June 27, 2006
Dear Rusty,
Thank you for your thoughtful letter. I am certainly willing to share with you my thoughts regarding the 12 points you identified in Jack’s June 12th letter to you.
Jack’s frustrated and angry tone is both interesting and troubling. Troubling because I can certainly understand why many members might find Jack’s arguments persuasive, if his claims go unchallenged.
For decades you and I, and I’m certain thousands of other JBS members, have applauded what Jack has written and the speeches he gave. Jack has always expressed himself eloquently on many subjects, including the United Nations, gun control, inflation, Richard Gardner, and “Rights Come from God.” Since members had also received documented information about those subjects, they naturally agreed with Jack and held him in high esteem for presenting those views so well.
Now, however, things are quite different. Now, Jack is expressing the same degree of confidence in presenting views in areas outside his area of expertise. As tempting as it may be, it is dangerous to accept these new pronouncements as correct, simply because they come from Jack McManus. Other facts and perspectives need to be considered.
Just recently I received the June 26, 2006 issue of The New American. I don’t know if you read Jack’s article in that issue with the interesting title: “Dishonesty in High Places.” In that article, Jack stated: “The problem is that he (Bush) avoided telling the whole truth.” Sadly, members of the Society are now faced with this same situation when listening to Jack.
As you requested, I will give you my thoughts on the 12 “Questionable comments” you identified in Jack’s letter. They are in the order that they appear in Jack’s letter.
In addition, I think it would be good if you decided to share all of this correspondence with Don Fotheringham, so others will have the benefit of our perspectives.
• Questionable comment #1 — “For several years, The John Birch Society was sinking.”
• Questionable comment #2 — “In mid-2005 Dr. Steve Bonta resigned, and when others pulled out of him why he decided to do so, it triggered an almost unanimous outpouring of complaints about our former CEO.”
• Questionable comment #3 — “Members of the field and headquarters staff, top writers for our publications, and quite a few Council members threatened to resign if he didn’t.”
• Questionable comment #4 — “The Executive Committee you want restored had been asked to investigate the complaints of loyal staff and members. The Executive Committee responded by removing from its number the member who wanted such action. When it became clear that the Executive Committee wouldn’t do the job expected of it (as previous members of this committee had done in the past), the Society’s Board of Incorporators (BOI) decided to act. Then, the remaining members of the Executive Committee resigned en masse before the BOI’s intended action. There was, from this moment on, no Executive Committee.”
• Questionable comment #5 — “You obviously don’t know of the fundamentally important role of BOI [Board of Incorporators], a JBS board deliberately kept in place by Robert Welch.”
• Questionable comment #6 — “When he created the Council and Executive Committee, he [Mr. Welch] held as his ‘ace in the hole’ (his term) the power of the BOI….”
• Questionable comment #7 — “Dislike the new Bulletin format if you like. Most members applaud it and have told us so. It was created because more members than not were not reading its predecessors.”
• Questionable comment #8 — “[The new Bulletin format] will save the Society $3,000 per month in printing costs.”
• Questionable comment #9 — “I say change is needed if this organization is to survive and grow.”
• Questionable comment #10 — “You could have asked us about TRIM.”
• Questionable comment #11 — “When Messrs. Barker, Armour and Bubolz were given the helm, each was appointed to leadership of JBS and it was assumed (rightly so) that each would also be the leader of all related corporations.”
• Questionable comment #12 — “Only a year ago, RWU showed great promise. It had a leader who was a JBS member, an Ivy League Ph.D., a terrific writer and researcher, a wonderful speaker, and a remarkably appealing personality.... But he was driven away by the former CEO....”
• Questionable comment #1 — “For several years, The John Birch Society was sinking.” RETURN
I assume that Jack is referring to membership and chapter growth and activity. The challenges here should be no surprise to anyone working at the chapter level. We are, once again, dealing with the “conservative Republican syndrome” that the Society has had to deal with many times in the past. George W. Bush, the Republican-controlled House, 9-11, and a war in Iraq, all have contributed to making it very difficult to recruit and build chapters.
Since Jack has not lived in Appleton in many years, he certainly had the time to either attend a local chapter or be a volunteer leader of one. If that had been the case, then he would know first hand how difficult it has been during these past six years.
Veteran Birchers have lived through similar times when Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush Sr. were in office. I am sure you remember the terrible Reagan years when it was virtually impossible to get friends and neighbors to attend meetings or to join the Society.
That same “syndrome” also affected Belmont in many ways. During the Reagan years, not only was Mr. Welch replaced, but two other leaders — Clif Barker and Chuck Armour — lost their jobs because of the difficult challenges the Society was facing.
So, many of the experienced members and volunteer leaders were more than pleased to see how well the team of Vance Smith, John McManus, and Tom Gow was getting us through the very difficult George W. Bush years. Of course, we weren’t in any way satisfied with the sluggish growth, and we were working hard to find effective ways to reach our complacent “conservative” neighbors. But weren’t you amazed that in spite of the challenges the Society was doing so well?
It’s hard to see how Jack’s orchestrated change has improved anything — in fact, just the opposite. Up until Tom and I left, the field staff salary and expense checks were paid on time. We understand that this is no longer the case. When we were forced out — supposedly because many employees were going to quit — there were 22 field coordinators. Now, there are only 16 for the entire country.
Jack’s and Art’s fundraisers are claiming that their legal services are free (the work done pro bono), so that can’t be the cause of what appears to be the Society’s serious financial woes under present leadership.
Most importantly Jack McManus and Art Thompson now have an eight-month track record. They have made many promises that things were going to improve when they took over. Yet from several vantage points, the problems at JBS have gotten drastically worse, not better. RETURN
• Questionable comment #2 — “In mid-2005 Dr. Steve Bonta resigned, and when others pulled out of him why he decided to do so, it triggered an almost unanimous outpouring of complaints about our former CEO.” RETURN
You have read Steve Bonta’s resignation letter and you’ve heard his voice mail responses to me — the expressions are appreciative, conciliatory, and touching. Jack’s characterization that Steve’s anger was “pulled out of him” seems exactly right. Steve resigned in June, but it was months later that he wrote his vitriolic letter. If members would realize that a leftist-style smear campaign had earlier been launched against me, they may wonder what it took to have “pulled out” of Steve such animosity. What was Steve told to make him so angry and change his views so dramatically?
Surely, we know from our study of human action that an outpouring, such as Jack describes, had to be orchestrated. Even those who might have agreed with Steve would not likely have been motivated to join a campaign of letter-writing and phoning unless someone in the lead persuaded them to do so. RETURN
• Questionable comment #3 — “Members of the field and headquarters staff, top writers for our publications, and quite a few Council members threatened to resign if he didn’t.” RETURN
That comment grossly misrepresents events. I can’t recall a single Council member who threatened to resign if I didn’t. Most of the employees (field and office) were not even in the know until I shared with them some of the correspondence. Although the allegation was made that many would resign if I didn’t, the fact is that most employees had little idea of what was going on until the last week or so prior to Art’s and Jack’s coup and takeover.
The strongest rumors of threatened resignations came from RWU, where Alan Scholl worked long and hard to intimidate his colleagues at RWU into joining in the uproar against me. One of the charges being circulated was that I fired anyone who disagreed with me. It was obvious to me that Alan was trying to force me to fire him to add credibility to the demands for my resignation. For obvious reasons, I was slow to accommodate him.
And even if there were an outpouring of “independent” complaints, how does that suddenly turn into a demand for my resignation rather than my repentance? Isn’t that quite a jump? Obviously, something was orchestrated.
How many of those complaining individuals actually had any regular contact or original grievances with me in contrast to those who were merely sympathetic to the complaints of others. Calls for my resignation, yes. But threats to resign themselves? Almost all of such statements were orchestrated long after I resigned.
Jack, Tom, and I led the Society for over 14 years. And then in otherwise calm waters Steve voices some criticism, and Jack wants us to believe that everyone is going to resign in a matter of days unless I resign. Give me a break. Birchers certainly are sufficiently astute to perceive the manipulation behind such “spontaneous” movements. RETURN
• Questionable comment #4 — “The Executive Committee you want restored had been asked to investigate the complaints of loyal staff and members. The Executive Committee responded by removing from its number the member who wanted such action. When it became clear that the Executive Committee wouldn’t do the job expected of it (as previous members of this committee had done in the past), the Society’s Board of Incorporators (BOI) decided to act. Then, the remaining members of the Executive Committee resigned en masse before the BOI’s intended action. There was, from this moment on, no Executive Committee.” RETURN
Wow, this is incredible! First, Jack admits that he has changed Mr. Welch’s basic organization. Each leader from Mr. Welch to Vance Smith was selected and installed by the Society’s Executive Committee, and now Jack McManus has exalted himself above Robert Welch and declared: “… from [now] on, no Executive Committee.”
In other words, supposedly because of my abuse of power, Jack employed a never before used power to reinstall himself as president. To do so, he first dismantled the Executive Committee so that he, with the support of two or three other colleagues on his BOI, would then have the authority to appoint himself and Art Thompson to be president and CEO for life. What a deal! I guess that’s one way to ensure job security. Again, wow! Forgive us Jack, but some of us cannot constrain ourselves from asking — What gives you that right?
Jack states that the Executive Committee was dumped because it would not do its job and that they released a member who wanted me replaced.
How can Jack stay with this story? The undisputable facts show otherwise. Executive Committee member Art Crino had been working secretly with Art Thompson and Cliff Wasem since early Spring to undermine my support. Coordinator Bryan Turner’s voicemail messages, which are posted on Don Fotheringham’s website, prove that this was the case. Art Crino’s counterparts on the Executive Committee did not learn of his campaign until September 19, 2005. Why would they not want to release one of their members who worked so divisively behind their backs?
Furthermore, Jack knows that the members of the Executive Committee were very willing, once they became aware of the issues, to investigate this matter thoroughly.
In fact, the Executive Committee asked the Council to prevail upon Jack and his kangaroo court Board of Incorporators to hold off on their “emergency” meeting for eight days so that the Executive Committee and the full Council could handle the matter in Orlando, Florida. Sixteen out of 22 Council members did petition Jack and his BOI to wait so that the Executive Committee could fulfill its responsibilities. And members of the Executive Committee called Jack a day or two before the BOI meeting and pled with him not to take these matters into his own hands.
Speaking of “dishonesty in high places” — doesn’t it appear that all of this was done for Jack’s personal benefit? If Jack had allowed the Executive Committee to deal with the leadership issues in Orlando as they intended to do, Jack undoubtedly realized that — were a change in leadership necessary — he and Art Thompson would not under any circumstances have been chosen to take over the Society’s leadership.
Although it was better left in private at the time, members will gain perspective if they know that I and the Executive Committee had pressured Jack to resign as president of JBS. The reason was not, as alleged, that I no longer wanted to share the spotlight with Jack. It was because of our great concern that Jack’s unrestrained public statements such as “the Jewish religion is deadly” could place the Society in great jeopardy. If such statements were credibly attached to the president of The John Birch Society, they could have done the Society great harm. That is why we kept it quiet and pressured him to resign.
Everyone was certainly cognizant of Jack’s great reputation with the members and his many contributions; allowing him to resign quietly preserved his reputation for him. Yet this was just one example of the kind of tough issues that any Society leader must be willing to work through.
Jack knew that the Executive Committee would not select him as president, nor Art Thompson as CEO (for lack of confidence in Art’s management abilities). So Jack merely capitalized on Art’s smear campaign that was damaging my support with the Council and used the Board of Incorporators “loophole” to recapture his previous title. RETURN
• Questionable comment #5 — “You obviously don’t know of the fundamentally important role of BOI [Board of Incorporators], a JBS board deliberately kept in place by Robert Welch.” RETURN
Jack is right that few members know much about the history of the Society’s incorporators or of their meetings. But the more important question is: Does Jack? And is he stating here all that he does know?
Jack says that Robert Welch kept the BOI in place. Is that true? Jack has told others that this group of incorporators was neglected by Mr. Welch and his successors up until just before Vance Smith was put in charge. Jack has stated that this very important group at one time had dwindled down to just one member. If that is so, how important could Mr. Welch and the previous leaders have regarded the BOI if they allowed that to happen?
If the BOI was truly important, then I’m certain that the minutes of its meetings prior to 1993 or so when I started holding them annually would be available. Are these minutes of this very important group for 1990, 1985, 1980, or 1978 posted in the Society’s board book? My guess is that Jack will have difficulty producing them.
We know from Mr. Welch’s writings that over and over again he stated that the Society’s leader would be selected by the Executive Committee of the Council. Is it not a very large stretch for Jack to suggest that this small group under Jack’s control should suddenly strip the authority of the Executive Committee, disband the Executive Committee, and become supreme? And, oh yes, then use the authority to appoint none other than Jack McManus as president to boot!
For his own benefit, Jack makes the claim that the BOI is justified in changing one of the most important and fundamental principles Mr. Welch put in place — the principled procedure of replacing the leader.
To better appreciate why the BOI action to neuter the Executive Committee of the Council is both dangerous and totally indefensible, consider a hypothetical parallel in the Catholic or Mormon churches. Imagine, for instance, if Catholics read in their morning paper that a change in the Papacy had been made during the night. The Pope had been removed and a new one installed — but not by the College of Cardinals. This time the change had been instituted by the Church’s Board of Incorporators.
Latter-day Saints (Mormons) know that there were six members (incorporators) on April 6, 1830 when their Church was legally started in upstate New York. But would it not be a great surprise to them to read in their paper that their church president had suddenly been replaced — not by the Quorum of the Twelve, but by the six incorporators?
Yes, of course, there would be enormous outrage voiced in either church if such a change took place. Why? Because the church members know and understand the very important procedures, which have been long established and historically adhered to, and they would not let it happen without a huge protest.
The procedures for succession in the Society have also been long established and historically adhered to. Consider the JBS tradition:
Replacing Robert Welch: “Recognizing that one of the functions of the COUNCIL was to select my successor, the Executive Committee decided to present its recommendation to that body of leading Americanists [COUNCIL] at a special meeting arranged for that purpose.” — April 1983 Bulletin
Appointment of A. Clifford Barker: “On the evening of March 2 [1984], one day before our COUNCIL Dinner was to be held in Los Angeles, this Committee [Longrange Planning Committee] presented its recommendations to the Executive Committee of the COUNCIL. They were unanimously accepted and presented to the full COUNCIL, which met in executive session the following day.” — April 1984 Bulletin
Appointment of Charles R. Armour: “In June 1986, Charles Armour was asked by the Executive Committee to become President and Chief Executive Officer of the Society.” — August 1986 Bulletin
Appointment of G. Allen Bubolz: The Executive Committee, with the support of the COUNCIL, appointed G. Allen Bubolz CEO at the COUNCIL Meeting in Oklahoma City, 1988.
Appointment of G. Vance Smith: “A monolithic structure cannot demand perfect leaders for its success, for no such leaders exist. What is necessary is that whoever has this responsibility will also have the authority to act, will follow the organization’s principles, and will have the wisdom and ability to attract other good people to help him. The Executive Committee of the COUNCIL appointed me as CEO in 1991 following the resignation of G. Allen Bubolz.” — November 2000 Bulletin
Regarding the Society, the question is: Where is the outrage and concern we should expect from the JBS Council and veteran members over the violation of that thoroughly established tradition? To satisfy Jack, are they really willing to sit by idly while this principle is presently abused and permanently destroyed? We can only pray that they will wake up, stand up, be heard, and insist that sanity be once again restored. RETURN
• Questionable comment #6 — “When he created the Council and Executive Committee, he [Mr. Welch] held as his ‘ace in the hole’ (his term) the power of the BOI….” RETURN
Jack should be asked to document that quote. He portrays it as though it came directly from Mr. Welch. Did it? Or did it come from Jack or another incorporator crony trying to justify their actions?
I don’t think anyone doubts that Mr. Welch wanted only trusted employees on the BOI because of the “corporate” authority it held. I don’t doubt even that Mr. Welch may have spoken privately to John Fall regarding the unlikely circumstances of some future BOI intervention. But we know for a fact, from Mr. Welch’s many published statements, that he wanted the decisions of the Executive Committee and Council to be supreme.
After the reforms in 1993, I also made it clearly understood to the incorporators then on staff, that the BOI had better not think of overriding the Executive Committee unless the Society had been taken way off course — an emergency so great that it would likely mean starting over from scratch, anyway.
Otherwise, the Executive Committee could be expected to walk, and this would be a tremendous blow to the Society. Apparently, in taking their momentous step, Jack and the local 770 members, as Don Fotheringham refers to them, had no such concern for the long-term interests of the Society, as long as they could get their way in the short term.
In the early days, Mr. Welch put trusted employees, including secretaries on both the Board of Directors and the Board of Incorporators. But Jack surely doesn’t want us to believe that Mr. Welch expected his secretary to choose the future leader of the Society or to evaluate potential candidates.
As we know, there is no perfect system that can pass on our heritage intact from one generation to another. Mr. Welch certainly realized that whoever was entrusted with the authority to choose the Society’s leader might not have the same wisdom he did. But Mr. Welch opted to give that authority to the members of the Executive Committee, men who generally had a lot of business, management, and entrepreneurial experience in addition to being informed, dedicated Birchers. RETURN
• Questionable comment #7 — “Dislike the new Bulletin format if you like. Most members applaud it and have told us so. It was created because more members than not were not reading its predecessors.” RETURN
Is this true, or is this another generalization that we are supposed to accept at face value? “Most members” would suggest that of our tens of thousands of members, Jack has received thousands upon thousands of favorable responses. Unlikely. The new (June) format had only been out a couple of weeks!
Exactly how many people has Jack heard from, and how many of them are favorable? It has been reported to me that several chapter leaders have written JBS Headquarters complaining that the agenda or action items are vague, and that there is virtually no Bulletin leadership as in the past. Have those reports been shared with Jack?
Are any studies planned to determine if the Bulletin readership really does increase? It should be Jack’s business to know specifics — what was the readership level before the change? RETURN
• Questionable comment #8 — “[The new Bulletin format] will save the Society $3,000 per month in printing costs.” RETURN
Rusty, I agree with your concerns about the new format. The new format may save some money, but what is this change costing in terms of the Society’s image to its members and the public at large? Mr. Welch wanted the Society to be first class in every way.
Is Jack telling us that he intends to reach down even further when it comes to “educational competence”? Time will tell if this classless “Spotlight”-type tabloid will drag the existing membership downward. RETURN
• Questionable comment #9 — “I say change is needed if this organization is to survive and grow.” RETURN
No dispute! But the Society also desperately needs leadership to challenge “pullers at the oars” to work effectively. Is publishing a new edition of “Overview,” featuring Jack McManus, an example of what Jack regards as the change needed for a “remarkably different age”? Jack has been giving the same talk for nearly 40 years. Years ago we heard people saying, “It should be called ‘Overdone’ rather than ‘Overview.’” Jack is well aware of such comments, but apparently chooses to ignore them. RETURN
• Questionable comment #10 — “You could have asked us about TRIM.” RETURN
Jack is right, Rusty. You could have asked. But let me hasten to point out that because none of the current “leaders” are in Appleton to run the store, there is some real confusion regarding TRIM.
Perhaps Jack can clarify the issue for you now: In the January Bulletin, Larry Greenley exults that “TRIM is Baaaack!” Yet only a few months later, in June, we learn that TRIM is dead. Which is it? Is this the type of “leadership” Birchers are to expect from Appleton? RETURN
• Questionable comment #11 — “When Messrs. Barker, Armour and Bubolz were given the helm, each was appointed to leadership of JBS and it was assumed (rightly so) that each would also be the leader of all related corporations.” RETURN
Rusty, Tom Gow has researched and written on this subject, so I have asked him to respond to this allegation from Jack. Here is what Tom had to say:
“Jack is correct for the time frame he describes. At that time, there certainly wasn’t a plethora of leadership candidates running around. And most of the corporations were shells. At one time there were two payrolls — JBS and GBSC (General Birch Services Corp.) — but only one when we became officers. So if not the JBS leader, then who else would lead these JBS corporate spin-offs?
“I doubt if Jack even thought these issues through. Despite his self-serving rhetoric, he really isn’t championing a principle of corporate purity. Instead, I believe his real motive is to get rid of the influence of Vance Smith. He should admit it!
“I would ask Jack if he had any vision of growth for this ‘club’ of corporations. How should they be organized as they and the JBS grew in size? Would it be necessary or wise that they all have the same CEO, forever? Such a rule could be too limiting.
“Some of the more dormant corporations obviously wouldn’t merit a separate leadership team. But one could conceive of American Opinion Publishing, Inc., for example, growing to sufficient size and attracting sufficient capital where it would need and want an independent business management team — CEO on down for the business side and publisher on down for the content side.
“What would be the problem with that? The JBS would still own American Opinion Publishing, Inc., thanks to the leadership of G. Vance Smith, who in 1994 rescued TROTN from the hands of the IRS attorney who had gained control of much of Bunker Hunt’s assets.
“Although a for-profit JBS cannot own a non-profit RWU, it was long felt that common direction could best be assured through interlocking boards. Not by forcing two growing and widely divergent enterprises to be dependent on the same CEO. After all, appointing a common CEO provides no assurance of common, long-term direction if the Boards are divergent. That’s the real issue — the Boards.
“And the only reason that RWU and JBS have different Boards today is because Jack and the Board of Incorporators intervened and repudiated the Executive Committee whose members were populating all of the top Boards (except the JBS Board of Incorporators).
“It was the coup that split things apart, and then it was the vindictiveness of Jack and his colleagues that prevented cooperation between the two organizations, even without interlocking boards. Jack should have greeted the fact that Vance and I were willing to provide leadership at RWU and that the incoming, inexperienced JBS team would not be faced with that burden.
“I know that when Vance breathed life into RWU, he certainly did not intend to remain the CEO of RWU down the road. But he did intend to serve on the Board of Trustees for RWU.” RETURN
• Questionable comment #12 — “Only a year ago, RWU showed great promise. It had a leader who was a JBS member, an Ivy League Ph.D., a terrific writer and researcher, a wonderful speaker, and a remarkably appealing personality.... But he was driven away by the former CEO....” RETURN
Since answering this question might appear to be overly self-serving, I have asked Tom to respond to this one, as well:
“Jack chooses to tell only part of the story. He ignores how the real world operates. Isn’t it the socialists who totally discount the contribution of ownership and leadership at the top? Who made what Steve Bonta was contributing possible? Who hired Steve? Who kept him on board until he could complete his PhD.? Who convinced Steve to take on the RWU challenge in the first place?
“And who challenged Steve Bonta to write a book, his first, about the United Nations and to go on speaking tours on that topic and the FTAA?
“Most significantly, like so many who receive a paycheck, in the past Jack has shown little interest or appreciation as to what it takes to make payroll. So I ask, whose leadership was it that developed the funding for RWU, even introducing Steve Bonta to the JBS world at Council functions and to the members and potential supporters via ‘Reclaiming America’ seminars?
“Who made the really big decisions that committed staff and organizations to pull together to make RWU work? Jack: ‘To ask the question is to answer it.’
“The team that Steve was leading, and which made great progress in many critical areas, did not raise any of the money for RWU. Nor for that matter did those in the current leadership team at JBS. Let’s hope that Jack is learning, albeit belatedly, that any successful leadership team has to be concerned about money.”
Rusty, most of what Jack wrote in his letter to you is self-serving and not defensible. Jack should knock it off. For the sake of the Society and the more encompassing fight for freedom, Jack should do what he can to restore the JBS to what it was and what it should be. If he does so, he can still go down in history as a true patriot. RETURN
Sincerely,
G. Vance Smith
Chief Executive Officer
Robert Welch University
|
|
