees in the home office enjoying a permissive atmosphere.
11. continued: “Returning to the past will harm the good that is being done and reward those whose leadership had become deficient and whose activity since October 2005 has accurately been characterized as ‘rule or ruin.’”
Forgive me, but I think I am going to get sick.
Who decided our leadership had become deficient? Was it Jack, a Massachusetts-based news commentator, who dreamt up this explanation for why he had to step in to rescue the Society and regain his prized-title of President?
Let’s not forget that Jack was JBS President — ostensibly the number two man — for 12 of the 14 years during the previous “deficient” leadership. During that time, he cultivated fans on the phone from his third floor attic room in Wakefield, Massachusetts. What’s changed? Has he somehow learned to lead better from there than he did before?
Under Jack’s subverted governing structure for the Society, who is presently authorized to determine that Jack’s non-leadership is deficient and to replace him? Is Jack not, in reality, only answerable to the Board of Incorporators, which he controls?
Who is it that has “accurately” characterized our activity since 2005 as “rule or ruin”? Perhaps, the coup leaders? This charge seems to fit the mold of what Mr. Welch called the principle of reversal — accuse your enemy of what you yourselves are guilty of, a lie so monstrous that none will dare to risk their credibility in challenging it. Not only are the new “leaders” at JBS ruining the Society with their rule, but for almost a year they pursued the “rule or ruin” tactic against RWU.
For many months following their takeover at JBS, we kept the gloves on and were very restrained in our response to inquiries about the change in leadership. And when we did respond, it was largely to react to the stories that JBS staff were expected to carry to our mutual donors to the effect that we were the cause of the problems the new leadership was having at JBS. We never counseled others to withdraw their financial support from JBS or drop their membership or volunteer positions. We eventually did counsel others to ask tough questions of JBS leadership and insist that the damage to Mr. Welch’s structure be repaired.
During that period the “new and more responsible leadership” at JBS kept Alan Scholl on the JBS payroll with the principle assignment of fighting the RWU court case, even though the JBS was not a defendant. While it should have been clear they had no legal defense for their actions at RWU, the coup leaders did all they could through court motions to drive up legal costs and prevent RWU from spending any money to function while the case was being decided. In the meantime, they tried to poison the well for RWU donations and drive away potential students, all the while complaining to the world that we weren’t able to generate students and that RWU enrollment was falling under our leadership. Some might even “accurately” characterize their actions as diabolic!
“12. During his years as CEO, Vance Smith frequently told colleagues that should his leadership ever be found deficient, he would quietly step aside with gratitude for having been given the honor to serve and promptly turn the reins of leadership over to someone else.”
We first read this silly misrepresentation in a self-serving, open letter Jack addressed to Vance, suggesting that Vance step down. The statement is silly because it fails to provide any qualifications at all for who can make the finding to which Vance allegedly promised to accede (Jack loves to write in the passive voice). Is the finding of an angry member sufficient? Or perhaps the conclusion of one or two members of the Council? How about a couple of disgruntled employees who got together over dinner with Jack McManus?
Certainly, it’s absurd to imagine that the CEO should abdicate in the face of just any opposition. No CEO could survive a day with that test. Let’s not forget the reason why Mr. Welch insisted that the Society must have a monolithic structure. He explained why a parliamentary organization would be a disaster in opposing the Conspiracy, and he made clear he wasn’t launching another debating club.
The only body that could properly determine that the CEO should step down was the Executive Committee. I don’t think there is any question that Mr. Smith would have quietly stepped down had the Executive Committee so decided. But the Executive Committee never had the opportunity to hold a hearing on the charges being leveled, because of the irresponsible intervention by Jack’s Board of Incorporators, supported by the cry of the mob.
And that is what Mr. Smith’s defenders were facing — the demands of a mob seeking mob justice. No one committed to republican principles could accept the selection of a leader through such procedures. Even if Mr. Smith had wanted to retire in the face of such suddenly hostile opposition, he couldn’t have done so in good conscience. We recognized that it would have been unforgivable to capitulate to such demands while there was any practical opportunity to resist. The precedent would have been, and now is, catastrophic for the Society.
12. continued: “But in October 2005, he did the exact opposite of what he had pledged and he and his small group of allies have caused a great amount of stress within the Society ever since their resignations. They claim to be acting for the best interests of The John Birch Society but the reality is that their ‘rule or ruin’ campaign has unfavorably impacted the efforts of those who are the organization’s legitimate leaders.”
Apparently, what we have here is an agreement to disagree — or, more accurately, an inversion of the truth in writing history. In the months leading up to October 2005, the small group of coup leaders orchestrated a whispering campaign to undermine support for Mr. Smith with members of the Council. By late October, they had succeeded in paralyzing any positive leadership coming out of the home office.
When Mr. Smith and the Executive Committee did not immediately give in to their pressure tactics, the coup leaders announced their plan to use the Board of Incorporators to subvert the long-established succession procedures and neuter the well established authority of the Executive Committee and Council. Their power coup caused the resignation of several members of the Council who had given generously of their time and contributed millions in support to the Society. The ill-considered actions of these coup leaders also cost the Society the support of several key staff members.
Then they filled the Society’s top spots with non-leaders who refused to relocate to Appleton, instead turning over control of operations to Alan Scholl and newcomer Chris Bentley. The bureaucrats in Appleton measure their success, not by growth in activity, Chapters, and members in the field, a concern only recently discovered for the purposes of their “Twelve Points,” but by how united, motivated, and satisfied their fellow employees are in a complacent atmosphere without leadership.
When our team was forced out at JBS and relocated our offices reluctantly to RWU, we had decided not to bad mouth the new leaders publicly, but to let them succeed or fail on their own merits. We were also prepared to cooperate with our former colleagues and adversaries at JBS for the best long-term interests of both organizations. We even helped JBS staff take back the summer camp program, which we could not afford to continue on our own. And we were prepared to continue a revised fundraising agreement that would benefit both organizations. But our professional good will was rejected.
After the coup leaders captured control of the one organization with any potential to expose the Conspiracy and save our Republic, they immediately turned their attention not to the growth of the Society so it could accomplish its mission, but to control of fledgling Robert Welch University whose online program was only weeks old.
Under the best projections, RWU would have required years before it was a significant factor in the freedom fight. Yet a few weeks later, the new leaders at JBS sanctioned an illegal break-in at RWU headquarters, which led to an expensive and disruptive court battle.
Filled with the hatred they had worked themselves up into, they could not resist asking their field staff to vilify Mr. Smith to our common donors and distort the record of what had transpired. In the months following their takeover at JBS, their agendas for the Society have been well established. No doubt those presently in control at JBS would prefer to rule and ruin without any efforts by us to enlighten members as to what transpired. But there is too much at stake for responsible individuals to fade quietly into the sunset without having at least spoken up to set the record straight.
We have also tried unsuccessfully to awaken the consciences and sense of responsibility by many on the Council. There is and has been since October 21, 2005 plenty of opportunity for any serious leaders of the Society to offer leadership and gain support. But the current “leaders” cannot succeed because they have no intention of trying and the truth is not in them. With the change in leadership, the Society also underwent a weapons change: Tragically, Mr. Welch’s principled motto “Truth is our only weapon” has been replaced with “Trash talk is our only weapon!”
The “legitimate leaders” — their term — at JBS would never have needed to worry about us rocking their boat if they were willing to return the Society to the path mapped out by Robert Welch. Clearly, they have no intention of doing so. Tragically, their intransigence will destroy The John Birch Society as an effective force in the freedom fight.
So, reluctantly, but firmly, we have announced our own plans and separate course for the future. We believe that all of us now need to be devoting our energies to thwarting the enemies of freedom.
|
|
