-----Original Message----- From: owner-ifip_ga@ifip.or.at [mailto:owner-ifip_ga@ifip.or.at]On Behalf Of Klaus Brunnstein Sent: terça-feira, 20 de Maio de 2003 17:03 To: IFIP GA Cc: Klaus Brunnstein Subject: [IFIP GA] reaction to PNs report as forwarded by Ashely Importance: High Dear Ashley and dear members of GA, first may I kindly ask you to read what I have written: I have OPENLY written the facts! Consequently, I can concentrate on PNs "arguments" as forwarded by Ashley: there is sufficient WRITTEN EVIDENCE to PROVE that PNs arguments are wrong. First: Concerning PNs request to upgrade his salary, I strictly insist that PN did NOT inform me in any form that this was excluded by previous agreement when his salary was raised by almost 25% to a level which is very high by Austrian standards. Indeed, the loss of 8% in 2 years which PN reports has to be compared with the increase then given to him for the whole period! Second: It is NOT true that EB said that we had not heard of the retirement scheme. Indeed, PN informed us in general terms about DH using her legal rights for early retirement (which I knew as it is like Germany). But PN didNOT inform us about the essential detail that DH will stop working for IFIP so soon (see my email reply to Dr. Tanaka) which now forces us to soon hire new staff for the secretariat for introduction while Dorothy will still be on our payroll. There is INDEED a significant financial overhead which we only detected AFTER discussions with PN. Third: In the meeting (including PN, Dipak, Roger and me) where we prepared discussion of PNs request for more money for himself and for DH, we asked for the related documents. Even then, we didNOT receive all relevant documents. Esp. the document concerning the worktime arrangement of DH (not signed by IFIP president but Academy which believed that we are awrae of the implications!) was NOT given to us. Fourth: PN had NO duties regarding WITFOR. It was his task as UNESCO relations officer to acquire related funds but there was NO justification that he intervened (yes, he intervened!) into operations which Peter Bollerslev and Dipak Khakhar were responsible for. His role as co-chair also gave him no right for intervening with duties of those responsible (Peter Bollerslev, Renaldas Gudauskas, Dipak Khakhar, Dewald Roode, Leon Strous). Fifth: Concerning timing, PN informed me in October 2002 in a brief (10 minutes) discussion that he wishes more money for himself and DH. I asked for a written statement which he only sent directly to me in the week before Council. In this email, he wrote that I could decide without asking anyone else but I requested him to send this to treasurer and secretary. This "official" document arrived one day before I left for Bilbao. In Bilbao, he requested that this be discussed before end of Council: clearly, this time pressure was set by PN. Sixth: All these issues (and more) were internal EB discussions including investigations of facts. The investigation about the diverse issues was agreed in the EB meeting and in PNs presence, NOT - as PN now writes - on March 17! There was no reason to distribute this (even a part of it) to a broader public outside EB. More: There are indeed more facts which we found out only when PN was no longer in secretariat. Just one issue of several: concerning the valid bank signature, PN never updated this to apply to presidents since 2001: still, Peter Bollerslev is signatar, which we are only now updating to current offices. Finally: it is a plain untruth that I have ever qualified any president in any sense, and I have sep. NOT qualified any president as "weak". And I dont wish consuming your time by reacting to other attacks which are all unjustified. For more details, you may read what I informed you. Best wishes: Klaus (May 20, 2003) -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-ifip_ga@ifip.or.at [mailto:owner-ifip_ga@ifip.or.at]Im Auftrag von Ashley Goldsworthy Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. Mai 2003 07:38 An: Klaus Brunnstein; IFIP GA Cc: Klaus Brunnstein Betreff: Re: [IFIP GA] replying to Past President Dr. Tanaka Colleagues I believe that situations such as we are experiencing at the moment can only be resolved by there being a full and frank disclosure of the relevant FACTS. Not by innuendo or indirect references which nobody understands. So a few days ago I asked Plamen to record the facts as he understood them so we could all better understand what had happened and hear his side of the story (as Zemanek would have said there are always at least two sides). In response I received the following from Plamen. I emphasise that this preceded the message we have now received from Klaus. I forward this to you without comment so you can reach your own conclusions in this unhappy incident and decide what action should be taken in the circumstances. "On 27 February 2003 I sent a proposal to the President requesting for an

eventual consideration of salary adjustments as follows:

-- Dorothy had joined an official Austrian early retirement scheme administered by the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Her employment with IFIP was due to expire in October 2004 and I suggested a small salary increase given her excellent service to IFIP.

-- My last salary raise occurred in October 2000 by way of a new 5-year contract negotiated in September 2000. Since then, due to inflation and tax levels, my net monthly income had actually decreased both in real and absolute value and I requested whether a salary adjustment could be considered.

Before my proposal was sent I had a telephone call with the Secretary to seek his advice [In September 2000, R. Johnson and P. Bollerslev were involved in the negotiations concerning my new employment contract and the staff salary levels]. I also phoned the President to explain the situation and emailed a draft. After the President confirmed that he wished to have the proposal officially circulated I sent it to him with copies to the Secretary and the Treasurer.

The IFIP Council and related meetings were held in Bilbao, Spain, 2 - 6 March. During discussions that started on 2 March and specifically during the last EB meeting on 6 March I was blamed by the Treasurer, supported by the President, of the following [my brief explanations follow in brackets]:

1. The Treasurer and the President had never heard of Dorothy's early retirement scheme [P.N. - The Treasurer was thoroughly informed during the TC 6 meeting in Lisbon in October 2002. The President was also briefed about the various elements of the scheme in Lisbon, moreover, when he visited the Secretariat on 3 October, Dorothy explained the details. As Executive Director whose Job charter includes responsibility for the management of the Secretariat and the oversight of the work of full-time and part-time staff, I had no reason to deny Dorothy the right to enter this scheme. By agreeing, I have assumed no financial obligations on behalf of IFIP! Finally, when the Treasurer visited the IFIP Secretariat in early February for a meeting with the Auditor, we discussed with the Auditor the scheme accounting details.]

2. Dorothy's early retirement scheme leads to significant financial obligations for IFIP [P.N. - There is no financial burden for IFIP. Actually, it is to IFIP's financial benefit.]

3. I have tried to force the President into making a decision without sufficient time [P.N. - My proposals contained no urgency and arguments for immediate decision.]

4. I have behaved very unprofessionally by not bringing Dorothy's previous salary contracts to Bilbao [P.N. - I had all the necessary documents related to the scheme description and agreement, salary levels before and after the scheme entered into force. Her previous contracts were irrelevant for the requested consideration, nevertheless, copies were provided in Bilbao.]

5. I have hidden the fact that my last contract was concluded for a fixed period of 5 years. [P.N. - This information was included in my proposal.]

6. I have embarrassed Prof. K. Bauknecht [President 1995-1998] on a similar issue and have 'ordered' Peter Bollerslev [President 1998-20001] to exclude the Treasurer from the contractual discussions in September 2000

7. I have referred to a personal tragedy of the Treasurer by saying "You dropped the ball 3 years ago" [P.N.- Actually, I said that he isolated himself some years ago by refusing to sign Dorothy's contract in November 2000]

8. I do not support D. Khakhar as Treasurer and I do not support him as WITFOR Program Committee Chair and work behind his back with the NOC Chair, Prof. R. Gudauskas[P.N. Confirmations of this support to the Treasurer are contained in many Council and GA Minutes. As to WITFOR, I was involved in the organization from the beginning. I was a Commission co-chair and have assisted in raising significant UNESCO funds and support for the event. The Steering Committee Chair and the NOC Chair could confirm my contributions.]

Our disagreement spread to other issues: The TA agenda on 4 March included a progress report from the Executive Director on the Task Force on IT and Sports. Following my report the President started shouting that I had not informed him and the GI, the German member society, of the activities related to the project and of the organization of a conference in Cologne. The conference in Cologne was only a possibility to be pursued in case TA agreed. Moreover, Professor Otto Spaniol, GI representative to TC 6 and past TC 6 Chair was directly involved in this project. Despite my explanations the President continued with his attacks after returning to Germany and had raised the matter as a complaint at a meeting of his Society.

The Treasurer was asked to formally present his accusations during the last EB meeting on 6 March. I was not told that this was on the agenda. I was not given a proper chance to respond before being asked to leave so that EB could consider the matter privately. When called back, I was informed that EB had agreed to a raise for Dorothy. [After the meeting I found out that the President had informed Dorothy of her raise before I was actually told about EB's decision]. I was then criticized by the President how badly I have behaved, that I have not provided substantial facts to support my proposals, that I should follow instructions from elected officers, that I am paid for my work while they are volunteers, etc.

With this humiliating experience and without having had the possibility to defend myself I felt that it was appropriate to send an explanation regarding the issues I was blamed for. I wrote on 17 March to the President and copied EB and P. Bollerslev [who was referred to several times during the EB discussion]. A threatening telephone call from the President followed on 18 March and he also sent an email to EB in which I was blamed for opening the subject and for copying P. Bollerslev. The email further said that the President and the Secretary would carry an investigation and that I should maintain contact only with the two of them. The telephone call was particularly offensive and led me to think that my days in IFIP are numbered. I found it important to send an email on 19 March to the President and EB (as a reply to his mail) and also to copy several Trustees and TC Chairs with whom I maintained contacts on ongoing projects. In Bilbao the TC Chairs and some of the Trustees that had attended TA had already felt that the relations were not in order. Therefore, it seemed to me important to let them know of the problems and also to give them advance notice that I am in difficulty to follow on engagements related to IT STAR, WITFOR, UNESCO and other.

The President responded to the same group that this was an internal problem, the mail was sent against his directive, there was a serious case where I have not properly informed the president and the secretary, that there were complaints about unjustified attacks. The same day he sent a separate mail to EB, P. Bollerslev and W. Grafendorfer instructing me to refrain from any further email contact on the subject.

At around noon on 21 March (Friday) I received from the President a letter and a statement, which I was asked to sign. This was copied to EB and Messrs. Bollerslev and Grafendorfer. The letter said that if I don't sign and return the statement by 16.00 on Monday he would recommend to EB further serious action. On Monday 24 March I responded to Prof. Brunnstein with a copy to EB, P.B., W.G. and the group of Trustees and TC Chairs. I wrote that as Executive Director I operate under the President's authority but there are matters on which I report to Council and GA. The President had maintained contact with persons beyond EB but he denies me the right to contact Trustees and TC Chairs in a period during which it was increasingly difficult for me to carry my duties. I wrote that I was not in a position to sign the statement but the fact that such a statement had been prepared showed how far the situation has deteriorated. I also wrote that my work was disrupted and since we obviously have problems working together it would be best to reach a mutually acceptable arrangement for a settlement related to my employment.

The President's reaction was immediate: he called to say that I was right and that we should find a mutually acceptable separation. He and the Secretary visited Laxenburg on 27 March (to discuss the procedure) and on 4 April to look into the substance of a settlement.On 4 April I was requested to specify my requirements. Years ago, EB had agreed on behalf of IFIP to install a supplementary pension fund and I said I hoped EB would live up to the provisions of this agreement. I further said that I had 2.5 years of contractual value remaining (my current employment contract was valid until October 2005). Given the serious situation I was facing (IFIP career shattered, major problems and obstacles ahead), I thought that half the remaining value of my contract by an arrangement with the Academy was a reasonable base for a settlement.

This was rejected and my IFIP performance was termed "UNSATISFACTORY". I was told that only a scaled down version of the original IFIP agreement for the supplementary pension fund could be considered. I was also offered 6 monthly salaries in compensation.

I said I was not prepared to terminate my employment under these conditions. The President insisted that I should sign the Statement he had previously provided and when I declined [I had previously consulted with the Academy and was advised not to sign] he gave me another letter dated 3 April by which I was dismissed. I was requested to hand over keys, debit and credit cards and to leave. I was told that the procedure was discussed with the Academy. Prof. Brunnstein then called the Personnel Department to request the Director to order me to do as he says.

This is what happened as I see it. There are many embarrassing details, which I have spared so as not to exacerbate the situation any further.

GA members might wonder why this happened and how such a trivial matter could lead to grave consequences. Recently, Prof. Brunnstein has opined that there were "weak" IFIP Presidents in recent years and that he was determined to bringing order in IFIP. Everyone has a right of opinion. My opinion is that the weakening of the IFIP Secretariat would not strengthen current or future Presidents and would certainly be damaging to IFIP's activities and reputation.

Plamen Nedkov"

Prof. Ashley W Goldsworthy AO OBE FTSE FCIE 10/76 Thorn St., Kangaroo Point Brisbane Q 4169 Telephone: 61 7 3391 0864 Fax: 61 7 3391 0868 Mobile: 0414 95 22 73 ashleyg@ozemail.com.au ----- Original Message ----- From: "Klaus Brunnstein" <brunnstein@informatik.uni-hamburg.de> To: "IFIP GA" <ifip_ga@ifip.or.at> Cc: "Klaus Brunnstein" <brunnstein@informatik.uni-hamburg.de> Sent: 16 May, 2003 3:26 AM Subject: [IFIP GA] replying to Past President Dr. Tanaka

Dear Dr. Tanaka, ........ email sent to GA deleted for reduction of text ...............