EAB resignation correspondence of Rik Dalton

Would you please convey to the Committee the fact that, after more than 60 years of membership of BEA/EAB, I now feel that I must resign.

I do not feel that I have left the Esperanto movement but that EAB has.

Bedawre,

Rik Dalton

Dear Rik -

I am very sorry to hear of your decision. You do not explain your reasons. I hope they do not relate to anything that has taken place in the Association during the time that I have been President. I myself remain a committed member of the Esperanto movement at local, national and international levels, and believe that EAB continues to play a vital role in the worldwide Esperanto movement.

John

Dear John,

Thankyou for the email . I suppose I do owe you an explanation, so I append what I wrote to Geoffrey Sutton

Sincerely

Rik

Attachment: SRD to GS in response to GS's comments in Update

Attachment: GS to SRD: refusal to publish second letter

Attachment: SRD to GS in reply to GS's letter

[These refer to: EAB Update See Issue 39, October-December 2007, pp 13-14.]

Rik -

Thanks for this. I see that it relates mainly to matters that took place before I took over as President, indeed when I had no role in EAB other than that of a plain member.

May I forward this to the EAB Management Committee? I am sure they would wish to know what lies behind your resignation.

John

Certainly you may feel free to show my letters to the management committee if you wish.

When did you take over as President ?

The two letters from GS that forced me to resign were in November & December 2007 but, in any case, I was mainly concerned that decisions were taken without reference to the "plain members" and possibly without reference to the members of the mangement committee; hence the reference to certain misterious persons whom GS refers to as "iuj" and to others who were privileged to make a "neoficiala" response to a letter to "Update" which had not been printed.

I had long been concerned about EAB being run by persons who did not answer to or consult the "plain Members" such as you were . I am by no means convinced that all Committee members have always been fully informed. I am not impressed by the obfuscation about Charity Commision or by the pseudo legality of "equal and individual" responsibility of trustees. I am, after all, a lawyer with some experience of charitable organisations

Rik

Rik -

I became President in 2004. Prior to that I was not a member of ManCom (= I was not a Trustee of the Association).

During my presidency I have striven to ensure that everything is done democratically and in the open. I am not aware of having failed in that aim (though you may perhaps think otherwise - I am still not clear exactly what all this is about).

My email address is widely publicized; I have a considerable web presence (www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells - my blog is read by hundreds of people each day); and I attend the London E Club reasonably regularly. So any member who wants to express their opinion to me has no difficulty in doing so. I try always to be approachable (and not just with ref to Esperanto).

If it is covertly about Ian Fantom, let me say that I bent over backwards to give him every chance to express his views at ManCom meetings and at AGMs. He is someone who has a lot to offer. In the early days of my presidency he supplied me with valuable ideas for my speech at the British E Congress. However his behaviour towards his fellow Trustees ultimately became so offensive and disruptive that ManCom was forced to recommend to the membership that he not be reelected. In the democratic voting at the 2006 AGM he was indeed not reelected.

GS is not an elected office holder (Trustee) of EAB, though of course he is the Editor of Update.

John

I make no complaint regading your presidency. The only reason I mentioned it was because you said that most of the matters were before it. However if you say that as a "plain member" you did not know what was happening, you are justifying my complaint. I would like to know who is running EAB. Who are the mysterious people who GS refers to as iuj ?

As for the suggestion that my resignation is in some way acting covertly for Ian Fantom (or anybody else), this is just not so. What have my complaints to do with him? Any suggestion of such a conspiracy is paranoid. I am of course aware of his views but the reason for my actions were clealy set out in my letters and do not in any way relate to him. However if you wish to bring him into the matter I suppose I should send him a copy of this email so that he can, if he wishes, say whether I am acting covertly for him.

Best wishes

Rik

Rik -

As you must be aware, the people "running EAB" are the Trustees (ManCom) and the employees. They act on behalf of the members. The Trustees are democratically answerable to the members. The employees are answerable to ManCom.

So I don't know who 'iuj' are, either.

I only know that I strive to do my best for the good of the Association and the promotion of Esperanto, and I believe that the other members of ManCom do, too.

John

Thanks for your reply.What you state is what the position _should_ be.

Does that mean I should complain to the the Trustees ... (or perhaps to the President) about the privileges or powers granted by the eitor of Update to their competitors? Should not the Trustees require GS to divulge the identity of "iuj" and the extent of their censorship powers ? Should not their identities be disclosed to the membership?

Rik

Rik -

By all means complain to us or me. We have a ManCom meeting next Saturday, 8 Feb.

It might be easier if you told me what GS said, and under what circumstances. You say that it was in letters (sent by GS to you?) in Nov and Dec 2007. But remember I haven't seen them, so it is difficult for me to comment.

In any case, there are no mysterious persons behind the scenes running EAB without consulting the members. Not under my watch, anyhow.

John

The complaint arises out of the editor's response to my letter which appeared in the last issue of "Update". He referred to two _different_ reactions to my letter (which had not until then appeared) One was from certain individuals whom he referred to as "iuj" and a different one which "venis".

I will send you a copy of my next letter (dated 05/10/2007) in which I asked who were the two groups of persons who had the privilege of responding to readers' letters _before_ they appeared. I think I have sent you the correspondence which follows.

Now it seems that even the president does not know who these mysterious people are. Surely the AdKom will wish to investigate and inform the members

Dear John,

Any results from May 8th meeting re my complaint ?

Rik

I don't seem to hear from you in reply to my communications. Open door policy no longer in force?

What ever happened to mycomplaint which you offered to pass on? Perhaps "iuj" won't let you reply.

Rik

Rik -

If you were to set out your complaint coherently in one sentence, I might be able to. But not if it simply a complaint that Geoff Sutton didn't publish your letter.

Don't be ricidulous, talking about 'iuj' who won't let me reply. You resigned from membership, so you won't have had the latest Update, where ManCom sets out its position very clearly.

I'm sure Barlaston would send you a copy of Update if you would like one after all.

John

[The text of JCW's letter in EAB Update]

[EAB Update See Issue 41, April-June 2008.]

Dear John

If Sutton had merely said that as editor he did not wish to publish my letter I might perhaps have had less ground for complaint in spite of the fact that I was referring to matters of importance to EAB members and unanswered questions to which they have a right to know the answers , but it was he not me who first referred to the mysterious "iuj" who apparently had a right to comment on letters before they had been seen by the persons for whom they were intended and to a different response which "venis" from another source with a similar privilege . It is this rather than the non publication of which I complain.

It was you not me who suggested that you would put the matter berfore the committee and asked what Sutton had said ( thus as Chairman implying) that the Committee did not know about the matter. You did not make it a condition that I precis his strange arguments into one sentence

Sincerely

Rik

Dear John,

I accepted your hint and looked at Update.

You have certainly boxed yourself into a corner.

To take your two bulletted points:-

These obviously are part of the daft suggestion that I am acting covertly for Ian Fantom . I am not acting covertly or otherwise for any other than myself and I am certain that Ian does not need anyone to act for him even if he wishes to take any action against the vicious and (_I_ would say, if he asked me, definitely) defamatory campaign against him.

Your bulleted points apparently relate to unanswered and important questions which I (and not Ian as far as I know) wrote about.

To take the second point first.

The selective and collective amnesia of the trustees seems to have left them with a very short memory span indeed. It was in a _recent_ issue of Update that Dermod Quirke's offer was made public and the important part of the offer was not his possible librarianship but to his offer to provide a home in London for the Butler library.

The fact that Dermod is a friend of yours is totally irrelevnt. I think I can say he has been a friend of mine for even longer.

_ I_ do not believe him to be a liar.

It woud be strange if such an important offer was not discusssed and minuted

Which of course brings us to the first point. How can you expect to get away with relying on the agreement in 1999 when we now know that members were not given all the facts ?

At the time I was stilll being kept in touch with what was going on. The committee were so anxious to scuttle from London that they were prepared to sell for about half the price which was eventually obtained until Don Lord and others intervened. For a time the headquarters were reduced to being a card in the window of an obscure provincial shop.

Simcerely

Rik

Dear Rik,

Did you receive any response from John Wells concerning the points you made about his statement in Update?

I think it raises some serious matters.

Regards,

Ian

No reply received yet. It seems that the chairman of the Esperanto-Association of Barlaston does not or cannot reply to legitimate queries or corrections of his errors.

Rik