Wednesday, August 1, 2018

Professional Review 5--YWAM Summary

YWAM Executive Summary


PROFESSIONAL REVIEW
YWAM MANAGEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

[Click HERE to access the YWAM Narrative and Analysis.]

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 in June 2006 during a private meeting of the Leadership Team of the Global Member Care group (MemCa LT).  These events in South Africa led to the dismissal of Kelly from MemCa and both O’Donnells from MC-E.  Since then the O’Donnells and others have sought a just resolution of the issues which they and later two others had confronted in MC-E, and which later negatively affected the MemCa LT. 

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, the O’Donnells contacted other professional consultants about their concerns of unfair dismissal and fraud.

What observations, conclusions and recommendations can be
drawn from these events and the accompanying narrative?

  1. 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.


  1. 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.


  1. 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.


  1. 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.


  1. 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.


  1. 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