NoGodBlog.com

This is pretty self-explanatory. Once again Ellen is welcomed to post on this blog any time.

In the mean time, we are looking forward and looking up. Change is in the air.

American Atheists asks that this statement be accepted without calls for further explanation.

Sorry, no can do.

Why was there a post saying that Ellen left 'for personal reasons' and now there is a post saying that she was 'involuntarily removed'?

Those two statements strike me as mutually exclusive.

is Ellen still on the board?

The word is she found God.

Be assured that the action taken was in the best interests of the organization and of its membership.

I find it a bit hard to feel "assured" when the person doing the assuring previously posted that Ellen left for personal reasons... still, out of respect for Ellen, I'll refrain from asking any more questions.

Out of deep respect for Ellen Johnson’s many services to American Atheists, in deference to her privacy, and with the desire that her Presidency be remembered favorably by history, American Atheists asks that this statement be accepted without calls for further explanation.

Be assured that the action taken was in the best interests of the organization and of its membership.

So we should accept your word on faith?

That doesn't seem very atheistic to me...

"Someone" who chomochone? We like sources here.

cjn

Wow...it appears that American Atheists is in as much disarray as the democrat party....

By a majority vote of the Board of Directors of American Atheists, Inc, and by a unanimous vote of the Board of Directors of two of the other four corporations, Ellen Johnson was involuntarily removed from the office of President of American Atheists, Inc. and from the office of President of the other four corporations.

My first guess would have been a power grab because of the "majority" vote within AA. However, with the other two voting "unanimously" for her removal, it makes me wonder if there wasn't something much more serious which occurred...

But the dues paying members will never know. Instead the powers at be would rather have their troops speculate instead of knowing the truth...

Wow...it appears that American Atheists is in as much disarray as the democrat party....

By a majority vote of the Board of Directors of American Atheists, Inc, and by a unanimous vote of the Board of Directors of two of the other four corporations, Ellen Johnson was involuntarily removed from the office of President of American Atheists, Inc. and from the office of President of the other four corporations.

My first guess would have been a power grab because of the "majority" vote within AA. However, with the other two voting "unanimously" for her removal, it makes me wonder if there wasn't something much more serious which occurred...

But the dues paying members will never know. Instead the powers at be would rather have their troops speculate instead of knowing the truth...

Sorry for the double post...the AA server appears to have hiccuped...

Yah the older statements were vague just to protect everyone from complications that can arise when a relationship ends. Now it's a little less vague.

But this is pretty easy to read. The President and the Board had major issues and the Board terminated the relationship according to the rules of the organization. Ellen was aware and an active participant in the proceedings. It didn't work out. It happens, and it sucks.

Ellen is still on the Board. Whether she stays is anyone's guess.

I really like Ellen, as do most Atheists I know, but she's not the President anymore. Frank is (for now), and he will take us in the direction that is more agreeable to the board (or they'll remove him too).

She did NOT find religion Chomo. Please do not spread such rumors, even if you are trying to be funny.

I'm not sure which is more eyebrow raising -- the repeated references to AA in terms of a corporation, the or the professed desire for history to be seen for what they'd rather it be, rather than what it is.

The need or want for privacy in this matter is understandable and justified. I think you'll find, though, atheists are far more of a "warts and all" sort of bunch in general, even if it "isn't their business". So much has been concealled in the name of wanting to alter history.

It all depends on who we're viewed, right? If this were a government, we'd have a right to demand it. If this were a corporation, the board members could demand it, the shareholders could demand it. But the customers and the lower employees could not.

Of course, the "customer/employee" paradigm concept isn't accurate in this case since in function, they're one in the same.

Be assured that the action taken was in the best interests of the organization and of its membership.

I'm not assured. I've yet to hear what this "new direction" is that apparently couldn't be accomplished with Ellen at the helm. I'm all for new blood and fresh ideas, but I'd like to think we could trust the AA representatives to be open and honest about what's going on. So far, I don't get that impression. I wouldn't want to think we atheists are being told to "sit down and shut up and not ask questions" by other atheists.

So far, I don't get that impression. I wouldn't want to think we atheists are being told to "sit down and shut up and not ask questions" by other atheists.

Gee Karen...couldn't you have been a bit less inflammatory? After all, Dave is the communications director and simply trying to calm the waters...

I agree Karen. Are we going to hear from CNN first?

This could be nothing, or it could be something.

Rumors are never a good thing.

I am going out on a limb here. I saw her in a couple of interviews and was not impressed. She seemed quite an angry person. Never met her in person so cant' say I know her personally but my opinion is we don’t need another Madeline O’Hair.

Seems there are quite a few well known Atheists out there that are very level headed and can handle the pressure. Very likable people that make their arguments strong and respected. Not emotional. Richard Dawkins is one in particular.

My guess would be Ellen was canned not because she found Jesus, but because she encouraged atheists not to vote. I've heard some felt she really messed up on that comment and since she was the president some took it as she was speaking on behalf of the entire AA organization. I heard a whole lot of members got pissed and sent emails in complaining.

American Atheists also use to be the premier organization for atheists, and some felt that Ellen represented the old guard, so the push for new ideas is to get AA back in the mainstream, and not viewed as a personality cult of O'Hair (much like Rand and her followers). The not-voting comment was the icing on the cake, I'm sure.

A lot of members feel, I think, that there is a lot potential for this organization that just hadn't been utilized. Though it may not have the numbers like FFRF, it is definitely in a place to become that, if it played its cards better. AA is pretty much a household name, or at least it was when O'Hair steered the ship. I think the members want that again, but just not all the drama associated with it. I think the Board knew if it didn't take action, especially since the take off of the New Atheism, AA would be overshadowed by groups like AAI under the leadership of Downey.

Sometimes the deck has to be shuffled a bit.

Shady123,

I like your theory. I was very dismayed about the "don't vote" comment.

I think shady123 may be on to something. Atheism has become a lot more hip in the last couple years and is even beginning to approach mainstream, yet AA seems to have been left in the dust amid all the hype. At least that's been my impression. I have no idea how much that has to do with Ellen's leadership, but it seems like a plausible reason for AA to consider a new direction.

I think Zindler is awesome, or at least his articles are awesome. Looking forward to new era.

phreedm

Wow...it appears that American Atheists is in as much disarray as the democrat party...

Hehe. Well, at least it isn't in as bad a shape as the Republican Party. ;)

Dave

This is not acceptable. I am sick of opacity in our government and I wont accept this authoritarian posture from AA. If we do not get all the facts with respect to the firing then I will drop AA in favor of one of the other free thought organizations.

Eh, I never much cared for Ellen that much anyhow, just kind of a mediocre president in my not-so-humble opinion. What!? So crucify me already!

Seriously though, Frank will probably do something spectacular in his presidency.

Okay, I didn't mean that. Actually, I stand corrected, I guess she's done some great things for AA that I didn't even know about until I went to the AA website. I guess she'll be missed.

Well, it remains to be seen if Zindler will be a better spokesperson than Johnson. I have never seen him, so for the moment I have no judgement.

However, I think it would be a better policy to have fixed terms and maybe term limits, if that is not the case now.

There would be less controversy if at the end of a term, a new person was chosen.

This is the best blog on the web,as long as things can be aired out anyway we want I can deal with it.The waiting is the hard part.

Apparently most of you were not at the convention, as I was. Ellen did NOT tell people not to vote. What she did say was that atheists should band together as a group with lots of voting "power" and THREATEN not to vote if our views are not heard. She explicity said we should vote, but threaten not to. This may be somewhat duplicitous and some may not like it, but these are the facts.

Also, Ellen is far from an angry person and nothing like O'Hair. To the contrary, not only is she warm and friendly and funny, she has done a great deal to unite all the atheist groups and IS a uniter not a divider! (pardon the reference!)

What is the point of all the above speculation as to why this and why that when none of you have any facts and have no idea why this happened. Many of you are making comments re people's behavior and personality while, sometimes admittedly, have never met anyone involved. And, likely, don't participate in any AA activities.

I have great fondness for Ellen personally, think she has done a great deal for the organization. This does not mean it is not time for a new person. Frankly, I don't know, but it would be nice to know what the Board's thoughts are.

Also, for the record, if AA wants to take a new direction, Frank Zindler, while a very dedicated atheist. is not, in my opinion, the person to do it. If change is in order there needs to be much younger blood with new ideas.

Dave Silverman would be a perfect example of this type of new leader. There are many more like him in the organization, all over the country.

please ignore the droll....

I am also with Karen.....open honest integrity is an attribute I would like to find in AA....Religion offers none....the media, especially Fixed Noise, has none....

I appreciate the truth in all that it is.....

My question, Is Ellen still on the board?, has not been answered....

"Ellen your fired, but you can stay on the board if you want"....hmmmmm

Frank-

I'd say it's time to put up or shut up. Obviously, we're aware that a difference in vision existed and that a power struggle took place.

Who do you think you're dealing with, anyway - sheeple?

You're acting president - not the Pope - so don't insult us with this, "...accepted without calls for further explanation" crap.

I suggest that A.A. come clean and publish the list of grievances it had against Ms. Johnson.

If this represents a change in direction for the organization, a revised mission statement is also in order - pronto.

maizie,

Apparently most of you were not at the convention, as I was. Ellen did NOT tell people not to vote. What she did say was that atheists should band together as a group with lots of voting "power" and THREATEN not to vote if our views are not heard.

Maybe that's what she said at the convention, but in a video posted on the American Atheists website 2/5/08 she very specifically said that she didn't vote on Super Tuesday, and she also very specifically encouraged secular voters to stay home during the general election. Nothing about threaten - just don't vote, period, which was a ridiculous thing to say, in my opinion.

However, if the board was so upset about that particular comment, seems like they would have said something many weeks ago. It's got to be something more complicated and/or more serious than that.

The board is under no obligation to reveal the specific details of Johnson's dismissal. Indeed, I would be surprised if they do so. Am I curious? Sure. But this is a private organization, not a publicly elected government agency. Legally and morally, Johnson's right to privacy trumps our curiosity.

The very nature of this organization imposes upon it an obligation to conduct such business IN THE OPEN.

If the reasons for Ms. Johnson's dismissal are valid, that validity should also be self-evident.

Bottom line - The board wants to make some changes in the organization. As a member(?), I'd like to know its plan.

Tarma, Maizie is correct. I was at the convention also. The video may have been misleading, but that was its intent. Ellen was most likely not terminated for that. You are correct, though, in that we may never know, or should know, the facts. A lot of people want closure, but it probably won’t happen. We need to move on.

Ellen should be remembered for the thousands of hours she has sacrificed for all of us during her 13 year presidency – not to mention the 30 years she has been an active member. At the convention I got to talk with Ellen one on one for a while. I found her to be intelligent, witty, caring and sincere - the archetype of an activist and friend. I went there to meet Dawkins and Krauss, but it was my talk with Ellen that was the highlight of the weekend. Don’t forget Ellen has been the voice of AA and taken it in a new positive direction since Madalyn disbanded all of the national franchises and left thousands of atheist stranded without a voice. Many of those disenfranchised former franchises (now the AAI) are still bitter towards AA. Ellen has done much to help heal. Do not forget all that she’s accomplished.

As far as the future of American Atheists goes, we need to step up and help set a new course. There is much that needs to be fixed, but as atheists we need to come together and work to resolve our vicissitudes and work to address our needs. We don’t need another elitist think tank (Center for Inquiry); we already have a voice on Capital Hill (Secular Coalition); the FFRF and AU fight brilliantly when we are wronged. No, we need something more, something to propagate and disseminate our world view. We need an organization to stand up to religion itself – not just the consequences of it. American Atheists can be a great instrument in helping to achieve equality in America, but only if “we” are up for the challenge. We (members) need to continue to voice our opinions and help to shape a plan for the future.

At the end of her speech at the convention, Ellen looked out at all of us and said, “You are the real heroes.”

I believe it was Dave that suggested we don't vote. Or, to be fair, suggested that we not vote for any candidate that doesn't pander to us. And of course since none of them do that amounts to the same thing.

character |?karikt?r| noun
the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual -

fifth column | is a group of people who clandestinely undermine a larger group to which it is expected to be loyal -

To: American Atheists Board of Directors

Through your collective lack of character, in the handling of your firing of Ellen Johnson, you’ve managed to make me ashamed of having been a member of American Atheists.

Through your collective lack of character, in this matter, you’ve gained a reputation for being unworthy of trust.

Through your collective lack of character, in this matter, you’ve done more to substantiate the claim of the religious that Atheists lack moral character than any of the faithful have ever been able to accomplish.

Which leads me to wonder if you are not, collectively a Fifth Column.

Good bye

atheistud@lycos.com

ELLEN WAS FIRED IN A TELEPHONE CALL?!

Oh well, I suppose that's warmer than a Post-It.

Hey, I didn't write the above comment, it's a quote from Deep Diver that I wanted to address. I don't know how to work your #!*!! blog responses yet. Please remove the above comment lest anyone think I wrote it.
I wanted to point out that Ellen is NOT an angry person. She can be angry at CNN and O'Reilly, as can't we all, (and she should be angry at the Board)but she is generally a very grounded person, a good Mom, sister and daughter. She is the face of Atheism that I would like to see projected out there: A soccer Mom who is smart, poised, self-confident, beautiful, determined and dedicated. This is the image I would like to see us identified with, not a bunch of taciturn old Biblical scholars.

As for Madalyn Murray O'Hair, please, some respect. Madalyn was a brilliant lawyer who fought the good fight for us and died for it. She was right for her time. Ellen is right for ours.

" . . . .Ellen is NOT an angry person. She can be angry at CNN and O'Reilly, as can't we all, (and she should be angry at the Board)but she is generally a very grounded person, a good Mom, sister and daughter. She is the face of Atheism that I would like to see projected out there: A soccer Mom who is smart, poised, self-confident, beautiful, determined and dedicated. This is the image I would like to see us identified with, not a bunch of taciturn old Biblical scholars.

As for Madalyn Murray O'Hair, please, some respect. Madalyn was a brilliant lawyer who fought the good fight for us and died for it. She was right for her time. Ellen is right for ours."

Well said, Smartgal. Thank you.

P.S. If you think Ellen Johnson is going to respond to the Board on this blog, think again.

I emailed Ellen a couple of days ago with two words: FIGHT BACK. DON'T QUIT.

This is the response I got back from Ellen:

"Oh. They don't listen to what I have to say. Their minds are made up.
But thanks for your support.
Ellen"
-------------

I apologize to Ellen for disclosing publicly the contents of a personal email but I thought it important for members to know that there is a profound lack of communication between the Board and the president of AA. If the Board doesn't listen to the president of AA, then they certainly aren't going to listen to you or me.
Jane

I agree with Maizie. We have almost no info and speculation is not helpful. What would be helpful is the facts.

The board is under no obligation to reveal the specific details of Johnson's dismissal.

And I am under no obligation to remain a member of AA.

Legally and morally, Johnson's right to privacy trumps our curiosity.

Doesn't trump my pocket book. AA has a lot of explaining to do. I will not tolerate such opacity.

kosmic,

Tarma, Maizie is correct. I was at the convention also. The video may have been misleading, but that was its intent.

Maizie may well be correct about what she heard at the convention. I maintain that the video was absolutely, positively, crystal clear in Johnson stating that she did not vote in the primary, would not vote in the general, and that other secular-minded individuals should not vote in the general election. If you don't believe me, the video is available on Youtube - listen for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHHAeKVgGKs

I don't know Ellen Johnson personally. She "seems" like a nice person, and she probably is. On the other hand, I also know from personal experience that some people are definitely not what they "seem" to be. I am in no position to judge her.

I am trying to look at this situation as a positive opportunity for American Atheists to grow and improve. We shall see.

What,

And I am under no obligation to remain a member of AA.

Doesn't trump my pocket book. AA has a lot of explaining to do. I will not tolerate such opacity.

No argument here. We are all free individuals and will proceed as we deem appropriate. I'm going to wait a while and see how it all shakes out.

Smartgal,

I emailed Ellen a couple of days ago with two words: FIGHT BACK. DON'T QUIT.

4 words?

I apologize to Ellen for disclosing publicly the contents of a personal email but I thought it important for members to know that there is a profound lack of communication between the Board and the president of AA. If the Board doesn't listen to the president of AA, then they certainly aren't going to listen to you or me.

You should apologize to her. I find that unconscionable.

You don't know the whole story here, and repeating her statement, likely made in frustration and/or anger, cannot help this situation.

What's this "in deference to her privacy" crap in your statement about Ellen's firing, Frank? First you very publicly fire her, then you say you can't tell us why "in deference to her privacy?"

Is the real reason you can't you tell us WHY she was fired is that you are afraid we might knock down your reasons with simple rational thinking?

Ellen's life is an open book. She has never been big on "privacy." In every AA Solstice party I've been to in New Jersey, Ellen drew in her Mom, her sisters, at least one of her kids and her Main Squeeze (as she calls him), Bart.

Compared to Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Ellen's life is an outstanding example of decorum.

I talked briefly with Ellen at the 2007 Seattle convention and of course observed her in action the whole time. I was impressed by her as I was by the speakers and the general caliber of everyone involved.

As a membership organization, I think the board does owe us a more definitive explanation of what precipitated the “involuntary removal” from office.

I personally find it amazing that Ellen was willing to serve as president for 17 years. I serve on a number of boards as a volunteer and generally find that I need a break after five or six years.

Ellen came to the presidency under very trying conditions, to put it mildly. I for one feel we owe her a great deal of gratitude.

Smartgal,

What's this "in deference to her privacy" crap in your statement about Ellen's firing, Frank? First you very publicly fire her, then you say you can't tell us why "in deference to her privacy?"

So, if you got fired, you'd be okay with your employer telling everyone all the details? I don't think so. An employer does have an obligation to maintain an employee's privacy. It's not like they could keep the fact that she is no longer president a secret, but I don't understand this overiding interest in all the gossipy details. Well, I understand it, but that doesn't make it right.

I think a better analogy would be if Congress had closed session and fired the Speaker of the House -- and then didn't tell anyone why.

All corporation speak aside...

"You should apologize to her. I find that unconscionable," says Tarma about my releasing Ellen's response to me after she points out that I sent 4 words to Ellen, not two: FIGHT BACK, DON'T QUIT.

(OK, I sent 4 words. I had previously PUBLICLY RELEASED only 2 of the words I sent to Ellen, "FIGHT BACK.")

I HAVE indeed apologized to Ellen for disclosing her response. It's right there in my comment! But I am wise enough (I'm Smartgal) to realize that the greater good, for both Ellen and AA, is that the we all know that there has been virtually no significant communication between the Board and Ellen.

That tells me a lot. It tells me that Ellen has probably been confronting this animosity for 13 years. It tells me that they have probably been looking for something to nail her on.

This Freedom Walk (which a lot of members had approved of and backed financially) was initially approved by the Board, was it not? So now they disapprove of it? Then they fire her for doing it? On the telephone? If that doesn't sound like a set-up, I don't know what is.
----------
I'm also amazed and amused that they fired Ellen by phone. LIKE I SAID BEFORE, IT'S PROBABLY A WARMER GESTURE THAN A POST-IT.

But I can think of an even more notable way: Why not send a runner to catch up with Ellen in Alabama, carrying a laminated letter saying, YOU'RE FIRED. The two letters (one from Bill Moore) might even reach the guv'nor in Jackson, Miss. at the same time. What a lark it would be if the governor got the wrong letter by mistake? I'd love to see his face reading YOU'RE FIRED in front of a forest of TV cameras. Might be the best thing AA could ever do for Mississippi.

But not for Ellen.

Smartgal,

the greater good, for both Ellen and AA, is that the we all know that there has been virtually no significant communication between the Board and Ellen.

That tells me a lot. It tells me that Ellen has probably been confronting this animosity for 13 years. It tells me that they have probably been looking for something to nail her on.

You are merely speculating. You don't know anything of the sort, and it seems to me that you are intentionally trying to inflame the issue. You may be perfectly correct for all I know, and maybe the entire AA board is composed of horrible, unfeeling, and conspiratorial ogres, but "probably this" and "probably that" doesn't mean squat. How about some facts? You know, the things that we atheists like to base decisions on?

If Ms. Johnson wants to enlighten the general public about her situation, she will do so herself. I still maintain that the board should rightly be constrained by privacy concerns on her behalf. So sue me.

Tarma says: "So, if you got fired, you'd be okay with your employer telling everyone all the details? I don't think so. An employer does have an obligation to maintain an employee's privacy."

But Tarma, I would like to point out that WE ARE ALL ELLEN'S EMPLOYERS by financially supporting AA.

As employers, we don't want to see a good employee go just because a colleague is jealous of him. As employers, we would want to know what an employee did to justify his firing.

Speaking as someone with some corporate experience, I have seen some excellent employees fired because a rival with lesser credentials set him up. It's done all the time. It's called office politics. Or now, the fancier name is "corporate psychodynamics."

You disclose your naivitee' and inexperience with "corporate-speak" when you mention gossip,Tarma. In the corporate world, it's known as "information," and you'd better know it or you'll never get ahead. Only housewives call it "gossip." That's because housewives are generally isolated and thus have no psychodynamic use for sub-rosa information. Besides, their husbands don't want them to have this information. It's another way of keeping housewives subordinate.

Ellen is operating in a corporate-like world. Boards of Directors are mirrors of the corporate world. Yes, we are like the stockholders, as someone on this Blog has already pointed out. And we, as responsible stockholders, want to know what's going on now with what appears to be at this point, the Enron of Atheism.

Tarma says: "I still maintain that the board should rightly be constrained by privacy concerns on her behalf. So sue me."

The Board must love you, Tarma. I bet they wish all of us would roll over like this and not ask any probing questions.

Dumbgal,

You are a loon.

The members of American Atheists are not Ellen Johnson's "employers." Give me a break.

I have decades of "corporate experience." Besides several other corporate positions, I worked for 20 years for a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. I dealt directly with the board, with the executive director, with other employees, with volunteers, with members, and with outside agencies. I am perfectly familiar with office politics. Some of us try to rise above it and actually follow prescribed personnel policies. So, take your housewives comment and shove it.

If you want to label your idle speculation as "information," go right ahead, dear. Still sounds like "gossip" to me.

We (members of American Atheists) are NOT like stockholders in any real sense of the word. Talk about naivete....

Holy shit, now you've got me using Phreeky's ellipsis :)

Here’s my email from Ellen

From: elljhns8@aol.com
Subject: Re: SignOnSanDiego.com News Nation
Date: April 30, 2008 8:46:05 PM PDT
To: robinarmour@cox.net

Hi Robin,

  I will no longer be available next week.  The board fired me last night.  Sorry.

Regards,

Ellen


That would be the night of Tuesday, April 29th, she was fired, one whole week into “the walk”.

The Board of Directors, or their selected spokesperson, collectively lacked the maturity and character to face a highly capable individual with a mountain of maturity and character to tell her to her face what they had decided. The Board acted as a bunch of despicable weasels, and if this is what we’ve had all along as a Board, it’s time to clean house, starting with the current Board, with the obvious exception of Ellen.

What a colossal embarrassment is this Board.

atheistud@lycos.com

Look, I am not especially trying to defend the board. Indeed, from the outside looking in, the entire matter seems to have been handled rather poorly. If wrongdoing on the part of the board is proven, I will be among the loudest to protest. I am just trying to be objective, and I think that rash speculation and hyperbole are not helping the situation.

I may not be the only one making an apology this week.

Instead of fighting with each other in this information void I prefer demanding that light be shown into the void. I hope that Dave is communicating to the board what is going on in this NoGodBlog microcosm of the American Atheist community.

What,

It IS getting a little deep in here :)

Let there be light (pardon the expression).

There hasn't been any further update on the AA homepage. Without giving us information, I don't know how the board expects to quell speculation. Perhaps we, as members, are not entitled to full disclosure on the firing story, but if there is some problem in the organization that asks for our monetary and sometimes physical support, shouldn't we be advised of that? I'm trying to remain objective while waiting for facts. The questions won't go away if the board tries to out-wait our curiosity. But my membership might.

I still want to know, WHAT is this "new direction" the board wants to take? It should be simple to communicate it to us, since it must have taken shape before Ellen was dismissed.

Karen (and others),

You might find this interesting...

http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=347&article=0

indler doesn't foresee any change in mission with Johnson's departure . "Our central focus has been defending the rights of atheists in America. We have had to be strong separationists," he said.

I was hoping AA would be concentrating on issues specific to atheists and leave the separation of church and state to those organizations that do it so much better.

I think Ellen has done a great deal to advance our cause. My question however may seem a bit trivial, but how is the Bill Moore march going. Is it going to be completed regardless of Ellen's status at AA or will this issue die. I hope it will be finished. I thought it was a very noble cause.

I think someone (some organization) should make a habit of buying ad space on TV and run subtle informational ads like the LDS does. Or maybe not-so-subtle like the anti-cigarette "Truth" ads.

With the exception of lawsuits (which are needed), it seems like all AA and most similar organizations accomplish is preaching to the choir.

We need to get people to understand, emphasize, even, with athiests, and it has to be in their face. And no, going on a show like the O'Reily Factor doesn't count. There's a fine line between being an ambassador to the public and being a caged monkey on display.

We must remember that Ellen stepped forward and accepted the reins of Presidency at a time of uncertainty and confusion. Nobody knew what had happened to the O’Hara’s and the rumors were rampant. She had hoped that she was maintaining the organization until their return, but sadly that was not the case when it was discovered that the family was murdered. She did an excellent job in holding the organization together for 13 years. We should respect her for her contribution. Something happened that made the board come to this difficult decision. They did it for what they believe was in the best interest of the organization as a whole. We should respect them for putting aside their personal feelings about Ellen and doing what was best for American Atheists. My guess is that they didn’t reveal it was a firing out of respect for Ellen and for the organization. They were trying to be discreet. Something like this creates chaos in the minds of the membership. But the firing came out anyway, so they had to make a statement. The reasons for the firing may or may not ever come out to the public. My guess is that there may be legal issues to contend with. There is also Ellen’s character and the character of the organization to consider.

Frank has a very difficult and trying time ahead of him. He should be commended for stepping up and accepting the role of acting President at this time. We as members should give him and the board our support as they try to find a new permanent leader for us. It is our organization, an organization of volunteers. It is in our best interests to put this behind us and move forward. We need to help them make this organization strong.

The story will come out when the time is appropriate, until then, I will accept what has happened and move forward. It is not going to be un-done. I believe in American Atheists and what the organization stands for. I offer the board my support.

Look folks, this isn't nearly as complex as you're making it out to be.

1) Ellen was on the phone, as was every other member of the board in attendance(individually). Most board meetings (except the one at the convention) are held on a conference bridge as a normal course of action. Ellen was present (on the phone) during the discussion, and she had ample opportunity to debate. There was no ambush, and no surprise. Everything was above board and in accordance with the by-laws of the organization.

2) Boards select presidents to serve at their discretion. When the board chooses, they change presidents. This has been done before, and will happen again in the many non-profit and for-profit organizations out there. It will happen again at American Atheists, since this is one of only two ways to change leadership (the other being the president resigning).

3) It is completely reasonable for the board to withhold the details of the discussion. Indeed, for legal as well as ethical reasons, they MUST not reveal certain details. You all should know and understand this. We CAN'T give more info -- it would be the wrong thing to do for everyone. Think of how unproductive it would be for this to devolve into a he said / she said mudfest. That's how time gets wasted and opportunities get overlooked.

4) We CAN tell you that she didn't get religion, has not been accused of a crime, has done great things for this cause, and we are very pleased to have had such a talented and vital leader for so long.

5) Bill Moore Walk updates are available here http://alabamaatheist.org/fw2k8

Dave

Thanks for the info in regards to how the firing took place.

Most board meetings (except the one at the convention) are held on a conference bridge as a normal course of action. Ellen was present (on the phone) during the discussion, and she had ample opportunity to debate.

But this was not your run of the mill meeting. She deserves far more respect. This troubles me greatly.

Boards select presidents to serve at their discretion. When the board chooses, they change presidents. This has been done before, and will happen again in the many non-profit and for-profit organizations out there.

Yes, but functional organizations usually have orderly transitions. And now we have a president that says he doesn't want the job. This transition process is not inspiring confidence in AA. I think it would be a mistake to dig in and take an authoritarian stance with respect to revealing how the organization came to this.

Dave-et al-

Regardless of the "proper" legalities of firing Ellen, it was wrong to do it in the middle of her walk. That was very disrespectful. Surely the Board could have waited another week or two.

That said, I agree that it is time to move on. It is not up to the Board to disclose further details of the firing. That would be up to Ellen should she decide to do it.

However, the Board should make some sort of statement as to what direction they hope AA to be taking, what are their goals, etc. I assume they formulated these ideas prior to firing Ellen or what would be the need to fire her at this time? It would be helpful to the organization if they revealed in what direction they want to take the organization, etc. Also, as you have said previously, this wasn't done on a whim so why would it take long to appoint a new President? One would hope this would have been discussed prior to firing the old President.

Again, it IS time to move on but to where???

May I suggest the freedom from religion foundation.

ffrf.org

Oh, I didn't mean move on away from AA. (I'm already a member of FFRI). I meant the AA org should move on but in what direction are they moving? I think it is a mistake to abandon AA, esp now. Kinda fickle!

A statement from Ellen is requested by me. I appreciate you being the middle man Dave cause it's really ugly right now.

You're being an excellent ombudsman, Dave. While still providing the best forum for the most open leadership discussion that AA has ever known in its 45-year history.

Can I assume that in the months to come, you'll be more involved at the central office, as well, since Frank lives in Ohio?

Jeff R., in the other, "transition time" thread, suggests that AA do a print mailing to get suggestions from its offline members. I too am an advocate for such inclusion: In my experience, one-third of freethought-group members aren't online at ALL, and the participants of Nogodblog are a small fraction among those who ARE online. But mailings are ruinously expensive and slow, with low return rates.

I am Gil Gaudia. My wife Jeanne and I have been editorial assistants for the past two years at American Atheists. In doing so, we have worked closely with Ellen Johnson whom we respect and admire greatly. We have also had telephone and email contact with a few of the board members, especially with regard to editing their manuscripts. We were not impressed with their interpersonal skills. I have also contributed several articles to the magazine. We have just concluded an hour long telephone conversation with Ellen.

We are extremely biased in her favor, because we found her to be hard-working, honest, courageous, competent and caring of us and appreciative of our volunteer contributions.

This board’s action, in our opinion, will almost certainly result in the end of the organization and publication as we know it. We say this because, from first-hand experience we are aware of the number of hours, the amount of coordination and the knowledge of the operation that are all required to successfully produce a monthly publication, and we have no evidence that any of the board members are willing and able to invest that degree of commitment. Indeed, we have some reason to believe that the opposite is true. To those members who propose hiring Dawkins, Hitchins, Harris and others for the presidency, first see if they’ll agree to work for 38K, or thereabouts, in addition to doing latrine duty in their spare time.

For the board of directors of the most well-known Atheist group in America to have taken such a suicidal action is incomprehensible, but whatever their reasons, unless the
members protest strongly and demand her reinstatement, (which she may not even want) it will only be a matter of time before we no longer have an organization to uphold the civil rights of Atheists.

As a contributor of many articles to this magazine, and as volunteers in editing other journal articles, spending many hours of our time in assisting Ellen in producing this publication, we are no longer interested in writing, editing or assisting in any way a magazine whose board has acted in such an irresponsible, unfair and self-destructive manner.

Gil and Jeanne R. Gaudia

In the spirit of making the best of an ugly situation, Here's an animated AA logo I made yesterday (can be used as a screen background).
Enjoy...

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a157/kiedd/AALogoFinal.gif

I have never met Ellen Johnson, but I have close relatives who know her and think very highly of her, for her many contributions, for her devotion, for her intellect, and for the work she has done over her long career in this very important organization. They have come to know Ellen quite well in their work with her, and have come to respect and admire her.

I am old enough to remember the earlier days of the firebrand MMO, who was loved and needed at that time. As in many new movements, a radical is always necessary, but as times change, needs change. And then we had Ellen, who brought a new face and new demeanor.

I've had the pleasure of watching Ellen on various t.v. shows, with O'Reilly, and others, and I think she brought a new sophistication, warmth and presence to the American Atheists organization which was lacking. I was proud to be able to say she represented me and my views. I did not see her as angry (don't Atheists have a bona fide right to be angry?...tsk tsk to the blogger who commented...are you afraid of female anger?) but assertive and forthright.

I think this situation is a shame, and an insult to all of us who have followed Ellen on the road to opening doors which have heretofore been closed. And no explanation as to what will follow is a further insult. Maybe an explanation is in order.

Nancy Jensen, Licensed Psychologist, lifelong Atheist

Jie

Hey, that's nice.

Tha Nancy and Gil. I hope the board is paying attention to what is being said on this blog. It's time to pull back the veil. Certainly this can be done in a manner that does not expose AA to unhelpful outside influences.

Tha -> Thanks

Quoting myself:

"Certainly this can be done in a manner that does not expose AA to unhelpful outside influences."

This is THE concern, is it not?

Having read the various threads over the last few weeks - I have decided to chime in with a few comments - which I'm sure I'll regret.

Nothing sucks the fun out of doing work with a volunteer organization like members who think their yearly membership entitles them to immediate responses in chat rooms - especially in this case as if Ellen was drawing a salary - there may be strict laws regarding disclosure of dismissal. In the state of Washington - if I lay someone off I can say "yes, they worked here. From these dates". I can say whether or not I would re-hire. Thats it.

I have done work with a local non-profit - and by far the worst thing was the constant snipping of people during an already busy time of the org. People who thought their $40 yearly donation or membership gave them any other rights - other than a big thank you and a "if you have input - please make it to the next planning meeting of X, or show up and set up chairs, etc." That, and if requested the by-laws of the org need to be available - which in most cases are long and boring and entirely legal. Its was constant whining crap like that that sucked whatever bit of soul I had left. I watched as people excited to help out where sucked dry by a few in the community - and realized it was a very thankless job - and this was for a yearly festival - not an on-going magazine, daily blog, and frequent TV appearances.

Everyone wants to give advice - very very very few want to give up a weekend a month - or 20 hours a month - every month - doing what needs to be done to keep the org going.

Nothing sucks the fun out of doing work for a volunteer organization like members who threaten to "leave" when something pops up such as this (leadership change, management change, festival change, logo change, magazine frequency change, advertising change). Really - your hundred bucks was appreciated - but if your interest in the group is so fickle as to threaten to leave the org then certainly - leave.

I'm a life member and when I sent that check in - it was with the hope it was put to good use - but I in no way expect to be pandered to, especially during what is effectively a re-org.

For whatever reason, the board made a decision to remove a very public and active and well-liked person from the top position. We do not have the full story and it really is none of our business. The board has made a decision. As in any such thing - they don't need to come out 5 days after beginning to change things and give the members a blow-by blow outline of what they plan. Instead - it is our job to volunteer time and $ if it is a cause we support - and wait a year. Next year at this time - if is thriving (or not) we as members can then make a more informed decision as to whether the board had a sound plan in place when they chose such drastic action.

As for the actual removal of Ellen, it is up to her to make a public statement if she so choses. Having friends relay messages with tidbits of info to the blog is only continuing to rile the membership - when she knows the entire "other side of the story" and could immediately stop all speculation if she so chose to.

The above rant said - it does seem a bit of a "F&*% You" to inform someone they have been forced out while they are out of town. It is probably not a new issue - and it probably wasn't unexpected - but it is a bit like firing someone right before the holidays. Was it so hard to wait another couple weeks?

So, a reorg has happened - and there are still good people like Dave volunteering at AA. So, unless Ellen comes out with a juicy tell-all book, why don't we just wait and see what happens?

And - for those of you who don't think this is a volunteer org - I doubt AA has enough funds to properly fully compensate any of their workers.

especially in this case as if Ellen was drawing a salary - there may be strict laws regarding disclosure of dismissal

Frank Zindler stated in the letter above that Ellen was fired. In the original post, the board used deliberatively deceptive language (read: lied). The board could have, and should have, been honest. If it had been, there would still be people (myself included) that were angry with the decision, but those people would probably be a lot less angry than they are now.

like members who think their yearly membership entitles them to immediate responses in chat rooms

We wouldn't be so demanding if the board had been honest in the first place. Also, this is a blog, not a chat room.

they don't need to come out 5 days after beginning to change things and give the members a blow-by blow outline of what they plan. Instead - it is our job to volunteer time and $ if it is a cause we support - and wait a year. Next year at this time - if is thriving (or not) we as members can then make a more informed decision as to whether the board had a sound plan in place when they chose such drastic action.

The board fired AA's longtime president. Its members better have had a sound plan in place before they made their decision. After being lied to (and seeing little reason for the firing), I need to know where the organization is going (at least basically) before I give my support. I find your suggestion that we should trust the board on blind faith to be ridiculous.

but it is a bit like firing someone right before the holidays. Was it so hard to wait another couple weeks?

That's one of the main problems. The board was unnecessarily cruel and either incompetent (not realizing this would fan the flames), conniving, or apathetic.

Eric

I think you are missing the point that many of us here are making. This was a very disorderly transition of power. This shakes one's confidence in AA and once that is gone so go the memberships. One does not rebuild confidence with opacity and authoritarian decrees. This is especially the case where atheists and freethinkers are concerned.

"Ellen Johnson was involuntarily removed"

Big mistake. Terrible mistake. I'm disappointed and disgusted.

Eric – I can totally relate to your rant. I have donated more hours and dollars to this volunteer organization and a few others I belong to than I could afford to. I’ve burnt myself out more than a few times over the years. The people who do nothing always want more and more from the people who do something.

I stepped up after MMO disappeared and I will step up after the firing of Ellen if the board needs or wants anything from me. I liked Ellen as I’m sure most if not all of the board members did. What’s done is done and now is the time that they need our support more than ever before. They are all volunteers also. They all have personal lives outside of AA which takes up their time, energy and money.

American Atheists is our organization and it is only as strong as its membership. The religious organizations would love to see us fall apart.

The decision to fire Ellen must have been a very difficult and heart wrenching one for the board. It was not a flip decision and they must have had good reasons to come to that decision. At this point in time we are not privy to their reasons because of legal and ethical reasons. So be it.

I will miss Ellen, but I now will back Frank. I hope the board takes their time and selects a good, effective President for us.

Plus, Ellen just had a birthday a couple of weeks ago. Really bad timing.

What an infovoid!

Not good. Not good at all!

American Atheists has been a communist popular front organization for many years. MMO was rightfully skepital of jews and other zionists. EJ turned the business over to jew supremacists. The attempt to emulate the 1950-60s communist activities in Mississippi must've really pissed off the jews. Civil rights are for negroes and other non-whites under the guiding hand of the ADL, SPLC and other bonafide anti-white hate groups (to borrow a Marxist term). American Atheists under Johnson was critical of Christians and sometimes Muslims but never a truthful word about the Chosenites could be uttered.

Typically, when an employee is fired, the employer offers hush money to not disclose any opinions about why they were fired. Many times, the employee is in need of the money and agrees.

Sometimes there is something issue or event that is potentially embarassing but not illegal, and the employer and employee both agree to keep mum.

Either of these, or something else, could be why an official statement with more information was not made available. If it's hush money, it's a real shame. A simple two-sentence explanation could make things very clear.

That said, in the face of no illegalities, it is difficult to understand why this had to be an immediate removal -- unless all parties wanted it to be immediate. And in that case, even that could have been stated.

On the surface, it's bad form.