While Center For Inquiry Transnational has been caught in the midst of a foreseeable PR nightmare following Ron Lindsay’s comments and subsequent statements at the Women In Secularism 2 conference, Centre for Inquiry Canada has been caught up in their own, unrelated but ill-timed, controversy as news broke this week that National Executive Director Michael Payton had been relieved of his duties.
What follows will be the story I’ve pieced together from a few sources over the past couple days. I haven’t been directly involved in CFI Canada for the past couple years and really have no horse in this race. I’ve met Michael a couple times and he’s seemed like a reasonable guy – what I can also say for the few board member’s I’ve met (who unfortunately are all guys). I’m going to try to be unbiased but I undoubtedly have my view of things.
If you have no interest in intraskeptical politics, perhaps you may want to skip on this post.
First, the official announcement that came from CFI Canada’s Board of Director’s late last night.
Announcement from the Board of Directors
Dear Freethinkers,
After serious consideration, the Board of Directors of CFI Canada made the decision early last week to relieve National Director Michael Payton of his duties. A management team is in place and the search for a new National Director is under way. If you have specific questions, please contact [email protected]
Michael played an integral role in the transition of CFI Canada over the past year. We appreciate his dedication to the principles of CFI Canada and wish him well in his future endeavours.
CFI Canada will be launching a new website shortly and its Vancouver ad campaign this summer. Look for the opening of new and revitalized branches during the coming year.
Board of Directors
Centre for Inquiry, Canada
I had been asked a few months ago to consider pushing to become a possible replacement for Michael at the national level this fall. Based on my having no desire to lead a national organization (take a quick look at the histories of CFI Canada and Humanist Canada to see the entirely new set of challenges that job creates to understand why), the continued and growing success here in BC, and my plans to head to the UK for a year in the fall, I turned the suggestion down. The point however, is that there was a sense of disappointment at the Board level with Michael’s leadership.
I can’t really speak at all to this. Most Western Canadian CFI branch leaders seemed to be very supportive of Michael but I guess there were a number of issues in Toronto between Michael and the various directors. Couple that with a desire to have a more charismatic leader and the Board had decided at some point to not renew Michael’s contract when it expired this fall.
The issue that expedited the process though was an incident with one previous CFI Ontario director. She had resigned, giving a month’s notice, to pursue a full-time opportunity and another job. Things came to a head and Michael decided to fire her a week before she was scheduled to depart. He then proceeded to turn up at her other workplace, demanding the keys to the CFI Toronto office. The move left the former staffer feeling quite threatened and led to the Board deciding to remove Michael sooner than planned. Recognizing his work for the organization through some pretty turbulent times, he was fired without cause, allowing him access to a severance package.
The new Board, which was elected this past weekend (and is essentially the same faces as the previous Board), now has the difficult task of finding someone to take over a national organization which shares a name with a fairly tarnished brand in the USA and has its own long history of controversy in Canada.
Couple this with CFI’s corporate structure which means only about a dozen the 34 people that are Associate Members are able to vote and run for the Board and the entire thing is quite messy.
Update 20 June 2013: I received the exact number of Associate Members by email, so I adjusted it. I didn’t intend it to sound so small, but I knew it was not on par with the hundreds or thousands of people who are ‘Friends of the Centre.’
Wow, is this really the story they’re telling people?
The idea that Michael forced out the former Ontario director and then went to her other job to intimidate her is utter poppycock. He was invited over there. The reason he asked her to leave was because she was exhibiting aggressive, hostile and potentially harassing behavior towards him and other office employees, including the new Ontario director, a transwoman. Both Michael’s assistant and the new director wrote complaints to the board about her behavior and were accused of lying. She was asked to leave as a last resort. This isn’t some sort of big secret either. The new Ontario director has ALREADY resigned. I’m sure that, being an eyewitness to the recent events, she’ll tell you the same story that I just told.
Also, isn’t it funny how the board never got rid of Trottier after years of complaints against him, yet they got rid of the National Director who saved the organization in a heartbeat after a single complaint? The person they’ve put in charge during the transition is no other than Trottier himself. It all seems rather fishy to me.
A number of CFI Canada branch leaders petitioned for the board to step down and their efforts were blown off. I suspect that Ontario soon won’t be the only branch short a director. The fact of that matter is that without the work that Michael did, that organization arguably wouldn’t exist. Getting rid of him was foolish. Getting rid of him the way they did… well, that’s just disgusting.
The story that Trottier was put back in charge was denied by several people, unless you know otherwise… As far as I’ve heard he’s on a reduced contract to the end of July doing a bit of fundraising and small communications work, after which he’ll be a volunteer and the Board has no intention of hiring him.
I Was present when Michael phoned Jaimy to tell her he was bringing her possessions and final paycheque. He was professional, businesslike. Firm but polite. He told her he would meet her anywhere she wanted to give her those things and get the office keys back. He met one of her co workers outside her place of business and made the exchange with no trouble. Any claim that Michael was out of line in the least is completely and utterly false. I was completely shocked when the board took action against Michael. Both his assistant t and I wrote letters to the board attesting to the facts stated above. The board ignored those letters and completely disregarded the branch directors letter of support of Michael and the request that the board step down. I resigned my position because I could not work for an organization that was run so very badly. The board needs to be fired and a new board installed immediately. They have done incalculable harm to both Michael and CFI Canada.
As usual things change when you hear both sides. Why on earth would anyone believe this board after the string of disasters they have overseen. The incident repeated here by Ian is simply not true as stated. It is a board concocted story meant to dis michael. They have no leg to stand on here and defending this kind of disgusting treatment of an employee is unfortunate and sad. Let’s keep in mind that they have done this 3 times in the last 2 years. Just when you think things are going well the board of CFI rears it’s ugly head and creates another crisis. You really think that’s responsible or prudent?
I have no idea if the allegations made by Jaimy are true. I’ve heard people on both sides saying that they have “reliable witnesses,” and I just don’t have access to the kind of information I’d need to have anything close to an informed opinion.
However, this keeps getting characterized as “out-of-the-blue,” the firing of an employee with a good track record. And that is simply not true. Even as an interim director, Michael Payton had multiple HR complaints filed against him. Maybe he’s a total sweetheart to some people, but to others he has been bullying and vindictive. Honestly, the incident with Jaimy, as I’ve heard it described, does not sound at all out of character with what I’ve seen from him. (And, yes, I can provide documentation – Ian, if it’s something you’d want to pursue or if you just feel you need more information before forming an opinion. You have my e-mail.)
Aside from that, Michael Payton has pretty consistently not done his job, forcing volunteers to pick up the slack. Over and over again, he has been assigned specific tasks by the board and has completely failed to deliver. It’s not like these were impossible tasks, either. I’m talking about things as simple as “let us know if all our associate members have up-to-date memberships” – something that would take a normal employee about half a minute. As for having saved the organization, that’s not exactly how I would describe his work. When we put on the Eschaton conference, we had to fight Michael every step of the way. Heck, he even tried to make us cancel nearly all of our speakers two weeks before the conference and replace them with a short list of (all men) that he (and, I believe, Justin) had put together. The only reason we were able to go ahead as planned was because we appealed to the board – informing them that we’d have to offer a reimbursement to everyone who had bought tickets if we’re going to make changes that substantial.
Every step of the way, he has interfered with our ability to run our branch. Just as another example, we wanted to put on kid-focused programming starting this summer, but first we needed to know how many kids were in our community, what their ages were, and what the parents want from the activities. We figured a member survey would be a great way to figure that out. We asked Michael for a list of Ottawa members in *December*. We still haven’t received it, despite multiple reminders. I don’t even know if he still has a membership list – though I know he certainly hasn’t been sending out reminders to people who have lapsed. Keeping up with the memberships is one of the core duties of the NED, and so is providing this kind of low-level support to the branches.
If we’re going to say that he’s saved the organization, I really need specifics because that’s not how it looks from my vantage point. At all.
So yeah, maybe this thing with Jaimy was all a misunderstanding or a fabrication on her part, and maybe Michael really is innocent. But the truth is that he rightfully should have been fired a year ago. Better yet, he should have never been made NED after his performance as interim director. The Jaimy incident – if true – is pennies compared to the weight of the argument against him as a suitable NED.
As for the Justin business, that scares me. The guy has been fired twice for misconduct. Heck, he’s technically fired right now, yet still receiving a paycheque. And yet, for some reason, he’s being left as the defacto head of CFI? Apparently, Kevin Smith is denying this, but I’m a bit too jaded at this point not to wonder if this really is his great coup.
You are making serious allegations.
Do you have a real name or are you going to hide your allegations behind an anonymous moniker like a coward?
Otherwise your statements have no weight, zero.
Come out, come out, whoever you are…
“Those are some pretty serious allegations. Is there a way for me to contact you to confirm what you’ve said?”
Pretty much everyone on the Board – and certainly Michael himself – know what my real name is. And even if they didn’t, I think it’d be rather easy for them to guess based on what I’ve said here. However, since this has to do with issues of harassment, I’m sure you’d understand why I wouldn’t necessarily want my name to be “out there.”
If you do really want to find out if my claims are true, I would be more than happy to speak with you and provide you with documentation. If you are just trying to call me names and find reasons to dismiss what I have to say, I just don’t have the energy to deal with that kind of drama these days.
Theo Bromine – That’s good to hear, but we’ve seen this before, such as when we were told that Michael Payton was absolutely only going to be a permanent director (and that one of the reasons he was picked as an interim was because he had an “expiry date” in the form of another job and therefore wouldn’t be polluting the search for the new NED), or when Justin was fired the first time (or, really, the second time – the announcement had put a very firm date on his departure and Justin merely added that he would be “willing” to stay on in a different capacity if asked – the fact that is still collecting a paycheque suggests several unflattering possible narratives for what happened). While it’s good that the Board does seem to understand that these are issues – hence the specific time limits – I know you’ll understand if I wait and see what happens before getting my hopes up.
It’s weird to me that the only branch complaining about Michael appears to be Ottawa, which happens to be a branch that has seemed to have had conflicts with the National office for years, even before Michael came to power. Why aren’t other branch leaders and volunteers making similar claims to yours? Why, in fact, did they petition to have the board stepped down and have Michael reinstated?
I have seen you going around on blog comment sections making serious allegations against Michael and the National office for a long time without much proof. The fact that you make conjectures in your post about he and Justin intentionally creating a speaker lineup of “all men” for the Ottawa conference indicates that you know little about Michael’s character (and less so what behaviors would be “consistent” with it) and little about what the situation in the National office was. Justin, in fact, did very little in his communications director role and was at odds with Michael every step of the way. That also should give you some indication as to why Michael may have had difficulty meeting all of your little demands.
If you want proof that Michael saved the organization, look to the fact that the organization still exists. If you remember correctly, it was falling apart at the seems two years ago, with people quitting left and right and a board that could barely function without feuding.
The fact that you are equating “both sides” claims to have reliable witnesses is a bit offensive. Janice, the other woman in this thread, IS in fact, one of the eyewitnesses to the Jaimy incident. She is also one of the people who prompted Michael to take action against Jaimy because her behavior was abusive. The board did nothing about these complaints of harassment. They kept Trottier around for years even though everyone hated him, he destroyed the organization financially, he was a out and proud MRA and he was consistently aggressive, hostile and a bigger liability than Michael ever was.
You expect me to believe for a second that the board fired Michael (without ever actually giving an official cause, I might add) because they were concerned because he had HR complaints lodged against him? I don’t. Judging from this board’s behavior regarding Justin, then Jaimy, I don’t believe it for a second.
“It’s weird to me that the only branch complaining about Michael appears to be Ottawa, which happens to be a branch that has seemed to have had conflicts with the National office for years, even before Michael came to power.”
What conflicts did we have before Michael? We had some members advise the board that it was a bad idea to re-hire someone who had been fired (for security reasons if nothing else), but we had no issues with Justin while he was NED, and I certainly don’t recall any problems with Derek Pert (note that I am not claiming that either of these were perfect, or even better than Michael. Merely that I don’t recall Ottawa having been affected by any issues at HQ at that point). I own the possibility that I could just be blanking – do you have any examples?
“Why aren’t other branch leaders and volunteers making similar claims to yours? Why, in fact, did they petition to have the board stepped down and have Michael reinstated?”
I have absolutely no idea. I would assume that it’s because – for whatever reason – they didn’t have the same experiences that we did. I’m really not interested in trying to guess at why that might be.
“I have seen you going around on blog comment sections making serious allegations against Michael and the National office for a long time without much proof.”
I have always offered to give it, but no one has yet taken me up on the offer. I think I know who you are and would be more than happy to pass some of my e-mail exchanges with Michael on to you so you can judge for yourself.
The reason I don’t post everything is because there’s a lot, and it’s one of those “death by a thousand cuts” issues where one or two examples might not look like much but – taken together – I feel that it shows a pattern. Not only that, but some of it involves ongoing issues and some issues that I’m not allowed to discuss publicly by law. But if you don’t mind getting a gigantic wall of text, I would be more than happy to send you what I can.
“The fact that you make conjectures in your post about he and Justin intentionally creating a speaker lineup of “all men” for the Ottawa conference indicates that you know little about Michael’s character”
I don’t believe I made any conjectures. I said that – two weeks before the conference – Michael, Justin, and the board told us to replace most of our speakers (and a good number of the women) with a list that they provided. That list was all men. That’s not conjecture, that’s a fact. I’m not saying that they sat around a table saying “there’s way too many women here! We need this to be all about teh menz, MUAHAHAHAHA!” while adjusting their fedoras. I am simply laying out the fact that they told us to get rid of the majority of our speakers – including many of the women – and replace them with a full roster of men.
“Justin, in fact, did very little in his communications director role and was at odds with Michael every step of the way. That also should give you some indication as to why Michael may have had difficulty meeting all of your little demands.”
Believe me, I know a good deal more than you might think about the difficulties that Justin has created. However, it is not my opinion that these difficulties were insurmountable or even relevant to any great extent in this discussion. The specific examples I mentioned had nothing to do with communications and fell well within the administrative duties of the NED.
I was the volunteer in charge of updating the membership list under Derek Pert. When Michael Payton started, I had a nice long meeting with him (two, actually, because he forgot to take notes the first time and asked for a do-over) where I told him exactly how to access all the membership lists and what the procedures were. At that time, they were fully up to date. If I remember correctly, Justin had not even returned as a volunteer at that point. So that’s just squarely on Michael’s shoulders.
Incidentally, he tried to scapegoat me for the membership stuff. Soon after he started, there were a few urgent issues that needed to be seen to but that Michael seemed to be dragging his feet on. The branch leaders were complaining and his response was that “nothing” had been done with the memberships for months so there was a huge backlog and that’s why he hadn’t had time to get to the other issues. This was a meeting with a bunch of people who knew that I had been working on the membership updates, and I was right there on the call, and he still felt comfortable enough passing the blame for failing to perform his duties onto me.
Granted, it’s my word against his at this point, but that’s why I’m really not surprised to hear that the emphasis is being put on the role others played in him not being able to do his job. But that’s my personal assessment. Mileage may vary.
“If you want proof that Michael saved the organization, look to the fact that the organization still exists. If you remember correctly, it was falling apart at the seems two years ago, with people quitting left and right and a board that could barely function without feuding.”
And why did those people quit, do you remember? And heck, you mentioned just a little earlier in your comment that several branch leaders have threatened to step down, and the Toronto director has already quit.
Plus ca change….
What I am not seeing is a substantial improvement from the status of the organization when Michael Payton came on board. I have seen some small improvements, but I’d be quicker to credit that to the work of some extremely dedicated volunteers who have been working double time with the board to restructure the organization, and who have been filling in the gaps left by the paid staff at HQ (and I’m including both Michael and Justin in this). As far as anything that would have actually come under Michael’s influence, things have shakily held steady, although there has been a steady downward inclination (albeit perhaps slower than when Justin was in charge). I mentioned the lack of membership lists and the fact that renewal reminders have not gone out in a long time, so I’ll just mention that again. I can think of a few other issues off-hand, but nothing that I think the board would want me speaking publicly about, and I’d rather save my friends some uncomfortable phone calls. If you want me to send you some of the stuff I mentioned above, I can discuss some of these issues with you at the same time.
Honestly, I’m in a really uncomfortable position here because my hands are tied on a lot of information (for legal reasons, if not just because I don’t want to make things even worse than they already are), but I get called names and accused of all sorts of things for not being completely candid. There are people – like yourself – who are holding Michael up as the saviour of the organization. I have “insider” information that this isn’t true, that he’s getting a lot of undeserved credit, but I can’t just post it all online. You have no idea how much I hate to see just one side getting to be discussed openly, or not being able to just speak freely.
“The fact that you are equating “both sides” claims to have reliable witnesses is a bit offensive. Janice, the other woman in this thread, IS in fact, one of the eyewitnesses to the Jaimy incident. She is also one of the people who prompted Michael to take action against Jaimy because her behavior was abusive. The board did nothing about these complaints of harassment. They kept Trottier around for years even though everyone hated him, he destroyed the organization financially, he was a out and proud MRA and he was consistently aggressive, hostile and a bigger liability than Michael ever was.”
Believe me, I know as well as anyone how seriously the board takes HR complaints. But I don’t know Janice, and I only met Jaimy once and it was while I was on staff at a conference. I don’t think we exchanged more than a harried nod. I have absolutely no idea what was going on between them. When someone I trust and who is “in the know” tells me that the board has a reliable witness, I’m not just going to dismiss that out of hand. I’m also not going to just dismiss Janice and Michael’s claims either. So I am not forming an opinion until/unless I have access to more information.
But, like I said, Michael should have been fired a long time ago (and please don’t assume this means that I don’t think Justin should have been perma-fired as well – that’s a separate issue). Ideally, he should have never been given the contract at all after his performance as interim director. But it’s the same thing we saw with Justin – complaints were being made, there were glaring issues, and the board was just too scared, or too “professional” (the last two years have taught me to absolutely hate that word, by the way) to act, even if it means protecting their volunteers. If Janice is right and Michael conducted himself perfectly in this incident, than it makes me very sad that *this* is what the board acted on, and not – say – what Michael has said and done to me. Frankly, if that’s the conclusion that comes out of all of this, it would feel a whole lot like a slap in the face – no matter how glad I am that Michael is finally gone.
“You expect me to believe for a second that the board fired Michael (without ever actually giving an official cause, I might add) because they were concerned because he had HR complaints lodged against him? I don’t. Judging from this board’s behavior regarding Justin, then Jaimy, I don’t believe it for a second.”
I’m not about to start speculating when I have no “insider” knowledge and no way of verifying claims. If Michael really did act perfectly in this situation, then of course I have my personal theory based on my previous experiences with the board, but it would just be that – a theory. I’m not about to start mouthing off on something I really don’t know anything about.
Clarification regarding Justin Trottier’s status: It was officially announced (early this year) that Justin would cease to be the National Communications Director as of 15 March, and that he could potentially continue part time in another role until 31 July at the latest. Justin did step down as NCD, effective 15 March, and subsequently assumed a role doing part-time fundraising and membership maintenance, until the end of July. Since Michael’s departure, Justin is now handling some additional office admin, but I have been assured that his departure date is still July 31, and he is not in a leadership position.
I hope that this is true, but I am doubtful. I heard that Justin has asked, for example, to be added to the CFI transnational branch leader listserv. I also can’t help but think it odd that Justin is still there to do even office management. The board quickly ousts Michael for supposedly being a liability with a history of poor treatment of those around him, but Justin is still employed? It’s really odd, from my perspective.
On this point, you and I can certainly agree. In what other job can you be fired twice for misconduct and still collect a paycheque? Heck, still be left ostensibly to your own devices in the office, with access to everything, and no one there to make sure you aren’t setting fire to the building?
I don’t know how much he has access to, but even without his history of apparently withholding vital information until the board gives him what he wants, I’m absolutely shocked that he’s still there at all – let alone with an increase in his responsibilities. That’s just such a red flag for me.
Is Justin’s uncle still contributing money to CFI and still sit on the board? That would explain why Justin is getting special treatment. Money talks.