Back to Ambassador Watch

SUMMARY OF QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION BETWEEN MEMBERS OF CONGREGATIONS, CHIEFLY CINCINNATI NORTH AND LEXINGTON, AND THREE PEOPLE FROM HOME OFFICE: ROY HOLLADAY, PRESIDENT; RICHARD PINELLI, MINISTERIAL SERVICES; AND LYLE WELTY, REGIONAL PASTOR. THIS WAS HELD MAY 15, 2004.

Note: The following is a summary. For purposes of briefness, questions have been combined and names of questioners omitted. A full tape recording of these proceedings is available at Cincinnati North congregation, Lexington congregation, and Home Office and the reader may listen to one of those for a full word-by-word of the session.

Beginning around 4:30 p.m. on May 15, 2004, and ending around 9:30 p.m., same day. Despite the fact that the session was supposed to have been set up as purely a Question and Answer session, Roy Holladay nevertheless first took charge of the meeting to read extensively from Clyde Kilough's "Open Letter to the YACOG.ORG Forum Subscribers." A copy of that is available from any of the youth in the congregations. This took up a good bit of time. At length, however, the Question and Answer session began. Mathew Fenchel (hereafter referred to as "MF") began the session by saying he would be the moderator, and while he would not be answering questions himself, he would be trying to let as many people as possible ask questions. He would try to be fair, etc. etc. in giving people microphone time.

The first item of business (about 1/2 hour) was to decide whether the session would be tape recorded. Mathew Fenchel and the Home office Panel all said that it was their understanding the session would NOT be recorded. The congregations insisted that it SHOULD be recorded for the protection of all concerned. MF asked the Panel (Roy Holladay, Richard Pinelli and Lyle Welty) whether they would agree to it being recorded.

Richard Pinelli (RP): How is it to be used? In house only? Roy Holladay (RH): No, I wouldn't want to see it on the Internet. Lyle Welty (LW): In house only. (LW stated he was confused over whether it was legal to record)

At this point, a member said that if one called a business, they simply said flatly that a recording was being made, and the caller had the option of not participating in the call, so legality was not an issue. After it was made clear that no other course was acceptable to the congregations, it was agreed that the meeting be taped, but that only three copies be made - one for each Cinci N and Lex congregations and one for Home Office, and that the recording NOT be put on the Internet. Someone from one of the congregations commented that if we all spoke the truth, what was the big deal about it being on the Internet? There was no consensus of opinion of this except those answers noted above.

Question: (asked throughout the evening by many people) Can we have Jim O'Brien here if he promises not to speak?
MF: I know I said I wouldn't be answering questions, BUT, Jim had his chance for a question and answer session last week, and I was not here. So this seems fair. Mr. O'Brien may NOT be here today.

Question: Why was Mr. O'Brien fired?
RP: Because of the tape, (Note: This refers to the INCOMPLETELY RECORDED tape of Jim O'Brien's statements to his Lexington congregation in March) and for sowing discord.
LW: Because of the transfer. (Note: Jim O'Brien had originally been approached regarding a transfer, prior to the making of the tape.) and also for sowing discord.
RH: This cannot be discussed because it is an HR (Human Resources) matter and, as such, is completely secret to protect the privacy of Jim O'Brien. Also because Jim O'Brien made "public" his responses to what was a purely HR matter, thus violating the "secrecy" policy of United in HR matters. The "real" reason for Jim being dismissal by the COE also cannot be discussed, because it was in Executive session.

Question: Can Jim O'Brien be reinstated? (asked numerous times)
RH: He would need to follow the appeals process. He would need to be quick about this, as he only has 21 days to appeal.
LW: Only option is appeal process.
RP: Only option is appeal process.

Question: Who in Lexington had a problem with Jim O'Brien?
LW: Not sure can answer as privacy of members involved.
RH: This is an HR matter.
RP: HR matter.

Question: What about "only in the mouth of two or three witnesses" should an accusation be brought? Wasn't Jim O'Brien denied the right to have an advocate present on his behalf? Did United not reach a "guilty" verdict without ever speaking to the congregation in Lexington about Jim O'Brien's statements and how they affected them?
RH: Not aware of his being denied a witness at proceedings. However, as this was just a routine HR matter, no witness should have been necessary. As a routine HR matter, no witness would have been allowed under United's rules, in order to limit the spread of information about the situation. This was to protect Jim, as it is to protect all employees. As an employee, Jim O'Brien AGREED to this when he was employed.

Question: Who did Jim O'Brien actually offend by his original statement?
LW: He offended me.

Question: And what is your position with United, Mr. Welty?
LW: I am your Regional Pastor.
Question: We didn't even realize we HAD a Regional Pastor. How long have you had that position?
Answer drowned by laughter.

Question: Lyle Welty made a written statement that Jim O'Brien had "run off" six families from his Lexington congregation. Where is your verification of this? Is this to be a measurement of how successful a pastor is and whether he should be disciplined? Where did this information come from?
RH: Not sure we can legally answer that.
RP: We can't discuss that information as it is an HR matter.
LW: (after repeated questionings) I got it from Mark Winner, pastor in Louisville/Henderson

Question: Who are these six families? We would like to know so that we can MISS them!
No answer possible for several minutes due to laughter.

Question: Why all this SECRECY? Whatever Jim O'Brien has done, PUT IT ON THE TABLE! (other comments made, obviously in the heat of the moment).
MF: THERE WILL BE NO DISRESPECT IN THIS Q&A!!!! You must be respectful or you will not be allowed to have the floor.

Question: Is it true that local unpaid elders are to be denied a vote in the future on the Council of Elders?
RP: There has been some confusion over career and non-career elders. I need all my elders.
RH: That is foolish! Also, transfers are expected and are part of the game. It is true that United has not actually transferred a great many pastors, and that some of those proposed transfers have not been made and the pastor has NOT been fired for refusing to transfer...
RP: We value all our elders and could not do the work without them.

Question: Could you do the work without the congregations? We are not elders. You do not recognize our existence. You do not give us a vote. We are not even considered members of your corporate body. We receive information about our congregations only AFTER Cinci E (where most of Home Office attend) has received the information and also been allowed to ask questions! We are constantly kept in the dark! Would it be possible for us to have a voice, perhaps a forum where information would be posted just for us? Passwords could be required to limit access.
RH: That wouldn't be up to me to decide. Make that suggestion to Home Office.
RP: The COE would need to vote on it.

Question: I am female and the head of my household. I wrote in concerning Jim O'Brien and never received a reply from you. Do you not consider me a valuable member of the church?
RP: We tried to contact all the members. That was our fault if we did not contact you.
RH: I'm sorry if your name is not on the list. That is not my fault. Your Local Pastor (Jim O'Brien) was supposed to keep that list up to date. How many did not get the letter?
Questioner: No, sir, you misunderstand me. I wrote in personally and gave my address and other contact information, weeks ago, and have not been contacted. I repeat, do you not consider me a valued member of the congregation? Does it have anything to do with my being a female head of household?
RP: Again, I apologize that you were not contacted. We tried to contact everyone. This was a private HR matter and privacy was the main thing.
RH: I'm sorry if you did not get the letter concerning Jim O'Brien's removal as pastor. We sent it out to everyone.
Questioner: Sir, it is obvious that I AM on that list, as I just received a packet of First Tithe Envelopes from Home Office.
Sustained laughter.

Question: Why was ABC told first, before the Lexington and Cinci N congregations, that Jim O'Brien had been fired?
RP: Unfortunately there must have been a "leak."
RH: RP read the letter to the Cinci E congregation.

Question: The implication has been made that Jim O'Brien posted your "secret" information on the Internet. Has anyone been allowed to speak in Jim's defense?
RP: No.

Question: What management changes do you anticipate in the future to stop all this splintering off from United?
RP: We don't see that. We don't have that problem. Other organizations may, but not United.
RH: The Wendy Pack allegations are being investigated and will be handled. We do know that our conflict resolution needs improvement

Question: Do any of you have any personal regrets as to how this was handled?
RP: Regret lack of communication.
RH: Regret we did not have the opportunity to continue discussion. I always try to put myself into the other fellow's shoes.
LW: Regret that Jim did not agree to go "non-career" elder status and "transition" into local congregation as just one of the guys, while Mathew Fenchel takes over as Pastor.

Question: Why can't this matter be handled as a Church matter instead of a Corporate matter? What about mercy, love, having a heart, using compassion.
RH: Jim would bring up the fact that we put him on 1/2 salary, etc.

Question: What is the real cause of Jim's dismissal?
RP: The tape was the Genesis
LW: The transfer issue
RH: It was an HR matter

Question: Why were we not contacted when you put Mark Winner in charge of the Winter Weekend?
RP: We have not put Mark Winner in charge.
Question: Excuse me, but Mathew Fenchel told me last week that you had put Mark Winner to charge of the Winter Weekend.
MF: I did say that Mark Winner would be handling the Winter Weekend. Perhaps I got bad information.
RH: We did ask Mark to just check on things.

Question: Why did Mark Winner not come to the Advisory Boards of Lexington and Cinci North if he needed information about the Winter Weekend?
RH: We did not know that the Advisory Board had that information.
Incredulous laughter.

Question: Does the Home Office intend to have a "competing" Winter Weekend this year?
RP: No. Our intent is to carry on with the same Christmas Weekend at the same facilities under the direction of the new pastor.
Interrupted by general outburst.

Question: Is the Home Office not aware that the Winter Weekend has always been handled by the Cinci N and Lex Boards? If you needed information about it, were you not aware that we were the ones to contact?
RH: No.

Question: Is United against having Local Boards?
RH/RP/LW: No. United has never stated they were against having Advisory Boards. It is up to the pastor whether there is an Advisory Council in any given area. The pastor is expected to work with the congregation about these issues.

Question: In the years Lex/Cinci N have been having Winter Weekend, never once have we been consulted by the Home Office. Led by Jim O'Brien, we have attempted to provide for the children. Are you aware that United retains about 30% of their young people, as opposed to, say, the Amish, who keep 75%?
RH: I think those numbers have improved. I'm not sure what the numbers are, but I think they have improved.

Question: Source documents signed by RH, RP, and LW seem to imply that Jim O'Brien does not bridle his tongue. Is that what you are saying?
LW: Yes

Question: How can you say that, since we have NEVER had a problem with discord in the congregation - up until this point. Mr. O'Brien has been off the speaking list since Passover. He never once said anything to any of us concerning the reasons for that. When Roy Holladay visited a couple of weeks ago, Jim even asked us not to make a fuss. We were all trying to wait patiently for the situation to be resolved, and the first resolution we heard was not from Home Office, but from the rumor mill. Not once was any member of the congregation contacted, except for the ONE member who brought Jim's statements to
you in the first place, instead of going directly to Jim as the Bible commands.
RH: I was expecting questions and would have answered them as I am doing tonight. But no one approached me. As I have said, it was purely an HR matter. Jim was allowed to choose the speakers during the Spring Holy Days.
RP: The congregation did not have a need to know any details.
LW: This was an employer-employee matter.

Question: Was there ever any evidence offered on the charge of financial misconduct connected with the Winter Weekend?
RH: I don't remember that the same way that Jim O'Brien does. My recollection was that it came up and he replied to it and we dropped it. I did put it on the agenda for the meeting because Jim O'Brien had mentioned it. It is no longer an issue.

Question: Mr. Holladay, I talked to you recently and you told me that Jim O'Brien should wait and let them fire him, instead of resigning at once. Why did you say that?

Complete and extended silence. Mr. Holladay sits with his mouth
partially open.

More silence.

RH: Well - I do not remember that. I am sure, if you say that you remember it, I, of course, do not remember everything, if you heard me say it, I am sure I did, but I have no memory of that. I do not know of anything that would make me make such a statement. I don't know why I said it.

MF: It is now 8:30 p.m. and we're going to wind this up.