IVV Report – July 2007

From: Lynn Clark

Last year (2006) the IVV Congress of Delegates meeting (membership meeting) took place in Italy in June. At this meeting, IVV President Odd Ivar Ruud resigned because of personal financial problems which involved IVV. He later explained his mistakes and apologized to the members by letter but, at that meeting in order to avoid a lack of leadership and possible damage to IVV's reputation, President Ruud was asked by the members to continue in his position until the following year.

Almost immediately a group of representatives from members (nine - Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Italy, South Tyrol, Netherlands) in central Europe began meeting, theoretically to coordinate events and share ideas but IVV politics had also become their focus. From reports of their meetings, there were statements of their "entitlement" to the leadership of IVV because they were the founding and first members. They said they wanted a “new beginning”. They decided they would take advantage of this internal IVV discord and replace the entire Presidium (officers).

Along with the other Presidium members I received a rather crudely arrogant letter last October, signed by Presidents from eight of these associations, asking that by December 31, I submit a statement that I agreed to resign at the 2007 meeting. A similar letter of their intent was sent to all IVV members; however, in spite of the fact that IVV has two official languages – German and English – the letter was sent only in German. I replied with a simple letter to each of them that since I was elected by the members in an individual election (in other words, I was elected as Lynn Clark, Vice President rather than the entire Presidium being elected together as a group), I would resign only after a majority of the members agreed on my removal and after justification had been given for this request.

The 2007 IVV Delegates meeting had been set for July 12 in Estonia. Throughout the winter and spring the European group continued to meet and false accusations against the Presidium began to emerge -an obvious attempt to discredit the Presidium as a whole and also personally. For example, in a report made (with copies distributed) by a Belgian Vice President, Joseph Emonts-Gast, at a Belgian association membership meeting he accused me of traveling First Class to IVV meetings.

(I immediately referred this to the IVV Disciplinary Board that wrote and asked him to submit proof of his accusations. Later at the Estonia meeting this Board made their report to the members, that Emonts-Gast had been unable to provide his proof nor did the IVV Treasurer or auditors see any such irregularities in my travel expenses. The man was asked to send me his written apology but he refused and I have not heard anything further.)

During the spring disturbing things continued. There was talk of the Presidium abusing budgeted travel funds for personal gain (taking personal trips with IVV paying). There was talk that the members were being deliberately kept unaware of expenses -the IVV Treasurer keeps meticulous records of all expenses, they are audited annually, and any member is welcome to view the records at any time (no member has ever asked to do so). Accusations were made that Presidium travel was not yielding new IVV development (in addition to more than 12 new Direct member countries added in the years the current Presidium has been leading, there were 2 new association members approved at the Estonia meeting itself). There were specific questions about details of the IVV interpreter’s expenses (this refers primarily to her time spent translating German into English for me and the English speaking members). There were statements that this European group intended to reduce IVV members’ fees by 30-40% and return the money “to the walkers” (IVV membership fees have NEVER increased since the 1970s, in spite of normal rising expenses in almost everything).

Prior to the Estonia meeting most members of this group sent identically worded motions to the meeting agenda requesting removal of the Presidium, again providing no reasons other than questions on travel expenses – that they did not relate to development and a vague “missing are ineffective development of a modern management.”

As the meeting approached, it was obvious that this European group probably had enough votes between them (IVV’s voting system is complicated- the number of votes depends upon the number of clubs within the member’s country) to control the meeting. Curiously, we noted (based on this Belgian’s report) that they had included Japan in a list of members that were “on their side”. We found out why later (explained below).

At the meeting strong vocal arguments were made by AVA, CVF and BWF representatives that the procedures and motions proposed by this group challenged the intent of the IVV Statutes and in some instances contradicted the words the Statutes. Even the “Routine Orders” (the rules which govern the conduct of the meetings) were disregarded. Karl-Heinz Beckmann, the IVV Treasurer who was directing the meeting at times completely ignored questions and objections from the English speaking representatives. For example, even though the Statutes clearly gives direction in the circumstance the President is no longer in office (that 2 Presidium members assume the leadership), the group was successful in ignoring that and forcing an election for a new President. Josef Gigl, the DVV President, and I were nominated. I declined the nomination on the grounds that any election for new President was contrary to the Statutes. Gigl was then elected with a number of members voting against or abstaining.

I strongly objected to the motions demanding removal of the Presidium (all to be removed in one vote) as also being unconstitutional. My argument was that each Presidium member is elected separately in an individual election for his particular position, so each should be removed the same way. I demanded that this group give their reasons for asking for MY removal. The only answer I got was the vague reference to the wording in the motions (mentioned above). The motions were put to vote and were approved.

There were immediate calls for elections of a new Presidium. I was nominated for Vice President but again declined to accept the nomination stating it made no sense to vote me out one minute and for me to accept a nomination for re-election the next. It was also clear by this time that the European group had enough votes to control the meeting and that they had already chosen the new Presidium members. As a result IVV now has the new President (Josef Gigl) from Germany, 3 new Vice Presidents- from Italy (Giuseppe Colantonio), Luxembourg (Raymond Claude) and Japan (Mitsumasu Miyashita), a new Secretary from France (Daniel Burrette) with Karl-Heinz Beckmann from Germany continuing as Treasurer. Most noticeable is that Miyashita is the only person outside this central European block to be elected (5 out of the 6 represent these central European countries). Gigl does not speak English, Colantonio does not speak English or German, Burette and Beckmann do not speak English, and Claude and Miyashita speak and write only limited English. Also noteworthy is the fact that in papers revealed from earlier planning sessions of this European group, Miyashita had obviously been contacted several months ago and agreed to join their coalition. At the AVA convention in conversations with Curt Myron, Shirley Lindberg and me regarding IVV ‘s problems, he chose not to reveal his intentions or his connections with this group.

Boldly the group had listed a division of all IVV members into 3 classifications: “central Europe”, “rest of Europe”, “the others”. Yet these classifications were not lists by geography (England, Norway and the rest of the Scandanavian countries were classified in “the others”) but by language group and by voting preference (Japan having been added to the “central European list).

At this time, I have not heard from any of this new Presidium. I cannot predict how this might affect AVA or any of the English speaking members in the future. I DO know that the Scandinavians and eastern European countries are very angry. Not only is this a grave insult to all English speaking members but it signals a definite shift in policy (in the past it has always been agreed that there would be an English speaking member of the Presidium) that can only be interpreted as a clear disinterest in having the English speaking members’ participation in the leadership of IVV and a lack of caring what these same members might think about this. In short the English speaking members have been relegated to the dictates of this new Presidium. The organization seems to have fractured into 2 distinct groups. Sadly, regardless of my personal opinions I cannot help but to believe that this has/ and will have a severe adverse effect on IVV as a credible international organization and on the English speaking members involvement in it..