By Dan Frazier
   Tea Party Editor 

It is no exaggeration to say that Flagstaff Tea Party would never have happened without the generous financial support of one man — Chuck McDougal. He was, in a very real sense, the founder of Flagstaff Tea Party. Though it was not his idea to start a newspaper, it was his idea to make FTP a nonprofit organization. It was an approach that would prove helpful to FTP, and also to McDougal.

During the first two years of FTP’s operations, McDougal was arguably FTP’s biggest donor, typically donating $500 a month to the organization. (There were a few other major donors: My wife and I donated thousands of hours of our time that we will probably never be paid for. Meanwhile, Lisa’s parents, who own the house we live in, temporarily waived our rent payments in a show of support for the newspaper.) At one point, when FTP was having a cash-flow crisis, McDougal made a special loan of $20,000 to FTP in an effort to keep the project going.

Any history of FTP would be incomplete if it did not prominently mention the role of Chuck McDougal. His generosity continuously amazed us. Many times my wife and I asked each other, “What would we do without Chuck?”

Now, we are finding out.

In late March, McDougal suddenly and unexpectedly withdrew his financial support from FTP. This is the story of how we lost McDougal’s support.

Normally, I would not write about a donor’s decision to stop supporting FTP. Even the loss of a major donor normally would not warrant much public discussion, though in some cases a public “thank you” for past support might be appropriate.

As other FTP board members have noted, writing about why a major donor chooses not to continue giving could scare off other potentially major donors from making a first donation.

While I certainly appreciate that concern, I have other concerns as well. For instance, if a so-called newspaper can’t even be counted on to give an accurate report of the major turning points in its own history, what can it be counted on to report? As will be explained shortly, Lisa and I feel McDougal has wronged us by trying to use money as a weapon in an emotionally charged situation.

It is interesting to consider how we as a society urge the victims of violent crime, domestic abuse, or sexual harassment to report the misdeed. But some other kinds of victimization, including that involving the application of financial pressure in an effort to improve a personal relationship, are often considered a taboo — something the victim should not talk about.  The truth is that the victim may find such financial pressure every bit as troubling as sexual harassment or domestic abuse. If FTP bows down at the altar of money-based decision-making, intentionally ignoring the McDougal story, haven’t we committed one of the most heinous (and most common) sins of modern journalism — namely, making editorial decisions based on what is most likely to help (or hurt) the bottom line rather than on what people want or need to know?

McDougal’s decision to withdraw his support is unique for several reasons, any one of which might justify public comment. Taken together, I feel these reasons demand that we explain what has happened. One thing that makes the situation unique has already been mentioned  — McDougal’s role as the founder of FTP. Another is the fact that McDougal’s decision has forced us to consider whether or not we can afford to continue publishing (see related story). Another unique aspect of this situation is that McDougal’s withdrawal of support follows the recent resignation of two FTP board members and two FTP advisors. As I explained in my April editorial, the four stepped down in March after FTP published a controversial story about attorney Ellen Seaborne. As I explained, I believe the board members and advisors were concerned about legal liability in the event of a lawsuit. (So far, a lawsuit has not resulted.) It is important to explain that McDougal’s decision to withdraw his support does not appear to have been connected to the Ellen Seaborne story. Finally, McDougal’s decision to withdraw his support was unique because it was framed in such a context that we, and especially Lisa, felt not only betrayed, but also victimized.

We know that McDougal has been generous to other individuals and organizations in Flagstaff’s activist community. We don’t know if others have had similarly disappointing experiences with McDougal. But we do know that we would not want others to come to depend on McDougal without being aware that hidden strings may be attached to his generosity.

McDougal inherited his wealth in the form of royalties on patented inventions. His father, John A. McDougal,  developed a number of devices related to the ignition systems of internal combustion engines, as well as a widely used “electronic octane” invention that controls knock in automobiles.

Chuck McDougal has tried to use his money for good. McDougal was profiled in an article published in the Arizona Daily Sun Jan. 26, 1998. He recalled his traumatic experience as a soldier who saw combat in Vietnam. He said he had been a “tough, rebellious kid” and that when he returned from Vietnam he sometimes found himself trying to solve his problems through violence. Since then he has taken a keen interest in supporting causes that might lead toward a more harmonious and less violent world.

In 1998, five years after moving to Flagstaff, he was involved in the founding of Flagstaff’s Center for Compassionate Communication. The center has also been known as the Center for Nonviolent Communication, the McDougal Learning Community, and Peace Workshop International. (See www.peaceworkshop.com).

The center is dedicated to teaching the principles of Marshall Rosenberg’s process of Nonviolent Communication. Rosenberg is a writer and widely-traveled lecturer on the subject of Nonviolent Communication. The center, located on Seventh Avenue in east Flagstaff, offers workshops for adults, occasional lectures, and even has a classroom for school-aged children.

On the Peace Workshop Web site, Nonviolent Communication is summed up this way: “Nonviolent Communication is made up of language and communication skills that focus our attention on all interactions as expression of the life-serving needs all human beings have in common. As we speak with a focus on what we are observing, feeling and needing, we express ourselves with greater clarity and increase the likelihood that we will be heard with compassion. As we listen with a focus on the feelings and needs of the speaker, we are able to remain connected with our natural desire to contribute to life regardless of the words they use.”

Though Lisa and I have not been trained in Nonviolent Communication, through our interactions with McDougal, we have seen that central to the process is the speaker’s stating of his or her needs.

McDougal told the Sun, “One of the models of this process is ‘me first and only,’ not in a stingy way, but in that I believe that if I take care of myself and focus on my needs, I know that is related to other things because of my interconnectedness.”

In practice, McDougal’s communication style often seemed rather stilted and awkward. Lisa, who is very shy and introverted, especially around certain people, found herself very uncomfortable around McDougal.

Lisa and I had known McDougal for years prior to the founding of FTP. He shared many of our interests and values, including a concern for the environment, a desire to create a more self-reliant local economy, and an interest in gardening and growing organic food, among other interests.

Lisa’s discomfort around McDougal must have been obvious to him. However, she was polite toward him at FTP’s monthly board meetings. As an advisor to the board (not a voting board member), McDougal tended to be reserved, taking a hands-off approach. He was usually the last person to offer his opinion or advice on any decision FTP was facing.

Things began to unravel in mid-March when Chuck stopped by our house unexpectedly, as he sometimes would do. He lives just down the street, with his long-time partner, Denise Hudson. He was dropping off some artwork prepared by an artist for Lisa’s forthcoming gardening book. McDougal had loaned FTP money to publish the book. While at the house, McDougal asked Lisa if she would like to go to lunch with him. He said he wanted to get to know her better. Lisa did not respond immediately and I think it was clear to the three of us that she was not excited about the idea. Nonetheless, after a moment’s hesitation, she did agree to his offer. Sensing Lisa’s reluctance, I asked if I could join Chuck and Lisa for lunch. Chuck said yes. We set the lunch for a few days later, at a location to be decided later. I can’t remember if I called or e-mailed Chuck to firm up the location. But I know he responded by e-mail, and the lunch never happened.

On March 17, McDougal sent an e-mail to Lisa, reprinted here in its entirety:

“Dear Lisa,

I want to try to clarify for me and you what is behind my desire to get to know you better.  Here is my attempt at that. Please let me know how you feel about this.

I need connection, a heart-felt connection with people, especially those whom I work with on community projects.  This is all about me and only me and my relationships with others, my perceived quality of connection, level of empathy and honesty, and presence.  I feel comfortable with the way Dan and I interact.  I often feel fear and sadness interacting with you because I do not have that ease of communication that I long for, and find so satisfying.  I hope you can help me learn how to achieve this with you.

 I will try to explain this further  —  for me, when I recall my interactions on a personal level with you, I feel sad, not because of anything you do, but due to my unmet needs for friendship.  I want to mix business and friendship, and I am getting more clear in my own mind how important this kind of soul-mate partnership is to me.  I do feel an urgency to achieve this, but in no way, manner or form want to force it.  Be my soul-mate only to the degree that would meet your needs.  I have so many deep friendships now that I feel very lucky.  But I am always looking for more, as it gives me even more joy in life, along with all the challenges that I seem to encounter with any relationship.  I want to increase my sharing with those who really want to share with me.

 So, I do not specifically want to do lunch, but to start moving toward the above state of affairs. If you want that too, would you be willing to explore/suggest how we might go about this?  What ever means we use, I want us both to feel comfortable with the venue and to feel hopeful that we will both find our meeting fulfilling.  You know what I mean??

Warmly,
  Chuck McDougal”

Lisa responded by e-mail on March 20:

“I know you mean well by your effort to improve your relationship with me. However, I am not comfortable discussing my feelings with you at this time. I am feeling pressured do so, due to our financial ties. I am also uncomfortable with the language you used in your last e-mail to me.”

The next day, Chuck did not attend a board meeting. Previously he had had a good  attendance record.

During the next two weeks, Lisa and I corresponded with McDougal by e-mail. Actually, I did most of the writing, doing my best to explain Lisa’s discomfort with McDougal, and hoping not to offend him.  It was a stressful dialogue, which was only made worse by the fact that we were on deadline.

On March 27, I wrote to McDougal. Among other things, I said, “The harder you try to force this relationship (with Lisa) to be more comfortable, the more uncomfortable it is likely to become. … I think a reasonable short-term goal is simple straightforward communication about business matters. To expect warmth or compassion in the short-term is probably unrealistic.”

On March 29, I called McDougal, leaving a message on his machine to the effect that we had not yet received his March donation of $500, and saying that I would be happy to stop by his house to pick it up.

McDougal replied by e-mail later that day: “I got your call about you expecting a donation from me. I have other priorities right now for my money.  If and when that changes I will let you know.”

Further correspondence by e-mail made it clear that not only was McDougal withdrawing his $500 monthly donation, but he was also reneging on his agreement to loan FTP up to $20,000 for the purposes of publishing Lisa’s book, “Growing Food in the Southwest Mountains.” McDougal would later say he did not remember making such an agreement, though it had been made in front of several witnesses. He had already loaned FTP $8,000 for the book, allowing us to pay local artist Zack Zdinack, to draw the pictures that would illustrate the book, and also to pay a local design firm to begin designing and laying out the book.

McDougal’s decision to renege on the book-loan meant that either publication of the book would have to be canceled, or the balance of the production costs, some $12,000, would have to be placed on our credit cards. (A third possibility, that of printing far fewer books than originally planned, did not seem likely to yield a profit, given the much higher cost of producing each book.)

At first, borrowing the money from McDougal had seemed like a much better arrangement than putting $20,000 on our credit cards. After all, McDougal was not charging interest on the loan. The loan from McDougal was an on-demand type loan, meaning he could request to be repaid at any time, though we expected him to allow us several years to repay the loan. Also, it was understood that the necessity of repaying the loan might be waived if FTP was forced to discontinue its operations.

McDougal’s loan repayment terms were so generous that the thought of putting the cost of the book on our credit cards never even crossed our minds. If McDougal had not offered to loan FTP the money for the book, we would have never ventured to undertake the project. In fact, it was McDougal’s idea to republish the book.

The sudden and unexpected withdrawal of McDougal’s support came as a shock to us. We are still in shock. Of course, you could argue that a donor with McDougal’s deep pockets has every right to expect a certain level of friendship with those he gives his money to. Unfortunately, we are not politicians or minglers or schmoozers. We are introverts. We are willing to work for our money, but our friendship is not for sale. McDougal demanded of Lisa something she simply could not give him.

It is hard to believe that McDougal would withdraw his financial support simply because Lisa would not sit down and have a heart-to-heart chat with him about her feelings. We had believed that he was donating money to FTP because he believed in the important work we were doing. We felt we had bent over backwards to accommodate McDougal’s suggestions for improving the newspaper. We had written and published numerous stories based on his suggestions. Unfortunately, all that did not seem to matter. We did not realize that McDougal’s generosity was contingent on his having a close personal friendship with Lisa.

 We hope that others who recognize the importance of independent media will step forward to fill the gap left by McDougal’s defection. After all, a community newspaper needs the support of a diverse array of community members. Ideally it should have the support of a many residents of the community, and not be overly dependent on any one individual.