Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Rusty Barlow
Pocatello, Idaho
Dear Rusty,
You asked me to review your letter to Chick Heileson responding to John Fall’s latest attempt to justify the intervention of the JBS Board of Incorporators. For the record, we are referring to John Fall’s July 11th “To Whom It May Concern” letter.
Actually, I think you have responded to Chick very well. However, there are a couple of points I would like to make, from my perspective, regarding the Fall letter.
I don’t think our focus here should be on whether the JBS Board of Incorporators (B of I) had the “legal” authority to do what it did. Instead, I believe we should focus on whether the B of I was justified, based on long-standing commitments and the wishes of Mr. Welch, in intervening as it did. That intervention was clearly a gross betrayal of the understandings that had guided the Society’s leadership for decades, and, in my opinion, stemmed from “selfish motives” while empowering “ineptitude.” * More on that later.
John quotes from an open letter from me dated June 15, 2000 in which I appear to state a legal conclusion. I don’t recall the context which prompted that letter, but the statement reflects my understanding at the time. In light of what has transpired and what I have learned since, I probably would not be so emphatic that the B of I has absolute legal authority to do what it did. I believe attorneys could find a basis for challenging that action.
But rather than arguing whether there were any other legal restrictions on the power given to the B of I as expressed in the by-laws, we should look to the understandings that had guided the Society for decades, particularly as those understandings were modified in 1993, in joint meetings between our corporate attorney, the B of I, and the Executive Committee.
In 1993, following several years of unfortunate corporate confusion, the two bodies explicitly recognized the existence of each other. An arrangement was worked out in which the Executive Committee would continue to do as Mr. Welch intended – in effect, select the leadership of the Society. It was recognized by all parties that the Executive Committee was best suited for that task, as these dedicated business and professional Birchers were in regular discussion with JBS leaders regarding the management of the Society, its progress, and its plans.
It was also recognized that members of the Board of Incorporators were often not privy to such discussions and were not universally selected for their management or leadership experience. In particular, members of the B of I often lacked the information or the perspective to judge personalities, either those currently serving in leadership positions or prospective candidates.
There was some talk in subsequent years among a few of the Incorporators, along the lines referred to by John Fall, that the B of I could step in as a last resort if the Society were ever pulled off the track Mr. Welch envisioned for it (such as a takeover by someone who wanted to convert the Society into a watered-down new-right organization).
In effect, some members of the B of I came to look upon themselves as carrying more than just perfunctory corporate responsibilities. In addition, they viewed themselves as the guardians of the faith against say the possibility that a wealthy businessman, with shallow Birch commitment or a different agenda, might some day gain influence over the Society and attempt to transform it (in our history, there have been justifiable concerns regarding a couple of Council members). Such a check was redundant, however, since at least in recent decades the leaders on staff and the members of the Executive Committee have themselves been on guard against such a development. Better to prevent theft than to hope to recover stolen property undamaged.
During the 1990s, several of the Incorporators who contemplated such a future development were reminded that any such fanciful intervention should only be contemplated as a last-ditch rescue effort. It was further pointed out that any intervention undertaken lightly would undoubtedly alienate the support of those who served on the Executive Committee.
Most significantly, it was never contemplated that the Board of Incorporators would come out of the shadows and conduct regular oversight of how the organization was being managed or seize control because of the grievances of a few disgruntled employees. But in 2005, the B of I chose to overlook one of its fundamental trusts and responsibilities – to ensure that its own Board members did not run amok.
What happened in October of last year far exceeded any role I ever heard expressed for the Incorporators. In reality what happened was a raw grab for power by Jack McManus, engineered under cover of a crisis (analogous to the well-known, often-used tactic of the Insiders for usurping power).
The crisis creating the urgency for Vance’s removal was trumped up, and no member of the B of I, Jack McManus included, was sufficiently informed to judge that the Executive Committee was not doing its job, as some of the mutineers alleged. Most importantly, the B of I had no alternative solution but to empower “ineptitude.” * True to the previously mentioned nature of the B of I, the members voting as the majority didn’t even realize that the men they would cause to be put in place were incapable of running the organization successfully nor did this majority appear to recognize any serious downside to what they were doing.
In his letter, John Fall offered this self-serving praise for Jack: “... 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?
Again, this is why members of the Executive Committee – men concerned with bottom lines – were tasked with selecting a leader. The men on the Executive Committee were also well aware of the strengths and weaknesses of candidates for leadership. They knew that Jack’s distorted ego often led him to put the Society at risk. In fact, in 1991, several members of the Executive Committee confronted Jack over his ego problem and challenged him to keep his ego under control before they would agree to appoint him President.
John Fall shouldn’t portray himself as a faithful guardian independent of Jack’s influence. Let’s not forget that 16 members of the Council (more than a two-thirds majority) responded favorably to a letter from Wayne Rickert asking for their support in insisting that the B of I hold off any action (for eight days) until after the Orlando Council meeting. These 16 men wanted the B of I to allow the Executive Committee and the Council to have an opportunity to deal with the problem. They felt strongly about the importance of respecting the Executive Committee’s authority, even though some of those so responding had shortly before signed a petition calling for Vance’s resignation. The wishes of these 16 were forwarded to the B of I, but John Fall refused to give this process a chance. In fact, he supplied the pivotal vote that created the current crisis destroying The John Birch Society. Why?
Perhaps G. Allen Bubolz provides a clue. Allen was outraged when he read John Fall’s letter, wherein John postured himself as the great protector of the faith. Allen recalls that after Allen was named CEO and President that Jack McManus came to him and boasted that if Allen ever needed to take advantage of the Board of Incorporators that all he needed to do was ask. Jack explained that he had the power to control the B of I, because John Fall (and apparently at least one other incorporator) would always follow his lead. Jack stressed that the B of I had the power to overturn anything done by other JBS boards or committees.
Those who had a close working relationship with Jack could easily recognize why Jack climbed on board the coup train – he saw it as an opportunity to regain some lost prestige. As an illustration of Jack’s mindset consider Jack’s testimony during a November 29th hearing (the RWU case) in Outagamie County court. Jack claimed that in 2004 during a two-and-a-half hour car ride, Vance Smith’s son Gregg complained to him about his father’s mismanagement. Those who knew Jack had to chuckle when Jack elaborated with this sole example of Gregg’s alleged unhappiness with his Dad: “Jack, why aren’t they using you? Why aren’t you down on Washington and C-Span doing this [speaking against the FTAA]?” As if Jack not getting the spotlight was the most indicting accusation against Vance’s leadership!
Those instigating the coup well understood Jack’s egotistical proclivities. For that reason, a few of them would likely have preferred to dump Jack along with Vance, but Jack held the “Ace in the Hole” they needed to seize control.
It still appears to me that Art Thompson was the prime instigator of this coup. An outspoken critic of Jack, Art was the one who influenced Larry Waters, the other member of the B of I voting for intervention, to oppose Vance. Jack (John) McManus was a Johnny-come-lately who climbed on board when the opportunity was handed to him. I still feel betrayed by Art. In 2005, I shared an office next to his, and I had heard his complaints – I agreed with some, but disagreed with most. Yet I had no idea that Art had decided to work behind the scenes to turn the organization on its head.
I attribute Art’s success in pulling Larry Waters into rebellion, along with another of my former colleagues who worked in the field, to unfortunate judgment on their part supported by their remoteness from the day-to-day decision making.
So my characterization of the B of I action comes down to this: It was a betrayal of responsibility, motivated by selfishness, supported by spinelessness and short-sightedness, resulting in the empowerment of ineptitude. *
I hope these thoughts help create some clarity.
Sincerely,
Tom Gow
* John Fall writes: “[Mr. Welch] did not intend for the Board [of Incorporators] to play an ongoing, active, leadership role but for it to exist quietly in the background, delegating most of its authority, but with potential power to be a final protection against extraordinary circumstances and the possibility that the more visible leadership might someday, through ineptitude, selfish motives, or treachery, threaten damage to the Society, place its well-being in jeopardy or steer it away from the course or principles that he intended.” Emphasis added.
|
|
