|
|
Response to letter from Monty WhiteThe following is the text of a letter sent out by Monty White of AiG–UK from October 2006 to various supporters (shown in brown text and indented). We believe the letter very seriously misrepresents and distorts the reality and, in the process, substantially and unfairly denigrates the ministry of CMI, publishers of Creation magazine. This response has been jointly prepared and approved by CMI–Australia, and by former AiG–UK staffers Philip Bell (former Deputy CEO and Speaker), Rachel Revell (former Finance Manager) and Tim Matthews (former IT coordinator). Philip, Rachel and Tim were at AiG–UK when the tensions were building and are eyewitnesses (see also the associated letter from Philip). We realise that some who read our response will find these matters distressing and can only say that we have deliberated and prayed long and hard about the wisdom of taking this step. Even when the truth is unattractive, we believe its message is clear.
AIG–UK:
Response It is stated that AiG–Australia broke away from AIG–USA. It is also implied that the new ‘hand-picked’ board is less than impartial. The plain truth is that AIG–USA themselves (in a letter from Ken Ham) formally separated from (effectively cast adrift) four of the previous six ministries constituting the AiG group of ministries (AiGs in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa). Also, AiG–USA sent the Australian office a written notice (in November 2005) that the Australian ministry, then still AiG-Australia, construct their own website; access to the jointly shared website (owned by AIG–USA) would not be permitted for much longer. This, plus a rejection of meeting openly for peace discussions altogether, forced these offices to rebrand—clearly one could not have two Answers in Genesis organizations operating quite independently, each with an AiG website and potentially taking different positions on issues. Furthermore a new Australian board had to be appointed because the previous four Board members (all appointed by Ken Ham many years ago) chose to resign en masse. Why? Because in October 2005, after flying repeatedly to meet with the US Board without Australian management being permitted to be present, and after meetings held secret from, and completely behind the backs of, Australian management, they signed an agreement with AiG–US. This was seriously detrimental to both the ministry and commercial interests of AiG–Australia. This sort of stripping assets to another company (for a few more details, see associated letter from Philip Bell) is a very serious issue under Australian law and, having sought legal advice, they resigned, handing AiG–Australia back to the management after seeking—and obtaining—legal indemnity for their actions from them. To imply that the new board is somehow inferior and less than independent is an unwarranted slur—all of the new Directors are people who have supported and helped the Australian ministry for many years. One of them was the former national superintendent for an Australian denomination, and was on the committee of eminent persons who helped defend the ministry in 1992 from the attacks of a renowned humanist—see www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4123. In addition, Australian management and speakers moved rapidly to institute reforms and safeguards (acting on the advice of former Chief Magistrate/Crime Commission member and renowned corruption fighter Clarrie Briese—see www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/498) to hold the Board itself accountable, reforms which the former Board had rejected. Briese himself is part of this outer layer of membership which holds the current Board accountable. This is an additional layer of accountability to that existing in any of the AiG Boards, either former or present. In fact, it was, in substantial part, the request for greater systematic/formal accountability that triggered much of the tension between the Australian and US ministries. AIG–UK:
There was initially no desire on CMI’s part, after the March 2006 rebranding, to alter the distribution arrangements, whether in the UK or USA. The March issue of Creation magazine clearly shows AiG–US and AiG–UK as the distribution/agent addresses. It was eventually decided upon reluctantly when it became increasingly apparent that AiG–UK had a serious conflict of interest with the new Answers magazine and, if CMI did not have copies of the subscriber lists, could well have done in the UK exactly as was done in the US (they were always supportive of and defensive of the US’s actions in cutting CMI off from c. 35,000 subscribers in the USA to both Creation magazine and the in-depth journal TJ). These US subscribers were given the impression through ‘marketing wording’ that these periodicals were no longer available in the USA—this devastating commercial blow is made worse by the fact that CMI has pleaded in vain to simply have those subscribers informed of their options, including where they can still obtain these periodicals. Reference to the Data Protection Act is, for those of us like Philip Bell (former deputy CEO) and Rachel Revell (former Finance Manager) an extraordinary excuse. It is absurd to argue that the Act debars the making of subscriber details available by the agent to the publisher whose magazine they are subscribing to, especially when that publisher is themselves bound by near-identical privacy laws. In any case, the DPA has been around for some time, and the timing of this sudden appeal to the Act to justify AiG–UK’s refusal to send on subscriber details to CMI is difficult to explain as coincidence. AIG-UK:
This is a serious misrepresentation of the facts and clearly designed to infer that Rachel and Philip acted in an underhand and dishonourable way by joining a rival ministry while their duty was to AIG–UK. The company, Creation Ministries International (UK/Europe) Ltd., was formed on 13th July 2006, by Dr Wieland/CMI, when hope of reconciliation had virtually gone and it was increasingly unlikely that AiG–UK was going to retain the agency. He had done the honourable thing by informing AiG–UK that it was highly likely that the agency would be withdrawn. It was set up to safeguard future distribution of the magazines in the UK, if negotiations for a satisfactory and continuing agency with AIG–UK finally failed. Philip and Rachel were asked to become directors because CMI needed to have UK-resident directors, and Dr. Wieland knew them, and respected their integrity and commitment to creation ministry. Especially since he knew that they had resigned on conscience grounds without having jobs to go to. With a heavy heart, Philip had already fully resigned from AIG–UK on grounds of conscience on 11th May 2006 (having earlier resigned his post of Deputy CEO on 23rd February)—and totally unsolicited by CMI. He only contacted CMI for the first time after having made up his mind about resignation on conscience grounds, along with two other significant staff who had independently come to the same conclusion. However, without warning, Monty White ordered him to leave prematurely (and to cease all activities and involvement with AiG–UK) on 26th June 2006, with his pay to continue until the end of August. Rachel and Philip only became directors when the company formed (having given their consent some days prior) on 13th July 2006, weeks after Philip had ‘departed’. [Note added 1 Dec 06: The positions of CMI director that Philip and Rachel agreed to at that time were totally unpaid volunteer positions. (As is normal, unless a director also worked fulltime heading the ministry as CEO, in which case he/she would become Managing Director. After the Australian experience, that is a structure CMI will work towards in all its member countries.)] Rachel, likewise, had resigned on the 20th June 2006 and left on the 14th July 2006, although her notice period ran until the end of July. The insinuation of improper conduct by Philip and Rachel in these circumstances is, therefore, totally unacceptable; their genuine concern was to ensure continuation of Creation magazine in the UK. The allegation that there was a connection between AiG discovering the existence of CMI (UK/Europe) and the decision to no longer use AIG–UK as sole distributor of Creation magazine is also groundless and untrue. By this time, it was known that the names and addresses of many hundreds of new and re-subscribers were not being passed to CMI, despite the previous arrangements and commitments to do otherwise. AIG-UK:
This is pure obfuscation. The address of CMI–Australia was well known and would have sufficed. More seriously, Monty White actually slips up in his effort to explain AIG–UK’s actions here in saying ‘we cannot be a distributor’. On the contrary, he had maintained to all AIG–UK staff (not long before Philip Bell, Rachel Revell and Tim Matthews left) and to Carl Wieland/CMI that he wanted AIG–UK to continue to act as distributor. The DPA absurdity has already been addressed. Communication with AIG–UK at this time proved frustratingly difficult. Once they knew that exclusive distributorship had been withdrawn, rather than continue to offer Creation (alongside of Answers), and continue getting their normal commission, as we had promised, did AiG–UK forward all those names to us and give people the free choice immediately and upfront? The answer is clear from what Mrs J.H. from the UK wrote, as follows (unsolicited letter, on file):
Of course, we fortuitously had Mrs J.H.’s address in this case—there would have been others whose names we did not have, who subscribed to Creation and who would not have received our explanatory letter, as did Mrs J.H. Think also of the 35,000 people in the US whose addresses we did not have, and who also were given that sort of ‘impression’, and you will perhaps realise why we felt we could not blindly trust AiG in the UK to be our sole agent, and more importantly why, after seeing some of the wording that had been given to UK subscribers, we had to write our (rather restrained, under the circumstances) explanatory letter. AIG-UK:
We deeply regret the need to have these things become public in this way, but it is encouraging that senior AiG–UK staff who witnessed many of these things were concerned enough about truth and justice to put their jobs on the line. We believe that these matters should have been resolved properly, with meetings between all involved parties in a proper biblical manner, a course which has been formally rejected by AiG–US, who have also ignored offers of binding Christian arbitration. Incidentally, we believe that several of the current UK and perhaps even US directors, and other good folk associated with the ministry, may not have been fully informed of the extent of the issues that have been perpetrated in their name. |