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.

“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.

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.

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.

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…

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.