March 22, 2006
Dear John:
Something about your February 13 letter made me think we shared the same standard, and therefore I fully expected a reply from you. I have not been too proud to correct my mistakes, or too vain to publish them. I had very much hoped that a good level of candor would prevail between us and that you would respond as I have regarding our predispositions.
In your letter you explained that Mr. Welch saw the Board of Incorporators as “an important ultimate safeguard with the power to act when subordinate channels of leadership might become derelict or worse in their duties to keep the Society true to its course, and to his (Mr. Welch’s) intended purpose.”
On October 3, 2005 you signed a petition stating that “Mr. Smith has served as the CEO for nearly 14 years during which time much good has been accomplished. He faithfully kept the Society true to the mission Robert Welch originated.”
Well John, was that just a diplomatic way of dismissing Vance Smith, or was it your honest opinion that he stayed true to the mission? I must assume you signed that petition in earnest, and therefore I wonder why you immediately invoked the power of the Incorporators. Was it the “or worse” clause that led to your final decision?
On January 31, the new JBS team wrote “...when Executive Committee member Art Crino opposed giving Vance Smith a ‘vote of confidence’ last fall, he was swiftly booted off both the Executive Committee and the Council, without even being informed that this retaliatory action was being taken against him until after the fact. In fact, John Fall informed us that it was capricious actions such as this and others that convinced him that the Board of Incorporators needed to act sooner as opposed to later to force Mr. Smith’s removal as CEO.”
If you regarded the Crino story as an “or worse” development, demanding Board action, and you now understand the real reason for Art Crino’s exit, we come up with no just cause for the October 21 meeting. Unless you have something else to clarify, it appears that the whole future of the John Birch Society hinged on factors that were clearly invalid by any interpretation of the founder’s intent.
A great deal of time has gone into turning the JBS upside-down. Cliff Wasem told me he had been working on this since June, 2005, constantly on the telephone urging staff and council members to voice their opposition to Vance Smith and to install Art Thompson. Cliff called again a few days ago to tell me that even Tom Gow’s mother was against Tom’s role in this controversy. Ironically, as he spoke, I was looking at a letter on my desk from Virginia Gow (Tom’s mother) expressing appreciation for my support of her son’s position. I tell you this John because it typifies a willful disregard for truth that has characterized nearly every step of the “dump Vance Smith” campaign.
Since last summer, many good men have been “had.” I feel certain you acted on the best information available to you, but I am also convinced that you, John, have also been “had.” I doubt if you realize it was Art Thompson who first brought the Mc Manus tapes to the attention of Vance Smith and the Council. He used this to ease Jack out of Appleton, at which time Art fully expected to replace Jack as President. (His buddy, Cliff Wasem led the campaign for Art as JBS President in 2003.)
When Art Thompson failed to win Jack’s position, he decided to concentrate on winning Jack’s favor - an investment that paid off for Art on October 21. Fantastic? Yes, but truth tends to be that way. However, the connivance of Art Thompson is not over yet. A few weeks ago Art and Larry Waters visited a donor on the west coast who reported that they said “Jack has always been a loose cannon and that is something we will have to deal with.” They did not elaborate on what they intended to do, but they are quite skilled in the leadership removal business.
JBS friends tell me the new leaders are handing out copies of your letter. That means they want to perpetuate their story about Art Crino’s removal, and other tales that seemed plausible when you wrote to me on February 13. Does that mean you have nothing to correct, or that you have not tried to verify anything I attempted to explain in my reply, and that you are content to let false notions prevail?
If your Board meeting was induced by fraud, any action taken there could easily be nullified, and you alone could do that. America’s future is in your hands John - it is all up to you.
Sincerely,
Don Fotheringham
|
|
