Le Rucher Executive Summary
PROFESSIONAL REVIEW
LE RUCHER 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.
*****
In the early 1990’s a small group
of YWAM people had a vision to create a pastoral care center in the
Geneva-Lausanne area for missionaries returning from the field. During the summer of 1994 six members of the
group—Erik and Jeltje Spruyt, Tony and Elisabeth Hyland, Jan Rowland and Mintie
Nel—joined together behind the acquisition of a property named Le Rucher [LR]
on the French side of the border near Geneva.
Associations with the name Mercy Ministries were registered in both France and Switzerland
Originally LR was to be run
jointly by the six founding members. But
after the four members of the group other than the Spruyts arrived in January
1995, it quickly became apparent that this would not be the case. Erik Spruyt had the operational background
and fundraising resources to establish and fund LR, and perhaps it was on this
basis that he asserted his leadership and control over the group and
ministry. The other four found this
unacceptable, but having no means to challenge the Spruyts they all departed
within six months leaving the Spruyts in charge of LR. Shortly after the departure of the Hylands in
the summer of 1995 Sean and Lynn Collins arrived in November, but their stay
also was filled with tension and they were forced to leave in July 1996.
From 1995 onward the ministry at
LR would evolve reaching a high point
With the benefit of hindsight it
can be seen that LR was synonymous with the Spruyts—it was to be the location
for their home and ministry. Was this
recognized at the time it was acquired?
Were there other motives behind the establishment of this base besides
the desire for a pastoral care center and site for other mercy ministries? Erik Spruyt is a very complex person—very
mission oriented, an excellent communicator and hard worker, but at the same
time having a controlling management style and possible vulnerability to the
schemes of others as demonstrated by his promotion of NCI investments. The true history of LR remains to be told.
What observations, conclusions and recommendations
can be drawn from
these events and the
accompanying narrative?
- Le Rucher
began as a YWAM base in 1994 and continued in this manner until it seems
the statutes were amended in June 2002.
Mercy Ministries and LR have been
considered as part of YWAM by founding members, staff and YWAM leaders in its
early days as evidenced by their personal statements—the real issue is when
after 2000 it in fact ceased to be part of YWAM. The original 1994 statutes of Mercy
Ministries refer to YWAM in two places.
In the case of the O’Donnells Erik Spruyt invited them to come to LR as
a YWAM ministry in April 2000 with a letter written on YWAM letterhead. When Daniel and Denise Brill came to LR in
2001 they came with the understanding that LR was part of YWAM after spending
six months with YWAM in England
YWAM should clearly acknowledge its relationship with Le Rucher and
Erik Spruyt, and assist NCI investors, former staff, and many other concerned
people who are calling for transparency, accountability and justice.
- Because Le
Rucher began as a YWAM base, and continued as a YWAM base for many years,
YWAM was responsible for the operation of the base and for the performance
of the director. Erik Spruyt had no
right to “remove” himself from YWAM and take Le Rucher with him. Where is the corporate governance in
this? The Le Rucher Board also
failed to exercise suitable oversight of the management.
YWAM leaders have acknowledged
the dysfunction, pain and broken relationships at LR over the years. Why do they not acknowledge any
responsibility for this situation at LR?
Even more, why do they expect Kelly O’Donnell, one of their long serving
staff members, to reconcile with Erik Spruyt even after he has been implicated
in a major international fraud scheme.
What type of leadership example is this?
A major YWAM leader has even acknowledged that Erik Spruyt’s behavior at
times was ethically questionable even to the extent of a potential court
challenge. Why did YWAM allow its
property to be taken away? Why would an
organization tolerate such an abuse?
What corporate governance did YWAM exercise?
Later in 2007 when the O’Donnells
were attempting to report the NCI fraud to YWAM, why did YWAM not take steps to
investigate this matter with them. Why
was a process not implemented to investigate the impact this fraud would have
on the organization as well as other organizations and victims? Why have YWAM leaders acted as if this fraud
had no bearing on YWAM? Where is the
corporate governance in this? Where is
the protection of whistle-blowers?
Futher, when will YWAM and the LR
Board, past and present, cooperate with others to set up a proper review of
what has happened to former staff at LR, to help bring greater understanding,
accountability and healing, especially as the fraud investigation continues?
It would appear that YWAM and the LR Board have failed dramatically to
exercise appropriate corporate governance and protect the reputation of the
organization as well as vulnerable staff members. What might it take to bring about needed
improvement?
- Voluntary
Christian workers often have limited protection from abusive management
practices other than to leave the organizations with which they are
involved. Does the wider Christian
community care about this? What
will the evangelical mission/member care community learn from this tragic
case?
As staff members have departed
from LR over the years, what recourse did they have towards the
management? Did the LR board offer them
adequate due process and a fair appeal?
Did local churches care adequately?
Did YWAM care that its staff were being mistreated in the early
days? Where is the concern for the
voluntary Christian worker? Why does the
wider Christian community turn a blind eye to abuse in its midst? Too often Christians seem to accept that the
ends justify the means—the mistreatment of Christian workers is somehow
acceptable as part of spiritual warfare and the cost of serving God. Is this the example we want to set for the
world? These may seem like philosophical
questions, but they are very important for all the people involved and for the
Christian community in general.
If Christian organizations and
members of boards are willing to lend their names to an activity then they
should take responsibility for the actions of those who lead that activity and
for the people who rely on their oversight.
YWAM and the Le Rucher Board, past and present, should accept
responsibility for their relationship to Le Rucher, and not only recognize the people
who have been hurt, but take steps to ensure that harm does not come to
others. Former staff will find healing
when YWAM and the LR Board accept their parts in the sad events associated with
Le Rucher.
*****
In conclusion, every organization will periodically hire people who are
dysfunctional—this happens in the best organizations. However, an honorable organization recognizes
these problems and takes appropriate action to protect itself and its other
staff. It is time for YWAM and the Le
Rucher Board members, past and present, to accept their responsibilities.
[Click HERE to access the Le Rucher Narrative and Analyis.]
No comments:
Post a Comment