You are on page 1of 4

Patricia Ivan, PhD 777 rue Devey Greenfield Park, QC J4V1P5 CA

Robert Nolan Conrad Esq. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, California 90067 August 4th, 2012 Dear Mr. Conrad, I am writing to you because you are a member of the California Bar, presumably aware of the ethical and legal responsibilities of a non-profit board of directors, and because you are listed as the Agent of Service for Unfettered Mind (hereafter UM), a California 501c3 Corporation, #C1669749. You are also the Secretary of UM's Board of Directors (hereafter BOD) according to information provided by Guidestar (guidestar.org) which I received by way of An Olive Branch (hereafter AOB; an-olivebranch.org), an organization dedicated to fostering peaceful and effective solutions for non-profits, a specialty in Buddhist organizations. I am one oftwo individuals who have tried to lodge grievances against Mr. Kenneth McLeod (hereafter KM) UM's Executive Director and a well-known Buddhist teacher. Each of us has contacted UM President Stephanie Siebert privately and then by way of AOB. The identity of the other grievant is known to me and AOB. Presumably her identity can be obtained by you from that organization. Ms. Siebert should also be well aware of her identity. I am in touch with that grievant but have not asked permission to reveal her identity in this letter, so I shall refer to her as Grievant2. I am also the author of a blog (patriciaivanconnections.blogspot.ca) dedicated to discussing the institution of a grievance policy and procedure for UM. The blog brings to light serious difficulties way the UM Board President has dealt with grievants so far. These difficulties are as follows: 1) 2)

with

in the

The only "policy and procedure" Ms. Siebert has offered so far is that I must submit my grievance to her alone and trust her to convey it to the UM BOD. Grievant2 (in an anonymous comment to my post of August 2 which I have verified) states that, when she submitted her grievance to Ms. Siebert, it was denied by KM and dismissed summarily to me as a close personal confidante at the time of my relationship as such in some of my correspondence with him. by Ms. Siebert. Ms. Siebert was mentioned with KM and is mentioned

3) 4)

In an email of July 23 2012 Ms. Siebert wrote privately to three well-known Buddhist teachers previously contacted by me and made questionable claims and several inaccurate and irresponsible accusations against me. (That letter was made available to me by Jeff Tipp, one of the teachers, in the interests of transparency.) I will take up each of these claims and allegations separately below. They are: i. That I am "the only one complaining;" ii. That lito date there have not been any such allegations" [warranting investigation]; iii. That I demonstrated a "refusal to cooperate;" iv. That there was "never any sexual or other relationship between KM and [me]:" v. That "we [the UM BOD] have copies of all correspondence" between KM and me;

Mr. Conrad, I am writing to you because I have no idea what you or any other board member knows about any of this. I have had no contact with any board member or UM representative other than Ms. Siebert. She has refused to divulge the email addresses of other board members and has even refused to provide me with their names, which should be public information. Four of Ms. Siebert's statements above are patently false. One of them is questionable and, no matter how one answers the questions about it, more serious questions are raised about the ethics and competency of the UM BOD. I will address Ms. Siebert's claims one by one: i. That I am lithe only one complaining." Ms. Siebert was contacted by Grievant2 with an allegation about Ken's behaviour with her. This can be confirmed with Grievant2. Ms. Siebert was also contacted by AOB about Grievant2's allegation. I am in receipt of a May 3rd 2012 email from Mr. Steven Coraor of AOB in which he reports that he contacted Ms. Siebert and informed her that "two persons who contacted us [AOB] with allegations had not felt heard and did not feel like they were taken through a grievance process." ii. That lito date there have not been any such allegations" [warranting a grievance procedure);

The paragraph above, responding to Ms. Siebert's claim that I am the only one complaining, also falsifies this claim that there have not been any allegations. Grievant2 made allegations and Ms. Siebert is aware of them. As for my own allegations, in a February 11 2011 email to Ms. Siebert, I refer to "my experience" with "inappropriate boundaries." The context of that letter should have made plain I was referring to my relationship with KM. In case it was not for some reason, in an email of January 5 2012 from me to KM {which Ms. Siebert mentions has been forwarded to her in her email to me of January 8 2012} I write of "a life that was shattered by what happened between [me and KM]" and that "to this day I feel deeply offended, iii. That I demonstrated betrayed and violated ..."

a "refusal to cooperate;"

By "refusal to cooperate" Ms. Siebert is presumably referring to my refusal to submit a written account of my relationship with KM to her and to her alone. I made plain to Ms. Siebert from my first email to her of February 11 2011, that I knew she was a close personal friend of KM's and his confidante during our relationship. Since she was already aware of my relationship with KM, I did not think that I had to spell out what she already knew; namely that he entered into an intimate relationship with me that began while I was his student. In all my dealings with Ms. Siebert, she has never once acknowledged that she knew of that relationship with KM when it occurred and her apparent conflict of interest. Recently, in an email of July 24 2012, I pointed her to a September 16 2009 email from KM in which he writes to me: "When I wrote about speaking with you in person, it was partially because I was experiencing a great deal of shame about us, so much that I couldn't see how to live with it. A conversation with my friend Stephanie [emphasis mine] and the passage of time have lowered the intensity to a more tolerable level. .." Even this disclosure did not elicit any acknowledgment from Ms. Siebert or any response at all to my ernail. I also knew from February 25 2011 of Grievant2's experience submitting her allegations to Ms. Siebert. That knowledge confirmed me in my decision not to entrust my grievance to Ms. Siebert and risk the

same treatment Grievant2 had received. I had already made plain my desire to "ensure that something is done for Ken and his students that would provide formal guidelines in these situations." I have been pressing for formal grievance policies and procedures ever since. I have repeatedly asked for formal procedures and have now attempted to bring a well-respected third party, AOB, into the process with no result or reply from Ms. Siebert so far. Reasonable people will agree that I had ample reason not trust Ms. Siebert at that time and even more now that she has stymied my efforts and published the patent falsehoods examined here. I will leave it to reasonable people to decide who has refused to cooperate. iv. That there was "never any sexual or other relationship between KM and [me];"

In an Aug 7 2009 email KM writes to my ex-husband, "Did I violate the ethics I have lived for the last 20+ years? Given your letter ... I have to say, "Yes". And with that, I now have to step back completely ...Apologies are cheap, I know, and damage has been done. Nevertheless ... 1 am very sorry. Even though I consulted with trusted advisors here in LA, the decisions I made were clearly wrong." This email alone renders absurd the claim that KM and I never had a relationship of any kind. As you can see from the one quoted in the preceding section above, it is not the only such email. v. That 'we [the UM BOD] have copies of all correspondence" between KM and me;

Mr. Conrad, I would like to ask you if this claim by Ms. Siebert is true, but unfortunately more to the point is the question, how could you know? Since the UM BOD has never asked me to submit my copies of the correspondence between KM and me, neither I nor the board could possibly know whether we are looking at the same items. Please consider the position I am in as I consider Ms. Siebert's claim that you have seen all my correspondence with KM, including the passages above and those like them in the 120 emails and the 130 pages of Skype chat history between KM and me. If you have seen all the correspondence, I must believe that you have allowed your Board President to pretend publicly they show no evidence of any relationship at all between KM and me. If you have not seen them all, you have allowed your Board President to tell you she has given all of them to you when she has not, without ever checking with me to see if her claim is true, and you have dismissed any concern for my grievance on that basis. Mr. Conrad, I hereby request of the UM BOD: 1. 2. 3. That you retract in writing all Ms. Siebert's false statements evidenced above. That you contact AOB and acknowledge that the allegations of Grievant2 have been received. That you publicly either recognize as your own or repudiate "Jen Shiang" who claims to know details of how the UM BOD dealt with me and even pretends to know my own motivations and history with KM. ("Jen Shiang" makes her allegations anonymously hushmail email address to manage inquiries secretly.) 4. on my blog and posts a

That you share with me your copies of all correspondence between me, KM, my ex-husband and anyone else relevant to my relationship with KM and/or my attempts to press for policies and procedures to hear my grievance. S. That you state plainly whether in fact, given what you now know of her involvement and behavior in this matter, you think my sole recourse should be to entrust Ms. Siebert alone with my grievance and, if you agree her participation is no longer appropriate, that you propose a grievance procedure involving a respectable neutral third party.

6.

That you provide me with UM's "Governing documents, conflict of interest policy and financial statements" in accordance with your statement on Form 990, Part VI, Section C, Line 19 that they are available upon request.

Please let me know in writing your response to all my requests. Mr. Conrad, KM has written that it takes four to five years to recover from boundary violations in a teacher-student relationship. I can attest that after three years not a day goes by in which I do not grieve because of it. I will also have to live every day for the rest of my life with the consequences of my relationship with my former teacher. Ms. Siebert's denial of the reality of that relationship has added harm to an already very painful situation. I will not deal with her any longer and I will not go away.

s~
Patricia Ivan, PhD.

cc: Ken McLeod, Clint Wilkins, Stephanie Siebert, Deborah Neikirk (via Google+ profile email contact) [Note: no contact could be found for Kirk Borcherding and I respectfully request all BOD members be shown this correspondence.]