YWAM Executive Summary
PROFESSIONAL REVIEW
YWAM MANAGEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Rand Guebert
This material is strictly confidential.
It may not be reproduced in any way or shared without the explicit
written permission of Dr. Kelly O’Donnell and Dr. Michèle Lewis O’Donnell.
*****
The O’Donnells have been working
in Europe with YWAM since 1988. Because of their highly respected ministry in
the member care field they were released by YWAM to serve in a transnational
and interagency ministry in 1994 by their line leader Garry Tissingh. This work has continued to this day.
During the period 2003-2006
several members of Member Care Europe (MC-E) experienced increasing friction
within the group as detailed in the Member Care Narrative. This friction significantly influenced events
in South Africa South Africa
In September 2006 Gina Fadely , YWAM Frontier Missions Director, took
the view that Kelly had to return to “where the axe head fell” in order to
reconcile with Erik Spruyt in the hope that this would have a positive impact
on relational issues in MC-E and MemCa.
This view was further strengthened when Erik Spruyt, after a reported
reconciliation with Jeff Fountain in November 1996, expressed a desire to also
reconcile with Kelly to Lynn Green and Gina Fadely . During the first quarter of 2007, the
O’Donnells relationship with Gina became increasingly tense due largely to
their different perspectives on the way to resolve this situation. Three requests by the O’Donnells to also talk
with Lynn Green directly about this matter in the Spring of 2007 were turned
down, as were requests for Gina to talk
to former Le Rucher staff members, especially the former personnel officer.
Seven former staff at Le Rucher,
including the O’Donnells, were very concerned about the serious dysfunction at
Le Rucher that had affected them and previous staff over the years. They
believed that Erik needed to seek reconciliation with this whole group
of former Le Rucher staff who had left in January 2003 and not solely with any
one person such as Kelly. They also
believed that Erik should directly approach them espousing his interest. Gina, on the other hand, was primarily
interested in Kelly’s relationship with Erik, as Kelly was a YWAM leader, and
thought that Kelly should take this initiative and approach Erik. Previous requests in 2003 and 2005 by former
staff for independent reviews of what had happened at Le Rucher had not
resulted in any action being taken by the Le Rucher management or its
Board.
This stalemate persisted into the
summer of 2007,when it became increasingly clear to many people, including the
O’Donnells, that YWAM was affected by the developing NCI fraud. Six times during October 2007 the O’Donnell’s
attempted to contact senior YWAM leaders (Lynn Green and John Dawson) without
success. During the latter months of
2007, while YWAM leaders continued to show little interest in the unfolding NCI
scandal, Lynn Green and Gina Fadely
increased the pressure on Kelly to take steps to reconcile with Erik. However, beginning on 2 November 2007, with
the increasing visibility of the NCI scandal, Gina shifted the focus of
relational issues from Erik and Le Rucher to the MC-E and MemCa issues. It would seem that YWAM leaders recognized at
this time the growing significance of the serious, impending issues surrounding
Erik.
Nevertheless, within three weeks
of the Dutch broadcast of the Opgelicht TV programme on NCI, Kelly was
dismissed from YWAM by registered letter of Gina dated 3 December. The primary reason given was for not obeying
YWAM leaders. No mediation was ever
offered by Gina/YWAM during this process, only a potential, undefined
appeal. The ad hoc process which YWAM
followed was very confusing to many people and very distressing to the
O’Donnells who had worked for 20+ years in YWAM.
The O’Donnells did ask for an
appeal. They also asked for an
independent review. It was the “appeal”
option which was taken up for consideration by Iain Muir, a senior YWAM leader,
as sole arbitrator. This also was a
completely ad hoc appeal process having no basis in YWAM’s Justice and
Reconciliation Guidelines. In March
2008, the O’Donnells presented extensive documentation, which they hoped would
be used as part of an independent review, but their request for an appeal was
rejected by Iain Muir in the following month.
The O’Donnell’s did not accept this decision and the libelous assertions
it contained.
But on 12 May YWAM-Garden Valley,
Texas emailed the O’Donnells to inform them that YWAM would no longer process
their support checks, effective immediately. Also on 12 May Team3 sent a
one-sentence statement to about 150 YWAM leaders on the GLT and IFMLT email
forums stating that Kelly “is no longer affiliated with Youth With A Mission
(YWAM), is not authorized to represent us in any way, and is not recommended or
endorsed for ministry within YWAM.” A
20+ year relationship abruptly came to an end.
Following YWAM’s denial of an
appeal and an independent review, Rand Guebert, an experienced business consultant, began his professional
review of all of the related events.
Also, following the announcement by YWAM-Garden Valley
What observations, conclusions and
recommendations can be
drawn from these events and the
accompanying narrative?
- Good process
and procedures are very important, but they are not a substitute for
integrity and good management. The
health of an organization’s grievance procedures reflect the health of the
organization.
Many organizations have
grievance/conflict management procedures.
Experience shows that senior managers are generally able to override
these guidelines in certain circumstances in order to “protect” themselves or
the organization. This is often achieved by asking staff to “trust them”, but
in the case of the status of staff members, such as the O’Donnells, this simply
cannot be justified.
Procedures are only as effective
as the people who implement them.
Generally good managers have good written procedures. These good procedures may not be extensive,
but they are usually very relevant—they are clear and practical. Good management will want to maintain the
confidence of its staff which includes making tough decisions. But if this is seen as simply authoritarian
or self-serving, confidence quickly begins to slide.
YWAM’s Justice & Reconciliation Guidelines are inadequate and need
to be upgraded. Management needs to
redress its treatment of the O’Donnells and seriously consider its
responsibility to pursue good practice and personal integrity.
- In spite of
the inappropriate and flawed review process offered by Iain Muir on behalf
of YWAM, there was benefit to continuing with this flawed process as YWAM
became engaged in explaining its actions in writing. Through this process
many others could see more clearly what was happening.
By following the flawed process
the O’Donnells were able to engage in informative dialogue with senior YWAM
leaders which forced these leaders to declare themselves and state their
position. This result was aided by many
letters from former Le Rucher staff, family members, churches and other
concerned individuals who queried or confronted these YWAM leaders about their
actions. It is not entirely clear why
the leaders responded in the way that they did.
If the O’Donnells had not asked for an appeal it would have been
difficult for them to engage in such a dialogue.
In cases where fair grievance
procedures fail to address particular circumstances both staff and management
would look for a solution, and in some cases this might result in a
compromise. Such a compromise was never
even attempted in this situation—instead YWAM and Iain Muir unilaterally
established this flawed review process and upheld this inappropriate dismissal.
Also, not following the review
process that was offered, but appealing to a wider body, would likely have
failed up to now because a documented case was not yet available and members of
the IFMLT or GLT would have lacked the necessary information to make an
effective presentation and perhaps challenge the assertions of the few leaders
who were trying to dismiss Kelly.
By following grievance procedures, even flawed ones, staff who are
properly supported may well acquire useful information while at the same time
expressing their concerns about the process.
Larger groups, such as the GLT or IFMLT, are most effectively addressed
by well-informed group members with well documented dossiers.
- In Christian
dispute resolution, mercy and reconciliation should be balanced with
accountability and justice.
The crux of the impasse between
the YWAM leaders and those concerned with Kelly’s dismissal centered on the
requirement that he go through mediation/reconciliation with a person, Erik
Spruyt, who was being investigated for major fraud, including the loss of many
people’s money including that of the O’Donnells. This concern has been consistently ignored by
YWAM leaders.
Mercy and reconciliation are
noble goals, but so also are justice and truth.
People have a natural desire to see justice done—not revenge taken. The Bible and the YWAM Justice &
Reconciliation Guidelines both recognize the importance of both justice and
mercy, and the significance of good judgment in achieving both of them. It is often easier to push for reconciliation
and forgiveness, whereas justice is generally more difficult, perhaps requiring
investigations and finance to achieve.
Christian organizations may not have the funds or the human resources to
conduct independent reviews or effective mediation.
Nonetheless, reconciliation
without justice honors no one.
Christians may be called to settle their disputes amongst themselves,
but this should be done with the utmost integrity and in light of good
practice.
Concerned people are acting responsibly when they seek justice, as well
as reconciliation, for former Le Rucher staff, and for the O’Donnells in light
of their YWAM dismissal. Christian
organizations like YWAM are encouraged to value justice, including transparency
and accountability, as highly as reconciliation, in both word and deed.
- In Christian
dispute resolution, spirituality should be evidenced in good practice.
As Christians we honor both God
and our earthly spiritual leaders. But
our earthly spiritual leaders should not only command our respect but also earn
it. Authority is important in every
organization from the family to business to the military. As members, employees, citizens or soldiers
we are all commanded to have respect for authority.
As employers, managers, advisors
and friends we should want to see things done rightly and justly. Christian leaders should not use spiritual
terms and Bible verses as a substitute for following the high road of good
practice. Good practice standards and
input from outside an organization need to be recognized, understood and
incorporated into the ethos and procedures of the organization.
Also, if people need advice they
should seek it without fear. And if
leaders themselves need to be confronted then there need to be appropriate
mechanisms and safeguards in place to do so.
Ignorance is not honoring to anyone.
The O’Donnells and former Le Rucher staff were right to seek advice
from outside consultants as necessary, and to prepare their documentation in a
professional way with due respect for the authority of others. Christians in general should seek to conduct
their affairs in a professional and accountable manner, especially when dealing
with important matters such as serious financial fraud.
- YWAM would
benefit from strengthening its corporate governance. There seems to be
little effective accountability for Team3 and Team3plus--they seem to have
no clear procedures or requirements to inform the GLT of important
matters.
While flexibility in management
can be valuable in the early days of an enterprise, it should naturally give
way to more structure as the enterprise matures, involves more people and
diversifies its activities. One might
ask who is primarily influencing YWAM, and if the organization is
self-sustaining enough to look after itself so that it recognizes and confronts
important organizational issues
When the O’Donnells attempted six
times to inform Team3 leaders of the NCI fraud, as suggested by professional
advisors, their requests were turned down each time. This is not acceptable, especially if there
is no channel within the organization to handle the reporting of serious
confidential concerns. Contrary to what
was said by Lynn Green in a memo to all staff on 2 April 2008, the office of
the International Coordinator does not in fact seem to always be willing or
available to assist in difficult circumstances.
The manner in which the
O’Donnell’s appeal was heard followed no known protocol, and was done in a very
arbitrary manner, which reflects very poorly on YWAM leadership. It is quite puzzling why all members of Team3
felt it necessary to sign the rejection of an appeal from a mid-ranking staff
member.
YWAM’s Executive leaders need to be accountable either to a
strengthened GLT or to an independent Board of Directors.
- The
O’Donnell’s line leaders had a moral responsibility towards them, in
addition to their hierarchical responsibility within YWAM, that they did
not fulfill.
As recently as April 2006 Kelly
O’Donnell was given an award for “faithful service” that was recommended by Gina Fadely and presented by Lynn Green at the IFMLT
meeting that year. During 2007 current
and former line leaders had reason to know that the charges made against Kelly
did not fit his many years of service and their experience as supervisors. In November 2007 they had reason to know that
there were serious problems in the past with Erik Spruyt’s management and
currently with his alleged involvement in serious fraud, and therefore they had
reason to know that it was inappropriate to force Kelly into reconciliation
with Erik. Why did YWAM leaders never
acknowledge this or seek to address it?
Was Kelly’s line leader
instructed to dismiss Kelly by other leaders in YWAM? Was a previous line leader aware of
this? What we do observe is that neither
of these two line leaders’ personal experience with the O’Donnells prior to
2007 justified the dismissal action taken in December 2007.
Line leaders have a moral responsibility to act in a manner consistent
with their experience and personal integrity.
*****
In conclusion, the record does not indicate any justifiable grounds for
Kelly’s dismissal. On the contrary, the
O’Donnells have done their best to act with integrity and perseverance. Their letters to Iain Muir were written carefully
and respectfully, and provide ample evidence to substantiate their commitment
to good practice and good relationships. YWAM should arrange for an independent
review of the circumstances leading to the O’Donnells dismissal, and for
acknowledgment of the results of this review and any restitution that might be
required. YWAM leadership should also
review other recommendations made in this Executive Summary.
[Click HERE to access the YWAM Narrative and Analysis.]
No comments:
Post a Comment