(Absolutely no) Integrity

The following is an Open Letter to the Board of Integrity which was written by the members of the Stakeholder's Council in protest of the board's latest action of the removal of the Rev Dr. Micahel Blacklund as Chair of the Stakeholder's Council.

Please note that there are only two duly elected members of the board: the VP for local affairs and the Chair of the Stakeholder's Council. The rest were all appointed by the previous president of Integrity a few weeks before she resigned after having been on an unannounced LOA for most of the year.

This open letter has been reprinted in several places on Social Media. I wanted it here, on my blog, so that it might have a wider audience. Because I want this whole sad (what I hope is last) saga of Integrity to be documented. Because it's important.

I also want to state right up front that I had absolutely nothing to do with the inspiration or writing this letter. That a measure of just how dead Integrity really is and how obvious that has become to more and more people.

I am told that a copy of this letter has been mailed to every bishop of each of the board members as well as the Dean of the seminary attended by the current president of Integrity. I have no idea what will come of all of that but it does exhibit that the writers of the letter, at least, understand that Christians know themselves to live in a web of interconnected relationships and that we are accountable, one to the other, for our behavior.

It brings me no joy to say any of this; indeed, it is heartbreakingly sad.

This is like watching a really bad version of Frankenstein's Monster.

You remember how that book/movie ended. I hope it's not necessary, and I don't want to get out ahead of my skis, but don't be surprised if I come to you asking for a contribution to a GoFundMe Page to help pay for legal expenses. I hate to have the last of Integrity's $51,000 left in their bank account, $30,000 of which is a bequest, spent in defending this Board of No integrity, but they currently offer us no other choice.

The best strategy, I think, is to plan for the worst but hope for the best.

Yeah, let's go with that.

 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

St. Paul’s Cathedral Integrity
2728 Sixth Ave.
San Diego, CA 92110
c/o martinhaukj@stpaulcathedral.org 


Ron Ward, President
Fred Clarkson, Treasurer
Kay Smith Riggle, VP Local Affairs 
Paul Horner, VP National Affairs Ellis Montes, Secretary 

An open letter to the Board of Integrity USA 

April 22, 2020

Dear Board of Directors of Integrity USA:

This letter is a demand for specific and immediate action in accordance with the bylaws. 

We are members of the stakeholder’s council, representing the Proud Parish Partnership of St. Paul’s Cathedral. The Cathedral’s Integrity presence (the San Diego Chapter) began in 1978, just a few years after Integrity itself was founded. St. Paul’s has also hosted a national Integrity convention. 

Signatories on this letter include a former Treasurer of Integrity USA, a former Vice President of Integrity USA, and current and past conveners of the Integrity Proud Parish Partnership at St. Paul’s Cathedral (formerly the San Diego Chapter of Integrity). Integrity in San Diego as it continues at St. Paul’s has been important to each of us. Combined we have years of experience with Integrity. 

We are deeply disturbed by the issues surrounding the board’s action and the Office of Stakeholder Council Chair. We have three concerns, and as members of the stakeholder council and of Integrity, we expect a formal written response from the board. 

1. Lack of cause for removal. The Rev. Michael Backlund was duly elected by the Stakeholder’s Council. He advocated for positions taken by numerous past presidents of Integrity, numerous members of Integrity, and those with a longer history with the organization than many on the board. At a minimum, the board’s responsibility is to engage a conversation about the mission and future of the organization, which Michael has attempted to do. This is hardly cause for removal, but rather it is part of his job description. If there is more to the story, then the Stakeholder’s Council deserves to know that. The bylaws make clear that the Stakeholder’s Council chair is elected by and accountable to the Stakeholder’s Council. 

If there is cause to remove the Stakeholder’s Chair, the Stakeholder’s Council must be informed. Carrying out the agenda of the Stakeholder’s Council does not constitute cause for removal from office. Advocating that Integrity’s mission has evolved and that the organization is no longer needed is not valid cause for removal: numerous major stakeholders have publicly taken that position and it should be no surprise that the Stakeholder’s Council chair follows suit when the board has failed to engage. It is his job.

2. Failure to call for elections in Stakeholder’s Council. Your letter states that an interim replacement for Stakeholder’s Council Chair will be appointed soon. The bylaws are very clear that the Stakeholder’s Council is unique and does not allow for appointment in the event of a vacancy. Stakeholder Council officers must be elected by the Stakeholder Council in every case. This board has failed to provide for a Stakeholder Council meeting for several years. 
   
   There is some question as to whether this board believes the Stakeholder’s Council is necessary. There are many past officers whose wisdom can help explain why the Stakeholder’s Council exists. New bylaws can be presented if this board feels it is time to make a change. But this board is compelled to act within the existing bylaws and call for an election from the current Stakeholder’s Council once a vacancy exists in the officers of the Stakeholder’s Council. 
   
   (The existence of a Stakeholder’s Council is designed to prevent boards of directors unfamiliar with the legacy of Integrity from running away from the mission. It is not for those who can afford to be in it, as has been inferred. The Council is for those with a multi-year or multi- decade commitment to the organization who can steer the board, because board members may not have a depth of experience with Integrity and its history. The board of Integrity is not a vestry, turns over completely every triennium, and requires the institutional memory of the Stakeholder’s Council for stability.) 
   
   
3. Gross negligence in governance. This board is insular, resists engaging the membership, and ignores the stakeholders who created the legacy of Integrity while touting that same legacy as the reason Integrity needs to continue. Integrity is a grassroots organization. You owe transparency, accountability, and engagement to both the members of Integrity and those who built the organization. This board has been negligent in both adherence to the bylaws and its fiduciary responsibilities. 
   
   In your eNews communication, you draw upon a survey. It shows that the membership believes that more work is needed towards equity and that Integrity has been effective at its mission in the past. That does not lead to the conclusion that Integrity, as it has been configured, is the best way to move forward. It is possible to believe more work is needed, that Integrity has been effective, and that Integrity is not the best way forward. You cannot engage the membership on this issue from a survey. You need conversation and relationships with your membership, especially the ones who do not agree with you, and especially the ones who built the organization. This board has not only neglected such relationships but actively spurned them. 
   
   
   
   
   
   In summary, this board has refused to be accountable and transparent to the requests of its members and avoided direct conversation on the main issue at hand. When members express views that contradict the board, the board has taken steps to suppress their points of view rather than considering them. The board has failed to acknowledge how one can confirm membership in Integrity. The board refuses membership requests so that provisions holding the board accountable in the bylaws are ineffective (bylaw amendment and board recall). The board has silenced members on Facebook. The board has failed to call a Stakeholder’s Council meeting. Suppressing voices is the opposite of Integrity's mission; it is what we work against, even when we disagree.

As a result, trust in this board is very low. You are not taking actions to re-establish trust with those who built the organization. 

Accordingly, we demand return to adherence with the bylaws with the following specific actions:

1. Reinstatement of Michael Backlund as duly elected Stakeholder’s Council chair.
   
2. A Stakeholder’s Council meeting shall to be called within two weeks to elect a Vice Chair and
   other officers as the Stakeholder’s Council sees fit, without interference from the Board.
   
3. Within one month, that the Board shall hold open board meetings to discuss the governance
   issues surrounding this board, including discussions about the future of Integrity USA.
   

We look forward to your prompt response. 

Sincerely, 

Wayne Blizzard, Convener, Integrity, St. Paul’s
Robert Heylmun; former Vice President, Integrity USA; former Convener, Integrity St. Paul’s
Joe Letzkus, former Convener, Integrity, St. Paul’s
The Rev. Canon Jeff Martinhauk; former Treasurer, Integrity USA; Staff Liaison Integrity St. Paul’s Jerry Motto, former Convener, Integrity, St. Paul’s