[seedig] Disgraceful situation at SEEDIG

Thu Jan 9 14:13:19 CET 2020

Dusan, 

Although you have already left the community, I would like to repeat a
request which we keep making and you keep ignoring: Please make sure you
send us an overview of the SEEDIG funds managed in Slovenia during the
SEEDIG 5 cycle. Any amount left will have to be transferred to the
entity managing SEEDIG funds this year. 

Dear community, 

As already announced, the Executive Committee remains open to discussing
this entire situation (and the new claims made by our former colleague)
during the online meeting next week. Meanwhile, I will refrain from any
additional comments. 

Best, 

Sorina

On 2020-01-09 13:52, Dušan Caf via seedig wrote:

> Dear all, 
> Some of you are expecting my response to the petition. After carefully considering the petition as well as all the malicious and defamatory emails, I decided not to provide any substantive response, as I don't want to legitimise this barbaric and illegitimate initiative. 
> If you want to understand what is going on at SEEDIG, why the attacks were initiated, and find answers to your questions, you can read SEEDIG related posts on my blog [1] -- start for example with: Two resignations in protest over disgraceful situation at SEEDIG [2]. In the blog posts and both emails (of 18 December 2019 and 9 January 2020), you can find answers to most of the questions you may have regarding SEEDIG and the petition. You can see how much time I devoted to SEEDIG (see Reflections on my two years at SEEDIG [3]) -- more than expected -- and how I contributed (e.g. by hosting and organising SEEDIG 2018, leading the preparation of the programme for SEEDIG 5 (2019), expanding the network of partners and sponsors, taking care of finances, preparing the strategic plan, and much more). In my correspondence and blog posts, I have not touched the financial aspects, but all allegations in this regard are also false and malicious. Regarding the report (mentioned in the
petition), I was not responsible for its preparation. The report was delayed primarily due to miscommunication between the member of the executive committee, responsible for the report, and the designer (and perhaps due to other priority tasks related to the preparations for the SEEDIG 5 meeting), while the financial data were provided at the time of preparing the report (and were known before as well). If you have more questions regarding SEEDIG and the work of the executive committee, you can ask the committee to send you approved minutes of its meetings. Meanwhile, I can  share with you for example the work [4] of the SEEDIG 5 programme committee [5] that I was in charge of as a member of the programme committee. 
> It is obvious that the petition and emails were based on false and malicious allegations. Moreover, (i) the petition was an abuse of the Terms of Reference [6], it did not meet any "standard" for petitions, and the whole process was illegitimate -- including the absurdly short deadlines set by the remaining executive committee [7] (with a member whose term has expired and has not been legitimately extended, which undermines the legitimacy of the entire executive committee as well as the legitimacy of its decisions -- the current situation at SEEDIG is just a reflection of the authoritarian leadership and the personality cult surrounding it), and (ii) the executive committee did not discuss issues dealt with in the petition at its meetings, and it did not make any decisions in this regard -- prior to the petition -- that could lead to the petition allegations. 
> The attacks were solely a personal (!) vendetta of those who opposed to better governance, greater transparency, and accountability, who have high stakes at SEEDIG (and want to make sure that no one gets in their way in pursuing their interests), and whose (authoritarian) actions were questioned. 
> A proper response should be a lawsuit against the SEEDIG executive committee chair and the author(s) of the petition and defamatory emails. However, I would rather not dedicate any more time to the creators of this devious and manipulative "organisation" that SEEDIG has become.  
> Before quitting his SEEDIG membership, Peter Sterle wrote that the petition was so beyond any reason that he assumed common sense would prevail and the matter would have calmed down. As we could all witness -- there was no common sense in the SEEDIG community. The attacks and the majority of the accompanying emails were coordinated and members were directly contacted to take part in this defamatory action which represented an unprecedented abuse of power and trust (see Reasons behind resignations from SEEDIG executive committee [8], § Well-orchestrated defamation campaign). Moreover, new members of the inner circle, most active on the mailing list recently, were brought in to cover up the situation, which is just another obvious manipulation. 
> The whole action started after I addressed questions to the SEEDIG executive committee chair, who repeatedly refused to provide information, and after I expressed expectations with regard to the election committee [9] report and indicated that the integrity of the whole election process could be questioned (see Reasons behind resignations from SEEDIG executive committee [8], § Flawed and failed elections -- tip of the iceberg). Indeed, the role and actions of the SEEDIG executive committee chair were questioned -- the chair who failed or refused to provide information to members of the executive committee, who failed to keep even the members of the executive committee equally informed, who bypassed the executive committee, who breached the Terms of Reference [6], and who abused the power and trust of the community (see also Reasons behind resignations from SEEDIG executive committee [8], § Need for change). 
> In fact, trust within the SEEDIG executive committee was ruined already a year ago (at least), first by opposing or ignoring the proposed governance changes (see Reasons behind resignations from SEEDIG executive committee [8], § Need for change), by avoiding a formal vote on the SEEDIG executive committee chair for 2019 -- which never actually took place formally, as far as I know --, and then by denying concerns regarding potential manipulations of the voting body through the loyal inner circle under the control of the SEEDIG executive committee chair. While for some members of the executive committee control over the voting body by the chair (or individual members of the executive committee) was considered democratic, for the minority it was entirely unacceptable -- and with good reason.  
> The opposing minority was right as we clearly saw that over three quarters of the supporters of the petition belonged to the manipulated and loyal inner circle (see Reasons behind resignations from SEEDIG executive committee [8], § Well-orchestrated defamation campaign). There are also other patterns that indicate who are those with high stakes at SEEDIG. Without neutrality and impartiality, and by the misuse of administrative resources, every voting at SEEDIG was, is and will be illegitimate. It is surprising that no one in the SEEDIG community has objected to this abuse of power and trust. This is telling and indicative of the personality cult, and of the absence of democratic values and principles at SEEDIG (see also Reasons behind resignations from SEEDIG executive committee [8], § Flawed and failed elections -- tip of the iceberg). 
> Later on during 2019, the situation worsened by the supporting organisations or their representatives that heavily interfered with individual members of the executive committee and with SEEDIG's work, especially in relation to the legal entity, but also in relation to some other activities that could lead to the privatisation of SEEDIG or its use for personal benefits (see Reflections on my two years at SEEDIG [3]). 
> As Vladimir Radunović from the DiploFoundation wrote, the role of supporting organisations is strategic and political -- to provide context, contacts, visibility, substance, and funding. Their role is not to interfere with internal dynamics, which could be counterproductive, contribute to polarisation, and hurt the organisation. 
> To sum up, the current situation at SEEDIG is primarily a result of bad leadership, intentionally poor communication, manipulations and broken trust. 
> Broken trust cannot be restored by attacking those proposing changes and asking questions, by sweeping problems under the carpet, pretending that nothing has happened, continuing business as usual, and by bringing in new naive members (most active recently on the mailing list) -- hungry of influence, power, and travel benefits -- to legitimise the present wrongdoings at SEEDIG and later on perhaps its transformation into a legally founded "private club". 
> All of you who supported the petition and actively participated in sending orchestrated emails, legitimised the abuse of power and trust at SEEDIG. You participated in malicious and well-planned defamatory attacks on the member of the executive committee who expected the executive committee and especially its chair to adhere with the principles, values and rules as defined by the SEEDIG Terms of Reference [6], which have been continually breached, and who expected good and respectful leadership, where the SEEDIG executive committee chair has failed the most while engaging in unethical behaviour that culminated in the petition which was an example of devious, manipulative, and dishonest behaviour -- by all those orchestrating the whole action (see also Reasons behind resignations from SEEDIG executive committee [8], § Need for change). 
> Today, SEEDIG is not anymore an entity for professionals with respectful careers. Neither it is an appropriate place for students and the youth -- on the verge of their professional careers -- who shape their values in such a malicious environment. This is primarily why Sasho Dimitrijoski and I resigned from the executive committee. Our resignation should be a clear signal to the community as well as to supporting organisations about the situation at SEEDIG -- which is worrying and cannot be resolved by the current team and while outside interference continues, especially with regard to the legal entity. 
> It is probably hard for many of you to admit to yourself that you have been manipulated -- and abused as well. It is perhaps easier to silently continue to support the manipulative, authoritarian leader, or actively glorify the cult of personality than to speak up in defence of democratic values and principles.  
> It is absurd, though, that many of you who supported the petition were able to travel to SEEDIG events and become "the insiders" especially due to Sasho's and my efforts with finances. To our disappointment, the travel benefits meant for capacity building were used, behind our backs, to establish a (parallel) inner circle of loyal fellows that could be, as we have seen, easily manipulated for malicious purposes they wouldn't even understand.  
> We warned of the danger of manipulating the inner circle already a year ago. Regrettably, we were horribly right. This has been a very strong mechanism for manipulating the community and silencing both the inner circle and the executive committee. SEEDIG is not a multistakeholder initiative that we as representatives of the government and private sector stakeholders expected and strived for, but rather a private club (NGO-like (!)) -- dominated by a rather small inner circle and serving particular interests -- that we could not endorse. As such, SEEDIG does not have any legitimacy to be a regional voice in the international internet governance community. 
> I do not want to endorse an internet governance initiative based on culture of fear that suppresses freedom of speech and nurtures malicious values. I do not want to endorse the regional internet governance initiative that is not based on democratic values and principles, does not respect human rights, and does not serve the interests of diverse stakeholders in South-Eastern Europe (see Reasons behind resignations from SEEDIG executive committee [8], § Culture of fear, § Suppression of criticism and free speech, § Destroyed democratic values and principles). 
> Last but not least, I do not want to endorse the initiative where the community tolerates bullying, participates in ad-hominem attacks, and openly promotes the personality cult. 
> As I do not share the current values and principles of SEEDIG, I am quitting my membership and unsubscribing from the mailing list.  
> Yours sincerely, 
> Dušan Caf 
> PS 
> Sweeping problems under the carpet does not mean the problems cease to exist -- problems at SEEDIG keep persisting, and that is the fact. The same applies to ignoring problems or staying silent or neutral. Indifference or neutrality is not the right way to deal with the issues at hand. That is exactly what is keeping alive SEEDIG's bad governance, bad leadership, and manipulations as well as SEEDIG itself in a limbo of continuous crisis -- for the second time in two years (that is publicly known). This time, the crisis is much deeper than anyone could have imagined a year ago, when the same patterns as in 2017 emerged.

Links:
------
[1] https://blog.caf.si/
[2]
https://blog.caf.si/2019/12/two-resignations-in-protest-over-disgraceful-situation-in-SEEDIG.html
[3]
https://blog.caf.si/2019/11/reflections-on-my-two-years-in-seedig.html
[4]
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1t6_C4ShxI4SToc9xidJJcyf2ljhkW9VY?usp=sharing
[5] https://seedig.net/programme-committee/
[6] https://seedig.net/terms-of-reference-tor/
[7] https://seedig.net/executive-committee/
[8]
https://blog.caf.si/2019/12/reasons-behind-resignations-from-SEEDIG-executive-committee.html
[9] https://seedig.net/elections-2019/#committee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.rnids.rs/pipermail/seedig/attachments/20200109/049f594d/attachment.htm>