[seedig] Disgraceful situation at SEEDIG

[Sorina Teleanu]

Dear Desiree and all, 

First, thank you, Desiree, for the comments and suggestions.  

As we go deeper into these issues, allow me to try to clarify a few
things (in what is a rather long email). 

What I asked for from Mr Caf is an overview of the situation with the
funds used and left (if any) in Slovenia during the SEEDIG 5 cycle. I
also said that any funds left would have to be transferred to the entity
managing SEEDIG funds this year. This is simply based on a practice we
have been having at SEEDIG over the past years. See, for example, our
SEEDIG 2018 report, which indicated: ''Comparing the total budget for
SEEDIG 2018 and the final costs, a surplus occurs. This surplus will be
used to cover costs related to communication and outreach (web presence,
printing SEEDIG materials etc.), intersessional activities, and/or the
planning of SEEDIG 2019.' 

Indeed, SEEDIG does not have a legal entity and all funds raised for
SEEDIG have always been managed with the support of other entities,
including EuroDIG, hosts of annual meetings, or other partners. In all
these cases, we have indeed relied on trust and good faith. And while
these entities had the legal responsibility of managing contracts and
finances, this has always been done in line with Executive Committee
decisions. 

Mr Caf, through his Digitas Institute, managed funds for SEEDIG 2018,
when the Institute acted as a host. It is true that this included funds
from both international and local (Slovenian) sponsors. And Mr Caf was
trusted to conclude the sponsorship agreements, without any indications
or suggestions at that point that such agreements might also indicate
the possibility of leftovers being used for local Internet governance
activities or anything else but SEEDIG activities. 

For SEEDIG 2018, the financial situation is clear, as Mr Caf provided an
overview in July 2019 (included in the SEEDIG 2018 report). That
overview also included a line on 'administrative costs' (which we were
told included elements like bank and transaction fees, etc), with some
700 EUR. And there were leftovers, which, according to previous
practice, were to be used for SEEDIG activities in the following cycle. 

Digitas was not a host for SEEDIG 5. But, in addition to the SEEDIG 2018
leftovers, the Institute was also in receipt of funds from two SEEDIG
international sponsors. What we miss now is a simple overview of how
much money was spent and how much money was left (if any) after the
SEEDIG 5 meeting. We have always had the practice of clarifying the
financial situation after each annual meeting. 

Bottom line, the situation for SEEDIG 2018, when Digitas acted as host,
is clear. We are simply asking our former colleague to help us clarify
the situation for SEEDIG 5. Without implying or assuming anything, until
we see that overview. (For what it worths, the situation is clear with
the other two entities through which SEEDIG 5 funds were managed.)  

On the issue that SEEDIG host 'could claim to cover their own operating
costs in relation to SEEDIG': If it is about bank fees and similar
costs, these have already been covered for SEEDIG 2018, as indicated
above. If it is about more, then this is something that has never been
raised or suggested by any SEEDIG host or partner. Speaking again about
good faith, if a host or partner claims administrative costs, it would
be expected that this is raised at the start of a process, and agreed
with the Executive Committee. Up to now, there has never been an
agreement or a request from any of the entities acting as hosts or
managing SEEDIG funds to have 'administrative costs' covered. 

And there is one final thing I would like to clarify. Over the past
years, funds raised for SEEDIG have solely been used for covering costs
related to the annual meeting (logistics, costs associated with the
Youth School and the Fellowship Programme, financial support for
Executive Committee members to attend the SEEDIG meetings or a few other
IG-related events, and other financial support for SEEDIG editors or
ambassadors) and for a few intersessional activities (such as the Road
Show event held in Albania in March 2019). But there has never been the
case that SEEDIG funds were used to cover 'the work of the executive
committee'. If there is any change in this practice, it should be
something for the future, and not applied retroactively. 

Considering the above, we remain open to looking into better approaches
for the future (to be used before a SEEDIG legal entity is established).


Regards, 

Sorina

On 2020-01-13 23:58, Desiree Miloshevic wrote:

> Dear Sorina, dear all  
> 
> Happy New Year! 
> 
> I am writing in regard to the latest email from the SEEDIG executive committee chair about the funds left from SEEDIG 2018 held in Ljubljana. 
> I believe that Dusan Caf is no longer on this list, so I cc-him, but he should write back to you/the Chair once the yearly accounts for 2018-2019 have been finalised, by the end of March 2020? 
> 
> My understanding is that the funds were provided jointly by international and Slovenian sponsors to cover expenses for SEEDIG 2018 and by international sponsors to cover expenses for SEEDIG 5,  
> as well as for the youth school and fellowship programmes, inter-sessional activities and the work of the executive committee in 2018 and 2019. 
> 
> However, the question is which SEEDIG activities can be covered by donations and sponsorships, as some activities may go beyond contract responsibilities.  
> The purpose of sponsorships and donations is defined in contracts signed by the local host. It is the sole responsibility of the local host to manage the contracts and finances 
> 
> As SEEDIG is not a legal entity and there is no legal agreements signed between SEEDIG and local hosts, the cooperation is based on trust and respect of the rights of both parties.  
> Contracts of international and local sponsors may be different as well as with different objectives and responsibilities of the contracting parties. 
> Best to my knowledge, in the past five years, several organisations have found themselves with leftovers that were in subsequent years spent for SEEDIG-related expenses.  
> On one side, there were organisations that served only as "proxies" like the ISOC Serbia Belgrade Chapter in 2016.  
> However, there were also organisations which had operational and organisational responsibilities and acted as local hosts of SEEDIG meetings and by providing support to other SEEDIG activities,  
> that could possibly claim to cover their own operating costs in relation to SEEDIG? 
> With the latest claims regarding the finances against Dusan Caf, there are two issues to be considered: 
> 
> * 
> SEEDIG is not a legal entity and its operations can be financed only through third parties;  
> * 
> SEEDIG hosts, which have been responsible for finding sponsors and signing contracts as well as for the organisation of events,  
> can also claim to cover their own operating costs related to SEEDIG. 
> 
> There are a few possible options.  
> 
> I can only guess that there is a relatively small leftover from SEEDIG 2018 as the remaining funds have already been spent for other activities.  
> (e.g. for the SEEDIG 5 meeting, the capacity development programmes, inter-sessional activities, and the work of the executive committee in 2018 and 2019)? 
> 
> But the relevant question is whether money donated or paid as sponsorship fees to the local host could have been spent for activities of other entities or organisations at all.  
> Legally, the budget of local organisers cannot be automatically mixed with a general SEEDIG budget, currently financed by international supporting organisations. 
> 
> We need to know the answer to the following legal questions:  
> 
> * 
> Whether the Slovenian host has already covered all of its expenses incurred during the organisation of all events in Ljubljana, for managing contracts and finances for SEEDIG 4, etc.? 
> * 
> Whether the Slovenian sponsorship fees received for SEEDIG 2018 can be transferred or put to use for other SEEDIG activities, e.g. SEEDIG 2019? 
> 
> These are relevant questions and should be addressed by both the local host and the SEEDIG executive committee. 
> 
> If the leftover was more substantial, the SEEDIG 2018 sponsors could also agree that the remaining funds could be spent for local internet governance activities in 2020 (or be transferred to EuroDIG). 
> In my view, this is a legal matter that could be discussed also between the Slovenian sponsors and the 2018 host, and not only with the SEEDIG supporting organisations and its international sponsors.  
> All transactions also need to be compliant with the host country accounting legislation. 
> 
> I have no official role in any of this, but it is disheartening to read these emails and leave these issues unanswered.  
> I'd be happy to offer advice to both the SEEDIG excom and the SEEDIG hosts, if asked, to come up with the best solution for all parties involved. 
> 
> Best regards 
> 
> Desiree Miloshevic 
> -- 
> 
> On 9 Jan 2020, at 13:13, Sorina Teleanu <sorina.teleanu at seedig.net> wrote: 
> 
> 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/20200114/66b8fb3e/attachment.htm>