I speculate that what you have been told of my Dorion Bible Camp story differs from what you may have read here.

There are no lies in any of what I have written here. However, because there was much that was not communicated to me, there may be mistakes and you may care to enlighten me.

The ideals of Dorion are wonderful and you are right to be committed to their implementation. It is my opinion that they were not upheld in the treatment of my Health Leave and so on. A personal counsellor of mine with access to inside info (which confidentiality prevents him from sharing with me) concluded that I had been treated "disrespectfully".

You are the guardians of the vision and ideals of Dorion Bible Camp and in looking to the future, you may be tempted to ignore the past. But the future flows like a river out the source of the present and past.

The board strongly urged me to accept a Christian plan of Reintegrating me back to my Program duties (currently being carried by Operations staff) which would (of course) involve Reconciliation, actually talking face-to-face about the resentments held secretly about me. We had previously begun another version of this but the others cancelled it, despite my willingness to continue. This was not going to be pleasant, but I agreed to it.

Instead, as I only came to find out more than a year later, there was a meeting about three days aftered they worked so hard to convince me to accept their plan, at which they decided to abandon the process before even trying it and get rid of me.

I do not believe that this was the best solution for us. It may have appeared necessary at the time, due to an ultimatum delivered, but it was not the best solution.

Dorion Bible Camp is a great place and has a great history, though, like any human organization, it is imperfect. I spent parts of 31 summers, 25 whole summers and 16 years fulltime camping at and working for DBC and the happy memories out-number the painful ones by far.

It's entirely possible that your experiences with the other people in my story lead you to see them as nice, good and even godly. It's not my intention to say that they are not -- that is, any less nice etc. than me. They might even be nicer in some respects, but possibly less so in others. That's life.

This was not a contest of niceness or goodness or even godliness. It was a matter of keeping our agreements. I fulfilled the conditions of our agreement for my return to work. You may think my ex-co-workers are better Christians than me (but how would you know?). Some people may think the opposite (but how would they know?). Either opinion is irrelevant.

As I came to understand it (through the sessions Dr. K. held separately with everyone involved), there was a backlog of hidden resentment towards me. Some of it may have been fair; some of it not, but in any case, it needed to be dealt with. I too had come to feel wronged and needed to discuss it.

I understood that once my Health Leave ended and I was declared capable of work (as I was), it was recommended that reintegrating me back to my job, according to our written agreement, would best occur if we followed the path of talking through our differences led by an experienced third party. The camp board decided to implement this recommendation. I agreed to it. Then it was cancelled without explanation.

I'm pretty sure that you are told at camp to talk face-to-face. I was deprived of this opportunity, even though decisions had been made, based on conversations about which I still know nothing. And their level of anger towards me by that point meant that I did not feel safe to do without a third party. (I do NOT mean I expected physical violence.)

HOWEVER, by all means, continue to give of yourselves there, serving the children and young people. I would just recommend two things:

1) Ask for written evaluations of your work, which can (if necessary) demonstrate the good job you've done, or a record of your shortcomings followed by improvement.

2) Do not allow resentments with fellow staff to build up. No doubt it is still policy for all staff to communicate directly when you have differences.

I realize that with "bosses" this is difficult and I believe it is wise to take a peer with you if you feel you need to take the risk of confronting a boss. (It is not a Matt. 18 "brother" situation, but one involving a risky power imbalance. No boss, not even myself, can ever REALLY take off his/her "boss hat". In any case, I'm pretty sure it would be illegal for any boss in Ontario to insist you come alone.)

In any case, it is better to do this than just to talk among your peers critically about your bosses (although no boss should ever be surprised that this happens and should be reminded of the times s/he has done the same thing about those even "further up").

Staff would come to me (esp. in 2001) grumbling about decisions that had been made "above" me. I, though sympathetic to their frustrations, would urge them to talk directly to those with whom they were upset. And twice, despite being somewhat sympathetic with their anger, I urged staff who were reluctant ever to return, because of feeling mistreated by camp, to return and talk through their feelings with the parties in question. (I believe they did and were glad they did.) I upheld the procedure, even though I myself could see their point of view on the specifics.

And, if you yourself find yourself in a leadership role, you have an obligation for the good of the camp and of the individual, to express dissatisfaction and provide a plan of improvement for those in your care, rather than store it up or simply discuss it with your leadership peers. The best way to do this is to follow a plan of regular +/- evaluation, rather than speaking up when only something goes wrong. This is simply responsible management.