Dear Doctor
RE: Comments by Drs. Broder, McMahon, Vernon, and Mr. Lyle Stuart in their "Dear Doctor" letter to youOn April 5, 2006, the Albert Ellis Institute (AEI) Board published the "Dear Doctor" letter on the Albert Ellis website (rebt.org) that they claim to have earlier sent you. We view the document as containing slanted and misleading information that can cause a reader to think badly of Albert Ellis and his wife, Debbie Joffe Ellis.
Because you said you support Albert Ellis' retention on the Board, Ann Vernon, James McMahon, Michael Broder, and Lyle Stuart sent a "Dear Doctor" letter to you to persuade you to their view. The letter is now part of the public record, and amounts to a hatchet job against Albert Ellis, which bears a skeptical review.
We consider Ann Vernon's, James McMahon's, Michael Broder's, and Lyle Stuart's "Dear Doctor" letter to be an extreme overreaction to the statement of support from you and seventeen other dignitaries. You went on record in support of Albert Ellis' retention on the Board. That's it. We want you to know that we believe that your faith and support in Albert Ellis was, and continues to be, justified, and to be highly valuable in restraining the excesses of his adversaries on the Board of the AEI.
Throughout their "Dear Doctor" letter, these four Board members serpentined through a labyrinth of illogical loops without an exit in sight. Within this labyrinth, they collectively illustrate a negative bias toward Albert and Debbie Joffe Ellis. Left uncontested, the slanted statements in the Board's publicized "Dear Doctor" letter can take on the quality of apparent truth, and become an indelible part of the record.
The following six points represent our understandings of the broader issues in this matter, which brings a different perspective to this situation. The six points are followed by an expansion on each issue.
- Judge Edward Lehner repudiated the Board's position in denying Albert Ellis due process, by calling it disingenuous. The Board lost. The Board blamed their lawyer for a decision that they rendered.
- A content analysis of the "Dear Doctor" letter points to the Board's negative bias toward Albert and Debbie Joffe Ellis.
- The Board argues that the Albert Ellis you know is not the Albert Ellis that currently exists. They don't make a credible case in support of this wild claim.
- The Board blamed Albert Ellis and Debbie Joffe Ellis for a coup that went badly wrong. By looking into the mirror, they can see who bears responsibility.
- The Board appears to have violated a prime REBT ethical tenet which is not to cause needless harm to others. The Board's policies and practices can be seen as needlessly harmful to the physical and psychological well-being of both Albert Ellis and his wife Debbie; also, to Dr. Ellis' eminent reputation and strong public standing.
- Board misrepresentations about Debbie Joffe Ellis are froth, not substance. They make a lot out of a little.
1. New York Supreme Court Judge Edward Lehner's Ruling.
Vernon, McMahon, Broder, and Lyle Stuart's son, Rory, lost a major legal action. New York State Supreme Court Judge Lehner ruled in Albert Ellis' favor and reinstated him to the Board. The Judge found that Ann Vernon and the others denied Albert Ellis due process when they removed him from the Board. In his written order, Judge Edward Lehner repudiated the Board's illegal removal of Dr. Albert Ellis when he described the position they took as disingenuous.
The Judge quoted case law in support of his decision which said that "the dismissal accomplished without notice of any kind or the right of confrontation, is offensive and contrary to our fundamental process of democratic and legal procedures, fair play and the spirit of the law." The Judge noted that he found it ironic that the Board's attorney, Daniel Kurtz, had written about due process in non-profits and then reversed himself when it came to denying Albert Ellis due process.
(See http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_26023.htm).
Thereafter, the Board fired Daniel Kurtz, blaming him for poor lawyering regarding the violation of Albert Ellis's due process. However, any member of the Board could have read the bylaws for information on the provisions for conducting a hearing. Indeed, Board member Emmett Velten reports that he told the others about the due process provision in the bylaws. The Board went ahead with the dismissal vote. Both Emmett Velten and Debbie Steinberg, the minority Board members, report being intimidated and coerced into voting to remove Albert Ellis from the Board. They might also have used the occasion of this decision to reconcile differences, but, instead, they denied, and continue to deny, Albert Ellis a meaningful vote.
The question is, why would Daniel Kurtz, who knows the due process requirement for non-profit organizations, not act according to what he knew? There is an old saying: "He who pays the piper, calls the tune."
The Judge's repudiation is not unique in this situation. The Board members have received numerous letters from multiple interested parties, repudiating their conduct.
The Council for the New York State Psychological Association (NYSPA) summarized a critical issue. On May 19, 2006, in granting Albert Ellis a lifetime achievement award, NYSPA President, Ruth Ochroch said
"... At 92, beset with multiple physical problems, he [Albert Ellis] continues to be highly motivated to continue his life's work despite the actions of his non-profit board which has attempted to limit his professional activities. The Board's actions will be contested in our court system as Dr. Ellis fights against discrimination due to aging and disability. His desire to continue practicing is a tribute to his resiliency and to his everlasting commitment to improving the lives of humanity."
The NYSPA Council understands the issue. Why doesn't the Board get it?
2. Content Analysis and Corrective Comments
The content of the "Dear Doctor" letter illustrates the Board's negative bias toward Albert Ellis. The statement contains 247 lines. In studying the letter, one of us, John Minor, found that the majority of lines could be rated as denigrating to Dr. Albert Ellis or Debbie Joffe Ellis, or as self promoting by the above Board members. Minor believes that an independent rater accurately can make the same determination. Since independent raters have not been involved, we state the following as an opinion.
One hundred twenty (120) lines can be viewed as denigrating, contemptuous, or dismissive of Albert Ellis and thirteen (13) denigrate Debbie Joffe Ellis. This represents about 55% of the total lines in their "Dear Doctor" letter. These denigrating lines contain a dearth of factual or confirmable references to support the Board members' assertions. This negativity can be seen as reflecting the Board's attitude toward Albert Ellis.
Ann Vernon, Michael Broder, James McMahon and Lyle Stuart wrote seventy-eight (78) self promoting lines, or about 32% of the lines. Such self-congratulatory lines, appear defensive.
The percentage of denigration and self-serving statements can be interpreted to mean that the "Dear Doctor" letter represents a highly slanted view.
3. Has Albert Ellis Changed?
Of course Albert Ellis has changed. He's aged. His body is frail. He has suffered a hearing loss. Board-related pressures and stresses have taken an additional toll.
In their "Dear Doctor" letter, the Board argued that the Albert Ellis of today is not the same Albert Ellis you knew yesterday, implying that he's mentally deteriorated. This is the critical point in their statement. Does Albert Ellis warrant such a description? That's up to you to decide. Here are some thoughts for your consideration.
Although Albert Ellis' body has aged, he works at writing his autobiography, and writing a book titled "LOVE" in celebration of his marriage to Debbie Joffe Ellis. He conducts workshops. He gives major presentations, such as at the Evolution of Psychology convention. He corresponds with his friends and colleagues. He demonstrates he has the energy to defend his right to have a say in the future of the REBT system he pioneered. Will Ross, who recently volunteered ten days to work to help Albert Ellis keep up with his paper work, observed and reported that Albert Ellis still puts in 12-18 hour days, and does so in an inspiring way.
Despite facing what we allege is a pattern of denigration and forced isolation of him by the Board, Dr. Albert Ellis continues to write and contribute while simultaneously acting to protect his interests under extraordinarily stressful conditions. (Many of us have concern about Board-created stress compromising aspects of his immune system in a way that could increase his risk of illness and premature death.) He shows he has the will and the energy to seek justice through Court actions that can benefit the AEI. He fights against alleged elder abuse, defamation, and human rights violations perpetrated against him by Ann Vernon, James McMahon, Michael Broder, Lyle Stuart's son, Rory Stuart, Director of Professional Development, Raymond DiGuiseppe, and Assistant Executive Director, Kristene Doyle. He intends to stop the Board from wasting the financial resources he contributed to the AEI through book royalties, workshops, and in his work with clients. The "waste" suit is part of his legal response to what he sees as Board waste of resources.
Albert Ellis' defense of his rights and positions, his continued efforts to produce books and articles, his presentations, and his willingness to persist despite his advanced age, describes the capabilities and energy of the same Albert Ellis who has taken on difficult challenges throughout his life. Although Albert Ellis' body may be frail, his mind remains brilliant. His energy rivals that of many much younger than he. Although operating under multiple physical disabilities, he persists in his creating and writing. Most others would have given up and gone away. If the Board thought that of him, they were wrong.
4. Blaming the Victims
Ann Vernon, Michael Broder, James McMahon and Lyle Stuart, through their "Dear Doctor" letter, attempt to blame the victims, Albert Ellis and Debbie Joffe Ellis, for a coup that these Board members initiated, or helped sustain, that went badly. To defend this action, the Board members present this spin: "..it was the actions of Dr. Ellis and those of his wife that created this crisis for the Institute and for Ellis." To be believed, this statement involves a leap of faith in the credibility of a group that a New York State Supreme Court judge has found took a disingenuous position when they removed him from the Board.
The members of the Board took over the AEI under what now appears to be a false pretext. On September 18, 2005, the Board removed Albert Ellis from his position as a trustee of the AEI saying, "we had no other choice." They referenced this to a concocted charge that Albert Ellis received excessive compensation. This "excessive compensation" charge amounted to dollars spent to help pay for nursing care expenses. The Board, however, has been silent about the $400,000 Michael Broder billed the AEI for his services, in one year, as acting Executive Director.
We find that the Board statement, "we had no other choice," to be disingenuous. As legal scholars have described to us, there never was a real danger that the Albert Ellis Institute would lose its nonprofit status if Albert Ellis remained on the Board. The Board's statement, "we had no choice," now appears to be a red herring to give a positive spin to an illegal action.
To detract from the salient issues, the AEI Board members claim to be "made up of people hand-picked by Dr. Ellis [who] began to see a larger picture"! They also say that "The AEI staff is a group of extremely decent, dedicated and loyal individuals." They also describe themselves as "serious-thinking trustees [who] refused to be intimidated by {Albert Ellis}." They end their letter by stating "We all take seriously our promise to advance the best interests of this not-for-profit institution known as AEI, while being fair to its founder." We view this statement as consisting of self-congratulatory platitudes, and inconsistent with what they have done. If they believe their actions were "fair," we wonder what they must be thinking to justify that to themselves? We also wonder about the larger picture they see, or whether they are bantering words about to impress the reader?
Ann Vernon, James McMahon, Michael Broder, and Lyle Stuart have prohibited Albert Ellis from doing his famous Friday Night Workshop at the Institute. They are willing to consider renting it out to others, but not to Albert Ellis.
The Board has presented excuses to justify this denial of the use of the AEI lecture hall. At first they implied Albert Ellis was incompetent, and at least one of them claimed that they were protecting the public. Albert Ellis' positive performance was his best defense against that claim. Now, the Board asserts, through Robert O'Connell, their hand-picked Executive Director, that they will do nothing to restore the Friday Night Workshop at the AEI, until the court cases are resolved. Meanwhile, Albert Ellis does the workshop at the Art Institute.
The Board members allegedly engaged in waste of the AEI dollar resources that they bear responsibility for safeguarding. Vernon, McMahon, and Broder, along with Rory Stuart (Lyle Stuart's son), are now the subject of a civil action where they allegedly wasted resources, including Albert Ellis as an asset of the AEI. While there may be no fraud or cooking of the books regarding the issue of waste, nevertheless, the amount of money involved, and the reported poor record keeping and bookkeeping, is a red flag.
Lyle Stuart claims that Albert Ellis reneged on an agreement concerning a proposed settlement. Stuart wasn't present at the meeting where legal counsel from both sides discussed the issue with Albert Ellis.
Albert Ellis wanted $500,000 tax free to help pay his nursing care and legal bills. That was a core issue in coming to a settlement. Through his lawyer, Stuart refused the deal. Both men could have had a legitimate difference in their understandings. Other views are possible. Perhaps if he attended the meeting, he may have been better informed about the process. Perhaps if he reflected on the $25 million to $30 million value of the AEI intellectual, investment, and brick and mortar property, a $500,000 settlement is a bargain for the AEI Board. They spent more than that on legal fees defending their actions.
The Board uses inflammatory and magnified descriptions to characterize Albert Ellis, such as sleeping through Board meetings, promising to destroy the Institute, having screaming tantrums, making James McMahon a subject of a constant stream of false and defamatory accusations, and so forth. In contrast, the Board describes itself as consisting of serious thinking trustees. However, the Board's character generalizations, ad hominem references, and hyperbole, can come across as disingenuous and consistent with Judge Lehner's use of the word, disingenuous, when he rendered his ruling in Albert Ellis' favor. They complain about Albert Ellis calling them fascist-like in their behavior. Yet they engage in pejorative practices and appear unaware of the incongruity.
5. REBT Ethics
In our opinion, Ann Vernon, James McMahon, Michael Broder, and Lyle Stuart have veered from an ethical principle that is a basic tenet of REBT. In his various writings, Dr. Albert Ellis referred to the standard of "enlightened self interest." Here is the principle: It is important to take the welfare of others into consideration when making decisions to advance your goals. He means, and repeatedly makes clear, to avoid doing anything which unduly harms others. This is a practical consideration that by harming others you can defeat your own ends.
The Board members do not appear to have taken the welfare of Albert Ellis and Debbie Joffe Ellis into consideration when they crafted their "Dear Doctor" letter. It comes across to us as needlessly harmful.
6. Hurtful Statements Against Debbie Joffe Ellis
Ann Vernon, James McMahon, Michael Broder and Lyle Stuart stated that "The current trouble at the Institute began with the arrival of Debbie Joffe from Australia." They present no facts for that inflammatory allegation. This leads us to wonder about what the trouble was that began with her arrival? Did her arrival unsettle their plans for an AEI corporate raid, and speed their timetable?
The following represents corrective information about Debbie Joffe Ellis which you may want to consider. The information Drs. Vernon, McMahon, Broder, and Mr. Stuart present, suggest that a skeptic review is due.
The Board disparages Debbie Joffe Ellis' credentials. Here are some facts about Debbie Joffe Ellis' qualifications, which you can check and verify.
Debbie Joffe Ellis is from Australia. In 1993, she was nominated by an affiliate of the World Health Organization (the Indian Board of Alternative Medicine [IBAM]) for her contributions to the field of wholistic {holistic} medicine, and received a gold medal for this, in addition to an invitation to present at their conference. Mother Teresa and the physician to the Dalai Lama also received an honorary doctorate from this organization. Debbie Joffe Ellis says she did not pay $350 for it, as the "Dear Doctor" letter claims. To the best of our knowledge, neither Mother Teresa nor the Dalai Lama's physician, paid for their honorary degrees from IBAM.
Debbie Joffe Ellis is a licensed psychologist in Australia. She applied for and was admitted to the two-year Fellowship program at AEI. She completed that program and her two supervisors gave her high ratings and supported her becoming a staff therapist at AEI. Albert Ellis was not her supervisor, as is claimed by the "Dear Doctor" authors. It is probable, however, that he did, from time to time, offer supervisory comments if asked. He can be generous, in that way.
By making note that Debbie Joffe Ellis' brother was imprisoned for fraud, the Board connects Debbie Joffe Ellis with her brother's behavior. We see this as a thinly veiled guilt-by-association ploy.
It is a fact that Michael Broder fired Debbie Joffe Ellis. She reports that approximately 11 months later, she learned the reason. The reason was that she allowed a consultant to sit in a group therapy session. According to Albert Ellis and Debbie Joffe Ellis, they did invite a consultant to the group, and both claim this was done with Michael Broder's knowledge. They also report that any group member could ask the consultant to leave.
Logically, since Albert Ellis was the group leader, Michael Broder might have fired him instead of Debbie Joffe Ellis, and, perhaps, fired himself if he had prior knowledge of this event. But, he didn't. It could be that Debbie Joffe represented a threat to him. We understand that prior to her termination as a staff therapist, Albert Ellis suggested that she could be one of a group who led the Institute into the future. Since Albert Ellis favored her, she may have represented a threat to Michael Broder.
In his capacity as president of the AEI Board, Lyle Stuart publicly publicized that Debbie Joffe Ellis was a former client of Albert Ellis, and that he, Stuart, had the papers to prove it. This therapist\client relationship between Ellis and Joffe was presumed to occur circa 1998. Both Albert Ellis and Debbie Joffe Ellis deny that there was a therapeutic relationship between them. Although she asserts that she did pay him for supervision around that period, Debbie Joffe Ellis says she was never Albert Ellis' therapy client. Stuart has other unkind things to say about Debbie Joffe Ellis, including "Weird Debby." Such name calling hardly befits the President of the Board of an influential mental health agency and training center.
Stuart's publication of privileged information may be a violation of HIPAA. There also may be a chain of custody issue regarding the way in which Lyle Stuart received the information. McMahon's disclosure of privileged information appears in the December 2004 McMahon report. James McMahon disclosed this information, and cited APA ethics codes about such relationships. But, where did James McMahon get the information? Now comes Lyle Stuart who states that this is a matter of public record as this information appears in the legal suits. However, as far as we can tell, the statement does not appear in the complaint filed by Albert Ellis' legal counsel. The McMahon disclosure appeared nearly a year prior to the civil actions, and there were no suits pending at that time. The matter is complex. HIPAA can determine if this matter merits investigation, and, if so, sort out the details.
Conclusion
Now, in the twilight years of his life, the Board of the Albert Ellis Institute describes him in a most derogatory way, using inflammatory language such as mentioned above, and marrying a woman whose brother is a thief. In contrast, the Board presents itself as a group of serious thinking people who were protective of him. They describe that as the truth. It may appear that way to them. However, their version of the truth appears to follow a jagged path paved with stones of hyperbole, easily contestable statements, innuendo, accusations, and self-serving statements.
In the remaining days of his life, we believe that Dr. Albert Ellis deserves to have peace, quiet, and freedom from the negative presence of Board members who place him in a false light, distract him from his work, and who now are acting like they intend to transform his work. He wants to continue to contribute without unnecessary interference. We believe he deserves that consideration.
On a final note, the Board has said that they would be out of the AEI in a heartbeat if they saw a better way. We offer a better way. Twenty-five of the most senior fellows of the AEI, and major REBT advocates, are prepared to step in. They don't have the baggage the Board carries. They have the stature to restore the prestige of the AEI and the silent victims, the members of the REBT community. They would have the power to pave the way for a quiet and productive period for Albert Ellis. Their names and credentials follow. We invite you to support this initiative.
If you have comments about this statement, you can send them to BillK16@cs.com. If you have comments for the Board, you can reach Ann Vernon at ann.vernon@uni.edu. We would appreciate a copy, if you send Ann Vernon a statement.
About The Authors
Bill Knaus, Ed.D.: One of the original Directors of Training, REBT. Fellow, REBT. Training Faculty, REBT. Originator of Rational Emotive Education. Taught at City University of New York: Queens College, Springfield College, & American International College. Former president, Advocacy Network. Author of over 70 popular and professional articles and 14 books including Overcoming Procrastination with Albert Ellis.
John Minor, Ph.D.: Associate Fellow, REBT. Training faculty, REBT. Affiliated with Albert Ellis and REBT since 1962. Fellow, International College of Prescription Psychology. Taught at the University of California, Los Angeles, UC Irvine, and California University, Long Beach. Private practice.