|
|
On October 21, 2005, in an unprecedented move, the JBS Board of Incorporators bypassed the time-tested protocols established by Robert Welch for selecting the Society’s leaders. In effect, the Board voted to disband the Executive Committee of the National Council in order to remove G. Vance Smith and Tom Gow from their leadership positions.
In late February 2006, I received a letter from John Fall, justifying this action by himself and two other Incorporators. I have posted below my strong disagreement with Mr. Fall’s assertions.
|
|
|
February 23, 2006
Dear John:
Thank you for taking the time to write to me and for your thorough explanation of the role of the Board of Incorporators and other important matters.
I do not doubt any of the statements you attribute to Robert Welch in respect to the Board’s power and the extreme circumstances in which it might be employed. It was my conclusion (not Vance Smith’s or Tom Gow’s) that it was a legal fixture for launching the JBS because, first, he had no choice about it, and secondly, because he never spoke to the membership about any internal authority above the Council for appointing a successor. But I have no trouble realizing that the founder would regard the Board as an ace in the hole to be used if it were ever needed, and that he would note that exception privately. I do appreciate the point of light you have shed on this and I will correct my website accordingly.
The far more compelling factor, of course, is the basis for implementing the Board’s authority. You have indicated that we faced a leadership crisis so dire that it met the criterion set forth by Mr. Welch. Given your candor (and the kindly manner of your letter, by the way), I wish you had looked into the focus, direction, and steadfast course of the Society, rather than the reports of individuals with hurt feelings, personal ambitions and bruised egos. The Society absolutely had not strayed off course, neither was there dereliction in the duty of its leaders. You were apparently told that Art Crino was booted off the Committee for failing to give Vance Smith a vote of confidence. John, that simply is not true. Any other member of the Executive Committee could have given you the real reason for Mr. Crino’s removal, had you consulted with them. The truth: he was removed for breach of trust with the Executive Committee. He had boasted to JBS staff member Bryan Turner that he had been at work since April 2005 urging members of the Council, and certain field staff leaders, to voice their disapproval of Vance Smith and to remove him from leadership. However, the full Executive Committee only learned of Mr. Crino’s extra-curricular activity in September.
My understanding is that quiet and private deliberations of the Executive Committee and Council are essential in the selection of a monolithic leader. Robert Welch stressed this principle in regard to his successor: “We should point out that it was terribly important not to advise anyone of the recommendations of the Executive committee until the full council had an opportunity to review and consider it...” Art Crino violated that principle by working behind the back of his fellow Executive Committee members and was removed for that reason.
John, Mr. Crino’s removal was proper. It was not a crisis at all. However, when the story was slightly but significantly altered, it served as yet another pretext for your decision to place the leadership question in the hands of the Board of Incorporators. In my view, this was a tragic mistake. Surely you must agree that Mr. Welch never intended that the collective judgement of men on the Council be replaced by the decision of a few veteran members of his staff. What we now have (to borrow terms from the Overview) is an immovable oligarchy replacing a limited monarchy. Members of the Board of Incorporators have appointed themselves to office, have neutered the Council, and retain the sole power of their own removal. Isn’t that worse than what you have accused Vance Smith of engineering?
I realize you had been under the persuasion of both sides on the leadership matter and must have felt an urgency to meet prior to the scheduled October 29 meeting of the Executive Committee. But even if you suspected that the Executive Committee would reappoint Vance Smith, what was the reason for the rush? Had the Executive Committee met and behaved as you and others had predicted, what would have prevented the Board of Incorporators from acting immediately thereafter? So what really was the reason for the rush? I think the hurry up, no-huddle play was motivated by a realization that the Executive Committee would never have made Art Thompson the CEO. I know him well. He is a vociferous grumbler, not a leader. Neither would Larry Waters have been appointed. I know Larry well. He is a friendly, diplomatic person, but not sufficiently energetic or demanding to be the Committee’s choice for vice president. I think the real rush was not against one more week of Vance Smith, but was undertaken by and for those individuals who knew that they would never be placed in leadership by the Executive Committee as it was then constituted.
It is true, John, that I was never in Belmont and I accept everything you say about the congenial climate and unity inspired by Mr. Welch. I regret never having had that experience. By the same token, you were never in Appleton where I worked in the office directly under Vance Smith. I think I know his strengths and his weaknesses. He was strong, if not dynamic, in focus and direction. He knew the enemy and what must done if we seriously intend to win the war for freedom. He was a demanding leader who expected more, not less, at every level. But the notion that he did not counsel with his leaders is patently false. I attended every issues meeting held every two months at headquarters from 1993 until 2004. These were attended by all leaders, office management, field staff, leaders, senior writers, publisher, and editor of TNA. There was a cheerful, upbeat spirit at those meetings, and all participants wanted to be there. In that setting every individual was invited to speak. All options were considered and discussed. At the conclusion of each meeting Vance Smith would summarize the ideas and proposals. We all marveled at his ability to identify what could or could not be implemented in our long or short term objectives. He considered every point, made assignments in relation to them, and never forgot to follow up on those so assigned. John, if anyone who attended those meetings has said his leadership was dictatorial, arbitrary or micro-managing, that person has been shamefully dishonest with you.
Did Vance Smith have his faults? In my opinion, yes. He did not fire enough people. He allowed malcontents to simmer and spread their gloom. For 20 years before coming on the staff. I was in my own business. I learned by sad experience that even your best workers must not be allowed to demoralize the others. When I saw such problems being spawned in the JBS, I went to Vance and told him I felt so-and-so should be fired immediately. But rather than fire this person, our “mean-spirited ” CEO merely transferred him to another department or area. When poor job performance was apparent, Vance moved them to a lesser job he thought they could handle. This pattern was most apparent in the field wherein the directors, fund raisers, major coordinators and coordinators repeatedly changed places. How then, does a demoted man explain his embarrassment? Does he say, “Well, I was just incompetent”? Hardly. The explanation usually offered was against his leadership: “I could have done my job, but I was micro-managed.” Or, “I took a lesser job because I couldn’t stand Vance Smith,” Too bad. The very person they now condemn did not want to fire them out of concern for their personal needs or their many years on the staff. I did not agree with this policy and it has come back to haunt him. Another mistake worth mentioning was the re-hiring of Art Thompson, which Vance Smith did against the very intuitive advice of Tom Hill.
Now, you have criticized me for passing myself off as an authority in this conflict. If you knew me you would know that neither the authority nor the limelight are my forte. I am not comfortable attempting to set the record straight, nor do I take any pride in being out of step with the most wonderful people I know, my Birch friends. No, I do not have superior knowledge about the Board of Incorporators. I was never told anything privately by Mr. Welch, and therefore you are the person who should have spoken up. Your intimate knowledge of this, combined with the fortitude to look beyond the lies, would eminently qualify you to stand up so I can sit down. After waiting two months for the Council to act, and seeing no one on the horizon willing to do the right thing, what was I to do? If you could forsake your investment in error and throw your 45 years of experience into saving the Birch Society from the frauds who now run it, I would give you my website and pay the bill.
Does anyone really think the JBS can pursue its mission under the present leadership? I frankly do not. I think God has blessed us because we have always told the truth. I do not think it is possible to win this difficult battle unless we are strictly honest in every respect. That includes the duty to correct an erroneous perception whether it tends to make one look good or bad. Silence can, at times, also be a lie. My motivation stems from the same spirit by which you and I joined the JBS. If the truth can save America, surely it can save the John Birch Society. I feel certain that you have been lied to, or simply allowed to believe the lies of others. I am certain that the groundwork for this had been meticulously laid by a few liars. We know from the lessons of Mr. Welch that “spontaneous uprisings” are a myth. Somebody plans them and provokes them. I find it quite remarkable that “there was widespread concern and calls for Vance Smith’s resignation from many members of the Council, the senior field staff, members of the office staff, senior editors for The New American, a member of the Executive Committee itself and a member of the Board of Directors who was (at the time) the former President.” Those are your words, of course, John, but don’t you agree that it takes a good deal of orchestration to bring about such widespread, anger and such concerted discontent?
Before joining the staff, I hosted Overview presentations given by Jack McManus. Later, while serving as Idaho coordinator I arranged more speeches and media interviews for Jack than he said he had had in any other state. Whenever the media attempted to link the JBS with anti-Semitism, Jack defused the charge by saying how sad it makes our Jewish members feel when they hear such nonsense. Jack’s manner of handling such questions was a great blessing to all of us. I too, have been his friend for many years and I have no bad feelings toward him - disappointment, yes, but nothing unforgivable.
From your explanation of opposing Christian and Jewish religious beliefs, I presume you are justifying certain portions of Jack’s presentation given at religious gatherings. So rather than make any further comment John, let me ask if you have seen the videotapes which include his comments on the subject, including his introduction as President of the JBS and Publisher of The New American magazine? If you have seen the videos and you are not offended, then your opinion and mine are matters of judgement, and on that score, we have nothing further to discuss. On the other hand, if you have not seen the videos, I urge that you see them and determine for yourself whether or not they are harmful to Jack and the Society as well.
I have always regarded David Eisenberg as one of my best friends on the Council. We have exchanged letters and shared ideas in recent years. When I called him in October to ask him to urge the Board of Incorporators to hold off until after the 29th, I was surprised by his reaction. He seemed very upset, abrupt, and almost angry that I would ask him to do that. He immediately began to express bitterness toward Vance Smith. He did not seem to understand that I was not asking him to support Vance Smith or anyone else. From reading his letter, which you had enclosed, I presume he must have asked Jack to amend some part of his written speech. Although this may have pacified David, how does one retrieve speeches that have already been given, or erase videotapes that have already been sent to those who ordered them on the internet?
John, I do not take offence at any of your comments or counsel. You spent some time writing to me and I do not question your purpose or integrity. If there are mistakes in my January 10th letter, they are my own. The documents attached to that letter came from Vance Smith and Tom Gow whose defense was never reviewed by anyone and who were shamefully treated in the Bulletin. In Appleton, I could not get to work early enough to be ahead of them, nor could I stay late enough to see them leave. They virtually gave their lives to the cause of freedom and all their energy to building the JBS.
A few of your other concerns are addressed on my website. I strongly feel that with your sincere intent, the JBS can be saved, that proper roots can be planted under new, well qualified leaders. I sense a great urgency to restore those roots. Please feel free to call me if you wish to do so.
Sincerely,
Don Fotheringham
|
|
|
