He escrito una carta a la NAF pidiendo como miembro, y de forma oficial varias cosas, os pediría que si estáis de acuerdo paséis por allí a darle apoyo:
Dear members of the NAF Committee, and fellow NAF members,
As a NAF member since 2005, it's been 20 years supporting this organization in different ways. As international player, tournament organiser and with any further support needed within my abilities. In 20 years, no few times I disagreed with the organization in the management style, objectives or operational decisions. However, due to the recent information about the removal of Shirokov from his role as NAF President, I feel that this is the most serious and dangerous moment for the NAF.
As a voting member of the NAF, I feel disregarded, ignored and deceived with the NAF (as an organization) and the NAF Committee recent actions. For this reason, I write here a list of requests to our beloved organization. Divided in different arguments and topics.
1. Communication of the procedure to the NAF members
- No official announcement was made informing the NAF members about the process kick-off. Nor in the official Instagram account nor in the Publications section of the website. Conversely, many unofficial channels provided the members with contradicting information and biased opinions. It is very unfortunate that the NAF lagged in its duty of duly informing its members for such a serious matter.
- No updates were made about the process, next steps and decisions to be taken. Keeping the membership gaslighted in this extremely relevant process.
- No information about who decided the voting process structure, what was the voting result and who decided the voting format, questions and outcomes was provided. Effectively, the members don’t know if a fair and transparent process was followed in removing the organization President.
- Comments were deleted in different media by the Media Officer, most of them without a clear rules infringement. This is a very serious behaviour that shouldn’t be admitted.
This lack of transparency and information is certainly worrying to the highest extent. As a member, I request clear and transparent information in regard to:
a) Official arguments in removing Shirokov from duty. Those were not made publicly available to the members. I, as an individual, accessed a letter from a NAF Staff member listing a series of vague and subjective motivations to remove the President from his position.
b) Information backing the aforementioned arguments. Again, it's very worrying to note how the information is just disclosed inside small camarillas, not elected but appointed (as many NAF Regional and National coordinators are) and the bulk membership do not know anything about the facts leading to their President removal.
c) Disclosing the voting results. Accountability for National and Regional TOs is key. As long as the membership of the NAF was not involved in the removal voting (which is, itself, a shame for the organization), the minimum required accountability for an appointed position as Regional and National TOs is to be ready to respond to their communities concerns.
In this regard, the entire process was managed with an almost suspicious level of secrecy and lack of transparency to the members. The membership voted for Shirokov and a group of several appointed positions removed him. This is a matter serious enough to exquisitely manage the information flow. And it is not only worrying, but actually outrageous for me as a member, the lack of transparency of the entire process.
2. Shirokov removal from his President appointment.
In line with the above argumentation, the President's removal from duty is a very serious matter. In this regard, a critical situation should be faced (either flagrant misconduct, illegal behaviour, etc.) to activate such a process (as stated even by the creators of the charter and NAF founders).
In this sense, the (unofficial) reasons to foster Shirokov removal were vague and somehow subjective. No clear facts were presented, no critical situations were faced. A list of topics related with collaboration (or lack of), personal clashes and operational convenience were listed.
The process itself, beyond being obscure and unexpected, looks now driven by personal incompatibilities. Although understandable for the smooth operative of the organization, the solution was clearly beyond what was reasonable.
I’m not defending Shirokov’s behavior or performance. I don’t care. Shirokov may be the latest of a list of inoperant, unworthy and negligent managers. I don’t really care. But we voted for him. And the NAF Committee only has the right to remove him in extreme situations. Is that an extreme situation? Does not look like. Meanwhile, Shirokov is the elected President of the NAF, and the NAF members have the right to vote for an inoperant, unworthy and negligent manager if they want. As so did many societies before and now. A non-participative Shirokov is not an extreme situation. A bossy Shirokov is not an extreme situation. Even more if no clear facts or data were provided. It just looks like another arbitrary decision made by people with ulterior interests.
3. Responsibility of the rest of the NAF Committee
Attending the previously listed reasons, the NAF Committee behaviour was certainly sending clear alarm indications to the membership. I (as many other members) believe that the NAF is a Presidentialist organization. The President is the effective face of the NAF and the one dictating the strategy and priorities of the organization. Although the President’s attributions are not well defined currently, it is clear and common sense that this is the highest responsibility and role in the NAF.
On top of this, as a project management professional with international experience, it's unacceptable for me that a team of 6 adult people could not be operative. This unprofessional situation is exacerbated by the decision of removing the President out of this conflict. Even worse, without involving the membership in this (extremely serious) decision. What one expects from an officer unable to cope with his/her President's strategy or management is to resign. Not to remove the President themselves.
Having said that, and being in a fait accompli situation I want to flag the serious concerns regarding the NAF Committee behaviour:
a) Operating beyond their attributions. Activating a critical process without a fair and reasoned reason.
b) Not informing the NAF membership about their serious concerns about the President's behaviour in advance, during the process activation, process management or process end.
c) Not considering instead, their resignation due to their irreconcilable conflicts with the President management style.
d) Not being transparent officially with the process to be started.
e) Exceeding again their attributions in nominating the Ethics Board as warrant and coordinator of the following transformative steps.
4. Involvement of the Ethics Committee of the NAF
Finally, the latest sad news was the nomination of the Ethics board as the reviewer of the charter modification needs and coordinators of the process, requesting the support of our dedicated and experienced coaches.
To remember the NAF Committee the attributions of the Ethics Board, are the following:
establishing and updating a Code of Conduct
encouraging and promoting a positive and respectful attitude in NAF spaces
advising the NAF Committee in questions about social or ethical aspects of the game
being open for suggestions from coaches
assisting coaches who might not feel welcome or have issues attending NAF events
advocating diversity and inclusion
I want to clearly state my respect and support to the Ethics Board. However, looking at the list, the assigned duty falls clearly out of the Board scope. Moreover, is the latest example of an authoritarian, ad hoc and unorthodox management based on decision power attributed to appointed positions, not elected representatives. I didn’t vote for the Tournament Director, the Treasurer or the League Director to review the NAF foundation rules. Even less without the leadership of a President. Nor to appoint whoever they feel appropriate to coordinate this serious process without involving the membership of the NAF. This is no longer about our hobby, this is now about democracy and lack of.
It is my understanding that this profound review on the NAF governance should be conducted by a team endorsed by the community, not appointed by an incomplete, questioned and credit lacking NAF Committee.
5. Requests to the NAF Committee and the membership of the NAF
For all the above reasons, and as a member of the NAF, I entitle the current NAF Committee to the following:
I. Resign from their current positions (Treasurer, TD, LD, MD) immediately. Keeping their duties to the strict operational needs. And opening the elective process for all these positions, along with the President position, to allow the membership to back their previous decisions or to elect new representatives. It is worth noting that this group of persons exceeded their regular duties, and activated a critical process with a massive impact in the organization without backing their decision properly, and without being accountable in front of the NAF members community. This will allow them to receive (or not) the support of the members in their controversial decisions.
II. Resign of the Media Officer for his poor management of the information flow to the members. It is objective and out of discussion that the membership didn't have appropriate and timely updates about the process and lacked information about the underlying motivations for this. We all requested information by different means and should collect this information from informal and non-official channels. Another disregard to the voting members of the NAF.
III. Providing to the NAF members complete and transparent information about the process: its motivations, objective proofs presented and voting decisions.
IV. Open the discussion with the membership for the creation of an ad hoc committee to review the NAF processes and create a serious pack of statutes. In deciding what should be changed in our governance, ways of working and attributes, it is the membership who should decide the most appropriate persons to drive this analysis and change proposals. The decision of giving this duty (and power) to (another) appointed group of persons just perpetuates a tradition of lobbying decisions without the involvement of the community.
V. Correct the decision of appointing the Board of Ethics as the responsible to initiate a review of our charter and identify any associated issues and to coordinate this process and have requested additional assistance from many of our dedicated and experienced coaches. This is far beyond this appointed group scope of activities (as listed in the NAF Charter), and its just another example of the arbitrary and unorthodox management of the NAF Committee.
The current situation, motivated by an excess of hubris of our NAF Committee, requires a profound reflection and the participation of the entire NAF members. Now, I am worried that just 4 people rule an organization, in a very undemocratic way, without the clear support of the NAF members, and operating far beyond their attributions. I feel my voting rights disregarded, my rights ignored and my opinion neglected.
The NAF membership was not consulted about the appropriateness of Stimme in deciding who’s fitting as President, but to coordinate the Tournament scene. The NAF membership was not consulted about the right of Ulvardar to review our foundation rules, but to manage our Financials. The NAF membership was also not endorsing Megamind to decide what we should know and when to change our organization rules, but to keep us informed and coordinate the leagues management.
Having said that, I hope to receive a formal response from the current NAF Committee, and I hereby actively request the support from my fellow NAF members in asking for transparency, responsibility and accountability in this organization.