The McMahon Report: An Analysis
Bill Knaus & Irwin Altrows
On December 6, 2004, Albert Ellis Institute (AEI) Board member James McMahon presented a series of complaints against Dr. Albert Ellis in a report that has come to be known as the McMahon Report. The report includes serious ethical charges against Albert Ellis, and James McMahon convened a tribunal to hear the complaints. Nothing officially came of it, as the chair of the ethics committee quit when it appeared to her that she was being pressured into a process that she thought was wrong. In the present note, we present an analysis of the McMahon report, followed by the report itself.
Ordinarily, we'd be inclined to ignore a report of this sort. Much like yellow journalism, it comes across as startling but not substantive in its content. Since some of the content of the McMahon Report appears to have dribbled into later statements that appear oriented toward denigrating Albert Ellis, and provided a partial basis for voting Albert Ellis off the AEI Board on September 18, 2005, the report requires a closer look. The following represents our analysis, views, and opinions on this report.
Although it is proper to present complaints to be investigated, it is the way that Dr. James McMahon structured his document that raises concern. It is this manner that led us to view the McMahon Report as " . . .full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
The McMahon Report was not a proper basis for convening a tribunal. Nevertheless, unsupported statements appearing in this report, appear in public documents presented by some AEI board members. For example, the April 5, 2006, "Dear Doctor" letter - posted and maintained by the Board on rebt.org - contains inflammatory and often insupportable assertions that a reasonable person might assume came from the McMahon Report.
The McMahon report states that its author is motivated by a desire to protect the AEI against liability. This is more or less equivalent to protecting the public against any actual or potential harm by an agent of the AEI. Protection of the public is a responsible concern. Based on reading this report, we ask you to consider the following question: How well has Dr. McMahon met this goal?
This is an extremely important question to consider, for if a board member's document of complaints fails to reflect a reasoned, sincere effort to protect the public and the AEI, then its author could be removed from the board with cause. We find that James McMahon put together assumptions, speculations, conjectures, hyperbole, out of context statements, irrelevancies, inflammatory statements, partial truths, pettish statements, and unverifiable statements by unnamed people into a mosaic of interwoven complexities where he puts Albert Ellis into a bad light. When unsubstantiated and irrelevant statements are removed, the McMahon Report reduces to cinders.
The McMahon Report includes a preamble, six general complaints, and a conclusion. Following that outline, we'll review the contents of the McMahon Report.
PREAMBLE TO THE MCMAHON REPORT
As a preamble to his six complaints against Albert Ellis, James McMahon begins by stating that he would be willing to bring his complaints to Albert Ellis. He did this. However, it is the manner in which he brought his complaints to Albert Ellis that is of interest. Rather than privately discuss his report with Albert Ellis, he read his report aloud during a Board meeting which was presumably convened to bring reconciliation. He gave Dr. Albert Ellis no forewarning. Imagine, for a moment, that you went to a meeting expecting a certain agenda, only to find that you are the subject of a series of complaints that dressed you down. You also have a profound hearing problem, and so you can't catch all the words and can respond only in part and otherwise you miss a lot. Does that sound fair?
At the meeting where James McMahon presented his six complaints against Albert Ellis, Albert Ellis could not be expected to adequately be prepared to respond to complaints and allegations he did not foresee. He had no opportunity to have a lawyer review the complaints, or even to have a lawyer present. Most people would be taken off guard when faced with a significant number of allegations that included inflammatory complaints such as accusing Albert Ellis of language intemperance. The surprise nature of James McMahon's presentation of his complaints was inconsistent with basic principles of due process.
In our view, and based upon our analysis of this report, it appears that James McMahon was attempting to set Albert Ellis up for serious disciplinary actions. By reading his report to Albert Ellis in the presence of other Board members, James McMahon behaved in a manner that can be viewed as an inflammatory. Through the process he perpetrated, James McMahon strained an already fragile reconciliation process. A reasonable person might conclude that, when one presents the founder of an organization with about five pages worth of loosely tied together accusations, a negative response may be evoked.
James McMahon reports that he spoke to a Mark Williams, at the NYS Board of Regents, to ask advice as to potential actions against Albert Ellis. Mr. Williams can be expected to describe the importance of taking investigative actions, especially when sexual harassment complaints (possibly sexual assault) are alleged by James McMahon. According to James McMahon, Mark Williams reportedly told him that the Board could listen to complaints against Albert Ellis or appoint an ethics committee. James McMahon chose to create a tribunal whose members would hear his six complaints against Albert Ellis. However, the tribunal was disbanded after Acting Executive Director and Board member Michael Broder refused to allow Dr. Rochelle Balter, the ethic's committee chair, to meet with Al, and to discuss the charges with him. Dr. Balter quit and the tribunal disbanded.
As the McMahon Report complaints were not properly reviewed through this internal ethics committee, then we believe that either the complaints were moot or they could have been referred to the American Psychological Association or the New York State Office of Professional Discipline. To the best of our knowledge, James McMahon did not register a complaint with these authorities.
DR. MCMAHON'S COMPLAINTS
Complaint 1: Moral Allegations
Complaint 1 includes a mishmash of statements, allegations, and irrelevant information. James McMahon states that Albert Ellis was asked – by an unnamed party or parties - to comment in writing about a possible dual relationship between himself and Debbie Joffe. Dr. McMahon stated that billings showed that Debbie Joffe was a client of Albert Ellis between August 1998 and November 1999. But was this part of Complaint 1 factually based?
James McMahon states that Emmett Velten "recently" told him that Joffe told Emmett that she was having a sexual relationship with Albert Ellis. This hearsay presumably became the basis for the dual relationship inquiry. Assuming that Emmett Velten said what James McMahon reported he said, was the report accurate? Not according to Debbie Joffe Ellis. She recalled speaking to Emmett regarding the matter of her association with Dr. Ellis, but said that she does not make a habit of discussing her private life in the manner that James McMahon stated in his report.
Did a client-therapist relationship exist between Debbie Joffe and Albert Ellis between 1998 and 1999? According to Debbie Joffe Ellis, she did speak privately, off and on, with Albert Ellis during the 1998-1999 time period. She reports that she scheduled time with him during his normal working hours to learn more about his views. She voluntarily paid him for his time. She understood that such payment was made by her choice. Others who have a professional interest about REBT, who spoke with Al during his working hours on professional topics, may or may not have paid for his time. He did not ordinarily require this.
How recent was this alleged occurrence, and in what way, is this allegation of a dual relationship relevant to a serious complaint? Albert Ellis and Debbie Joffe were married on November 15, 2004. Sexual relationships are a normal part of a marriage. James McMahon may have had no knowledge of the Ellis-Joffe marriage when he made his report. However, even if Emmett Velten's report to James McMahon about a sexual relationship was accurate, sexual relationships are part of a marriage. And even if a sexual relationship existed between the couple in the six month period prior to their marriage, it can still be said that McMahon's assumption was incorrect, and the issue never fell under the APA ethics code.
James McMahon takes hearsay as a basis for saying that Albert Ellis may have violated aspects of the APA codes. However, James McMahon admitted knowing that the statute of limitations for such a dual relationship sexual indiscretion complaint would have expired a few years earlier. Thus, any issue regarding an APA code violation is nugatory. Nevertheless, McMahon paraphrases the code to say that psychologists need to exercise caution even after the two-year time frame.
Other than to put Albert Ellis into a false light, how, then, is this complaint relevant? In constructing this phase of his report, James McMahon appears to make something out of nothing. In our view, this "smoke and mirrors" approach discredits the author of the McMahon Report.
James McMahon continues with his sexual indiscretion theory by raising the question as to whether Albert Ellis was intimate with Debbie Joffe when she was in the fellowship program during a time when Albert Ellis supervised her. If so, he opines, this would violate APA Ethics Code 7.07. James McMahon correctly cites the specific APA code, but cites no facts to support his allegation. Furthermore, he failed to report that AEI supervisors, Kristene Doyle and Raymond DiGuiseppe, signed off on Debbie Joffe's supervisory performance statements. According to Joffe-Ellis, Albert Ellis did not sign off on her performance statements, because he was not her supervisor. It was DiGuiseppe and Doyle who, according to Joffe-Ellis, gave her a strong positive rating for her therapeutic performance during the time she was in the fellowship program.
One can quibble and say that Albert Ellis offers supervisory comments to all the fellows, and, therefore, is a supervisor for all. But such a statement provides a weak argument in support of an ungrounded allegation. James McMahon relies on an "if they were having a sexual relationship, then this would be a violation of APA code 7.07" argument. This "if-then" reasoning comes across to us as based upon convoluted "if-then" circular reasoning. "If-then" reasoning of this sort is proof of nothing and is certainly not a basis for alleging that improper conduct has occurred.
Next, in Complaint 1, James McMahon speculates about whether Debbie Joffe, in her alleged therapy sessions with Albert Ellis, told him that she lacked an earned doctorate. In the first place, McMahon's thinking is based on a false premise: he builds his house of cards on the false belief that Debbie Joffe had a formal, paid, therapeutic relationship with Albert Ellis. According to Joffe, she didn't. Furthermore, it's a fact that Debbie Joffe is licensed to practice psychology in Australia. This license qualifies her for enrollment in the fellowship program. That is a critical detail regarding her admission to the fellowship program. (James McMahon doesn't appear to have his facts straight about the qualifications for acceptance into the AEI fellowship program.) Thus, James McMahon makes several serious errors on a single issue: he incorrectly assumes that Debbie Joffe was Al's client, he mistakes the criteria underlying her admission to the fellowship program, and he mistakenly believes that discussion of such matters in the course of psychotherapy is not privileged. A reasonable person might wonder whether James McMahon is generally prone to such a high error rate or whether he was trying to damage Dr. Ellis' reputation.
James McMahon speculates about whether Albert Ellis was aware that Debbie Joffe's brother, Max, was a convicted felon. He suggested that this would be important for Albert Ellis to know. He linked this "bad company fallacy" to immigration issues (did she put this fact on her application for a visa), and mused whether Joffe disclosed this to Albert Ellis during a therapy session. Applicants for a Visa are not required to disclose whether a sibling spent time in jail. Visa applications do not require information about family members' legal histories, unless they were involved in terrorist activities which, to the best of our knowledge, Debbie's brother was not. Albert Ellis would not be expected to be an expert on immigration law or to know whether Debbie Joffe had a relative who was incarcerated. It is difficult to see how this " bad-company and guilt by association" fallacy part of the McMahon Report is relevant to an ethics complaint. On the other hand, it is reasonable to ask how Max Joffe's incarceration came to be an issue in the McMahon Report. Was there a dollar cost to the AEI to obtain family background information regarding Ms Joffe?
James McMahon writes that a written response by Albert Ellis regarding this matter would be helpful. He went on to say "'It would be best if the AEI Ethics Committee ...dealt with them precluding referral or for determination before referral to the Ethics Committee of their American Psychological Association and\or New York State Psychological Association." However, at this point in his writing, Complaint 1 appears to have taken on the characteristics of the Salem Witch Trials. Under the circumstances, would a reasonable person provide information to a person who might appear posed to cause him or her harm?
Complaint 2: The Upset Group Incidents
Complaint 2 presents as a hodgepodge of loosely linked allegations woven together to sanitize and strengthen an otherwise weak "mixing apples with oranges" complaint.
In the "apple" part of the complaint, James McMahon alleges that Albert Ellis told a new Monday night group client to "shove her problems up her ass." We have no way of verifying the accuracy of the quotation or, if accurate, whether the wording was misconstrued, was extracted out of a context that might tell a different story, or was an intervention by Albert Ellis that proved ineffective. (We acknowledge that, as for any therapist, not all Albert's interventions have the desired effect.) Even if the statement - despite having filtered through various sources - was accurate, the context in which this statement occurred is not known, and thus the issue is clouded. James McMahon continued about who said what to whom about this incident, and quoted Ann Vernon, who has consistently sided with him. All that aside, was this an example of Ellis humor designed to interrupt a client's negative inner dialogue? It is well known that Albert Ellis typically uses his own brand of humor in his therapeutic work.
James McMahon suggested that Albert Ellis' comment was probably too bombastic to be helpful to the client. Let's assume McMahon is right in this instance. Such things happen. But does this rise to the level of an ethics complaint? (Note, Albert Ellis is well known to make points through his use of colorful language. His style is his style.) We think that this "got ya" type complaint can be viewed as another smoke and mirrors example.
The "orange" part of this complaint refers to secondhand information reported to James McMahon from Michael Broder, who in turn had reported hearing complaints from other people, which McMahon then incorporated into Complaint 2. Specifically, the issue relates to an Andy Hopson who was preparing public relations information for the Albert Ellis Institute. Albert Ellis admitted Hopson into the Monday night group as an observer.
James McMahon reported that two licensed fellows "felt" that Hopson's presence violated the group's confidentiality. However, it appears that these "feelings" were not validated. Albert Ellis and Debbie Joffe Ellis reported that Michael Broder agreed to allow Andy Hopson to observe a therapy group. Allegedly, group members were informed of his presence. Anyone could ask Hopson to leave the room. One person in the group objected to Andy Hopson's presence. When it was this person's turn to speak, Albert Ellis told Andy Hopson to leave the room. Allegedly, the Hopson incident was used by Michael Broder to justify terminating Debbie Joffe's job as a staff therapist. But Albert Ellis was the group leader. If this was such a serious ethical violation as to justify firing Debbie Joffe, why did Michael Broder not fire Albert Ellis? If Michael Broder gave permission, then why the reversal?
James McMahon asserts that treatment confidentiality had been violated. But the AEI is a well-known training institute, and guests have been observers since at least the late 1960s. So the presence of observers, with group permission granted, is nothing new. The tradition is that the guests are announced, and the group can accept their requests to observe, or exclude them. James McMahon's preamble to this issue, where he said that Hopson was admitted without prior notification, was probably nothing new to McMahon; however, if it was new to him, then as an AEI Board member he could have initiated a change in procedure as a matter of policy.
McMahon states that after the event, the group shrunk in size and was dissolved. The juxtaposition of Albert Ellis' alleged statement and the "Hopson incident" might lead to the conclusion that these two incidents unraveled the group. However, there are alternative explanations that may reasonably explain the group's demise. One hypothesis is that some group members left because of the attention Michael Broder and James McMahon drew to the group regarding the controversy over Hopson's presence. Some groups dissolve because of inner dynamics related to the group composition. Before we are ready to form an opinion on this matter, we ask: did anyone conduct debriefing sessions or a survey to assess why the group dissolved?
James McMahon cites an anonymous letter in support of his allegations about confidentiality issues being the cause for the group to dissolve. An anonymous letter could be written by anyone, including James McMahon. That is the problem with offering anonymous statements to support a complaint.
James McMahon states that Debbie Joffe's employment with the AEI was terminated, and the alleged breach of confidentiality regarding the Hopson incident was part of the reason. It appears that Debbie Joffe Ellis was fired by Michael Broder and, for months, she didn't know of this reason. (This reminds us of Franz Kafka's, "The Trial," where the victim had no knowledge of the charges, and was eventually condemned.) Because she initially did not know the reasons for her termination, Debbie Joffe Ellis had no opportunity to offer testimony in her own defense.
Albert Ellis was the group leader. At the time, no action was taken by the Board to discipline him for the alleged confidentiality breach. He would have been the logical person to censure if, indeed, there was a confidentiality breach. If there was an ethical violation sufficient to cause Debbie Joffe's termination, the greater responsibility would lie with Albert Ellis. Yet, no ethical complaint was filed against Albert Ellis, that is, until James McMahon made this into part of Complaint 2. If this was a prime enough issue to support the termination of Debbie Joffe (and we think this reason is a red herring), then why was formal action not taken years earlier to change the procedures?
Based upon the above Hopson incident, James McMahon suggested looking into whether an ethical complaint against Debbie Joffe to the International section of APA was appropriate. Since one was not filed, we believe that outcome answers the question. But why did James McMahon raise it in the first place?
James McMahon asserts that it would be appropriate for Albert Ellis to submit a written statement to this complaint and forward it to the AEI ethics committee. Under the circumstances, if Albert Ellis viewed James McMahon as convening a Kangaroo Court, it would make no sense for Albert Ellis to submit a statement that might be twisted against him.
Complaint 3: The Breast Fondling Allegation
Complaint 3 alleges that Albert Ellis had touched or fondled a female employee's breasts on two separate occasions. (Note, this allegation was later reported to the public by Lyle Stuart.) In one of the instances James McMahon referred to, Albert Ellis was accompanied by Debbie Joffe and a nurse.
The party did not make a police complaint or an ethical complaint to the American Psychological Association. To the best of our knowledge, James McMahon did not made a complaint about the frail and elderly Albert Ellis grabbing a woman's breast.
We are again faced with an allegation in absence of evidence. According to Debbie Joffe Ellis, on the day of the second alleged "breast grabbing" incident, Albert Ellis "… was recuperating, very weak, and was lying in his bed." The complainant leant down into Al to kiss him hello.
Complaint 4: REBT Coaching Controversy
Cutting away all the preliminary fluff to this complaint, James McMahon asserts that Albert Ellis orally abused Thomas Jarrett, a fellow in training at the Institute. No formal complaint was filed by Jarrett, and apparently one will not be filed. Here James McMahon made a big deal about a fellow in training who was unhappy about how Albert Ellis spoke to him.
We have no way to judge whether the complaint was valid, or represented a misunderstanding between parties. However, it appears that Complaint 4 did not merit an investigation by an ethics committee. In this specific case, James McMahon acknowledged that there was nothing there to pursue. Other than to create more smoke and mirrors, why add this as a Complaint 4, if the matter is not to be pursued?
Complaint 5: The Case of the Overweight Fellow
Complaint 5 involved an allegation that Albert Ellis commented that one of the female fellows was overweight and he would not have accepted her because of the weight issue. In contrast, Albert Ellis reports having stated that he thought that preferably the fellow would work on her weight problem. McMahon went into a cumbersome explanation about civil rights issues, and noted that no complaint was warranted "at this time." So, why make this part of the report? If this is not an issue, then Albert Ellis is faced with a choice of publicly responding to a non-complaint, or letting it ride, and this could color him in a negative fashion. This double bind type of "non-complaint" seems inappropriate, and speaks more to James McMahon's way of thinking than it does Albert Ellis' alleged statement.
Complaint 6: The Language Intemperance Issue
Complaint 6 relates to what James McMahon refers to as language intemperance. He presents the complaint in this way: "Language intemperance was claimed about Albert Ellis including descriptions of people with whom he disagreed with as ˜fascist," "psychotic," and "liar." He went on to say that this type of character assassination and verbal abuse is against the policy of all well run modern institutions. McMahon claimed this as a violation of the AEI employment manual. Albert Ellis denied the allegation saying that he will say that people act psychotic like and act fascist like.
Albert Ellis is known for his colorful language. However, it is reasonable to assume that if James McMahon was the subject of a colorful phrase, he might deal with Al directly and voice his displeasure.
CONCLUSION
James McMahon wrote up his complaints and then read them to Albert Ellis at a Board meeting. He gave Albert Ellis no forewarning. He knew that Albert Ellis had a hearing problem and so couldn't properly respond. Thereafter, he turned his complaints over to an AEI ethics committee convened for purposes of reviewing the six complaints.
Throughout his report, James McMahon's allegations are loosely strung together, frequently without names, dates, or witnesses. He weaves together a case against Albert Ellis that can cause a casual reader to think badly of both Albert Ellis and Debbie Joffe Ellis. We think this would be unwarranted, based upon the facts that James McMahon presented, but you judge for yourself.
James McMahon talks of things that he says happened well in the past. We can question whether he had reliable information to support his complaints. We found, in many instances, that the information he relied upon was flawed, and in many other instances it was flatly wrong. Some matters had already been dropped (such as the Jarrett case) or were going nowhere (such as the dual relationship complaint), and so they were not a proper subject for an ethics investigation. Furthermore, James McMahon frequently presents unreliable information, such as the anonymous letter.
A reasonable person might wonder why a litany of accusations is being presented by James McMahon. If there were substance to any of the expressed concerns, and the interests of the public or the AEI were at risk, and the board member and his colleagues were sincerely interested in protecting the public and the AEI, why were the concerns not addressed in a timely manner? Timely actions could serve a prophylactic purpose. However, since the expressed concerns lacked support or substance, or represented isolated instances, or were unprovable, or were irrelevant, or were flatly wrong, there was no meaningful threat to the public or the AEI.
Therefore, a reasonable person might conclude that the litany of McMahon complaints was presented for motives other than protection of the public or the AEI. By James McMahon's own admissions, most of the concerns never reached the level of becoming formal complaints, and in most cases he himself recommended against taking further action.
The McMahon Report appears to have provided "house of cards" type information that gave a footing for the foundation for voting Albert Ellis off the AEI Board. Albert Ellis was voted off of the board in what Judge Edward Lehner ruled illegal and described as a disingenuous process.
Although we can't prove it, we have reason to believe that the McMahon Report, and the establishment of the ethics committee to hear the complaints represented in the report, was part of the disingenuous process that Judge Lehner referred to. We think this report represents an unfair and disingenuous process, and support this conclusion with the above analysis.
The chair of the now disbanded ethics committee, Rochelle Balter, viewed Michael Broder as pressuring and intimidating her. She reported that Broder refused to allow her to speak with Al to present the complaints. She says that there was a list of complaints prepared, but never formally presented to Al. (Al may have received an "informal" list of complaints; he also heard James McMahon read the complaints at a presumed reconciliation Board meeting.) Dr. Balter quit when she found Michael Broder actively preventing her from meeting with Al and sharing the allegations with him. We see her reason for quitting to be principled.
In summary, we have carefully read and considered the McMahon report, we find it to be fatally flawed and disingenuous, and we believe that it provides just cause for Dr. McMahon's removal from the board of the AEI. We ask you to consider this matter and to provide us with your views.
Bill Knaus, former Director of Training, Albert Ellis Institute
Irwin Altrows, Associate Fellow and Training Faculty, Albert Ellis Institute.
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.
Irwin Altrows, Ph.D. — Associate Fellow in REBT since 1985. Training Faculty, REBT. Adjunct Assistant Professor (Psychiatry) and Clinical Supervisor (Psychology), Queens University. Author 18 publications.