Contents

Jack Brown’s Journal

Emphasis - September 1, 2002 through Present

Beginning in October of 2001, I faced serious illness and didn't resume a full schedule until October of 2002

Serious issues remain (a leaky aortic valve and right lung needs a liter of fluid pumped out every four weeks).

Since early in 2001 I began to ask the Board to consider elevating Mike Rintelman's (my assistant) position, granting him more responsibilities, a pay raise and possibly a new title. I felt he was a bright young man, capable leader and my choice to ultimately succeed me.

During my illness I seriously thought I was going to die. So I stepped up my efforts to see the Board reach a contingency plan should the Lord take me Home. My motive was a seamless transition for TMOC plus I delighted in the thought that Mike could spread his wings further and develop beyond where I have mentored him these some eleven years.

My lowest point came on August 19, 2002 when I was given an emergency pace maker installation at St. Joseph's Hospital. This brought marked improvement physically, but I was totally drained emotionally and spiritually. I felt a certain desperation about my situation and wondered if I could possibly remain the ministry's leader.

August 23, 2002 - With no perceived leadership, decision making, or even concern being registered by the Board, I decided to author a letter to the Board in which I attempted to prod them to action, even over-stepping my authority in an effort to ensure continuing leadership by promoting Mike. (See Attachment One) White I accept the responsibility for writing this letter, I wish to note three factors: 1) I was very sick when I wrote this letter 2) I needed relief from the Board and was not getting it, but most importantly 3) The events that followed caused me to change my mind.

Shortly prior to September 16. 2002 (a documented date*) a Board meeting was held at The Milwaukee Outreach Center. I do not know the exact date of this meeting because my Outlook Calendar is set to erase history and the organization's Secretary did not provide me with minutes of that meeting. As I recall, a quorum was present and Mike and I attended as well. Over the previous several months I had begun giving Mike exposure to the Board so he could grow in his understanding of how to relate at this level and begin to feel comfortable in this setting. During the meeting, Mike was asked to share his perspective on the direction of the ministry. I believe it was Jose Padin, President, who was conducting the meeting and asked me if I wished to remain in the meeting while Mike shared. Thinking this was a peculiar question; I asked Mike what he desired. He responded he would prefer me to step out of the room. As you will see, this was a pivotal time in which the Board, perhaps unknowingly, began on a slippery slope leading to unfolding conflict. For purposes here, I will refer to this Board meeting prior to September 16th as

(gap occurs in journal)

At some undetermined point in time, but prior to September 16th the Board began to meet in private. Amid one of their earlier private meetings held September 16th* at noon at The Milwaukee Outreach Center, I was asked to join them about a half-hour after they convened. A couple of Board members were in a time crunch so Bob Pawlak, Treasurer, suggested that we begin with those who had to leave the soonest and allow each Board member to share their perspective. On what, I did not know. I was not oriented to the topics they had discussed.

Dick Hansen was the first to speak and began by telling me that it had become apparent that I am no longer providing the kind leadership the ministry is in need of. His second criticism was that I have received a "no confidence vote by the staff". I couldn't believe my ears. This is the first time I had heard any such nonsense from the Board or, by implication, staff. Still in a weakened condition, I came close to hyperventilating and could scarcely gain my composure. I asked Dick if he would detail his observation that I was no longer providing leadership. He did not respond.

I assumed that Dick was speaking on behalf of the Board since there was no objection to his statements by other Board members. I exploded. I was so infuriated I can not honestly recall exactly what I said, but it was something along the lines that this kind of attitude and underhandedness by the Board was deplorable and that I viewed them as "heavy handed". When asked what I meant, I said that I sensed little or no real support by the Board in that they assumed very little responsibility and provided very little encouragement. I did express my gratitude for them allowing me extra time off during my fight with cancer and heart disease. Obviously I did not represent the Lord or myself well and spoke primarily from a feeling level, having lack of any real facts at this point.

Dick had to leave for his next appointment. He offered an apology to the group for any role he had played in making the meeting so explosive, but never made eye contact with me nor offered any kind of apology or retraction of his statements.

After he left I responded to the Board that the issue of a no confidence vote by the staff "was huge". Bob Pawlak agreed with me. However he added that perhaps Dick had not chosen words carefully. I said the only person who could be feeding Dick information on my day-to-day interaction with the staff would, of course, be Mike.

At some point Mike was brought into the room and my immediate words to him were something like, "How can I ever trust you again. What is this about you and Gary having a no confidence vote in me regarding my leadership?" Mike appeared surprised by my harsh tone and basically denied any such communication with Dick. Bob, in the interest of trying to confirm or refute the notion of Mike's confiding in Dick to express his lack of confidence in me, asked each Board member around the table if Mike had spoken to them privately about a no confidence vote. Each Board member responded that they had not discussed this topic privately with Mike.

I cooled down a bit and was careful to point out that my anger was largely due to the fact that I felt Dick was representing the entire Board because no one had spoken up to object to his blunt statements. One thing was clear. The Board had downplayed Dick's statements, leading me to conclude (perhaps erroneously) that Dick had not at all represented the general attitude or consensus of the Board. As I recall Bob had to leave and the meeting fizzled. Everyone left unsettled (no one more than me) with no resolutions made or action taken.

I let a full day go by before calling Mike into my office on September 18th. I asked him to give

(gap occurs in journal)

pray. He had thought the Board would be more decisive and no longer wished to be a part of Board meetings. Mike appeared embarrassed and I think his pride had been wounded. I think his ambition had reached beyond acceptable parameters. He also shared that he felt the Board should be restructured and that particularly John Wegner and Jose should not be considered as good Board material. He expressed doubts about most Board member's value in continuing service in this capacity. By now I had reached the point of viewing Mike untrustworthy and dangerous and decided not to "show my hand" by objecting to his viewpoint and correcting him, but to be patient and allow the Spirit of God to work and ferret out the darkness.

Continued silence from the Board made me uneasy. I concluded that heads were probably going in a lot of different directions and rather than allow chaos to rule the day, the Board needed some focus. October 21st I authored and mailed a memo (see Attachment Three) in which I attempted to bring some positive focus for the new year. This was the same day that I mailed, under a different cover, my proposal for our 2003 Operating Budget (available upon request).

Then there was the question of what to do about Dick. I was deeply offended by his behavior and pointed indictments against me. So on October 22nd I met with Jose to ask if I could be afforded the time at the next Board meeting to confront Dick about his malicious attack on me and require that he be specific in giving his reasons for arriving at the conclusions he so intently held. Jose was adamant that he would not allow this to take place at the next Board meeting and that I needed to follow the scriptural guidelines for relationship restoration outlined in Matthew 18. I yielded to Jose and demonstrated my compliance by phoning Dick in Jose's presence and set a time to meet with Dick the next day.

My meeting with Dick took place the next day October 23rd at his bank office in Wauwatosa at 1pm. I reread the passage in Matthew 18:15-17 before I went. The Lord impressed upon me that I needed to go in a spirit of humility and that I should begin the conversation by reviewing with Dick, whom I have known for perhaps fifteen years, the qualities I have appreciated about him as a person. I then contrasted this with how he had behaved toward me in the Board meeting and asked him what was going on.

I was absolutely shocked by his response. While steering away from his contention that the staff had no confidence in me, he affirmed his belief that I was providing very deficient leadership. His reason were as follows:

(gap occurs in Journal)

Mike has training in psychology and was adept at dodging my questions and putting a spin on his answers that postured him as the misunderstood one who had not wronged me in any way. Initially I thought his answers were acceptable. In my spirit I knew better.

I told Mike the next day that he needed to go to Dick and find out where the miscommunication had taken place and to set the record straight. Mike initially balked at the idea but agreed the next day to set up a time to meet with Dick to clarify his (Mike's) position. In several days they met. Upon Mike's return to the office, I asked him how the meeting with Dick went. He said "Very well." but was not forthcoming with details. I should have probed deeper but took Mike's statement at face value. I believed that Dick's misunderstandings were corrected and that he was back on a positive course.

I waited at length to hear how the Board wished to proceed. No word was forthcoming so on October 7th, in the interest of opening up a dialogue, I authored "Attachment Two", a memo to the Board in which I bore my soul and laid a number of issues on the table in the hopes of stimulating feedback. I felt if we quite talking, the situation would only worsen. I didn't have any idea where heads were at and my day-to-day work routine became strained and hollow amid such stark disunity. After a few sleepless nights I began to have peace that God was at work and that I should put my trust in Him and, as a wise friend counseled, "Keep my back against the wall."

Over the next several days I asked Mike privately if he indeed wanted to be the Executive Director of the organization. He responded that he did. He said he had "three churches" praying that his new appointment would go through. When several Board meetings came and went, Mike

(gap occurs in journal)

Dick had added hurt to injury. I saw no point in continuing the meeting, stood, and while putting on my coat said, "Dick. Two can't walk together if they are not in agreement. You are obviously at odds with me. So. I am asking YOU to submit YOUR resignation from the Board. His response was, "I'm not going to resign. Jack". The meeting ended.

It is my understanding, in speaking with Jose, that the Board met Thursday the 24th or Friday the 25th of October. They commissioned Pete Famighetti and Bob Pawlak to author a "proposal" which they wished to present to me after Jose would return from a mission trip to Guatemala on or about the 2nd of November. Believing that the Board had been polluted by Dick's adversarial attitude, I asked Jose if the document was indeed a proposal or a mandate. He said he wasn't sure. I asked if I would be able to read the "proposal" before the indicated Board meeting so that I would have time to reflect on its meaning and ramification for the Christian community, TMOC and me. He said he would request this. This document, not delivered to me as of 12-4-2002, was shared with me by John Wegner, my trusted ally throughout all of this. A verbatim retyping of this document is offered as Attachment Five and reveals the mindset of the Board at this time.

On October 31st Board member John Wegner came to see me. He was troubled on a number of levels. He said he had been close to resigning from the Board for several months. He did not appreciate the manner in which business was being conducted. He believed that private meetings were not appropriate and that we should be big enough people to air our differences as men, face-to-face. He viewed Mike and Jose as cohorts seeking to discredit (My word, not John's) me.

John wished me to have a copy of his notes generated from the meeting previously referred to as the Pivotal Board Meeting. This was the meeting in which Mike requested that I leave the room prior to him sharing his perspective on the direction of the ministry. John's notes revealed that Mike had seized an opportunity to discredit me and puff himself up in the minds of the Board. He stated that "Jack does not have a sound vision for this ministry nor any passion or desire to raise funds. He has compromised his duties for the last eight months. I (Mike), on the other hand, have initiated a West Bend extension of TMOC's counseling services which is netting us 35-40 dollars per hour."

Mike went on to share that, "We won't be around long due to non-adaptation. If we don't do things differently I (Mike) will need to make a change (in employment). I am frustrated and know that I am a good fundraiser. Jack, on the other hand, has not been accountable to fund raise in the past."

Mike concluded by saying that he ".. .could not follow Jack into battle due to Jack's lack of vision." Jose chimed in that, "Mike has taken the fallout from Jack's illness".

In counseling with Bob Books (friend, Co-Founder and former President of TMOC), he recommends that I "keep my back against the wall" and develop various responses to what may be coming down via the Board's "proposal". Possible scenarios include:

(gap occurs in journal)

November 5, 2002 Another dear friend recommends that a Mediation Committee be comprised of a cross section of Christian community leadership. This team would work to bring about restoration, that TMOC might remain a Spirit guided servant organization to Christ's Church and the city of Milwaukee. The community should be allowed input on such a significant event as a change in leadership at TMOC.

November 9, 2002 At the request of Board Member Dave Hebert, I met with him and John Wegner. Dave moved with his family to Stevens Point earlier this year and wished to resign from the Board at that time. I asked him to remain "on paper" until such time that we would be able to replace him, since our by-laws call for a minimum of seven (7) members. He agreed to do that. Both Dave and John had received this "Journal" document.

I asked Dave if he had been advised of any Board meetings, agenda items or issues before the Board since his move to Stevens Point. He responded that he had not. Dave asked me if the Board had ever formally registered a complaint about any of the items articulated by Dick Hansen. I said that they had not. He pointed out that it would be very premature for the Board to make a change in leadership until such time that they had confronted me about issues that concerned them and given me a specific time frame within which to correct the problems. So, purely from a procedural standpoint Dave felt the Board was out of line. John agreed with Dave's analysis.

Both John and Dave communicated to me that they did not feel Mike Rintelman had the qualities to assume leadership over TMOC. Dave felt that Mike showed signs of being poorly organized and scattered in his thinking when serving in leadership over projects Dave had been involved with. John pointed out that Mike had become cynical toward those he was serving (ie. the poor

(gap occurs in journal)

space for the handicapped, Mike demonstrated he was more concerned about keeping the carpet clean than affording guests the best we had to offer. He called upon volunteers to cover the carpet with paper or tarps, which represented an embarrassment and big turn off to volunteers who had come to love on the people attending the dinner.

Both Dave and John expressed low regard for Jose's performance as TMOC President. John felt that Jose gets off on tangents and fails to stick to the heart of issues. Dave felt that, in general, it is not wise to have a pastor governing the TMOC Board because of personal agendas when a broader perspective of God's kingdom is necessary.

Both John and Dave felt that the Board was dysfunctional and not fulfilling its role of providing needed encouragement to the Executive Director. They both see the need to restructure the Board.

For the immediate crisis, Dave recommends TMOC hiring an outside consulting firm who can mediate the current breach of relationship between the Board and Jack, seeking restoration. Dave said he felt there were five points he would like to set forth in a correspondence to Bob Pawlak which would call all parties to an initial agreement stressing civility and due process to bring about resolution.

(email from Dave Hebert to Jack talking of critical steps to take)

Dave granted John the power to cast his (Dave's) proxy vote in future Board meetings. We agreed to wait until the nature of the "proposal" is known, which will likely be at the Tuesday, November 12, 2002 Budget meeting, before moving forward with writing his letter.

I indicated that I would be seeking Marc Erickson's (Senior Pastor, Eastbrook Church) counsel and perspective on the matter.

November 12, 2002 I met with Marc Erickson who brought me great encouragement. Marc is analytical and capable of trimming down complicated situations into manageable action plans. He exhorted me at a spiritual level and gave sound practical advice as well. Summary:

I must not get angry no be afraid. I do need to exercise leadership and give the Board options that will prevent disaster for TMOC. Points I must make are ...

  1. If the Board fires or demotes me it will destroy TMOC as a ministry to the city. I am the ministry's Founder. You don't do that to a Founder. You come along side him and support him.
  2. I spoke with Marc Erickson today and he told me that Eastbrook's support will cease if I am no longer the leader. He suspects this will be true of many churches in the metro area. Community support will be pulled.
  3. I can't continue to walk with the Board under the current arrangement
    • Those Board members that do not support me, as the ministry's Founder should resign. It's a matter of unity. You are doing this ministry a disservice if you continue to be in opposition to me.
    • The Board is organized improperly and should consist of a balance of people both outside the ministry and those actually involved with the day-to-day ministry
    • I should be a voting member of the Board and its Chairman

If the Board needs further convincing of these points. Marc is willing to visit with the Board and

(gap occurs in journal)

November 20, 2002 Board member Dave Hebert wrote to the Board about his perspective of this sequence of events. (See Attachment Four).

November 20, 2002 Marc Erickson called left me a voice mail indicating that Tim Ryder, Social Concerns pastor at Elmbrook Church, had been made aware that two or three key Board members were coming to speak with me shortly to give an ultimatum requiring my demotion or resignation. Marc shared that Tim had been successful in persuading Jose that they should not give me an ultimatum, but rather meet to express their concerns and learn of mine.

November 21, 2002 I met at noon in my office with Bob Pawlak and Jose Padin. They did not make their purpose in visiting with me clear at the outset of the meeting. So I began by reviewing with them the basic contents of this Journal. Jose sat quietly listening throughout. Bob Pawlak was very interactive with questions, points of clarification and his perspective. After about an hour Bob Pawlak wished to get to the bottom line and asked me directly, "What do you want the Board to do?" I responded honestly that I felt it best for the current Board to resign so that an interim Board could be appointed to revamp the organizational structure and ensure the by-laws accurately reflect the new structure. Surprisingly both Bob and Jose resigned verbally and the meeting concluded.

November 21, 2002 I received a call from Dr. Marc Erickson at my home that evening. He apparently had leaned of the outcome of my meeting with Bob and Jose. He said that he and Tim Ryder had spoken and that they both wished me to know that the Board member was not to be believed who had shared that Mike had sought self promotion and discredited me in the Pivotal Meeting. They also wanted me to call Mike "immediately" and assure him that his position was secure. Marc said that he had reviewed my letter of August 23rd and felt that this was the best direction to move in (ie. "let Mike become the Executive Director and lead the organization").

November 21, 2002 The date of Jose Padin's written resignation authored to the Board, copy to Jack Brown and Tim Ryder received within a few days of this date.

Approximately December 1, 2002 Terry Kuzmic, former TMOC President, and Bob Pawlak have a telephone conversation in which Terry requests that he recommend her to hold his position as Treasurer as he writes his letter of resignation. He agreed to do this. This should help show good faith on the Board's part, to maintain viability.

My Perspective and Conclusions To-Date (subject to change as things unfold and more information becomes available):

I think answering the question: "At what time did I lose favor with the TMOC Board?" reveals much.

(gap occurs in journal)

My honest desire, prior to knowing what I know now, was to see Mike, in God's timing, released into leadership over TMOC. My course was a positive one. The Pivotal Meeting set the Board and Mike on a negative course of forcing this to happen without my input or acceptance. Mike became inpatient in the process and was willing to betray me to the Board to achieve his desired ends.

The Board was in error for not firing Mike on the spot when he communicated that he no longer respected my leadership. I think Mike was able to risk making his speech to the Board because sufficient cultivation had been accomplished in private one-on-one meetings with individual Board members. He was successful in conditioning them to his point of view prior to the Pivotal Meeting. His point of view was that he was the emerging savior of TMOC from a vision, programmatic and fund raising angle. Mike is young, energetic and enthusiastic about his work at TMOC. He does well at projecting confidence and, I believe, posturing himself as a confidant to individual Board members.

I am a forgiving person. If the Board were to come clean about their wrong doing, I am willing to forgive. I would need time to trust again and observe sincerity of repentance before I would be wilting to continue to serve at length with these same individuals. At present I would support a short-term interim Board selected by a mediation team or me. The present Board would elect the interim Board and submit their resignations. The interim Board would restructure the TMOC Board and draft new by-taws that reflect accurately the new structure. A new Board would then be nominated and elected by the interim Board, which would then conclude their term.

Then there is the question of Mike. As deeply as he has hurt me, I do believe the Lord would grant me grace to forgive him as he would acknowledge wrong doing. I also believe I could go on working with him, but fear the relationship would be far more guarded. It would need to be understood that he is clearly in the role of subordinate rather than the co-leader status he now enjoys. I no longer support his installation as the ministry's new leader and certainly could not function under his supervision.

Admission: Yes, I am responsible. Yes, I could have, should have been a better leader. There is a case that can be made that this may be the time for a change of leadership at TMOC. My discernment has been poor to the point ofnaivete. I was blind to evil at work. r am willing to step aside if trusted friends counsel me to do so. I am an unwise man who delights in the wisdom of the Lord and I desperately need the counsel of wise men at this time.

I pray the Lordship of Jesus be brought to bear. Then, whatever happens. God's best for the Christian community, TMOC, and me will be realized.