[ifip-tc6] FW: [IFIP GA] replying to Past President Dr. Tanaka

-----Original Message----- From: owner-ifip_ga@ifip.or.at [mailto:owner-ifip_ga@ifip.or.at]On Behalf Of Ashley Goldsworthy Sent: quarta-feira, 21 de Maio de 2003 06:38 To: Klaus Brunnstein; IFIP GA Cc: Klaus Brunnstein Subject: 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,

thank you very much for your email which makes very clear that you and the community are deeply concerned about what is going on in IFIP secretariat. With your analysis of the situation and your suggestions, you try to help solving a problem which you obviously think that elected officials esp. including president may not be able to solve, for whatsoever reason. In such a case, your suggestions for help are surely worthwhile to consider.

As others, you interpret the information which I had forwarded (partly as appendices, which some may have overlooked) to GA members as an indication of some problem which may mainly be of personal nature. I assure you that there is NO personal background:

All steps have been discussed in EB, and all decisions have been taken unanimously by EB.

EB has also discussed the content of this message and unanimously agreed that I shall inform you now about details which we hesitated to make public so far.

Both Roger and I have invested much time and two personal meetings with Plamen in Laxenburg to solve the issue in a mutually acceptable way but Plamen´s conditions were not acceptable (for details, see below).

Moreover, all meetings with ED have been conducted in a fair and even amicable sense. Until last meeting, EBs goal - as reported to this list in my emails dated April 24 and 28, 2003 - was to find a jointly agreeable solution. In order not to destroy a constructive athmosphere, I have omitted reporting any detail which could have adversely influcence the achievement of a joint agreement.

Now, after so many interventions, evidently based on the assumption that Plamen Nedkov could not have done anything as bad as to consider any dis- ciplinary measure, I will give you some specific examples of problems which EB was faced:

Issue 1: In a letter to president (received shortly before C-2003), Plamen Nedkov requested an upgrade in his salary. He argued that he had lost (despite annual automatic inflation

upgrade

           which is legal in Austria) about 8% of income value since
           his contract was signed in 2001 (2 years). In this letter,
           PN suggested that the president may decide this upgrade
           himself but that he would be prepared to send this request

to EB upon presidents request.

What PN didnot inform president about was that there was an explicit agreement in 2001 when the contract was signed (after PN had gained an upgrade of more than 20% of his salary to a level which is very high by measures of Austrian Academy) that no upgrade would be given until contract´s end (2005)! Only accidentally during a telephone conversation with past president Peter Bollerlev, I learned about this agreement immediately before I left for C-2003.

Even when I admit that the change between 4 presidents within the last 3 years (from PB to BA to WG to KB) may imply a loss of information and control, it was this fact that PN didnot inform the president about this essential argument against PNs own request which damaged the trust relation between ED and EB for the first time.

Issue 2: In the same letter, PN requested an upgrade of the salary for DH. EB and president learned in this letter that DH didnot only take her right for early retirement (which is a legal right in Austria) but that DH works for IFIP at reduced capacity (80%) until her retirement in January 2006. In general, this is a legal opportunity with which Austria tries to support companies and agencies to hire young people by allowing older ones to retire before their "normal" retirement age.

But in this case, PN agreed to a very special regulation which allows DH to work (at 80% salary) for full time until October 2004 and then for 0% worktime (also at 80% salary paid) until January 2006. This means: DH will not be available in the secretariat (though being paid) starting October 2004.

This change in DH´s contract was signed, different from all other contracts which are signed both by IFIP president and Austrian Academy of Sciences (which is formally the employer of our staff), only by the Academy. The representative of the Academy assumed that IFIP was aware of the regulation which only ED knew about. The changed contract was even not available for EB in Bilbao despite explicit request!

Indeed, PN didnot inform president about this change before the signature, despite the fact that this regulation has a strong impact on IFIP secretariat (which depends upon a really small workforce of 1*ED and 1.5*secretary, with 1.0 secretary to retire next year!). We must rather soon find a successor which DH can introduce into her duties and practice! Consequently, we have to plan for a temporary upgrade in the secretariat force.

Issue 3: In the recent past, previous minor tensions between ED and some elected persons have reached a level which EB had to discuss in its recent Bilbao meeting. Esp. personal attacks (better: personal offenses) of PN against treasurer DK were discussed.

PNs argument (which he subsequently distributed outside EB) were not convincing (indeed, some of them are provably

wrong)

           to finish the issue, so president asked secretary RJ to
           investigate all 3 issues and to report to EB about his
           findings. Until the end of this investigation, EB agreed to
           handle this matter confidentially. This seemed adequate
           because EB wanted also to assure that issues 1 and 2 would

be fairly assessed before being reported to GA.

During these discussions, PN disclosed his understanding of his particular role by saying, among others (verbatim): "You people come and go but I make my money out of IFIP". "I am ED of IFIP. How dare you question me?"

Finally: EB asked Plamen to consider his behaviour and attitude and to enable a continuation of his work by agreeing to sign a document which should guarantee a practice conforming with his contract and IFIP regulations. As Plamen refused several times to follow EBs instructions, EB unanimously suspended him from his job as Executive Director.

Let me remind you about IFIP Statutes and Bylaws according to which EB is responsible for "day-to-day operations" which includes the secretariat. This is also the basis of the contract and the "Job Charter" which is a legally binding part of this contract. The simple question is: "Has ED to do what EB instructs him?". Both IFIP regulations and EDs Job Charter clearly say: YES! Whereas PNs answer is: NO! PN rejected several times to do what EB had instructed him to do, in clear conflict with IFIP rules.

Finally, with regards to suggestions how to handle the case: as you can read from my emails (incl. attachments), I assure you that Roger and I had, as adopted by EB, strongly attempted to find a mutually agreeable solution. PN himself had suggested to finish the contract (as he had done several times before in reaction to disagreements with previous

presidents).

Roger and I were convinced that this was possible until the last meeting, and we were prepared to agree on payment and pension (calculated at the time when the contract would end in mutual agreement). But finally, PN requested the pension to be calculated as if he had worked for IFIP until his final retirement (totalling about 25 years, with about 9.5 years up to now), accompanied with his words (verbatim): "IFIP can afford it!" This request (which would have implied a payment of more than 250,000

Euro)

seemed both Roger and me UNACCEPTABLE. This request which PN was not willing to dispute determined the end of the last meeting.

After our last meeting, PN had not undertaken any attempt to contact president or secretary to seek a possibility for "reconciliation".

In this situation, I am sure that no other elected IFIP officials could have reacted differently. I wish to esp. assure you that there was NO PERSONAL PROBLEM between PN and president: for me, "trust" is a

rational

category which has nothing to do with "good feelings" (I even didnot react to those personal attacks against me which PN embedded in several

emails!).

Following related suggestions from GA members, I assure you that president will duely report to GA@Vilnius (including details on issue 3 and more issues which were found through posterior evidence)!

My personal regret extends to the fact that I feel now forced to inform you about these unpleasant details: I had sincerely hoped to avoid mentioning such issues!

Best wishes: Klaus Brunnstein (May 16, 2003)

------- email from Dr. Tanaka forwarded by IFIP secretariat --------- From: "Richard I. Tanaka" ritanaka@cox.net

Subject: Can the Situation be Resolved?

Dear Colleagues:

It has been sad and frustrating to read, from afar, the various messages regarding Plamen Nedkov's employment situation. It's not clear to me what the problem is, but it's clear that everyone loses. There are no

winners.

However, Mr. Gottlieb's message provided some hope - specifically, his comment addressed to the President and Mr. Nedkov that "I ... called both

of

you and ... I understand that both of you are willing to find (an)

amicable

solution ...".

I take that statement at face value and hope that there is still room for accommodation.

The two key participants are both experienced professionals, men of

talent,

worthy of respect. Regardless of the original reason for the situation, surely we can hope for an outcome that is as constructive and positive as circumstances permit.

There are, of course, markedly opposite endings possible. Either Mr.

Nedkov

stays with IFIP, or he leaves. Consider the two possibilities:

1.) Mr. Nedkov remains in the job. To get to this goal requires both President Brunnstein and Mr. Nedkov to rely on their individual and considerable levels of professionalism and objectivity. Perhaps engaging a third party to participate would be helpful, someone whom they both trust and respect.

I feel strongly that the matter of blame, of who is at fault, be set

aside.

Bypass that issue. It fulfills no useful purpose. The governing phrase should be: "It's not important WHO is right; what's important is WHAT is right."

I don't know what was in the document called a Letter of Apology. But it seems to me, if a document is needed, that it should be a Memorandum of Understanding, whose contents should focus on reinforcing the definition

of

whatever procedures seem to have been the source of the original

difficulty.

I have seen several such agreements which, if analyzed, seem illogical.

In

essence, these agreements say, "This is not to say that I have done this

bad

thing, but whatever it is that I didn't do, I promise not to do it in the future." (Well, maybe not that silly, but close.)

2. The other possibility: Mr. Nedkov leaves IFIP.

If, and I say if, a positive outcome is not possible, I strongly suggest that a financial settlement be negotiated without involving the judicial courts. And that Mr. Nedkov be allowed to resign. He has served IFIP

long

and well. A record that says he was fired makes it unnecessarily

difficult

for him to advance his career.

Equally important, the GA should receive sufficient information so that it understands the reasons behind the separation. The questions raised by Ashley Goldsworthy in his earlier missive are valid and likely similar to those that others in IFIP are asking. Lack of clarity will only perpetuate the negative aftermath of this event and will not be helpful to the credibility of IFIP.

Incomplete or sketchy information on the reasons for the separation gives rise to speculation that is damaging to IFIP and to Mr. Nedkov. Some will assume that a major breach of ethics or integrity might have been the

cause.

Open communication will help clear the air and, actually, provide some protection for both sides.

Some "philosophical" observations: 1.) The outcome, to retain or not, must be for the right reasons. Equally applicable to both sides, motivations engendered by negative emotions,

fear

of change, inconvenience, being held hostage ... are not good reasons.

2.) If IFIP needs to find a new ED, the search should start, since it will take much time and effort, and the effort is likely to dilute IFIP management's time and energy.

We all should be reminded of the difficulty of recruiting an Executive Director. Pierre Bobillier, in his role then as IFIP Secretary before he became President, will surely recall the time and effort we expended in staffing the Geneva Secretariat, not just in finding and interviewing prospective employees, but also in replacing some who proved unsuitable. Note that we were concerned with jobs that were of much less

responsibility

than that of ED.

3.) Be sensitive to the potential difficulty of teaming a full-time, salaried ED and an elected President, unpaid and part-time. There is an indefinite boundary viewed differently by each incoming officer. If the

ED

is too aggressive, then, eventually, some one of the Presidents passing through that office thinks the ED is overstepping his bounds. If the ED is too passive, the salary is not earned and the President has to step in and do the job. Difficult balance.

4.) IFIP must rely on the President in his role as the chief executive of IFIP. Even though the General Assembly is the supreme authority, large

and

unwieldy as it wonderfully is, it should not try to take on the day-to-day details of governing IFIP. The organization relies on the President, the other officers and, in normal times, the ED.

5.) With due respect to the individuals involved this is, after all, a staffing matter. Organizations face these situations, solve them, and

move

on. Experience tells us that a situation should never be allowed to get

out

of control because of the added damage it can cause.

Finally, I am optimistically assuming that quiet negotiations are ongoing, even as we speak. I hope so. I further hope that my e-mail message is redundant and unnecessary, because good things are in process. I hope so.

Richard I. Tanaka Honorary Member Past President