Re: [Int-koordination] [pp-leaders.discussion] Fwd: [pp-leaders] CoA complaint: motions relating to affiliation fees

[Andrew Norton <ktetch AT ktetch.co.uk>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12/19/2014 2:36 PM, Thomas Gaul wrote:
> Dear Andrew!
> 
> You wrote concerning PPI:  "Currently, it is not. It is an organisation 
> that is fundamentally corrupt, inept, and devoid of purpose or 
> accountability."
> 
> As this is massive. Could you please elaborate your accusations? In broad 
> and in details as well. I am asking this on behalf of the Pirate Party of 
> Germany.

Dear Thomas,

Since you are one of those at the very center of the issue, I hardly
think it's appropriate. By all means if the Pirate Party of Germany
wants to know, then by all means have them contact me. Your enquiry
would be a significant conflict of interest, no? A lot like a police
department "investigating" the misconduct of its own officers.

Andrew

> 
> Best regards
> 
> Thomas
> 
> internationaler Koordinator - international Coordinator 
> Piratenpartei Deutschland - Pirate Party of Germany, Pflugstraße 9a, 
> D-10115 Berlin, Germany 
> 
> Die Piratenpartei Deutschland wird gemeinschaftlich vertreten von Stefan 
> Körner (Vorsitzender) Carsten Sawosch (Stellvertretender Vorsitzender) 
> Stefan Bartels (Schatzmeister) Stepanie Schmiedke (Generalsekretärin) 
> Kristos Thingilouthis (Politischer Geschäftsführer) Lothar Krauß 
> (Stellvertretender Schatzmeister) Mark Huger (Stellvertretender 
> Generalsekretär) Bernd Schreiner (Stellvertretender politischer 
> Geschäftsführer) und Michael Ebner (Zweiter Stellvertretender 
> Generalsekretär)
> 
> On 12/19/2014 5:54 AM, Josef Ohlsson Collentine wrote:
>> Hi,
> 
>> I can only see bad things coming from CoA dealing with it no matter 
>> what they decide... We all know PPI statutes are a complete mess so 
>> leaning on them as hard as has been done here is just abusing the 
>> current mess PPI is in. The complaint might definitely hold true but 
>> what is accomplished? Would encourage PPAU to withdraw this complaint 
>> for the greater good of PPI.
> 
> Can you imagine what the press would say about Pirate Parties, if they had 
> turned around on, say, ACTA and said 'hey, everyone protesting about ACTA, 
> hush up, I can only see bad things coming from making a lot of noise on it 
> - we know it's a complete mess, and the complaint's probably true, but what 
> will be accomplished? We encourage people to withdraw their complaints 
> against ACTA for the greater good of the EU"
> 
> They'd string you up!
> 
> One of the fundamental principles of the Pirate movement is open democratic 
> methods, evidence-based principles, and accountability and transparency. 
> You are suggesting we (as a whole) abandon these principles, 'for the 
> greater good of PPI'. WHAT GREATER GOOD? To whose benefit?
> 
> For that matter, what 'good'? Name one good thing PPI has done in the past 
> 3 years? I don't know about you, Josef, but as an elected officer of a PPI 
> member (A Governor of PPUK), and officer relating to another (Vice chair of 
> USPP, which includes the Observer-member PPFlorida) it's my duty to 
> investigate if PPI is compatible with the basic ideals and fundamentals of 
> these parties.
> 
> Currently, it is not. It is an organisation that is fundamentally corrupt, 
> inept, and devoid of purpose or accountability. I believe PPAU has come to 
> the same conclusions, and has given the PPI one last chance to redeem 
> itself by acting in the way it should.
> 
> However, one thing really insulted me. "for the greater good of PPI". It 
> reminded me of the film Hot Fuzz. You know, where the 'cabal' at the center 
> did whatever they could to preserve the ideal they had at everyone else's 
> expense "for the greater good".
> 
> Also the same thing Dick Cheney, and Rep. Peter "IRA supporter" King have 
> said over the last week about the CIA Torture, that it was "for the greater 
> good". If any phrase has ever underscored that something is "wrong" (and 
> they know it), it's that something is "for the greater good", and has been 
> used to justify pretty much every 'major bad thing', EVER. Should probably 
> qualify as Godwin-ing on its own.
> 
> So, the question remains. Is PPI a 'pirate"  organisation, or will it 
> continue to act in direct defiance of the Pirate movement?
> 
> Andrew
> Governor, PPUK
> Vice Chairman, USPP
> Vice Chairman, PPGa(US)
> 
> (speaking as myself, and not as an official statement from those parties)
> 
> 
> 
>> What is the real motive for bringing this up now? Causing more 
>> internal chaos within PPI? Avoiding PPAU fees?
> 
>> Kindly,
>> Josef
> 
>> *International Contact for PPSE*
>> Contact me for any questions/concerns or if you need to get hold of 
>> someone in Piratpartiet or internationally.
> 
>> /Other contact:/
>> mail: international AT piratpartiet.se 
>> <mailto:international AT piratpartiet.se>
>> Twitter: @collentine
>> Skype: josef.ohlsson.collentine (only important conversations)
>> Cel: +46 73 824 98 49 (text me, if urgent)
> 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Brendan Molloy* <brendan.molloy AT pirateparty.org.au
>> <mailto:brendan.molloy AT pirateparty.org.au>>
>> Date: Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 2:06 AM
>> Subject: [pp-leaders] CoA complaint: motions relating to affiliation 
>> fees
>> To: Court of Arbitration <coa AT pp-international.net 
>> <mailto:coa AT pp-international.net>>
>> Cc: "pp-leaders AT lists.pp-international.net
>> <mailto:pp-leaders AT lists.pp-international.net>"
>> <pp-leaders AT lists.pp-international.net
>> <mailto:pp-leaders AT lists.pp-international.net>>
> 
>> Dear Court of Arbitration,
> 
>> Please accept our following complaint for consideration.
> 
>> An HTML version of the complaint is available here:
> 
>> https://gist.github.com/bbqsrc/fc7a05121272a23804f1/730b5ae96e1912ea52
>> bbb3697084e27cc0157a26
> 
>> Please acknowledge receipt of this email as soon as possible.
> 
>> Thanks!
> 
>> ## Complaint
> 
>> PPAU requests that the Court of Arbitration hears a challenge against 
>> motions relating to affiliation fees at the 2014 General Assembly, 
>> specifically due to recent minutes of the PPI Board indicating that 
>> they are likely to move ahead with attempts to acquire fees from 
>> members.
> 
>> PPAU consents to abide by the decision of the Court of Arbitration.
> 
>> ## Challenge
> 
>> This challenge relates to CoA powers [XIVa(3)(a), (b), and (e)][XIVa], 
>> and relates to the functioning of the General Assembly and PPI Board.
> 
>> ### Validity of affiliation fee-related motions
> 
>> The minutes in question can be found here:
>> http://wiki.pp-international.net/Minutes_of_GA_2014
> 
>> As there are no titles in the minutes, we cannot link to the relevant 
>> section.
> 
>> Please search for the following to find it:
> 
>>> delay or not 9.5 in favour, 12 opposed, 2 abstentions Result: we 
>>> discuss the hight of the fees now
> 
>> As the minutes are a complete mess, we have attempted to decipher as 
>> best as possible what the actual proposals were to begin with, and 
>> what the conclusion is.
> 
>> PPAU would like to note for posterity that these minutes are not of 
>> the quality expected of an international organisation and the members 
>> should seriously consider ensuring that the quality of the minutes is 
>> significantly improved in the future.
> 
>> Based on our analysis we believe the events to be as follows:
> 
>> * "Board MOP for Membership fees at PPI" begins
>> * Discussion occurs.
>> * A vote to delay voting and discussion does not carry.
>> * A vote on whether or not to discuss Gregory Engels' proposed
>>   HDI-based fees or a "1/10 proposal", which seems to mean 10% of the
>>   original HDI-based proposal.
>> * That vote results in a discussion of the 1/10 proposal.
>> * A motion by PPEE that parties with less than 500 members will choose
>>   their own fees, seems to have carried but is not noted in the
>>   minutes.
>> * A motion to have voluntary fees for all seem to not carry, not noted.
>> * A motion whether fees are wanted at all, based on the tenuous phrase
>>   in brackets "based on what we decided for so far" carries with 55.8%
>>   support (not including abstentions).
>> * The minutes then assert that what had been agreed to is as follows:
> 
>>> There will be membership fees, 1/10th of the original proposal, 
>>> parties with less than 500 members can pay as much as they want (but  
>>> a minimum of more than 0€), there are no penalties for not paying, 
>>> observer membership is also not associated with any costs, the first  
>>> fees are due for the next financial year (which begins tomorrow)
> 
>> PPAU fails to see how such a result could be derived as:
> 
>> * No conclusive vote as to the mechanism for determining the fees was
>>   carried, specifically no motion carried that meets the requirements
>>   of [XVI(1) or (2)][XVI];
>> * A feelings-based motion on whether fees are wanted carries, but it
>>   is a tenuous, meaningless motion, that is also not valid as per the
>>   statutes due to [XI(2)][XI], which stipulates that annual affiliation
>>   fee motions must meet a two-thirds threshold;
>> * PPEE's motion does not specify that the fees must be greater than 0,
>>   and therefore the assertion is again false;
>> * Notwithstanding the above, due to no fee as per [XVI(1)][XVI] being
>>   determined, PPEE's motion is therefore irrelevant for the time 
>> being;
>> * "No penalties" was not agreed to nor discussed, and is also false due
>>   to [XI(5)][XI], which stipulates that failure to pay fees can result
>>   in voting rights being suspended;
>> * No discussion or vote was taken regarding fees for observer members,
>>   and therefore the tenuous assertion is without purpose or merit as
>>   it bears no relevance to the discussion at hand; and
>> * No vote affirming the complex assertion being questioned here is
>>   recorded within the minutes.
> 
>> #### Relevant statutes:
> 
>>> XI Voting
> 
>>> [~snip~]
> 
>>> (2) Decisions concerning the admission of new Members (section III.
>>> paragraph 4), the exclusion of Members (section VII, paragraph 2), 
>>> the determination of the annual affiliation fee (section XVI, 
>>> paragraph 1) and the amendment of this[sic] Statutes (section XX), 
>>> shall be passed by a two thirds majority of the votes cast.
> 
>>> [~snip~]
> 
>>> XV. Funding
> 
>>> Pirate Parties International expenditure shall be covered by:
> 
>>> a) affiliation fees from the Ordinary Members parties and those with  
>>> Observer status,
> 
>>> [~snip~]
> 
>>> XVI. Affiliation Fees
> 
>>> (1) The amount of the fee is determined annually by the General 
>>> Assembly.
> 
>>> (2) The affiliation fees and contributions shall be fixed in relation 
>>> to the finances and membership of parties.
> 
>> [XI(2)][XI] clearly stipulates that motions relating to [XVI(1)][XVI] 
>> must carry with a two-thirds majority of votes cast.
> 
>> [XV(a)][XV] implies that observer members should be included in any 
>> calculation of affiliation fees in [XVI][XVI].
> 
>> [XVI][XVI] as a whole seems to imply that (1) should be a fixed 
>> number, and that (2) should apply a formula to that number 
>> consistently in relation to size and finances of a party, without 
>> exception.
> 
>> ### Suitability of PPI board accepting affiliation fees at this time
> 
>> Recent minutes of the PPI board state that the board intends to soon 
>> begin requesting membership fees, but these very same minutes put into 
>> question whether or not the banking situation has been resolved 
>> sufficiently to begin taking large amounts of money from around the 
>> world.
> 
>> Relevant URLs:
> 
>> * 
>> http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_Minutes_2014-11-29#3_Short_Report
>> s
>> * 
>> http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_Minutes_2014-12-09#3_Short_Report
>> s
>> *
>> http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_Minutes_2014-12-09#7_Financial_Si
>> tuation
>> *
>> http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_Minutes_2014-12-09#8_AOB_.28being
>> _urgent.29
> 
>> #### Relevant Statutes:
> 
>>> XVII. Treasurer
> 
>>> [~snip~]
> 
>>> (3) The Board is responsible for the sound financial management of 
>>> Pirate Parties International.
> 
>> [XVII][XVII] is an odd place to put a requirement of the PPI board to 
>> be sure, but it is a requirement of the statutes that the board 
>> soundly manages the finances of PPI, and this has been put into question.
> 
>> ## Requests
> 
>> We request that the Court of Arbitration does the following:
> 
>> 1. Immediately introduces an injunction against the PPI board regarding
>>    requesting or accepting membership fees until this case is
>>    concluded, as per the powers of [XIVa(1) and (3)(a)][XIVa]; 2. 
>> Makes a determination that "fixed in relation to the finances and
>>    membership of parties" should be interpreted to mean a consistently
>>    applied formula for determining fees based on that criteria, without
>>    exception;
>> 3. Makes a determination that the General Assembly did not approve any
>>    affiliation fee that would meet the requirements of [XVI(1)][XVI],
>>    either due to lack of a motion meeting those requirements, or a
>>    motion failing to carry due to the requirements of [XI(2)][XI]; 4. 
>> Makes a determination that motions relating to affiliation fees must
>>    meet all of the requirements of [XI(2)][XI],
>>    [XVI(1) and XVI(2)][XVI];
>> 5. Makes a determination as to whether or not [XVI][XVI] applies to
>>    observer members, as [XV(a)][XV] seems to imply; 6. Makes a 
>> determination as to whether or not the current PPI board is
>>    meeting the requirements of [XVII(3)][XVII], which is necessary for
>>    the purpose of knowing whether it is safe to send affiliation fees
>>    to the PPI board. Should the board be found to not be meeting these
>>    requirements, they should be required to apply to the CoA for a
>>    determination on whether they meet [XVII(3)][XVII] prior to
>>    requesting any affiliation fees in the future, and; 7. Makes a 
>> determination that any attempt by the PPI board to accrue
>>    affiliation fees to be without authority or basis until a future
>>    General Assembly resolves otherwise.
> 
>> [XI]: http://wiki.pp-international.net/Statutes#XI._Voting
>> [XIVa]: 
>> http://wiki.pp-international.net/Statutes#XIVa._Court_of_Arbitration
>> [XV]: http://wiki.pp-international.net/Statutes#XV._Funding
>> [XVI]: http://wiki.pp-international.net/Statutes#XVI._Affiliation_Fees
>> [XVII]: http://wiki.pp-international.net/Statutes#XVII._Treasurer
> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> pp-leaders mailing list
>> pp-leaders AT lists.pp-international.net
>> <mailto:pp-leaders AT lists.pp-international.net>
>> http://lists.pp-international.net/listinfo/pp-leaders
> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> pp-leaders.discussion mailing list
>> pp-leaders.discussion AT lists.pp-international.net
>> http://lists.pp-international.net/listinfo/pp-leaders.discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 

- -- 
Andrew Norton
http://ktetch.co.uk
Tel: +1(352)6-KTETCH [+1-352-658-3824]
Twitter: @ktetch
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUlH+JAAoJECjjuYTW3X5HWYMH/ip3jiYECYNTPB4qRF7HiqBn
s0dlXy4tyWNuSIBcJsQeo/wO4LYWFNSOAtcQTxexN7GyH9+E51HrrH2L8Qyx1Xap
bEFv2ycEJTTMX/TU5QQLFLr1fw6hllR8Z8nrVCznIjVDyfmJoAc0l6AZCBvz1SOo
uIMRwm0W6BiwaLTT9H55TFUT9EjhlUV3taPla0CH87OlbhA6BWBvsbF7upR8PWkt
+YBMKqB6r3GAjyiTIU6VTirR61QzIBKl5S0f/UnbiENbmsoHW5yWVJVHZreu5H2M
QfwWJ+uNvUjyHiYcL+rpu9PHPaM6fHw+F4sWHCCPBgWfGz1nFXe47Jy9dLMozMM=
=vMav
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----