PROFESSIONAL REVIEW
YWAM NARRATIVE AND ANALYSIS,
2006-2008
Rand Guebert
rand.guebert@free.fr
This material is strictly confidential.
It may not be reproduced in any way or shared without the explicit
written permission of Dr. Kelly and Dr. Michèle Lewis O’Donnell.
*****
INTRODUCTION
Kelly and Michele O’Donnell (hereinafter referred to
as KMO) have worked with YWAM for more than 20 years. Thus this narrative covers only their most
recent time in YWAM. In the mid 1990’s
they were “released” by their line leader Garry Tissingh (GT) for a
transnational and interagency ministry which meant that they were not
associated with a particular YWAM base.
This allowed them to operate in a somewhat independent manner from the
usual YWAM organization structure.
Beginning in 2000 they reported to the International Foreign Mission
Director, Steve Cochrane, who was succeeded in 2004 by Gina
Fadely (GF). KMO had a
history of good relationships with these line leaders prior to the time this
story begins in March 2006.
It should be noted that KMO left Le Rucher in
January 2003 and had their final meeting as part of MC-Europe at Harpenden in
December 2005. The beginning of this
story is post Harpenden, but pre SA06 where Kelly (KO) had his final meeting
with the MemCa Leadership Team. Please see Le Rucher and Member Care Narratives
for further details.
It should also be noted that in November 2005, one
month before the MC-E meeting in Harpenden, Kelly was also in Harpenden and met
there with both Iain Muir (IM) and Lynn Green (LG). Kelly observed in a 3 November 2005 email to IM, “Just
hearing a bit about the fallout in Kona and sorry about it all. Maybe this is an opportune time to upgrade
our “protective factors” for discerning toxicity/dysfunction and for developing
personal and community health.”
One final note is that in the 1980’s when KMO were
at the YWAM base in Amsterdam
NARRATIVE AND
ANALYSIS
On 2 March 2006 Gina
Fadely tells KO in an email that she wants to invite the
Rickards to the upcoming IFMLT meeting in Harpenden and asks for KO’s
understanding. At this time KO is at a
missions conference in Nairobi
Still in context of the Rickards, KO says in a 15
March email to GF, “And as I have shared in another context, the mission
community seems quite naïve when it comes to dealing with systemic and personal
dysfunction, and putting into place disciplinary boundaries…. Leaders and others constantly underestimate
the nature and impact of dysfunction and overestimate their ability to deal
with it…. Dysfunctional folks may try to
charm/manipulate their way back into relationships. Dysfunction, by its very nature, dupes.” In a follow-up e mail on 15 March GF is quite
sensitive to the feelings of all the participants in this situation.
On 11 April, KO sends GF a message thanking her for
organizing the IFMLT meetings in Harpenden, “…And, many thanks too for the
special honor recognizing my involvement in YWAM… And given by Lynn (LG) in the chapel with so many friends
around. This is so special to me!”
At this stage
KO is still being honored within the YWAM family.
In the next few months KO involves himself in
organizing a new YWAM Member Care Network.
Ah Kie Lim (AK) and KO are in a coordinating group for this
network.
In a message of 28 June, KO first informs GF very
briefly about events in South
Africa USA
On 20 July, after GF has received a copy of the
letter from Cees Verharen, Director of the EEMA, dismissing KMO from MC-Europe,
GF replies, “Sounds like a hornets nest got ripped open…. Between us, we’ll have to find a way
forward.” In a reply the same day KO
says, “Michele and I continue to feel either discredited or ignored whenever we
bring up concerns about the way things are done in the MC Europe group… The hardest part is realizing that almost
nobody really understands what has been going on, and so good people try to
make good decisions based on bad or incomplete info.”
In a further message two days later, KO tells GF, “I
am really sorry you are having to get involved in all of this. It is really tricky and muddy… This could all just finish pretty quickly
after a couple of emails or it could drag on.
I hope the former happens.”
Unfortunately
the latter happened. KO really has no
place to turn. The resources to put all
of the pieces together do not exist.
This is often the case in authoritarian or pioneering environments. The “means” are simply not there.
On 25/26 July KO exchanges messages with Mark Fadely
(husband of GF) regarding funding sources for the upcoming conference costs of
member care workers from A4 countries.
Mark says at one point, “I understand about backing off from the option
that we discussed in Harpenden. That
was/is a ticklish affair.”
Access to the
funds in question required the approval of Erik Spruyt at Le Rucher. Mark knew that KMO had serious concerns about
Le Rucher and were uncomfortable with this arrangement.
On 19 September KMO have a 3.5 hour telephone call
with GF. Several days later [25
Sep?] GF recaps four points. She wants Sally Smith or KMO to write to Erik
Spruyt (ES) to ask him to participate in an “independent review” or
“independent mediation”. (Please see the
Member Care Narrative for background.)
She says in part, “As I have said before, I believe that this old wound
is not going to just go away or heal with time on it’s own. I believe that it needs to be attended to by
independent and expert help. I also feel
that this is where the “axe head” fell and you need to return there. It remaining unresolved has probably led to
much of the strain and tension on the Europe member care group and to your
recent reaction in the South
Africa
GF recognizes
the issues and the centrality of Le Rucher.
Everyone is passing the buck on an independent review of the Le Rucher
management—everyone wants someone else to do it. We do not know what is happening behind the
scenes at this stage.
On 26 September KO responds to GF’s message above
with a number of important indicators.
First, KO thanks GF for talking, “We appreciate you SO!! Much!...” Second, KMO are proceeding cautiously with ES
and in unity with other former staff.
Third, regarding ES, “I spoke with Jeff Fountain on the phone last week,
and he said that he personally is not aware of any changes in the YWAM
relationship. There are some plans to
possibly meet in November, with Iain Muir as mediator.” Fourth, “We understand that it may be helpful
for you to track with a person in Y though.
Is there someone else [besides AK]?
Lets talk this over.”
At this stage
KMO are still sharing openly with GF.
They are acting together with former staff regarding Le Rucher
matters. ES and YWAM are estranged. What is this about?? And KMO recognize that
GF needs someone in Y with whom she can discuss KMO matters. Is this a source of GT’s eventual
participation?? The framework is here
for much of the entanglement that occurs in future.
In the next few weeks GF and KO exchange emails over
KO’s relationship with WEA. KO is hoping to meet Bertil
Ekstrom and Bill Taylor at COMIBAM conference in
November. KO’s experience at COMIBAM is
very negative [Please see Member Care Narrative for details.] KO visits with GF in Spain
After receiving the 17 November disciplinary-type letter
from the WEA EXCO [see Member Care Narrative] KO emails GF on 24 November, “I
feel politically steam-rolled. I think I
need to go through mandatory training in doing organizational politics
well…. Gina this stuff about dysfunction…. Stuff will be breaking out at some point and
I hope it will be clearer. As a
colleague said to us, ‘When the tree finally falls baby, you don’t want to be
in the tree or around the tree when it happens’… OK, lets grow.” In this same message KO acknowledges that GF
will be contacting GT about his being in the loop in the WEA/Europe/LR
stuff. When this is clarified KO wants
to talk to GT some more. In a 29
November email to GF that was never sent, KO reflects some more on the WEA
letter. “…I am still in the dark about
what is really going on behind the scenes….
There is a far broader historical context involving other folks besides
me—that also need to be acknowledged.
But this won’t happen, without a proper 360 degree review process.”
KO is
struggling here and hoping to find a haven inside YWAM.
On 7 December KO sends GF/GT copy of the WEA letter
of 17 November. KMO want to clarify
confidentiality amongst the four of them.
The next day in a follow-up message KO shares concerns about confidentiality
and openness. Doesn’t think there should
be secrets between two of the three [KO/GF/GT].
This is not a “Kelly” issue. KO
plans to send a written apology to the MemCa LT. KO says, “I have no plans to reconnect with
MemCa (and this breaks my heart!—I love our people and miss my friends) now or
at the end of 2008 or at the end of 2080.”
KMO seem now
to be increasingly cautious about what GF/GT might do. KMO are not sure how much GF/GT can
understand about the dysfunction at Le Rucher.
This last sentence above is easily seen to be a private statement, and
intended primarily to convey that KO had no intention of interfering with
whatever WEA-MC might envision for MemCa in the future. This statement was never intended to be taken
literally.
On 11 December, GT agrees with KO’s requests and
clarifies that his role will be to assist GF.
GT is not sure if KO wants advice from them or what. GT does not think the WEA letter is so
negative.
KO replies to GT on 13 saying, “I think most healthy
people in my position would see this process and letter negatively, and would
be very concerned. A sword with a
jeweled handle can do just as much damage as a sword without a jeweled
handle. Packaging a letter like this
with articulate, spiritual sentences does not make it any less lethal. Or any more accurate. I believe that others’ own best interests are
being prioritized. Definitely not
mine…. I may not be seen as “terrible”
but the comment below made about me is just as heavy: “we discern deeper underlying issues to
address in you”. And these issues are
said to require spiritual direction, they require professional/psychological
input, and they necessitate that I not connect with MemCa for at least two+
years…That sounds pretty serious to me…And what they have said to others in
major regional/ministry contexts really concerns me. My reputation has been so influenced by them,
it is becoming apparent….And all this without discussing things with me
further. And without asking for feedback
and input on how they have also handled things.
It is very one-sided, very distorted, very wrong….”
This letter
from the WEA-MC EXCO should really be embarrassing to the people who signed
it. Two of the signatories had as much responsibility
for matters as KO.
On 13 December MO sends her views to GF/GT. She says in part, “In this case, I believe
there are also lessons to benefit the wider body, if there is openness to
soberly examine what has transpired…” MO
feels she has been ignored and sidelined in this whole affair.
On 16 December GT assures KMO that he has
“listened”, but does not have many suggestions.
Everyone then breaks for the holidays with plans to reconnect in
January.
It seems
apparent even at this stage that GT’s heart is not in this. He would prefer not to be involved—his
correspondence has a tenuous and directionless feel to it. KO and GF have different goals—KO wants truth
and justice and GF wants peace.
On 12 January GF emails KO regarding next steps, “We
left the Le Rucher issue that you were going to spend some time praying and
fasting towards a way forward. It has
been over three months since that time and I’d like to get an update on where
you are on this issue…. I think it would
help your case if you were the one to initiate [outside mediation].” KO responds saying that his task is to be
true not popular.
In reality is
very difficult for someone in KO’s position to propose and organize outside
mediation. A responsible third party
really needs to take up this task—someone in YWAM, MC-Europe, LR Board. There is really an impasse here.
On 13 January GF tells KO that she needs to respond
to the letter from ES about his desire to reconcile with KO. GF and KO have telecon on 15 January, and KO
tells GF that it was a heavy conversation for him, continuing, “Gina I am
really praying that we can stay connected in this process. Not necessarily agreeing completely of
course, but praying that the wedges that have happened in other settings will
not happen here. There is human
dysfunction and weirdness of course. But
really underneath it all is a very sinister, spiritual force. I am convinced of this…”
The letter that ES has sent to GF says in part, “I
have seen a wonderful healing and restoration take place in my relationship
with Jeff Fountain (JF) as a result of a careful facilitation process. I want to make sure I have explored all
possibilities towards possible restoration with Kelly as well.” JF is Director of YWAM Europe, with whom ES
apparently has had a broken and troublesome relationship for several years. GF asks JF for some background. JF replies, “Yes, we had a very significant
time together a few weeks ago with Iain Muir as facilitator. I did not expect such a breakthrough as I
felt I had little new to bring to the table.
The big change was on Erik’s part after he had sought professional
counseling concerning anger management and personal roots. That may not help much in your situation
though. Yet there seems a new
willingness in the quote above to work things through.” On 15 January GF sends JF’s message to
KMO. KMO ask JF if they can speak with
him.
On 24 January KO advised GF that KMO had a good
telecon with JF, who suggested that KMO might want to speak with IM to get his
perspective also. Next day, 25 January,
GF asks KO what his next step is on reconciliation with ES. KO replies that day by asking GF to talk to
Sally Smith and MO about LR. KO also
suggests that maybe GF would like to speak to some of the former LR staff. KO continues, “Also, as we shared, Michele
and I are not comfortable including GT in the discussions concerning Erik/Le
Rucher. Nothing personal. It is the dual role he is in.”
KO and GF each
want the other to do something the other does not want to do. This impasse must be frustrating for KMO as
well as GF, who has reconciliation between KO and ES as an assignment, perhaps from
LG. KMO are also being cautious about
the involvement of GT, whom they do not believe is the right person to work
with GF.
In a 29 January email, GF is sorry that GT does not
make KO comfortable. GT was brought in
by LG. and it was the LR problem behind that.
On 16 February GF emails KO saying she intends to
respond to ES that week and wants to know how KO would like this process to
move forward. KO replies by referring
back to his desire of 25 January for GF to speak to Sally Smith and MO. KMO is also willing to speak to LG.
There
continues to be an impasse here and this continues on until the end of the
month.
In a 28 February email, KO cautions GF, “…in
situations like this, some organization needs to take the logistical and
financial responsibility to have an extremely competent/experienced group do an
independent organizational review that includes previous generations of
staff.... I think you are aware that I have a recent article on
dysfunction/discipline. It is filled
with a call and practical advice for sobriety and solidarity. It says things like systemic dysfunction does
not just get sorted by trying to do reconciliation or forcing something.” KMO think the ball is in ES’s court to
demonstrate to former staff that he is repentant/changed saying in part, “Michele and/or I may contact Lynn
KO is correct
about the independent review and the realities of dysfunction. What is this “indirect directive”? What IS
happening behind the scenes? I think it
is during these days that a rift develops.
GF responds the next day, 1 March, “I read your
article a couple times now. I have read
your letters. Yet find it somewhat
ironic to read your writings on conflict resolution when you are in the middle
of a large unresolved one yourself. This
seems to undermine your authority and credibility in this area…” GF also
wonders if KO is in “proper accountability” to her. KO responds that day that he is sad about
what GF has written. KO feels justified
in his position.
GF responds the next day, 2 March, “There is nothing
in your letter that we have not already discussed several times in the past by
phone and letter (nor did it help me in writing my response letter to Erik
yesterday)…. It doesn’t come across very
well when you imply that others who think like me (and for that matter Garry
and Lynn Turkey
KO is not
trying to “avoid” responsibility, it is just that KMO and former LR staff have
gone through so much with ES that their integrity will not allow them to
capitulate to the type of external pressure that GF is applying. The impasse between KO and GF is well
established now and it is becoming a matter of hierarchy and seeming
insubordination. The matter is taking a
negative turn.
In a 5 March email to GT, KO asks how GT was brought
into the loop by LG. KO also says, “The
burden for change and setting up something [organizational review] in the right
way, as we see it, definitely does not lie with any of the former staff,
including ourselves… So we keep waiting
for the Lord and hope for something significant to shift.”
MO sends her own email on 13 March which was never
received by GF because the address was wrong.
[The message was resent and received in April.] In it MO reiterates that the process of
reconciliation is important, “We have always wanted more than just
reconciliation on paper, which doesn’t address or resolve issues. Let me use your expression to point out that
the “axe head fell” (in the YWAM context) long before any of us even arrived at
LR.” MO thinks GF and GT need more
information from her and Sally Smith.
Also on 13 March MO emails LG asking, “Can you help?
We (Michele and Kelly) do not understand your recent “directive” to us via
Gina—the way it was done and the background to it.” [This message was copied to GF, who did not
receive it because the address was wrong.]
One can wonder
why LG is so involved in the case of the O’Donnells. Is it because he knows that they are NCI
investors? Is it because of the negative letters that he says he has received
about Kelly? What pressure or motivation, or relationship to ES, would draw LG
into this?
GT clarifies that he has not written for a long time
to allow GF to move forward. GT does not
understand why KO is so suspicious of his involvement with ES. GT thinks reconciliation is a priority, even
above professionalism. Wants to leave
process in GF’s hands.
GF is careful at this stage to show KO from the
correspondence that originally it was intended for GT to be involved in
“WEA/Europe/LR stuff”. GF also shows
that in previous years KO did not want
GF to be involved in LR matters. In an
email of 15 March, just prior to the meetings in Turkey Turkey
The tone of
GF’s emails varies considerably.
Sometimes it appears that she is having internal conflicts over how to
handle this situation, as if someone is putting pressure on her. Is LG pushing GF in a certain direction?
During 15/16 March KO and Bruce Narramore exchange
emails in an attempt to understand what is happening.
On 19 March MO emails a draft proposal to former LR
staff asking for an organizational review and for ES/LR Board to connect with
former staff in a round table discussion.
“There are potential implications for our work within YWAM. We think it is important for someone else (on
behalf of all of us) to be the point person besides ourselves [KMO].”
Sally Smith replies the same day that she is tied
up.
One of the
frustrating factors for KMO is that none of the former staff are able to assume
responsibility for interacting with ES/LR.
KMO are constantly having to return to center stage. In fact for the next seven months significant
effort will be expended by KMO in trying to represent the group of former staff.
On 20 March GT emails KO, “I hope your face to face
[with GF in Turkey
On 21 March LG emails KO, copy to GF/GT, “I am so
sorry that I came across as directive.
All I meant to do was to urge Gina to be sure and follow through on this
subject. I have been the recipient of charges that YWAM leaders often move
independently and without accountability and I have to admit that it is
sometimes true. Over the past two years,
I have had to repent of, and confess the sin of “abdication”. I think it is pretty widespread in YWAM. We have often been too reticent to “grasp the
nettle” of difficult issues. I am
seeking to move in a new measure of grace to engage with such issues,
especially where they involve disunity amongst senior leaders, to see them
resolved in a Biblical manner. That was
what I was intending to communicate to Gina and I am sorry if my language
implied any harsh or authoritarian spirit.
I think it is best that I continue to leave this in Gina’s court.”
Why does
someone in LG’s position say these kind of things to KMO??? Is LG trying to
excuse some culpability on his part?
Again, why is he so interested?
This is an unusual message!
At the end of March KMO meet with GF in Istanbul
On 5 April GF asks KMO for a draft of the letter
that the former LR staff plan to send to the LR Board. On 11 April KO thanks GF for all she did to
make the IFMLT consultation in Istanbul Istanbul
It is apparent
that the content of the staff letter is not so much in question as to who will
send it. None of the former staff want
to coordinate this effort. MO, rightly,
does not want to be the point person, but then, no one else wants to
either. This hampers their effort and
puts KMO in a very awkward position vis-à-vis GF. This will prove a continuing source of frustration
to all concerned during the next six months.
Also on 11 April, MO responds to LG 21.03 saying
that they did not feel that LG was authoritarian. KMO just felt left out of the loop. MO says in part, “Thank you for your message
and we appreciate your readiness to apologize.
You are such a great role model for all of us…” KMO are standing firm in their spiritual
discernment and professional judgment and want to speak to LG on the
telephone. LG responds the next day
thanking KMO “for the helpful message, and the good spirit in which it was
written.” LG does not have time to get
involved, “So at this time I’m going to stay on the sidelines and encourage
those to whom you are accountable to make progress towards resolution. I hope you understand.”
This is a
reasonable position for LG to take given his many responsibilities. But then how to explain the many responses
that LG makes to various letters that begin to arrive in early October and
thereafter. What are the reasons that
cause him NOT to leave this matter in the hands of GF/GT?
In a 12 April email GF hopes that KMO can respect LG
deferring this situation to her and GT.
KO replies that day saying, “This specific topic like many related ones,
is very difficult to discuss via email.
We are working towards both justice and reconciliation, and doing our
best to do so wisely.” GF responds
thinking that KO has forgotten to attach the draft letter from former
staff. KO replies still the same day
saying that the draft is still in process.
KO outlines that the basic suggestions being developed are: 1. have an
organizational review involving former staff.
2. Based on the outcome of this review to invite former staff to a round
table discussion to look at areas of concern and the way forward.
This response
throws up many complications which would appear from the outside to be
insurmountable and reflects the impasse that exists both between former staff
and LR, and between KMO and former staff over coordination.
GF probably
feels that the process is stalled and that she needs to be more directive
towards KO.
In an email still on 12 April, GF tells KO that she
does not accept that issues with ES are YWAM’s fault. “Please recall that you both [KMO] not only
joined Le Rucher after Erik had left YWAM
(with Le Rucher) - but did so
against the counsel of YWAM leadership in Europe ….” GF refers to discussions with KMO at their
house in August 2004 in which KO supposedly said that he could only give 10% of
his time to YWAM then and that Bill Taylor was his main functional
accountability person. GF also claims
that in March 2005 KO and GF agreed that KO would transition out of his role as
Y Member Care Service Coordinator because he could only give 10% of time to Y. GF says, “The very first time you ever backed
off on this 10% was after you fell out with WEA last summer and then reversed
some on this.” GF says that she is not
responsible for other former LR staff, but she is responsible for KO and so
wants KO to take some action.
Some of the
content of this message from GF is suspect.
How could GF and KO have agreed “that KO would transition out of his
role as Y Member Care Service Coordinator” if he was reappointed for a new 3-4
year term in this position with Ah Kie at Harpenden in April 2006. Perhaps some private discussions are being
taken out of context.
KO responds to this lengthy message from GF, “I
understand you are frustrated and concerned.
It is clear that we have different perspectives and styles. Let’s do our best to talk about this and hang
in there for collaboration/problem-solving…”
GF is caught
in a complicated situation where she is probably being pressured by LG, but
unable to move KMO. GF will not talk to
any of the former staff because seemingly she does not see it as a YWAM problem
to sort out. We do not really know how
knowledgeable GF is about NCI and LR.
Perhaps GF does not have the background to adequately address these
challenges.
On 15 April KO sends a letter of apology to the
MemCa LT regarding SA. KO copies this letter to GF next day.
On 16 April MO emails former LR staff with a heavy
heart, “The heaviness we feel also relates to the weight/pressure that is on
us, and Kelly in particular, to move forward toward “resolution and successful
reconciliation” by our leadership in YWAM.
We are not sure what the potential consequences might be if we aren’t
seen as doing this…. A clear, concise proposal from us jointly and possibly
other former staff is important.” MO
reiterates that this should be coordinated by someone besides KMO. MO asks, “Who is going to do an independent
review, etc. (for example, Peacemakers?) and who should initiate it (YWAM)?”
KMO have the
right ideas, but not the resources or process to execute them. This is true in many cases.
Sally Smith responds to MO 16.04 with a report on
the Crossroads AGM earlier that evening of 18.04, “At church tonight there was
confession of sin, asking for forgiveness, giving of forgiveness and prayer for
one another… Both Erik and Jeltje spoke publicly and echo’d the importance of
this, I spoke to Jeltje afterwards and said I felt that this was what we needed
to see in the Le Rucher situation.”
Sally thinks they should build on this.
On 19/20 April MO and GF correspond about the level
of communication there has been between former staff and Erik/LR Board. GF is surprised to discover that there has
been no communication since April 2005.
GF had hoped to see a draft letter to LR Board last week, now wants one
this week.
On 25 April MO emails GF to say that former LR staff
need more time to reflect and think. MO
mentions events at Crossroads
Church
On the same day MO emails LG wanting to know what is
going on behind the scenes. It seems
that others are talking to LG about KMO, but KMO cannot talk to LG. KMO want to know how LG has been involved and
want to talk about this on the phone.
LG responds the next day saying, “I think I can
understand why you want to talk to me, given that others have conveyed their
perspectives, but I want to reassure you that I have not formed any firm
opinions on this subject and will get updates from Gina from time to time.”
Also on 26 April, GF shares her frustration with the
slow pace of the former LR staff in drafting a letter—there does not seem to be
any advance since October 2006.
On 30 April KMO give a final response to LG 26.04
saying, “We respect your decision.
However, we wish it were different.
We have been here before and we just don’t want to see history repeat
itself and vulnerable people affected.”
For the next
five months LG will be out of the picture.
He has achieved his objective of passing this matter back to GF. The story now returns to KMO/former staff
taking action.
On 6 May MO emails former staff with two proposals
for consideration, both involving an independent organizational review followed
by a round table discussion. Sally
Smith, in an email the next day, thinks that asking for an organizational
review would appear to be a “tribunal”.
She continues, “God has not asked us to be responsible in the lives of
it’s current and future staff, but He does ask us to be responsible for doing
all we can to bring about reconciliation…
I agree that justice is important, but again we cannot demand it of an
organization we no longer have any relationship with…”
In a response next day to Sally, KO supports the
concept of an organizational review—doesn’t want to confuse accountability with
forgiveness. KO wonders how long they
should wait for a heart shift. “We walk
with tender forgiving hearts and we walk with sober discerning minds.”
There is an
ongoing tension between the importance of justice vs reconciliation. KMO are holding out for a measure of justice,
as well as setting a good example in dealing with dysfunction. This is probably somewhat unique, and it is
presenting YWAM with an unexpected challenge.
Also on 7 May, MO updates GF/GT with the problems
former staff are having arranging a conference call and with more news of the
reconciliation taking place at Crossroads.
MO asks GT if he has learned anymore about independent reviews and their
application.
GT replies the next day to MO, “Unfortunately I have
hit a bit of a blank on reviews. People
I have written to have either not replied or offered no help. All I have found out is that it usually is
very expensive to conduct. After the
initial activity I also backed off a little in that Le Rucher not being part of
Y it is not our prime responsibility to engage in this review necessarily. Probably still very good and appropriate to
happen but not our priority right now is what I understand.”
GT is correct
that reviews are very expensive and time consuming, and also correct to say
“probably still very good and appropriate to happen.” But who told him that it is not our priority
right now?? Did this come from LG?? Where does GT’s sympathy lie here?
Correspondence continues on a weekly basis. On about 20 May GF asks if there is any
chance that KMO will be able to send their letter to Le Rucher before 25 May. KO responds on 24 May saying they hope to
connect soon with some former staff.
Also on 24 May KO emails Ah Kie saying in part, “There are just some
times when in obedience to God, professional judgment, and in solidarity with
others (if possible), we must stand firm with integrity, whether others
understand or agree or not…”
GF responds to KO on 28 May expressing her surprise
that there was no letter attached to KO 24.05.
Asks if her request to have one by 25 May was unreasonable. She asks KO to make this letter a priority
over any other of his work.
MO emails former staff on 29 May and 6 June
attempting to reach a consensus on a draft letter. Sally has stated that she will not join the
group if an independent review is requested.
KO returns from a trip and emails former LR staff on
16 June emphasizing solidarity and sobriety and saying, “I continue to have
pressure put on me by a leader in YWAM and it can look very much like I am
doing nothing and avoiding things, which is not true—I and we are talking as
best we can and cautiously considering what is best.” KO emails GF/GT the same day saying that
former staff are praying and waiting carefully.
He hopes that former staff can finalize their LR proposal soon.
On 23 June Brills email wondering if anything has
really changed from four years ago when they asked the LR Board for an outside
review and were denied. “..So, has God
removed that boulder and now we are to proceed with reconciliation or is the
boulder still there and we are not to move forward. If we don’t move forward Kelly and Michele
will probably suffer the most from that decision.” Later that day in response to the Brills,
Sally Smith confirms that there has been no heart shift in the parties
concerned. She suggests that former staff
draft a letter to YWAM in support of KMO so that they can continue their
ministry without blame or hindrance.
A major shift
has taken place here. No letter will go
to the LR Board. The former LR staff
have been a road block in GF’s plans to push KMO into reconciliation.
On 25 June GF expresses her frustration at lack of
action on LR. She wants a date when she
can expect a letter to be sent. KO
responds to GF on 27 June saying that MO is in contact with former staff. KMO are leaving on holiday soon.
On 3 July the Hylands give their support to Sally’s
proposal of 23 June to write a letter of support for KMO to YWAM. KO recognizes general agreement to send
support letter in an email of 14 July and agrees to draft something.
On 26 July KMO send out draft support letter to
former staff and ask for letter to be sent out by someone besides
themselves. At same time MO notifies GF
of efforts to connect with former LR staff and finalize letter so that it can
be sent out soon.
GF is still
not aware that former LR staff are now working on a very different type of
letter with a very different destination.
In a sense GF does not have enough face-to-face contact with KMO to stay
sensitive to the evolution of this important matter. It is interesting that GF never tried to meet
again with KMO after seeing them in Turkey
On 3 August GF gives KMO an ultimatum, “By August
17, 2007, I want to be copied on the letter you and this group send to Le
Rucher requesting an independent review or mediation OR I want to be copied on
the one you (Kelly) are personally sending Eric from YOURSELF…. Perhaps you are too close to see this
situation objectively and need to rely on your leader (myself) and counselor
(Garry)…. This conflict (or your YWAM position) must be resolved. This conflict has and continues to cause more
problems.”
The same day KMO email GT asking if they can speak
to GT urgently.
The die is now
cast even though it will take another four months to result in KO’s
dismissal. It is notable that the single
issue here is a lack of willingness on the part of KMO to write to LR Board and
Eric. There are no other “issues” at
this stage.
On 7 August KMO draft an email that was never sent
where they hope GF will not set deadlines for them. KMO also say, “There are specific things that
have developed more recently as well, that we cannot yet disclose… We continue to obey God and hold firm…we hope
our organization this time will back us up and protect us in such an important
matter.”
The “specific
things that have developed more recently”have to do with NCI? This is the first
sign of KO’s dismissal and NCI merging in KMO’s interaction with GF. Now KMO have two YWAM related issues.
Between 9 and 13 August amendments are made to
the letter of support which is finally
sent out on 18 August to GF/GT by the Brills.
The letter itself is dated 14 August.
In the letter former LR staff describe the careful process they have
followed in deciding that the time is not right yet to meet with ES. They also recognize the integrity that KMO
have exhibited and the burden they have carried in recent months.
GT replies the same day, “Just a wee response to say
thank you for the message and, that since Gina has already left for Korea
GF replies on 25 August from Jeju , Korea
It would
appear that someone [GF or LG??] had set a deadline of 17 August so that KMO’s status
could be discussed in Korea
On 31 August the YWAM GLT issue a press release
announcing the unilateral extension of the terms of office for Team3 members
without nominations. Normally it would
seem that nominations would be made and a vote taken.
Is it overly
suspicious to think that Team3 has something to hide and does not want to take
a chance on the possible independence of new Team3 members?
On 5 September, KO receives an email from Joe
Paskewich, pastor of KMO’s church in Connecticut
On 6 September Ah Kie emails KO wondering how they
are doing, “I saw Gina in Jeju and she gave me her version of the
situation.” Ah Kie wants the best for
KMO. [But
what is that?] KO thanks AK the same
day. AK responds the next day
questioning whether KMO’s stance is honoring to God. “I pray that everything will come to light
and things will be done in a loving way.
In reconciliation sometimes people go their separate ways and that is ok
but at least there is open talk.”
It seems that
the dominant ethos in YWAM is on “reconciliation” and obedience, and that there
is little interest in “justice” and health.
This is a continual tension for KMO.
On 12 September KO receives a warning letter from GF
dated 6 September saying that KO has one month to begin a mediation process
with Erik. GF wants to know by 29
September what KO’s position is. She
says in part, “Your refusal to attempt to resolve this conflict with another
ministry is unacceptable and a serious conduct issue… A notable number of complaint letters about
you and your behavior have been sent to YWAM leadership…”
Who wrote
these complaint letters?? Are there not
complaints also about ES? If ES is
serious about reconciliation, he should contact KO in keeping with Matthew
5:23-24, ‘If your brother has something against you, leave your gift before the
altar and go, first be reconciled to your brother and then come and offer your
gift.’ It seems very much that ES is
being protected at KO’s expense. Why???
On 16 September KMO receive encouragement from their
pastor in California
YWAM seem to
be applying to KO the JRG procedures for disciplining new staff, not for
addressing issues of long serving senior staff where mediation is called
for. This is really a subtle abuse of
the guidelines if YWAM is in fact following any guidelines at all. KMO are very distressed and confused as to what
procedures and process are being followed.
On 17 September Steve Harper, associate pastor of
KMO’s church in Connecticut
This is a
perceptive comment at the time. KMO are
receiving support from their churches, which is important at this time in
giving them confidence to maintain their position. KMO are trying to get advice.
On 18 September KMO had their first meeting with
Rand Guebert (RG), a friend from Crossroads
Church , who lives near them in Gex , France Crossroads Church
Although KMO
had reported the fraud to several governmental organizations, they now resolved
to report the fraud to YWAM so that YWAM could take precautionary steps to
protect themselves and others.
On 21 September KMO try to link their supporters
together so they can receive a reality check from this group. KMO want to meet with Y leadership to report
the fraud and also want to develop response to GF before deadline of 29
September. Later on 21 September KMO
email LG and Team3 asking for an urgent meeting with LG to inform him about a
very serious matter which has become known and which could negatively affect
YWAM’s staff and international reputation and credibility.
Between 21-26 September LG responds to KMO. Although the message is missing from the
record, it appears that LG declines to meet with them and directs them to GF.
On 26 September, MO asks LG (copies to T3) to
reconsider meeting with them and gives update about contacts with government
agencies. Also tells LG that many people
are grieved that YWAM is attempting to dismiss KO.
On 28 September LG continues to direct KMO to
GF. LG has complete confidence in
GF. LG also thinks KO needs to meet with
Erik. MO asks one final time for LG to
reconsider meeting with them.
On 29 September MO speaks with Dr. Jean Morehead (JM),
a retired former YWAM associate, who urges her to speak with Jon Dawson (JD),
Team3 member, and describe the gravity of the situation.
Also on 29 September, Jan Pauw (JP) in an email to
GT gives a little history of their time at LR.
JP and his wife, Henny, were at LR from January 2001 to October
2003. In summer 2003 Jan asked ES about
reconciliation with KMO. Erik said this
was not an appropriate subject for public discussion. Jan says in part, “In trying to defend their
viewpoint, Jeltje later (in informal setting) mentioned to us that this was not
the first time Kelly was causing problems.
He had had the same type of problems with Garry and Anke, in other
words: Kelly had brought his own
problems with him to Le Rucher. Kelly
and Michele have denied Jeltje’s statement.
They say they can look back on an excellent relationship with you. We thought it important to bring this into
the open, for the sake of justice.”
It seems that
JP is rightfully questioning Jeltje’s statement by appropriately writing to GT.
This begins a series of communications from former LR staff to YWAM leaders
[Team3, GF, GT] describing their experiences with ES and LR. This is the point where the LR section of
this review interfaces with the YWAM section—the past is prologue.
On 30 September, former LR staff follow with a
second letter of support for KO, and Jim Longhurst, former pastor of
Crossroads, sends his story of pastoral involvement with ES and ES’s refusal to
talk to the former LR staff as a group.
On this day KO also responds to GF’s 29th deadline. KO deeply values GF and her leadership, but
is appealing his case in the heavenly realm, “I trust that in the immediate
future (this week) some very important information will be brought to the
attention of Team Three, and Garry and yourself. This information, I am confident, will
quickly lead to a clear decision about the right way forward.” Also on this day MO emails JD asking to speak
to him as soon as possible to discuss the best way to proceed.
LG responds the same day to the former LR staff
email in support of KO, “The long-standing request, and now requirement, that
Kelly should cooperate in a mediation process with the leadership of Le Rucher
is consistent with both Biblical commands and YWAM justice and appeals
procedures. This is not an attempt to
dismiss Kelly, it is a statement that he cannot continue, year after year, to
refuse to cooperate with a straightforward process. The decision is Kelly’s. This matter is being dealt with competently
and compassionately by Gina Fadely
and Garry Tissingh standing alongside her….they know the circumstances better
and the members of Team3 will not allow them to be bypassed without legitimate
cause. We have not seen such a cause. Therefore, all future communication needs to
be with Gina and Garry. I am sure that I
speak on behalf of John Dawson and Iain Muir when I say that we deeply regret
that it has come to this, but Kelly still holds the key to resolve this
situation.”
LG continues
to direct people to GF and GT. LG would
do better not to comment at all. There
is no mediation process for KO to cooperate with. The background of this strategy of LG is
still obscure.
On October 1 both LG and GT reply to Jim Longhurst. LG tells Jim that GF is now dealing with this
and, “I am also relieved to say that Erik is now willing to engage with
mediation. Sadly, Kelly now appears to
be unwilling…Erik is not under our authority, but Kelly does claim to be a YWAM
staff member… We appreciate your
understanding of those former events.” GT also replies this day to JP.
In both of GT’s responses of 1 October to Jim and JP
he says, “…in terms of my involvement and responsibility it is to encourage
Kelly to be willing to move towards mediation and reconciliation with
Erik…. We realize there are many matters
and issues involved ‘behind the scenes’ but never the less it will begin by
making this initial step…”
It is becoming
clear now that LG is the point person for this on Team3 and that he is
attempting to hide behind GF and GT, even on the matter of the fraud where he
should take responsibility. There is a
serious effort underway to blame KO. It
is interesting that GT takes a very hands off approach and does not in any way
address JP’s query about his relationship with KO. GT is failing in every way to offer any
advocacy for KO.
Also on 1 October MO calls JD’s office for the first
time and asks to speak to Andy Zimmerman (AZ), JD’s personal assistant. AZ directs MO to GF or Jeff Fountain (JF), European
regional director. MO maintains that
this is a Team3 matter. AZ will forward
the message to JD.
On 2 October MO emails T3/GF/GT asking how KO’s
dismissal would be consistent with Y J&R Guidelines, asks what protocol is
being followed. KMO are appealing this
unclear and unfair process.
Also on 2 October the Hylands send their LR story to
GT, copy to T3/GF. They refer to GT
18.08 where GT says that he will be in touch, but he has not been. Now they would like to hear GT’s thoughts on
the dismissal ultimatum KO has been given.
They say, “The truth should be clearly discovered, both for the sake of
YWAM’s integrity, and because Kelly’s reputation is at stake….In our
estimation, this dispute is not really about Kelly. It is one of much wider implications. It is a matter of team dynamics and perceived
use and abuse of authority…”
Also on 2 October the Brills and JP separately send
their LR story to Team3/GF/GT, and Ron Williams sends a request for YWAM leaders
to carefully consider what they are doing, as KMO are doing what they are doing
because they have integrity and sensitivity to the spirit.
In a response the same day to Ron Williams, LG
defends YWAM, “…the WEA and another agency in Europe
from which Kelly has been alienated have been urging us to take action on this
for several years….Our requirements are not drastic. This has been very slow, prayerful and
patient process with every opportunity for all to be understood…. Gina Fadely
is dealing with this issue competently and prayerfully. She can call on me or others if needed. I will now leave any further communication to
her.”
LG cannot
resist commenting on this matter. Who in
WEA and MC-Europe is LG referring to that would go back “several years”—Bill
Taylor and Arie Baak perhaps?? There
must be some reason why LG cannot leave this subject alone and simply have GF
respond. He says he wants to defer to
GF, but then he doesn’t.
Also on 2 October, MO calls AZ again because she has
not heard from JD. AZ says that JD is aware,
but is deferring to LG. MO recounts her
frustration in trying to engage with Team3.
AZ reaffirms that this is LG’s matter.
On 3 October GF acknowledges to former staff and
friends of KMO, “I am appreciative of your concern for the current situation
with Kelly O’Donnell and acknowledge that there are unfortunate issues that you
have dealt with in the past; these are perhaps issues that may need to come up
with a mediation group.” Reaffirms that
LG does not want to receive emails on this subject. GF also asks, “If you have not already done
so, it may be good that you read my letters in their entirety before responding
to them.”
Also on 3 October Jim and Jean Morehead email JD and
ask him to respond to KMO and to join in the investigation of this most grave
situation involving financial fraud. The
Moreheads also give a strong character reference for KMO, who are encouraged
that the Moreheads have made this strong plea on their behalf.
On 5 October Henny Pauw sends her LR story to
T3/GF. LG refers Henny to GF saying, “I
am not making the decisions in this matter and this volume of emails is not
making a positive contribution to what should be a straight forward mediation
situation.”
In a response to a further message from the Brills,
GF says on 5 October that she is sorry for the grief that they have
experienced. She says that neither Erik
or LR are under YWAM legal or spiritual authority.
Also on 5 October, JD responds to the Moreheads
thanking them for their letter and saying that he will forward their comments
to Lynn Green who is responsible. He
recognizes that “this is a separate matter from the dynamics surrounding Kelly
O’Donnell and I’m sure that he will proceed to investigate this matter
promptly.”
JD says this,
but there is no evidence that LG does anything to investigate this matter. There is a pattern of obstruction in this
correspondence. Also YWAM consistently
tries to frame the discussion in terms of “the dynamics surrounding Kelly”,
which is also an obstruction of the real issues.
On 8 October there is a conference call between GF
and KMO/RG. GF is calling to get
information about the fraud allegations that have been made to YWAM. KMO say that they were advised not to speak
to GF about this, but to Team3. KMO want
to keep fraud and KO dismissal separate.
RG thought that GF had a conflict of interest in handling both. KMO needed outside advice on the fraud as it
involves more than just them. An impasse
is reached in the call and KMO ask GF to pass their position to Team3. GF is still waiting for a response from KO on
his position regarding LR and Erik.
There is
really no room for new developments now.
GF is not in any real sympathy with KMO.
On 10 October the Hylands email Team3/GF/GT
wondering why YWAM does not believe KMO.
This in response to GF 03.10.
GF responds to the Hylands saying she is sorry for
the problems that they encountered, but neither ES or LR are under Y
authority. She says Kelly is
responsible, “….I believe much damage has come from his unwillingness to
resolve past conflicts… What I am doing,
I feel, is with compassion and concern for Kelly, his reputation, and his
future ministry.”
On 12 October GF emails KO, “I sense that it now
really comes down to your willingness to do as your leaders and spiritual
authorities in YWAM ask of you… If not,
you are basically revoking that spiritual authority that you voluntarily gave
to us when you joined this organization.”
On 17 October Jan Rowland and Mintie Nel send their
LR stories to Team3 and on 19 October Sean and Lynn Collins send their LR
story. The contributions of Sean Collins
(SC) during the next six months are very important to the story. This is his first letter.
JD sympathizes with Jan and Mintie and offers an apology. He commends them for their personal
reconciliation with the Spruyts.
It is at this time that KMO come across a 1986
article from Floyd McClung who was Executive Director of YWAM at the time
entitled, “Authority: Its Use and Abuse
– A Christian Perspective”.
The article
highlights how easy it is to blame the victim when there are problems. This is essentially what YWAM is trying to do
to KO and is consistent with authoritarian practices.
On 2 November GF emails KO wanting to talk on the
telephone. GF has deferred the fraud
matter to JF. “In the meantime, until I
can clearly see my way forward, I want to ask if you are willing to proceed to
other conflicts that I feel you also need to deal with….”
This is the
first time that GF is shifting the need for reconciliation away from ES/LR to
other matters. YWAM probably realizes
that they are on shaky ground with ES now that details of the NCI fraud are
coming out and that they need to put pressure on KO from another direction. This is very sinister and suspicious,
especially since GF knows that these “other conflicts” involve far more than
KMO—see Member Care Narrative for details.
Why does GF suddenly bring them up now?
Also on 2 November, JD thanks SC for his letter and
apologizes on behalf of the Mission
In what way
are they grappling with the implications??
Who is the responsible leadership?
This sounds almost like an admission of some responsibility.
On 7 November GF telephones and speaks to MO. GF wants to speak to KO about the YWAM
issues. GF is not wanting to address the
fraud or Erik issues. In a note of the
conversation MO says, “When she made some comment about my screening Kelly, I
again reiterated that we had been advised, adding both internally and
externally, to only speak with her face to face and with witnesses and drew a
parallel with her [GF] recording this conversation.”
Why does GF
want to record this conversation? It
seems to be unheard of in YWAM circles to make such recordings. It seems that all trust has broken down now,
which is primarily a failure for GF. I
think she did not imagine that the situation would develop in the way that it
has where she is left in a no-win situation having to adopt a very heavy handed
approach to KO.
On 12 November the Brills send GF an email expressing their amazement that YWAM continues to take
no responsibility for LR or Erik when they were told before coming to LR that
the center had strong ties to Y, “I just wonder, why no one has ever really
tried to deal with a leader that seems to have so much power and influence over
others lives. Why is always someone
else’s perpetration the cause?” GF
responds to the Brills and reaffirms that LR and Erik are not under YWAM
authority, “We say this because it is the truth. We would have preferred that Le Rucher not
have left YWAM the way they did years ago but were unable to affect that at the
time. As Lynn wrote to you on October 2nd,
“It is true that Erik left as a result of his unilateral decision (one that I
and others confronted him about on several occasions) and that we don’t have
any authority over him or the work there.
They are completely independent.”
GF does not know how much effort went into dealing with Erik over the
years, but it was Erik who chose to leave so he would not have to be
accountable to YWAM.
It is not at
all clear what GF thinks of ES or KO herself.
GF has been asked to play a role which is falling apart before her eyes.
On 13 November SC sends another long letter to JD
asking him to investigate matters for himself.
SC asks whether YWAM leaders accept responsibility for what happened at
LR.
Also on 13 November the TROS Opgelicht television
program airs in Holland
The TROS
program is a watershed event. It is one
of the main interfaces between the YWAM section of this review and the NCI
section. NCI is now in the open as are
many of YWAM’s relationships to it:
ES/KW/many investors. One could
well ask how JF knows so much about this matter: little chance the money will be repaid,
millions of euros involved, criminal elements—from where does he get this
information? Why does YWAM not express any
concern for the investors? Why do ES and
YWAM have ministries with the same name??
The list of questions here is long.
What is going on to explain all of this?
Also on 14 November GF emails KO saying that she is
disappointed that KO will not speak to her, “It is unfortunate that you seem
only willing to receive counsel from others and not from your YWAM
leaders. Although I would rather have
talked with you personally first about your past conflicts with the WEA and
EEAMC that I was hoping to see you attempt to resolve, I have resigned myself
to your unwillingness. I cease my
pleading. I write now to let you know
that my next communication is being sent to you via post.”
It is clear
now that YWAM has removed ES and LR from the picture and substituted the WEA and EEMA, which have never really been
mentioned until two weeks ago. This is
very dubious coming as it does on the heels of the disclosure to YWAM of the
fraud. What happened to GF’s insistence
on reconciliation with ES??
In should be
noted that KMO have kept GF informed
about the WEA and EEMA matters, as well as doing all they can to meet
with the people concerned. Please see
the Member Care Narrative for more details.
On 19 November JD responds to SC noting that GF and
GT were copied on SC’s message. JD
trusts GF and GT to respond as they have first hand knowledge.
On 29 November RG sends his letter to the elders of Crossroads Church
On 1 December SC emails JD, with copies to other YWAM
leaders, saying that GF and GT have not responded as JD said they would in JD’s
message of 19.11. SC does not accept
JD’s deferral to GF and GT. SC thinks
YWAM leaders are abdicating their responsibility for protecting the flock and
did so when LR was their responsibility also.
This is the third important message from SC.
GT finally responds to SC on 10 December. On the question of why he has not responded,
GT says, “As John Dawson responded on behalf of us I believed that was
sufficient and there was no need to add to it.”
GT says he has never had anything to do with LR. His job is to support GF and encourage KO to
reconcile.
GT is in a
muddle. He has lost track of who has
said what and has failed to grasp that the focus has shifted from ES and LR to
the WEA and EEAMC. GT seems to be a sad figure in this story. What has GT accomplished over these months
except to embarrass himself and betray a friend?
On 11 December KO receives an email from the WEA MC
EXCO dismissing him from the Missions Commission of the WEA for not following
the requests made in the EXCO letter to him of 17 November 2007.
On 12 December KO, having recently returned from a
trip, collects from the post office the YWAM dismissal letter that GF wrote on
3 December. KO has until 14 December to
register an appeal of his dismissal. The
same day KO emails the dismissal letters to RG wondering what to do and
considering some options, “It is now
time we believe for a thorough, professional, independent review of all of
these things. We have the documents and
we are very willing to share them as part of such a review.”
Next day KO emails his friends and supporters
updating them on the dismissals and wanting to discuss next steps.
Also on 13 December KO emails GF/GT/Team3 stating
that he has no plans to leave YWAM and registering his appeal of the
dismissal. “I along with many others are
asking again for an independent, professional review about how and why this is
happening.”
KMO will have
to wait four more months until the dismissal review process with Iain Muir is
exhausted, but eventually they will partially get their wish when a
professional if not independent review is commenced. This is a bruising and unfair battle.
In an email of 20 December to MO/RG, KO outlines his
thoughts on an independent review. He
would like to get an article on good practice for such reviews.
On 22 December GF responds to KO 13.12 saying, “The
decision to dismiss you from YWAM was not made lightly but rather after an
extensive process. YWAM’s Team3 will
review my decision and make whatever judgment they feel is appropriate.”
What was this
extensive process?? Why does she say
“my” decision? Why did GF never meet
with KO after March 2007? Again there are many questions.
The next day RG emails KMO/Moreheads observing that
this will probably be the last communication from GF. RG wonders who from Team3 will respond.
On 28 December LG sends a long email to SC in
response to SC’s messages of 13.11 and
01.12. LG describes his long
relationship with ES and LR. LG says in
part, “…in fact, we did not dismiss Erik but he and his board removed
themselves from YWAM and created their own identity. Erik knows we feel that such a course of
action is ethically questionable, but we will not go to court to challenge
it…. We did not hold legal or financial
authority over Erik. The only authority
we had was whatever he granted us in his life…
We also felt that we were the victims of injustice… We have had to make choices to forgive and to
make every effort to be reconciled to Erik…”
WHY?? WHY??
WHY?? Why does LG out of nowhere
intervene in such a major way after delegating this matter to GF and GT. LG must feel that GF has failed and that he
must placate the critics. But why share
all of this information that is damaging to YWAM or vague and sinister. Even they recognize that Erik has acted
unethically. And why will they not go to
court? And why do they have to make
every effort to be reconciled to Erik?
It would seem that Erik is blackmailing them in some way. It could be that there is a deal in the
background that has gone bad, which perhaps has something to do with NCI. But why is LG entering the fray again??
After the Christmas holidays, on 8 January, IM
responds to GF 22.12 saying that he has been asked to consider KO’s
appeal. He wants to know more about
several inaccuracies that KO claimed were in GF’s letter, an unclear process
and undisclosed information.
KO responds to IM on 10 January asking for an
independent review and proposing an informal meeting in Geneva Holland
On 13 January IM emails KO that an independent
review is not appropriate at this time.
IM will hear appeal on behalf of Team3 and tells KO, “I will not enter
communications nor meet with any persons except yourself.” IM wants an answer to his previous request
for information before considering the next step.
The next day RG offers a commentary on IM’s message—citing
many issues. The message has an aura of
fear about it, which would indicate something to hide.
This appeal/review
process is very ad hoc and biased. Much
of its credibility rests with the objectivity of IM who in hindsight is highly
compromised at this point having seen much of the correspondence with YWAM
leaders since August. What does IM fear
in meeting with someone besides KO?? In
the end IM never does meet with KO.
Why??
KMO are trying
to get outside advice from Wilma, RG, Bruce Narramore, etc. Much of the advice is somewhat contradictory,
so it is not simple to plot strategy.
The best strategy for dealing with this situation could be the subject
of a whole additional analysis. How do
you decide between fight and flight? Do
you separate the fraud from the dismissal and pursue only one of them?
On 16 January, RG sends KMO a commentary on LG’s
message to SC of 28.12. Many
inconsistencies and issues are raised.
The death of MO’s brother on 15 January throws a
delay into the dismissal review process.
KMO quickly depart for the USA
On 23 January IM emails KO because he has not heard
anything in 10 days. KO advises IM next
day of the death of Michele’s brother and their urgent trip to US.
On 29 January there is a conference call between
KO/RG in Geneva and MO/TJ/JP/Jim Longhurst in Boston
Also on 29 January KO emails Anke
Tissingh , wife of GT, giving an update on the fraud investigation,
KO’s request for an independent review, and Michele’s brother’s death. Next day Anke responds with her condolences
on the death and also with this comment on the fraud, “…this loss of money is
indeed affecting many and we hear sad stories, and I am very worried and
concerned about that too. Again, I want
to say I do not want to lose my friendship with Michele and you…..you really
helped and championed me, and I will always be thankful for that!” [It should be noted that Anke’s sister is the
wife of Jeff Fountain.] KO responds that
day saying it is time for organizations involved in the NCI fraud, or who
received money, to stand up and be counted.
Anke answers back on the same day, “I do not think it is right for me to
give any comments on the fraud issue, other than what I said, how very sad I
have found this to be…. I have just
wanted to say that I want to keep our friendship with you both, and I hope that
this is OK with you even if I’d prefer to not further comment.”
It seems that
the Tissinghs know more than they are saying and are struggling to maintain
their friendship with KMO—somehow they are rationalizing this. It also seems to me that they are the weak
link in the YWAM chain, which is trying to contain the fraud. The Tissinghs are in a very awkward spot, and
like others are having to make some important ethical decisions regarding
personal integrity or partisan loyalty.
During these days KO is thinking about people to
connect with in a support group. On 30
January in a message to Bill van Derripe, KO thinks it is time for KMO’s
supporting churches to write to YWAM in their support. Also that day in an email to the participants
in the conference call of the previous day KO reflects on the discussion and
the need for others to take the weight off of KMO—they feel isolated.
On 31 January, IM sends his condolences for Roger
Lewis and says, “The appeal can go no further without the information from you
of its basis and rationale.” He asks for
a response in seven days. On this day RG
emails the participants in the conference call of the 29th
cautioning, “We have to keep from getting too tired, too burned out,
disillusioned, etc.”
On 1 February without the knowledge of KMO, KO’s
father, Richard, sends a handwritten letter to Leland Paris, Director of YWAM-Garden
Valley, where Richard sends his YWAM donations, asking if KO’s dismissal has
anything to do with KO’s reporting of the NCI fraud.
Various people
have come to the idea that KO may have been discredited and dismissed for being
a whistleblower. Only time will tell
whether this is true, but the indications are pointing this way.
On 6 February, KO sends his dismissal review
submission to IM focusing on three issues:
1. Unfair process, 2. LR/ES and
NCI/SDI, and 3. WEA/MC-Europe relationships.
On 8 February KMO/RG receive from Donna Seymour the
Austrian document, which links ES and /KW and perhaps Mercy Ships to known
fraudsters.
This was
another watershed event similar to the TROS television show. For the first time there appeared to be a
tangible link between YWAM and fraudulent activity.
On 15 February Pierre Christ, Geneva Pierre
On 17 February, SC sends long reply to LG 28.12
addressing various inconsistencies and evasions regarding ES/LR, “What about
your own case, Lynn
On 19 February RG watches TROS video with Pierre
Christ at Pierre Pierre
On 20 February IM emails KO saying that he has not
heard from him, implying that he did not receive the 6 February message. IM now asks for more information and wants a
response by 1 March. Later that day KO
resends 6 February message to IM.
Also on 20 February RG sends out first analysis of
the Austrian document explaining the financial transaction that is the basis of
the document.
In an undated letter Mark Brock, CFO of YWAM-Garden
Valley, responds to Richard O’Donnells letter of 1 February directing him to
write to Iain Muir in Switzerland
During these weeks KO is in the USA
On 14 March IM responds to KO 20.02 and KO 06.02
saying, “…you do not really present any evidence for an appeal to be
heard. What we need to hear are your specific
complaints concerning how you have been dealt with by your immediate leaders in
YWAM. The leadership at Le Rucher
removed themselves from YWAM. I believe
that was communicated at the time.
Please give us details of why you feel your dismissal from YWAM was
unfair. The time limit of two months to
provide this has run out but I will wait a little longer, say one week more.”
IM is
obscuring the appeal process by accusing KO of a failure to communicate. This appears to be a totally ad hoc and opaque
process, whose main goal seems to be to discredit KO rather than to provide a
fair hearing.
On 15 March Joe Paskewich forwards the response of
LG to his letter [which is not in the record].
LG says that KO needs to “start reconciliation process with those from
whom he has become alienated. Sadly,
there is a considerable number of such people in various international
evangelical organizations. I mention
this briefly simply to say that you have been misinformed. There has been very extensive, patient and
thorough processing of these issues…”
Why does LG
answer these letters rather than forwarding them to GF? Perhaps since KO’s dismissal LG does not feel
that GF has a role any more. It would
seem to be a strategic mistake for him to reenter this process.
In an email of 17 March to KMO, Todd Johnson
indicates that people he is meeting are supportive of KMO. Thinks the case of KMO is complex and this
may work against them.
In an email of 19 March RG emphasizes to KMO how
important it is to continue to take a professional approach in their response
to IM.
On 20 March MO informs IM that KO is traveling and
they will respond to IM 14.03 in the next week or so.
On 25 March KO sends out an update. An IFMLT consultation is taking place in Thailand
On 27 March KMO send their 15 page dismissal review
response to IM focusing on the same three subject headings as the 06.02
response. This message is also sent out
to KMO’s friends and supporters separately.
On 28 March Ron Williams writes to KO, “I am
impressed by both your email to YWAM leadership and the attached documentation. Its tone is respectful, factual, and
clear… It was a welcomed change from the
tone of the email from your colleagues (I presume) which reflected legitimately
hurt feelings, but would prove counterproductive I suspect.”
During these days KMO reflect on the J&R
Guidelines and certain distortions that GF has made in her dismissal letter of
3 December, but no additional submissions are ever sent to IM.
On 29 March two senior YWAM staff members give their
lengthy analyses of the flawed process of KO’s dismissal in light of the
J&R Guidelines.
It seems that
YWAM is not interested in a fair process, but a process that serves to
discredit KO. People imagine that the
playing field is level in this case when it is not. I also thought the playing field was level
for some time as I could not bring myself to believe that it was not.
Later on 29 March RG emails KMO recognizing the
support of these YWAM leaders, but also saying, “I have always in my life
emphasized issues and integrity over process and procedure. I believe in process and procedure, but I
think most problems (and solutions) stem from issues and integrity. Clever managers are able to sidestep
procedure.”
During these days KO is thinking of different ways
to encourage people to come forward and/or write to YWAM leaders.
On 2 April TJ emails KMO a newsletter that LG has
sent out to all YWAM staff. It says in
part, “I am going to give you quite a lot of information that I hope will be
really helpful to you… All that is to
underline the importance of you feeling the freedom to contact my team and me
if you become aware of a crisis or if you find yourself immersed in very
difficult and unexpected circumstances.
Then we can assist you…”
This is a
hypocritical statement when considering what KMO have just been through. Why are KMO being treated as they are??
On 5 April KO receives a message from the Sagals in Colorado
On 14 April RG first proposes an “independent
review” and discusses the time involved and the need for a committee to be
involved.
On 16 April RG sends his comments on LG letter to
Joe Paskewich [see JP 15.03] Again there
are many inconsistencies and issues in LG’s letter.
Also on 16 April IM sends his response to KMO 27.03
saying that he does not find any credence in KMO’s request for an appeal. IM blames KO for broken relationships and
alleges that KO has some kind of disorder.
All three members of Team3 sign this message.
There are some
quite serious allegations in this very cynical response. This email confirms the bias of IM and the
futility of the supposed review.
Nonetheless this review process allowed KMO to put their cards on the
table and flushed out substantial correspondence from Team3, who put themselves
on the record for better or for worse.
One has to
also wonder why all three members of Team3 sign this statement. Is this an attempt to snuff out any further
appeal? Is it some show of superficial
unity? Why do they all take
responsibility for what is an unprofessional and shameful message?? Why does John Dawson sign this? It is very puzzling.
On 17 April RG outlines in
an email the process and organization of a professional review. The same day KMO send out IM’s rejection to
their friends and supporters. Later that
day RG tells KMO that he finds IM’s message disappointing and disturbing. It is superficial and fails to address the
issues. RG will redouble his efforts to
set the record straight as per his earlier message that day.
On 18 April Walt Stuart and
Jonathan Ward, members of MC-Europe, send letter of support for KMO to YWAM
leaders and question Kelly’s dismissal.
In retrospect
it probably would have been more relevant for Walt and Jonathan to also
question KMO’s banishment from MC-Europe and not just from YWAM. Nonetheless at this stage it serves to show
that KMO were not alone in their concerns with MC-Europe.
On 19 April Hollis Lewis sends letter to Team3 on
behalf of the O’Donnell and Lewis families—more than 20 people. The letter [dated 10 April] focuses on KMO’s
integrity, their sincere and ongoing attempts to deal with group conflict in
other settings, and the existence of the NCI fraud.
Later that day LG responds to Hollis, “I will copy
Iain Muir’s letter to Kelly and Michele below in the hope that it will provide
both some of the heart and background information that seems to have been
missing from your awareness in recent times….
It is most regrettable that you have lost investment funds and I am sure
that fact has produced hardship. I was
completely unaware of that investment scheme, neither did our other
international leaders know.”
It is hard to
understand why LG continues to involve himself in this correspondence saying
the things he does. Is there no one else
for him to turn to? Perhaps not. He seems to have been stuck with this
thankless task of being the Team3 point person for the NCI/KMO defense. Time will tell whether LG “was completely
unaware of that investment scheme”.
Also on 19 April RG sends his first draft of a professional
review proposal to KMO.
On 21 April KMO send out their Spring newsletter
with this 2 April posting from Rebecca Rowley reporting in YWAM Global News on
the North American consultation on Staff Development and Care, 10-14 March
2008, where KO was a presenter, “Our fantastic guest speaker, Dr. Kelly
O’Donnell, a psychologist, based in Geneva working with YWAM, pillar of Member
Care both inside & outside of YWAM, lead us through a great amount of
quality content during the week, not without lots of practical activities and a
solid sense of humor that got us off our seats more than once!”
During the next couple of days KO exchanges email
messages with Bruce Narramore regarding allegations in IM 16.04.
On 23 April KO sends MO/RG a list of ways people
could help them including an attachment, “Some historical perspectives from
Kelly: Readings
It is
difficult in these kinds of circumstances to know what to do, especially when
relevant people are far away. To whom
does one turn? KMO/RG have known for
some time that without the police investigation KMO would be rather powerless
against a large organization. It is
potential state intervention that is the backbone of KMO’s efforts as well as
the efforts of other NCI victims and many other concerned people.
On 26 April MO emails IM, “We do not agree with the
assertions or the conclusions of your response.
Nor do we accept the ongoing avoidance of the main concerns that we and
others have expressed. There are no
grounds for dismissal and the attempt to dismiss Kelly is highly inappropriate
and violates YWAM (and YWAM FM) procedures and guidelines. In fact, this whole dismissal and appeal
process undermines those procedures and guidelines as well as the people they
are meant to serve. We ask you again, to
rescind this dismissal attempt and to work amicably together to put a proper
review process in place.”
IM answers back immediately saying, “I have nothing
further to contribute on this.”
It is probably
fair to ask what IM has contributed, other than to discredit and embarrass
himself. It is not clear how much he
knows about the NCI fraud. It would seem
that he has never had a desire to be involved with this whole sorry affair.
On 27 April SC sends KMO a long analysis of LG’s
message of 19 April to Hollis Lewis . SC
identifies various links between ES and YWAM.
This is the fifth long letter from SC.
On 28 April the Moreheads, who have been traveling,
email KMO and ask if KMO have decided to contact a professional regulatory body
yet.
On 1 May, in advance of the TRUPE meeting of former
LR staff scheduled for 4-6 May, KO sends out a timeline with key events and a
list of key documents/emails. Former LR
staff are meeting to pray together, as well as discuss current developments
relating to YWAM and NCI.
Also on this day RG sends out his commentary on IM
16.04 to KMO friends and supporters. In
response TJ says, “I think Rand ’s comments are
well-stated and represent the solid footing that the O’Donnells can stand
on. Namely, the facts! I’m really sorry to see Iain’s response and
hope we can come up with some positive next steps.”
On 3 May KO makes a summary of the many concerned
people who have made contact with a small group of senior YWAM leaders during
the past year. This list is entitled
“20+ Nathans”.
From 4-6 May former LR staff gather in Geneva
On 9 May Bill van Derripe sends out a letter from
his church in California
On 10 May an experienced YWAM staff member offers
further advice to KMO on the YWAM dismissal appeal process with very careful
focus on application of the J&R Guidelines.
This specific advice
was not followed, perhaps because the fraud issues seemed so important and the
effort to stifle KMO so intense. Perhaps
this strategy would have been more effective, but it is doubtful as YWAM
leaders seemed to be succeeding with a “trust us” strategy.
On 11 May RG sends out the final version of his
professional review proposal and first weekly update. The professional review is effectively
launched at the TRUPE meeting.
On 12 May YWAM Team3 posts the following message on
the GLT and IFMLT web forums:
“CONFIDENTIAL: This memo is to
inform you that Kelly O’Donnell 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.”
This statement
would appear to be written with input from a lawyer. Sometime between LG’s last communication with
Hollis Lewis on 19 April and now Team3 have sought legal advice and learned
that they should no longer communicate with KMO or their friends. Fortunately for the record they have already
made many statements that shed light on what has been happening through the
years. Also why do all three members of
Team3 sign this? It is the same question
posed above in response to IM 16.04??
On the same day Pat Robinson of YWAM-Garden Valley , Texas Gina
Fadely has notified us that you are no longer a part of YWAM
so unfortunately we are [un]able to process any funds for you.”
On 13 May KMO inform their supporters that their
funding mechanism is being cut off very drastically. The same day TJ forwards four messages that
have been posted on the IFMLT forum questioning KO’s dismissal.
Also this day Hollis Lewis sends the second family
letter in response to LG 19.04. The
letter is dated 10 May 2008. It begins,
“Attached please find the second letter to you on behalf of the O’Donnell
families and Lewis families. We continue
to have grave concerns about what you are trying to do and how you are doing
it.” No response was ever received to
this letter.
On 14 May David Pratten sends a supportive email,
which is also copied to LG, with whom he is in regular contact.
From 15-23 May KMO exchange emails with Mark Brock
asking that they continue to process their checks and investigate the
background to KO’s dismissal, “To stop the processing of our checks abruptly
and under such dubious circumstances (eg., concerns about whistleblowing,
international fraud and wrongful dismissal) is highly unethical, with possible
legal implications.” Only at the
insistence of KMO does YWAM-Garden
Valley YWAM-Garden
Valley
On 16 May KO scans the website of a regulatory/advisory
group and downloads a policy statement on fraud and whistleblower
protection”.
On 17 May RG sends thoughts to KO about three
different topics: whistleblower
protection, financially interrelated organizations, and the rights of employees
vs independent contractors.
On 22 May Egbert De Zwaan, who is YWAM leader for Central Asia emails saying he is looking forward to KMO
attending the Central Asia Conference next month, but does not want them to
discuss their issues with YWAM unnecessarily.
KMO understand Egbert’s concerns and think his outlook is quite
reasonable.
On 23 May KO sends Rollin Broekhoven background
information on his dismissal and the short paper trail of contacts with YWAM-Garden Valley
On 28 May KMO copy background information sent to
Rollin to TJ and Moreheads. TJ responds
on 29 May saying that the information is very clear and compelling. TJ is working with Stephen Anderson on a
letter to be sent to Team3.
On 30 May RG emails SC asking questions about his
time at LR in the mid 1990’s. SC
responds immediately with much helpful information for the LR part of the
review. At RG’s request SC sends hard
copies of printed documents to RG by post.
On 6 June Louise and Stephen Anderson and Todd and
Tricia Johnson send the following request to Team3, “We are not writing to you
for us to make a judgment on Kelly’s case.
Our main concern in writing is that we believe all YWAM staff have the
right to appeal a dismissal to an arbitration team and that this would be
especially true for someone who has been serving YWAM in a leadership position
for a long time. From our perspective,
the Reconciliation and Justice Guidelines are very clear….”
In early June the letter from Bill van Derripe of 9
May and the family letter of 13 May (see above) are both resent to YWAM
leaders. No response was again
forthcoming.
From 24 June to 4 July KMO and David Pratten
exchange emails about KO’s dismissal. On 24 June David emails KO, “I am writing
to you today because I would like to understand more about your dismissal from
YWAM… Could you please send me a copy of
your dismissal letter from YWAM and a narrative description of the steps that
were followed in the dismissal process?”
Also the same day David emails LG sharing his concerns over various
issues in the J&R Guidelines. Still
the same day David emails to IM, copy to LG/GF/KO, “I am writing to you because
Lynn Green has encouraged me to “look for an opportunity to talk with Gina Fadely or Iain Muir about our dealings with
Kelly.”…Could you please tell me Team3’s grounds for dismissing Kelly and the
steps that were followed in the dismissal process?” LG replies to David still on 24 June, “I said
“talk”. We have been weighed down with
great volumes of correspondence on this subject and I do not want to continue
with that. Please look for the opportunity
to actually talk with Iain and/or Gina.
More written material will not be forthcoming on this subject and I ask
you to please trust us that we have very clear and unavoidable reasons for
that.”
What are these
very clear and unavoidable reasons???
Why is LG still involved in this? Why has he not left this to GF?? Why
is he afraid to write?? It is all very
suspicious.
On 1 July, David Pratten emails Team3/GF/KO, “I am
writing today to ask that you submit your decision to dismiss Kelly O’Donnell from
YWAM to the kind of independent review envisaged in the formal stages of the
“Guidelines” processes for handling “grievances”. I submit this to you respectfully, aware of
the weight that we as leaders carry in situations like this. I write today as a fellow YWAM leader and I
thank you for your willingness to shoulder this load on behalf of us all… I am fully aware of how we as YWAM leaders
“bend over backwards” to ensure that our processes are loving and just and
there are, no doubt, many layers in this situation about which I have no
information. There is much that I do not
understand and I write today on the assumption that your handling of Kelly’s
situation is both just and loving to him and that God’s name is receiving glory
from your process.”
What is the
status of this request??
On 2 July, David informs KO/LG that on 19 May GF
posted the following to the IFMLT forum:
“On the issue of Kelly’s dismissal from YWAM,…Kelly does not want the
details known.” David is asking KO if
this is true and if KO would release GF from this apparent restriction. KO answers David that KMO are not aware of
ever saying anything like this regarding the details of the dismissal. KMO have always called for an independent
review. In a separate email that day to
David, KO offers some of his perspectives, “Privately we wanted to share what
would seem to be a good direction for Y…”
David emails back to KO requesting the two letters that Hollis Lewis
sent to LG and advising KO that he would like to handle this matter in his own
way.
No comments:
Post a Comment