A Brief History of this Case

In order to be of some help to Mr. Pepper to aid Dorion Bible Camp in their stated mission to make every possible effort to have Richard return to work, it was important to glean information from differing available sources, and to make an attempt to answer questions of the past, present and future, such as, "How did this situation come about?" or "What were the circumstances surrounding the history and what was the background of this story?" In regard to the present, "What changes is Dorion Bible Camp making to prevent this series of events from re­occurring?" In regard to the future, "What kind of an environment would Mr. Pepper likely be walking into when he returns in January, 2004 or May, 2004 or some time in between?"

To answer these questions a meeting was held with the Chairman of the Board ... and a Board member ... on August 5, 2003. A series of meetings were also held with the individuals of the administrative team of Dorion Bible Camp ... all in October, 2003. In addition, a group meeting was held with the administrative team of Dorion Bible Camp in November, 2003. A meeting was also held with Richard Pepper and CW on October 28, 2003, and with Richard Pepper and KA on October 30, 2003. [Note that these last 2 were considered goal-setting mtgs; it was not expected that we would actually tackle the issues at that time. Each was only maybe 60 min. long.]

My concern for Mr. Pepper's account in all of this was, of course, paramount, and this was clearly reflected in weekly sessions with him in which we perceived his own role in the account. We rehearsed different ways of responding at the cognitive, emotional and behavioral levels.

[...]

It became clear that the events, action and reactions that led up to his leave did not merely begin in January, 2003 with Mr. Pepper's request that the Dorion Camp Registrar duties be deleted from his role at Camp. What began to precipitate at that point was long in coming and it would appear that if it had not been Mr. Pepper's request regarding the duties of Registrar, it could very well have been one of any number of issues that would have set a similar chain of events in motion.

In interviews with the Administrative Team it is clear that a negative bias toward Mr. Pepper has been building up for a long time. There does not appear to have been a formal record of specific dates and events, and furthermore, there does not appear to have been a systematic or predictable way or process of effectively dealing with alleged negative events. Mr. Pepper was not systematically asked to be accountable nor was there any predictable way in which the alleged cases were handled. Therefore, in the absence of a formal record and in the absence of a formal recognized method of helping workers be accountable for their alleged irresponsible acts, we now have many accounts which have been passed along by word of mouth from one individual to another. In gathering the information it became clear to me that relatively few were the times that Mr. Pepper had been approached. It was evident also that more communication had been going on about Mr. Pepper than there was communication with Mr. Pepper. The accounts and the wording of them were just too similar for this to have not been the case.

The accounts about Mr. Pepper were that "working with Richard was difficult." Some suggested that they felt "intimidated" by him. Others suggested he was "unapproachable." Another said there was an "awkwardness" in working with Mr. Pepper. "He uses temper tantrums* and gets his own way" ... "He's been getting away with it" was another allegation. Other comments were, "No one likes him." ... "He should have been fired." ... "He can't just decide for himself what his job is."... "He should not have hired a lawyer." [This view was explicitly expressed to me on Oct. 28/03 The doctor resisted its being included as evidence of my insubordination. I speculate, but do not know, that he was protecting the speaker from himself.]... "He was not being submissive."... "He was not being obedient."... "He has not admitted to anything."... "He has not admitted his wrongdoing." "He can't go around defining his own job." At the conclusion of one of the sessions it appeared that a respondent was not certain that the negative messages regarding Mr. Pepper had been received and therefore added more negative content and claimed they had come from people outside of the camp organization. In other words, "It is not only we who have this opinion of Mr. Pepper; it is others as well." [FWIW I, of course, am aware of negative opinions held by outsiders concerning some of my ex-co-workers, opinions which they held *prior* to my crisis, related to other issues.]

My speculation is that they couldn't surrender the supposed seriousness of my getting-my-own-way(-with-them) and yet argue for getting rid of me and so they hung their heads "Sorry we screwed up this time, but it won't happen again." and kept their jobs.]

To summarize, one of Mr. Pepper's stated goals was that he would like to return in a spirit of mutual forgiveness and genuine reconciliation. [This is also consistent with the stated policies of DBC found in the Staff Handbook concerning getting along together. In fact, it is stated that Scripture requires us to set aside worship until every effort at reconciliation has been made. The reconciliation plan barely even began! Has worship ceased at DBC?]

Since Dorion Bible Camp had made a commitment to make every possible effort to have him return, the question was asked what it would be like when he returns? These were some of the responses to this query. "It would be difficult to have him back” was one response. Others were more clear about not having him back, "I don't want him to come back" was the forthright remark. "I have lost all trust in him" and "I have no authority over him" were the remarks. "My mind is made up, I don't want him back" was one outright remark. And another summary remark was, "How can we be expected to work together again?"

It appears that the emotional climate is charged as well. There is anger in the administrative team about the situation but also anger directed at Mr. Pepper because he is perceived to be the cause of all this difficulty and has brought all of this on himself and on the camp as well. Clearly, the emotional climate in regard to Mr. Pepper's return is not a peaceful one and could be well described as tense at best. Other responses were, "I never realized the high level of my feelings of resentment and anger until I sat down and tried to gather my thoughts on all of this."... "We are not safe people for Richard." [Note that this is a paraphrase from memory and notes.] ... "Why would he want to sit down and talk and work with us?"
[Did they seriously not know the answer to this? I loved the place, the ministry, my job and even much about each person AND I believe in the Gospel of Forgiveness and Reconciliation. Maybe a miracle was required, but I believed that miracle was possible with God. Has none of them ever before experienced a falling out from which they have recovered and grown?]

What became most clear and what was most consistent in the information given from the Administrative Team was the negative nature in which Mr. Pepper is perceived, the negative feelings toward him and the choice that has been made to not want him back. With only rare and momentary exception was there any empathy given for Mr. Pepper. The blame and the fault was clearly lined up on Mr. Pepper's side. There was practically no consideration given to how it all happened and the roles that all individuals played. Nor did it appear that they had entertained the notion or conjectured another outcome if they themselves had made other choices. There was no sense of process in the accounts. There was mainly a sense of personal blame and personal fault. The sides were drawn clearly; there was an "us against him” sense to the discussion.

If one were to examine the process and ask the question as to how the crisis arose in May, 2003, there are a number of issues which seem to surface.

* CW gave the impression that he hoped to accommodate Mr. Pepper (“Events and Progress of Leave of Absence" by CW, October 1, 2003) in regard to the change in duties of the Registrar and did not give direct evidence to the contrary. [I have never seen this document. Presumably it contained everything they considered relevant to the case. Thus I would have liked to have seen it. However, I may not have had a proprietry interest in it, if it was addressed to the doctor. I'm not sure about that.]

* About that time a change was made in the organizational chart in the staff manual [that indicated acceptance of my request for such a change].

* The matter of the change in Mr. Pepper's role was not a regular subject or agenda item on the regular or irregular meetings which were held between January and May. The emotional climate described above was already in process and that made it more difficult to deal with issues.

* There was no known process for the Program Director (or anyone else for that matter) to open a conversation or dialogue in dealing with a change in duties for the betterment of the camp.

* The Administration Team was fully aware of their negative attitude in regard to Mr. Pepper [And I was not. There were several occasions in which I felt excluded and wondered whether these might be less-than-forthright ways to drive me out, but their spoken or written words did not support this theory. I am now inclined to believe that there was, in fact, a discepancy between these actions and their words to me.] but had not designed a process to deal with the alleged undesirable traits of Mr. Pepper or deal with their negative feelings about him.

The description of this scenario is not an attempt to lay the blame on the other side; laying the blame is not the point at all. It is a matter of seeing what the options and choices were all along from January to May and a matter of the potential to make plans to ensure that this not happen again. The question could be asked if Mr. Pepper could have responded differently during that time? Along with everyone else who chose to act or not to, the answer is a definitive, "yes." Mr. Pepper, then, is one of many who could have responded differently. But it does not seem just or fair to simply point out one person among many in the system and lay the entire blame at his feet when there were decisions being made by many all along who could have just as well or better (because of their positions and responsibilities) averted the crisis which occurred in May.

In looking at the story through the eyes of process rather than looking for the person to blame for what went wrong, there appear to be many options and opportunities for making the necessary changes so that this kind of a scene be prevented in the future.

Problems need plans. The organizations that work the smoothest have more plans than problems. The organizations that have difficulty have fewer plans than problems. In looking at the process of what led up to the crisis is that there were no plans to deal with the request to change Mr. Pepper's role (or anyone else's); there were no plans to deal with the alleged negative traits of Mr. Pepper and there were no plans to deal with the negative attitude toward Mr. Pepper. What is needed here is a plan that will prevent this kind of a crisis from presenting itself again.

[The doctor words the bolded section diplomatically, but it is worth noting. From this report my superiors appear to have seen themselves as helpless victims of my allegedly difficult behaviour, not as leaders. OTOH he is correct. Certainly I could have responded in a healthier way, and he and I prepared a way for me to discuss that, anticipating the mandated process to occur in which I could do so. However, it kept being delayed and finally cancelled and so I was not given the opportunity.]

The clinical work that has been done with Mr. Pepper has indicated the personality preferences which he has made. These preferences are not weighted as positive or negative, but rather are simply an indicator and predictor of how he is likely to respond in a given situation. The developers of these assessment tools make it very clear that these preferences are not indicators of pathologies and that they must not be used in that manner. The most useful way to use this information is if everyone in a corporation or work-setting reveals their personality preferences so that the interpersonal interactions can all be plotted and predicted. In the absence of this information regarding other members of the team on which Mr. Pepper is working we can at best only guess as to why they respond to Mr. Pepper in the way they do.

The personality preference assessment instrument is based on four personality continuum, each of which has opposing poles, resulting in a possibility of sixteen different personality types. Since the preferences are opposite and polar, it is possible and likely that members of a team are not only different but in some cases opposite in personality preference. This factor alone suggests why individuals respond as they do to each other. ...

[If you wish to read the details of my personality preferences then click "View" and choose "Source" (or "Page Source"). Search the source code for the words "objective data" to find your place.]

Others working on a team may not share Mr. Pepper's preferences for how he handles communication, decision making and conflict management. Some would merely handle things differently while others may indeed have a preference for handling things oppositely. On a team setting these differences can either be seen as hindrances or as strengths. It is up to the team to decide. The more differences in preferences a team allows and permits, the fewer the "blind spots" and the more comprehensive the view. The less differences that a team permits the greater the number of blind spots. To use the Biblical metaphor, the team which allows only "ears" but no "eyes" will be great at discerning auditory information but will have a decided shortfall in deciphering visual data.

One other piece of information may be useful in regard to the assessment tool which was used. The population is not evenly divided among the sixteen personality types described by this instrument. Some personality types are shared by only 2% of the population. If one team member were to be a personality type which is so rare in our culture, would s/he not be seen as odd and very different and therefore perhaps not valued as highly? Could it not be easily seen how a bias might develop against an individual of this category?

[Ethically the doctor could not state categorically that this was the case in my situation. I feel this theory is likely true. He also felt it best not to state my M-B profile {INFJ}, because in such a setting of hostility it might be used against me. Such profile-sharing, teamwork exercises etc. really only work where there is goodwill. That did not exist, although I was willing to do what was necessary to restore it. Mr. Taylor also told me that in our culture INFJ tends to occur most among women. Thus, I recall him speculating, I may have seemed weird to them, especially {I speculate} in a setting which, in my observation, tends to overdo associations of role and behaviour with gender. {For eg. No woman will be accepted as Branch Director.}]

In conclusion the question that needs to be asked and answered: "Is Mr. Pepper able to return to his work at Dorion Bible Camp and able to perform his Program Director duties?"

It is my opinion that Mr. Pepper is able to return to work at Dorion Bible Camp and is able to perform his Program Director duties as my recommendations are about to indicate. There is a need for an immediate plan to be initiated for mediation and reconciliation to occur. The purpose of this plan is that over the coming weeks and months the "restoration and relationship" be facilitated between the other members of the administration team and Mr. Pepper.

Upon hearing and listening to all sides of the story from all the actors in the drama, it is clear to me that the crisis that erupted in May could have been averted and that a crisis of this nature in the future can be averted as well.

The recommendations that are about to be made have their foundations in two bodies of wisdom. The first body which will be referred to is the common wisdom of philosophy, psychology and sociology and what has come to be known as the understanding of the helping professions. The second and primary body of wisdom is the Word of God. Since Dorion Bible Camp has its mission rooted in Christian beliefs and doctrines, any recommendations which would be of any significance would of necessity have to be founded in the Scriptures. The Holy Bible is not only the text for the campers to follow but is also the text for the Administration and Staff. Should there be any conflict between these two bodies of wisdom, it is understood that it would be the light of the Scriptures which would take precedence over the common wisdom of secular writings.

It is commonly believed that there are five basic needs which all individuals possess. Human beings are gregarious by nature and tend to five in community. [Omitted in this version: Further explanation and outlining of the 5 needs]

Safety

The question of physical safety was never raised by anyone; no one reported that they felt physically threatened. However the question of emotional safety was raised. A member of the Administration Team made it quite clear that Mr. Pepper was not in an emotionally safe place on the Leadership Team at Dorion Bible Camp. In addition, others expressed they felt threatened by Mr. Pepper. Although the crisis in May brought a new focus to the notion of safety, it did not begin with the crisis; they were aware of it long before the crisis. It is my recommendation that sessions be facilitated by a qualified and experienced mediator, in which the question of present safety be addressed and a process agreed upon whereby future issues of safety be confronted in their seminal states.

Trust

This need is based on the premise that the choices one makes are valid and are validated by others. When choices are taken away and when individuals are not allowed to choose, they lose trust in themselves and often lose trust in those who took the choices away. The questions raised by this crisis are questions of interpersonal trust over issues like, "When employees of CSSM would like to improve the efficiency of the camp operation by suggesting a change in their job description, how exactly is this to be done in a manner which will sustain the personal and interpersonal trust and will improve the operations of the camp in the long run?" Repeatedly it was said about this crisis that Mr. Pepper had made a choice about his job description which he was not in a position to make. It would seem reasonable that from time to time cognizant and committed people will arrive at new and better ways to work the camp. There does not appear to be an agreed upon method and practice for this to occur. It is therefore recommended that a process be set in motion which will allow for smooth and efficient changes to be made in roles, tasks and job descriptions.

Control

This need is based on the premise that individuals have and realize a sense of self-control and also have a sense of being able to control their outcomes. Allegations were being made that Mr. Pepper used forms of undisciplined behavior to "get his way." Subsequently comments and allegations were being made such as "we have been tippy-toeing around Richard for too long." It appears unfair on every one's part that on the one hand these alleged behaviors be allowed to go on for too long with no one standing in and taking the lead in stemming the alleged behavior. At the same time and on the other hand it is a fact of human behavior that irresponsibility continues because it is allowed: responsibility of the individual is inseparable from the responsibility of the group. If the community allows it the behaviors continue. It is therefore recommended, that in the presence of a mediator these alleged behaviors be clearly defined and that a process be set in motion to reconcile over the issues of the past and confront future issues of this nature on an ongoing premise.

Significance

This is based on the premise that everyone needs to be valued, esteemed and prized as an individual. When safety, trust and control needs are unmet for any length of time it erodes the way in which individuals perceive and value each other. This clearly has occurred in this case. The flood of critical comments coming from self-confessed angry folks who do not want Mr. Pepper to return is ample testimony to the fact that the leadership of Dorion Bible Camp does not value their workers equally. This is a primary issue to all concerned. No other needs can be met until this one is addressed. Clearly the solution is not found in turfing a member of the team out. Regardless of how long any of the members of the team stay on Staff this reconciliation needs to be done first. For the present good of Dorion Bible Camp and for the future life and growth of the camp it is highly recommended that this be the first order of work. If it is not done it will remain as a blemish on the camp for all time. We cannot teach and model grace if we do not practice it ourselves.

Belonging

The sense of belonging is that there is a place where we are wanted and a place where we want to be. The understanding is that we need to know and accept ourselves and others and need to allow ourselves to be known as well. To know and to be known are the highest levels of loving. The extent, of course, to which these occur depends to some degree on the definition of the relationship and the role which is expected. However, it is a consideration in every social setting. Knowing if and how one fits in is always an important issue. Belonging is a primary issue in the present crisis at Dorion Bible Camp.

Mr. Pepper has belonged in that setting for a long time. Many were the comments by other members of the team which suggested that they did not feel that he should belong; and furthermore, that they did not want him to belong. Under conditions of this nature everyone becomes increasingly guarded and the knowing and accepting of others becomes the exception. In addition, the desire to be known by others becomes so shallow that it is scarcely present. This is a situation which is waiting for a crisis to occur. It is my recommendation that under the direction of a mediator the Camp administration team organize special sessions for forgiveness and reconciliation to occur between those individuals who are not in acceptance of each other.

Summary of Basic Needs

Each of the basic needs is either at risk or is largely unmet in the Dorion Bible Camp Leadership Team. All of the recommendations above could be handled in a series of sessions, the end goal of which is to bring reconciliation between all the members of the leadership team of Dorion Bible Camp.

Biblical Imperatives

Dorion Bible Camp's mission is based on the timeless truth of the eternal Word of God. One of the imperatives of the Word of God is that there is an intricate and inescapable connection between the relationship one has with his Christian brother and sister and the relationship one has with God. We cannot foster and claim that we are in intimate relationship with God and are in a position to carry out His will while we are in open and obvious conflict with our brother and sister in Christ. Our relationship with our brother and sister in Christ is given as a concrete and immediate and public instrument to measure our hidden, mysterious and private relationship with God.

There were just too many angry words and unforgiving attitudes and it appeared that grace had somehow run out in the administration team's relationship with Mr. Pepper. ...

Jesus gave us fair warning about the error of seeking to make things right with God before we had made things right with our brothers or sister.... (Matthew 5: 23,24)... Apparently, this kind of short-cut to God does not wash and we can't play at being holy with God while we refuse to be loving and kind and forgiving with our Brothers and Sisters. [This is the passage referred to in the Dorion Bible Camp Staff Handbook.]

[Omitted in this version: Many scriptures such as "Anyone who does not obey God's commandment and does not love other Christians does not belong to God." (1 John 3:10)]

Clearly there is a sense that Mr. Pepper has offended some members of the leadership team on a number of counts. [I presented to my lawyer every possible offense and she still asserted that I had been treated poorly.] As well, there are a number of changes that Mr. Pepper would like to see in process at Dorion Bible Camp. Some of these offenses have been long standing and others are one time events. The issues are such that they may take a good deal of time and skill in working out. I would therefore recommend that there be a mutually acceptable mediator present and that a series of sessions be scheduled, taking ample time to resolve these issues. Mr. Pepper has been a faithful, valuable servant at Dorion Bible Camp for many years and where he has fallen short of the expectations of others there ought to be an opportunity for all to present their issues and seek the guidance of God and the power of the Holy Spirit to bring unity back again through genuine heart-felt forgiveness and reconciliation. It may not happen quickly but it is the way of Christ for His followers.

To do the work of God
With the Children of God
In a mission
Which teaches the Word of God
The workers
Must reflect the Love of God.

Respectfully submitted, December, 2003

The statements which are in quotation in this document are the recollection and the opinion of the author as to what was actually said.

[A few of the recommendations, such as Personality Profiling were, I believe, implemented. However, the central core of Reconciliation with a Mediator, although strongly urged upon me to accept as late as March 31/04 (which I did) was rejected. In my opinion then this report and all the meetings associated with it were a waste of CSSM supporters' money.]