MINORITY REPORT IV - January 10, 2006
“THANKS FOR THE EVIDENCE”
Minority Report IV has a dual focus. It first responds to Ray DiGiuseppe’s letter of July 22, 2005. It then summarizes the messages of the Minority Report Series and offers recommendations that we, the undersigned, believe to be in the best interests of the Institute, of REBT and of Dr. Ellis.
Ray DiGiuseppe’s letter of July 22, 2005 was released (leaked) by “someone” at the Institute on December 14, 2005. We thank the undisclosed “releaser” for the evidence he/she provides on Dr. Ellis’ behalf.
Releasing a privately written letter for public consumption …. a letter that was specifically meant only for the Board of Trustees…. without permission of its author… is disrespectful to that author. We can only assume that Ray would not have chosen to make his letter public and betray the man who mentored him and the Institute which supported him for so many years. However, whoever released that letter was not concerned with personal sensitivities….either Ray’s or Dr. Ellis.’ Nor was he/she apparently concerned with the impact such a letter would have on the already diminished credibility of the Institute. This person had an agenda and either knew or should have known that by posting a letter on the Albert Ellis Discussion forum, it immediately posts (without examination) and becomes available to the readership of that website. Those who operate the forum do not see posts before they are posted.
“The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men often go awry”
What were the motives of the undisclosed person who suspiciously released this letter? While we cannot know for sure, we do know they were not to serve the interests of Dr. Ellis. However, the person who released this letter unwittingly did Dr. Ellis a great service. The letter significantly demonstrates the Institute’s failure to provide adequate support for the disabilities of its founder. Whether this failure was unintentional or deliberate, it is inexcusable.
Minority IV examines and responds to some of the statements Ray makes in his report. We will also share some previously undisclosed, but pertinent information.
For a complete and comprehensive point by point assessment of Ray’s letter, we refer the reader to the Albert Ellis Forum.
Minority IV makes the case that the suspension of Dr. Albert Ellis from professional responsibilities including the Friday Night Workshop was unjustified, unethical, and unnecessary. However, Ray does raise some valid issues. Yet each of Ray’s statements taken either alone or collectively without the requisite deliberation, investigation and attempts at problem solving cannot legitimately rise to the level of suspension. Here then are some of Ray’s statements:
Ray’s Statement re Al’s hearing disability and its impact on his performance:
Ray describes several situations where some unnamed workshop participants and supervisors found Al’s performance lacking. The common denominator in each example is that every complaint can likely be related to Al’s hearing loss. Ray comments, “He cannot hear the clients and therefore fails to communicate with them”. Also, “People mentioned to me that Al cannot hear the audience…as a result he did not protect the on-stage participant from the audience.”
Ray, thanks for the evidence. You have clearly indicated that the Institute failed to provide Al with reasonable accommodation to aid him in his ability to interact with people in a hearing world. Now it can be said that the Board was clearly aware of this handicap. However, rather than examine with Al how his hearing loss was impacting his performance, and then cooperatively work with him on how to provide the best accommodation for it, the Board suspended Dr. Ellis thus penalizing him for having a hearing handicap.
Ray’s Legal Statements:
Ray continues: ‘one long term, well respected supervisor who observed the Friday Night workshop said to me, “It is only a matter of time before the Institute gets sued for this”.’
Is this “well respected supervisor” also an attorney speaking from experience and knowledge about such matters? On what grounds does the supervisor offer such legal interpretations? Where is the evidence that he/she has presented as to the imminence of an impending law suit?
Lawsuits are an ongoing issue for any organization and the possibility of a lawsuit should not be used to induce fear.
To our knowledge, for the last 50 years, neither the Institute nor Dr. Ellis has been engaged in litigation because of Albert Ellis’ conduct. Dr. Ellis’s contributions to psychology and society are well documented. He is now 92 and greatly weakened by medical complications. He requires 24 hour nursing care to attend to physical disabilities. Thus, he hardly appears like a candidate for a law suit. However, if anyone chooses to bring a lawsuit against him, they are free to do so. He has nothing to hide. The future possibility of such a suit is not a reason to suspend him. That form of fortune telling is not rational, ethical, or respectable. Let’s leave the fortune telling to the fortune tellers.
Dr. Ellis’s Competence:
Ample proof exists in Dr. Ellis’s recent writings and presentations that while his physical health has been compromised, his intellectual competence has not. He received standing ovations from thousands at the recent 2005 Evolution of Psychotherapy Conference. His clarity and ability to continue to inspire and teach thousands are not an issue. What is an issue is the unethical behavior by the Board in failing to show loyalty, proper care, and reasonable responsibility in addressing the disabilities of the man who has been one of the Institute’s most significant assets for the last 50 years.
Tapes of the Friday night workshop made just prior to his suspension and circulated to the Board by Velten demonstrated Dr. Ellis’s continued excellence and skill.
The Board ignored this evidence of competence. However, one Board member, Ann Vernon agreed as to the demonstrated competence of Dr. Ellis. In fact, she agreed to stand with Steinberg and Velten at the upcoming September 18th Board meeting and reinstitute the Friday Night Workshop as well as to require a mediation process.
At the fatal Sept. 18 meeting, I (Steinberg) stood ready to introduce a resolution to rescind the suspension, restore the Friday Night workshop and to introduce mediation. Vernon was prepared to vote with us. The votes were there. But the meeting was hijacked. And the rest is history. We ask Ann Vernon to publicly affirm her intention to reinstate the Friday Night Workshop at 45 East 65 Street as had been agreed.
Dr. Ellis remains suspended:
INCREDIBLE!
Dr. Ellis is suspended on July 27, 2005.
He is told only that “based on complaints and reports from individuals, both inside and outside the Institute, and the concerns of the Institute’s Director of Professional Education relating to your professional judgment, the Institute has concluded that it must suspend the performance by you of all activities at the Institute, as of today…”
What?.. No discussion, no specifics, and no apparent effort to respond to and make accommodation for Al’s hearing deficits which Ray has clearly suggested may be linked to performance issues? Is this a Kangaroo Court?
Any employee being suspended surely should be entitled to understand what he/she did wrong and presented with a complete and itemized list of the charges against him. Does not fairness warrant a discussion and the chance given to an employee to improve his/her performance? Doesn’t rational behavior further dictate that a warning be given before penalties/consequences are meted out. Surely after 50 years of developing, conducting, teaching, presenting REBT worldwide, at the very least, Dr. Albert Ellis deserved that much. Failing to provide Dr. Albert Ellis with the specifications to charges brought against him, and to provide him with the opportunity to defend himself, sounds totalitarian, not democratic.
Ray’s Statement about Al’s Professional Judgment
Ray writes, “Also, Al has displayed impaired judgment (this is even more important than the lack of hearing) in leaving the room he is in and has swatted people with his cane upon leaving the lecture hall……..Al appears unstable while walking and gets excited when people are in front of him and it requires that he change his speed or path. Better care needs to be made in having him leave the venue.” (Our emphasis)
THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS TRULY AMAZING!
Ray describes Al’s physical condition and prescribes a reasonable accommodation to address it. Yet, Ray’s suggestion is ignored. Five days later, Al is suspended!
That said, let’s examine Ray’s contention that “Al has displayed impaired judgment.” We disagree with Ray’s characterization that this is a demonstration of impaired judgment. We suggest it is another indication of the effects of Al’s physical disabilities.
Al cannot walk without assistance. He is weak and unsteady on his feet, a function both of age and medical disabilities. Would we describe someone who was having difficulty learning to ride a bike and who frequently lost his/her balance and bumped into people a having impaired judgment? Would we immediately suspend that person from public streets?
A more reasonable way to understand this situation is to view Al’s “cane behavior” as indicative of someone who is nervously trying to exit the room and inadvertently hits some people in his way as he seeks to free himself from the imposing crowds. That is, unless, it could be proved that Al was out deliberately to hurt anyone in his path, which in our opinion is highly unlikely. Anyone who is deaf or who has a profound hearing loss as does Al might experience people crowding in around him as threatening. We believe that insufficient attention was paid to providing safe entrance and exit ways for Dr. Ellis. We believe that Ray was on the right track by advising that “better care needs to be made in having him leave the venue.”
Ray’s recommendation went unheeded. Al was suspended from his professional activities at the Institute five days later on July 27, 2005. This bears repeating.
WHO SUPPORTED MICHAEL BRODER’S DECISION TO SUSPEND DR. ELLIS?
Michael Broder suggests that the Board supported his decision. This is partly true. It appears that at least three of seven Board members went along completely. Ann Vernon who went along with the suspension stated to me (Steinberg) that she was not happy about it and indicated her opinion was that it be for only one week. We now call upon Ann Vernon to stand and be counted on her one week suspension recommendation.
WHO OPPOSED THE SUSPENSION?
Needless to say, we, the undersigned two Board members, opposed this suspension. However, our opinions were never solicited and we found out about the suspension when Al did, with the circulation of the memo on July 27. Michael Broder’s implication that the Board made the decision suggests that all members of the Board concurred. We call upon Michael Broder to set the record straight, or offer an explanation as to why he will not.
WHO ELSE OPPOSED THIS SUSPENSION?
The head of the internal Ethics Committee at the Albert Ellis Institute was asked by Mike Broder for her support in suspending Al. Recognizing the gravity of Mike Broder’s request, she correctly responded that she could do that only with the support of the whole ethics committee in conference. She also advised that this be taken up in Board discussion. Rather than either take the time to do either and risk possible defeat, Michael Broder skipped over this step. He had the full support of only 3 out of 7 Board members. Although we have little doubt he used Ray’s letter to support his initiative, it is also clear that Ray’s letter was not sufficient to support the sort of adverse employment actions that were enacted against Albert Ellis. Ray DiGiuseppe’s statement is inadequately documented to support in any way the actions taken against Albert Ellis. Mike Broder also enrolled Kristene Doyle as a signatory to the suspension. Kristene, as we previously mentioned in Minority II, was involved in a difficult dispute with Dr. Ellis. She might wisely have excluded herself from the proceedings. Instead, she participated.
HAS THE CASE FOR SUSPENSION BEEN MADE IN A FAIR AND BALANCED WAY?
You decide.
WHOSE JUDGMENT IS REALLY IMPAIRED HERE?
You decide.
In our opinion, it is Michael Broder who has made a wrong and seriously flawed judgment call in suspending Al.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
War and Peace:
A fellow Board member recently described the situation at the Institute as “The Ellis War.” Attorney for the Board, Dan Kurtz, told the Board. “As Deborah Steinberg suggests, peace should be made with Al. The question for the board, however, is at what price!”
Every overture towards peace we suggested was ignored… denied.
In July, I (Steinberg) implored Mike Broder to work with me to hire a “peace negotiator” who could work to restore harmony between the 6th floor (meaning Al and Debbie) and the staff. I had identified an REBT therapist who was also a member of the clergy who, believe it or not, was acceptable to both Mike and Al, only to be later told by Mike that, “it was too late for peace.” When is it too late for peace? It is too late for peace when peace is not your objective
I was also told by another Board member that there was no money for such an activity. Sadly, however, the Board seemed to have plenty of money for war, attorneys and public relations fees. I (Steinberg) volunteered on several occasions to be an intermediary between Al and the attorneys. This too was denied.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive”
The suspension of July 27, 2005 concludes with a promise of a permanent plan of action. It is now January 9, 2006. Nothing has changed,
FANTASY:
In a document offered by the Board dated December 19, 2005, the Board suggests that “AEI should function as an institute of real integrity, where intellectual debate and disagreement are not only tolerated but encouraged”.
FACT:
Intellectual debate and disagreement are punishable by the Board. We, the undersigned, have been called “flunkies” and worse by our fellow Board members. We have been insulted and denigrated… rewards for our dissenting views. And yes, it is in writing. Although it may be natural for our fellow Board members to lash out at us for our disagreement with them, it is not rational for them to do so. If we are in business to teach rational behavior, we had better improve at practicing what we preach. We two board members have been marginalized and only given information that is legally required for us to have. An Executive Committee was formed to exclude us from the decisions and operations that our fellow Board members wish to hide from us.
We have sent countless email letters of protest to our fellow board members with pleas to look for alternative actions that would restore peace and dignity both to the Institute and to Dr. Ellis. To no avail. Our entreaties have gone unheeded. Information was kept from us and labeled as “confidential” Our attorney decried this situation advising us that we had both “a need and a right” to know whatever other Board members knew
Contrary to what the Board in their statement of December 19, 2005 would have you believe, Democracy is not alive and well at the Board of the Albert Ellis Institute.
TO RECAP:
The Minority Series is a “Critique of the Pure Unreason” that has governed both the Suspension of Dr. Ellis and his removal as a voting member of the Board of Trustees.
Perspective is needed. The future of the Institute should not be determined by a group of five Board members whose control and actions are opposed by a huge and growing public majority. In significant measure the future of the AEI depends on preserving the mission of promulgating REBT to the public it serves. Dr. Ellis questions the ability of this Board to do that. Evidence already exists that this Board has at times placed CBT ahead of REBT. The Board of the Institute exists to serve the public. The Board has a duty to respond to the huge and ever growing public outcry against their actions. They have given every appearance that it is their interests that they want to serve, and not that of the larger community.
It gives us no pleasure to be engaged in dispute with our fellow Board members.
However, there is overwhelming support for the reinstatement of Albert Ellis to his rightful position on the Board and to his return to professional activities including the Friday Night workshop at the Institute.
Can so many people all have it wrong? And only the five Board members be in the right? We don’t think so. There are over 700 signatures on the online petition to reinstate Dr. Ellis (and more being collected on the ground); and many, many prominent members of the greater psychological community oppose what the Board has done and are ready to make their voices heard.
Dr. Aaron Beck, founder of Cognitive Therapy writes to the Academy of Cognitive Therapy listserv:
“Everybody in the psychotherapy field is indebted to Ellis, and it would be terrific if everybody could show his or her support at this time.”
Is there support for the Board’s actions? We have not seen it. A vote by the recognized REBT community is in order. Who has signed on to a petition demonstrating approval of the Board’s actions? We would like to know.
We are indeed “Behaviorists who are behaving Badly”
To our Fellow Board Members:
- We have cancelled the celebration of the 50th anniversary of REBT, an occasion of great significance and a potentially huge fund raiser.
- We have denied Albert Ellis, founder and architect of REBT the opportunity to continue to actively participate in and influence the future direction of the Albert Ellis Institute.
- We have deprived Albert Ellis of the right to continue his hugely popular Friday Night workshop as well as other professional duties.
- We have silenced his voice.
- We are not believed. Our chorus: “We had no choice” rings hollow.
- We have acted unwisely.
- We have been stubborn and unwilling to look for options and alternatives to create a win-win situation. We have made this a win-lose situation.
- We have lost the public’s confidence.
BECAUSE OF ALL THIS:
It is time for us all to resign.
It is time for us to demonstrate that we care more about the Institute and its future than we do about our own positions and status as Directors. It is time for us to do the honorable thing. IT IS TIME FOR US TO GO!
- We have created ill will.
- We are responsible to the public. We have let them down. They feel betrayed.
- We have let ourselves down.
- We could have… and … should have done better.
- We have shown utter disregard for the thousands in the REBT community who disapprove of our actions against Dr. Ellis.
- We are not united. We are dysfunctional in our working relationship as a Board.
- We have failed to provide a reasonable proposal to Dr. Ellis that will legally provide for his nursing care and ethically fulfill our promise to do that .
- We have wasted unnecessary Institute funds on exorbitant legal and public relations expenses.
BECAUSE OF ALL THIS:
It is time for all off us to resign.
It is time for us to do the right thing.
IT IS TIME FOR US TO GO.
Three former Directors of Training - Bill Knaus, Ed Garcia, and Jon Geis - are ready to step in and to help appoint a newly constituted Board, and/or arrange for a court monitor to intervene and help out In other words, they are ready to do whatever is necessary to restore peace, harmony, and dignity to the Institute, to REBT and to Dr. Ellis.
It is time for us all to resign.
We can put an end to this painful chapter in the history of the Institute.
We should. It is the right thing to do.
IT IS TIME FOR US TO GO!
Respectfully submitted,
Deborah Steinberg and Emmett Velten
###